The last statement made my day - "If you feel time is slipping away the best way to slow it down is try to go to different paths and accelerate yourself and constantly have new experiences." I am just about to change my job and move to a different organization. However I'm a bit worried and anxious about how comfortable I am here and how it would turn out there but nonetheless I had the feeling of time passing by and I'm not able to do anything new or make any progress in life. After hearing this last sentence I'm assured once again that I made the right decision. 🙏
All the best. Use that statement to prepare for unforeseen things too. Only difference is you wont have control over it. But remember equivalence principle - as long you have acceleration it's okay. Doesn't matter _what_ gave that acceleration;-)
In Interstellar, Miller's planet isn't only deep in Gargantua's gravity well, but it's also orbiting at the innermost stable orbit, meaning its orbital velocity is relativistic. So you get a combination of the extreme curvature close to Gargantua's event horizon causing time dilation, combined with special relativistic time dilation of the whole planet orbiting at a significant fraction of c, bodies in orbit are in freefall and don't "feel" forces, which is why we don't feel a pull towards the earth, we just feel the earth pushing up against us. You don't feel centripetal force keeping your car on the bend in the road, you feel the car pushing back against your inertia as you go around the bend, you're pushed inward by the tires acting on the axle through the car chassis, but it feels like you're pulled outward by a fictitious centrifugal force. In Miller's planet's case, there is no force on the planet, but the relative motion to Gargantua and the other bodies results in a slower clock and the high curvature from proximity to Gargantua add together, but not the extreme gravitational "forces" so the only force felt by Coop, Brand and Doyle is the surface of Miller's planet pushing up against it's own curvature within the curvature of Gargantua, Romily is orbiting Gargantua at a farther orbit where the Endurance isn't moving at relativistic speeds, and is high enough in Gargantua's gravity well to experience 7 years for every hour that the Ranger's crew spends on Miller's planet. The only inaccuracies in the film were the lack of doppler shifting, since the prograde side of Miller's planet would reflect visible light back in x-rays and the retrograde side would be reflecting microwaves, same for the accretion disk. Other than that, everything is accurate.
So in all intense purposes what do you think it would look like to the observer on the endurance, and even better if he had someway of recording the said situation. Especially since if the gravity well was so intense that it could cause such a significant change in time yet hardly move in retrospect to the ship which is outside of the orbit.
@@Thebaconmurderer 'To all intents and purposes' if you looked away from Gargantua you would see everything sped up (planets rotating about their axis more quickly and revolving around the Blackhole more quickly for example) and possibly somewhat blueshifted as you occupy a region that is slowed down to the outside universe... you are after all situated somewhere 'down' the 'funnel' of Gargantua's gravity 'well'. Looking towards Gargantua you would see things slowed down and redshifted to varying degrees.
On average a human being has three billion heartbeats in his lifetime. And he'll have those heartbeats whether he's in a gravitational well, or being constantly accelerated, or just drifting in intergalactic space. An observer in another inertial frame of reference would simply see whether his pulse seemed speeded up or slowed down relative to his own. (Assuming both measure the same heart rate in their own frame).
Another way of putting this is that if a film strip is playing at 24 frames per second, and a DVD is playing at 30 frames per second for a 2 hour movie. Then ultimately, the 30 fps movie will have more frames that a 24 frame movie, even though they are both the same over all play time. If you were "walking" the distances frame by frame, the 30 fps journey would seem longer, even though it takes the same amount of time, because you are taking more steps to get to the same point. From your perspective, time slowed down.
that is a great exapmle I'm gonna totally steal and credit to some randome person on a youtube comment. This explanation will help some people out IMENSLY
Uhm, would it feel longer? Aren't you "walking" a bit less between the 30fps frames than you are between the 24fps frames, precisely because two 24fps frames are further apart in time than two 30fps frames? You're just subdividing time into different amounts of varying size "brackets", this doesn't have anything to do with relativity, and it's a false analogy. What you're describing is more akin to Achilles and the Tortoise, or to Supertasks.
@@Michelino_M5 This analogy is more about the "feeling" part imo. Maybe to put it in a different way. Do you know the feeling when you're driving down a road by bike (or car, but I personally have it more on a bike) and stretches of industrial area feel shorter than stretches of individual housing even though they are the same length? I think this is because our brain is registering more and it feels like there is more space to cross because on the on side are 10 buildings and on the other side only one. In a smiliar manner the 30fps movie "feels" longer (and is longer if you would lay it out frame by frame) than the 24fps movie, eventhough they have the same runtime.
@@slinelol Ok sure, but then I could also say that a good analogy to general relativity is this: When I sleep, time seems to skip from the moment I fall asleep, to the moment I wake again, while if I stay awake all night, time goes slower. This doesn't have anything to do with relativity, but (according to you) since it's more about the "feeling" part it still holds. An analogy is only any good when you're making an apples to apples comparison, and how exactly two movies playing at different framerates are supposed to be some relativistic phenomenon is beyond me. It's like saying that Earth is attracted to the Sun in a way that's analogous to the action of gluons. Those are two entirely different things. Also, no, the 30fps movie is not longer if you "lay it out frame by frame". What does that mean? You take every frame, you print them to paper, then you put them one next to the other, and then say "they cover a longer distance, therefore the movie is longer"? It's like saying that since a movie in .mp4 is 2 GB, but the same movie in raw format is 2 TB, the movie in raw format is longer. That's even farther away from a reasonable comparison.
Thanks for the kind words, I still think I have room to improve and hopefully you can enjoy it along the way. I'm really excited about my next video, it's more in my field of expertise.
6:30 time slows to allow the clock to think about how much buffering is needed? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on the nobel prize for that theory...
0:04 I wish I could be there with my father. So many things I never understand, so many times I failed express my deepest emotions. I love you dad & still miss you.
When the police stop me for driving at 90mph in a 70mph limit I will use this video to explain that they might just be using a different frame of reference to me.
In the smallest clock, the atom, the electron has to adjust it's path as the video describes how time flow changes. With a higher velocity, or in high gravity, the electron has to adjust it's orbit in the atom. To adjust for the electron's behavior, maintaining the constant speed of C, the "clock" has to slow down by widening the orbital path of the electron. Mass is actually stretched out like a raindrop, or a parabolic orbit. Reaching the boundaries of the speed of C, or the event horizon of a black hole, the electrons separate from nucleus and the electrons orbit the black hole just outside the event horizon, as the protons and neutrons fall into the singularity. A black hole is actually an atomic structure which amassed such a nucleus that it has exceeded normal boundaries for chemistry. It's stability is in it's unopposable gravity. The constant C suggests that the event horizon of a black hole is the boundary of electron orbit. You don't hang in infinitely slowed time at the edge of a black hole. Only your frame of reference for time slows down. Which means, before you know it, you turn into plasma as your electrons separate on their own journey.
I always wondered how time dilation occurs in the microscopic level but everyone seems to use the same argument. Could you please elaborate on what you are saying or refer me to a specific chapter of a book or link a website or article or a video where it explains this phenomena thoroughly and leaves no questions to be asked because I have found all these explanations in these videos unsatisfying and incomplete.
@@enjerth78look up the RUclipsr floatheadphysics and check out his explanations he tried to make it intuitive understanding since the reason for time dilation is physical. Since time doesn't exist and the universe is in constant motion I believe that the phrase "spacetime" itself is counterintuitive. I believe that they tried to help by combining both concepts but really there's only one. When is honesty less of it's own thing and just another way of saying where.
This is a well-meaning video but unfortunately it suffers from many conceptual problems about how the theory of relativity works: 1. In the example of the rocket shooting a bullet into the glass panel, you said that we don't have a defined frame of reference and hence multiple outcomes are possible. This is not true, as every observer must measure the same physical phenomena. This is because frames of reference aren't physical, they are just useful but imaginary tools we use to make calculations, like parallels and meridians on Earth. This means that changing from one frame to another must not change the behavior of the physics, since, well, that's what's real. In the example you gave, assuming the 90 m/s thing is according to the glass, then in every frame you define the bullet always breaks the glass, since it's still relative to the ship, so only one outcome happens, as it should. 2. I don't see how from your example you conclude that the speed of light must be constant. 3. Time dilation and length contraction not just apply with acceleration, in fact you just need different relative speeds to have both. This means that time dilation and length contraction depend on reference frame. In the part of your video with the car, the car gets contracted according to an external observer, but for the person in the car, it is the rest of the universe that gets contracted, not the car. Same with time dilation. So time dilation and length contraction happen because of how you compare different frames of reference. 4. Laws of Physics DO NOT change in different frames of reference, since they are also physical or 'real' phenomena. This is actually one of the pillars of relativity and it has a name: Principle of Relativity. The speed of light doesn't change in different frames because it is also a law of physics. 5. Gravity is NOT a force (in relativity), and hence it doesn't cause acceleration. Time doesn't run slower in Miller's planet than on Earth because it experiences acceleration (in fact, it doesn't experience any since the planet is in free fall), but because of the spacetime curvature caused by the black hole. You can watch this video that explains how time dilation actually happens: ruclips.net/video/5qQheJn-FHc/видео.html
This is the dumbest explanation I have ever seen. The analogy doesn't give rise to insight and is flawed in how it explain the mechanism for what makes time go slower.
@@AfricanLionBat WHY AND HOW THE CLEAR, TOP DOWN, ULTIMATE, AND BALANCED MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY IS GIVEN BY THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA: Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Consider the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma !!! SO, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Moreover, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. The Earth constitutes the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE in BALANCED and UNIVERSAL relation to what is the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!! (The sky is BLUE, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!!) Accordingly, time DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! INDEED, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. Think. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Great !!! SO, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out EQUAL AREAS in equal times consistent WITH/AS E=MC2, F=ma, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great !!!! Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. MAGNIFICENT !!!! By Frank DiMeglio
My understanding is that the closer you get to a black hole, the faster your time will pass relative to those outside. I think it is exponential so that by the time you hit the event horizon, you will be stopped in time from an external point of view and from your point of view the universe will fizzle out into the end times what ever that may be.
A distant observer would see objects freeze. But if you were hovering like the space ship, you would see a lot of light before it red shifted too much. So, you would see the object fall into the black hole (kind of).
Well the event horizon doesn't mark the end there, that's just the point that light can't escape. Time still goes on, although slower, but the universe doesn't fizzle out at your reference just yet. Only when you reach the singularity does that (perhaps) happen
@@skillfulfighter23 According to Dr Matt Dowd at PBS Spacetime, time and space flip roles at the event horizon. The Einstein field equations demonstrate this phenomenon, but we have no idea what it physically means.
i don't understand how Fred moving the car slower in a straight line to make it a 5 second trip is the same thing, but i think im just missing something lol
@@irok1 he was moving slower, yes, and the photon bounced the same amount of times yes, but he was moving SLOWER (and I know that that leads to time dilation of an insignificant amount) but I'm still confused. He wasn't moving at the same speed he was moving slower therefore the photon moved less distance in the same amount of time
@@smileyp4535 The photon moved the same distance in the same relative time. As the frame of reference speeds up to an outside observer, the photon must not travel a further distance in the same time. To fix this, time dilates. Time is sped up for that frame of reference from an outside perspective, meaning that the photon travels more in more time
So just because light “can’t” travel faster than its maximum velocity the universe has to alter every other scientific law to keep from speeding tickets?
I have experienced extreme time dilation.. It was when I was at school. Double maths lesson, all of Friday afternoon. Time went SOOOOOO SLOOOOWLYYYY!!!!!
Time can behave like an illusion, your perspective determines a large portion of your ideas about time. It's set in one direction (I owe someone money) for sure but it's able to appear to speed up to slow down but that's the flow of your being in relation to the flow of what's being judged.
THE FULL UNDERSTANDING OF TIME (AND TIME DILATION), AS E=MC2 IS CLEARLY F=MA ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity: INSTANTANEITY is fundamental to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience (in and with TIME), AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.) THE EARTH/ground AND THE SUN are CLEARLY E=MC2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!!! TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Balance and completeness go hand in hand. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! Comparatively, consider the man who IS in outer "space". Great. AGAIN, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !! AGAIN, TIME DILATION ULTIMATELY proves in what is a BALANCED FASHION that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE. E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!! NOW, carefully consider that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!! Great !!! "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is balanced electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!! By Frank DiMeglio
It's pretty easy to visualize. Just think about the moving photon clock. You notice that the photons have to travel a further distance to "tick". The physics, and chemical reactions in in an accelerating body take longer because the particles need to move a further distance from our reference frame.
It’s a well known fact that it is essential for a RUclips-video to catch the users attention in the first few seconds in the video, a technique this creator made good use of.
First of all, the idea of "Time" is a very delicate one. With carefull observation we could define "Time" as 2 different things. 1) coordinate time 2) proper time Coordinate time is your velocity in time through spacetime and proper time is the value of the velocity of time that YOU the observer measure. For example: 2 stars sit 1 light year appart. We have 2 objects, A and B: A is moving (relative to the 2 stars) at near the speed of light towards the 2nd star (lets say about 99.98% C... B is sitting stationary on the second star (stationary relative to both stars) B one will measure that A took about ~ 1 year to reach the 2nd star. That's coordinate time. A though, will measure that it only took about some ~ 7 days to make the same trip! That's proper time. So clearly someone can travel faster than 300,000 km/s if he wants... Completing the journey in 7 days, but he CAN'T be seen doing so for an entire year from any outside observer! ... Time dilation and lenth contraction are just visual distortions of reality due to its nature... Light itself is moving at infinite speed - therefore it will appear from every other observer's point of view as having a single, fixed and invariant speed because of the same visual effects. That number will be 1 light second per second.
There is a direct cause and effect between the passage of time and being in class, going to the dentist, and doing your taxes. In each case, time is like, well, just slow all clocks down to 1/10th for the aforementioned activities
I found it easier to visualize a ball being bounced on a moving train. On the train, it just goes up and down. Seen from the side of the tracks by a stationary observer, the ball has a horizontal component in addition to the vertical, therefore, travels a longer distance.
Many of the details here are just a bit off which is a bit misleading and kind of annoying. Special Relativity is about inertial frames not accelerated frames. There seems to be some conflation between Special and General Relativity. (The latter *is* about accelerated frames.) Both Special and General Relativity result in time dilation but for different reasons. I feel like the effort to simplify these concepts has led to some misinformation. The way the equivalence principle is presented is not particularly clear either. *Locally* an observer could not perform any experiment that differentiated between gravity and being accelerated (for example in a closed box). But that doesn't mean that acceleration and gravity are the same universally. Lots of gravitational effects couldn't be reproduced with acceleration (I'm thinking frame dragging, tidal forces, gravitational waves... I'm sure there are others...). Finally, the physicist Kip Thorne was the science advisor on Interstellar and he is a widely recognized expert in gravitational physics and black holes, having won the Nobel Prize... I'm pretty sure he got the relativity calculations right. My understanding is that they did fudge what the black hole would look like for cinematic effect... but all the time dilation stuff was right on.
If we understand a theory we should be able to explain it simply so I don't think we understand it at all unless we do understand it and it proves we are in a simulated universe.
@@MikeSmith-cl4ix well general relativity is a complicated theory, so a demand that it be explainable in a simple way is not really a reasonable one. The statement that a simple explanation for the general theory not being forthcoming means we don't understand it (what is 'it'? gravity? accelerated frames? not clear) at all, is a false dilemma logical fallacy. But general relativity is explainable. From personal experience I can say that with a couple of years of calculus, some linear algebra and the basics of tensor calculus, you can get a reasonable *basic* understanding of Einstein's field equations in a couple of quarters. It's not clear how a lack of a coherent theory of "it" would prove a simulated reality. Does the simulated reality not have gravity or accelerated frames? I feel like you are just kicking the can down the road. In any case, general relativity accurately predicts how the universe behaves in a broad set of circumstances. Understandable or not, it is experimentally verifiable. In any case, my comment was a criticism of the clarity of the explanation, not the theory. There is short shrift given to the equivalence principle in the video even though that is where Einstein began with General Relativity. Further, why does the video substitute a confusing thought experiment involving curved motion, and therefore centripetal acceleration, for Einstein's own thought experiment of an elevator, free falling and accelerated. On further review of the video, it seems to imply that all inertial frames will agree on timing of events. (Something it refers to as a "constant frame of reference".) But special relativity already demonstrates this is not true. For two events that are spatially separated (that is, neither is within the light cone of the other), generally two observers will not agree on whether they were simultaneous or which precede the other. It's a lot to wrap one's head around, but I don't think this video does a good job of helping viewers do so...
@@MikeSmith-cl4ix I think what he's saying here is that you have to have a decent grasp of the language in order to understand the theory and that the translation to examples without knowing that language of math is trickier than it seems. I don't think his comment is unreasonable at all.
@@ldl50 don't mean to be insulting, you sound very well-educated but you and the one who made this video should recognize that if you have to use 20 minutes of analogies to answer a simple question then you should throw out the theory and start over..
I always assumed time dilation was the result of all particles/energy in an affected frame of reference simply being slowed down, the same way they would in a lowering of it's temperature, but much more uniformly, perfectly. If I were on gargantuan, every particle in my body is moving slower, including the electrical impulses in my brain. To me, it would seem as though the universe around me were moving faster. To summarize, time isn't moving slower or faster in relation to a frame of reference. Energy is, and therefore matter.
Love your work. Everyone always tries to explain time dilation in terms of the difference between observable clocks and sort of just add "time slows down at relatiivistic speeds" as a footnote. But you showed a hard experiment that demonstrates the principle perfectly. Keep explaining Samwell Tarly. :)
So, if light had the ability to speed up and slow down, then time dilation wouldn't exist? If so, then wouldn't that mean that light has some immense power that can force the universe to bend?
I don’t like sounding like a hater, but this is a classic example of a science video that is better at making the viewers feel like they have learned something but it uses very misleading examples I’ll point out one for the sake of constructive criticism. 3:45 an example to show how confusing relativity can be from multiple frames, ends with an insinuation the the glass is the real frame to be considered ( my words, not yours). It is implied that analysis should done from frame the glass occupies. This undermines the biggest insight of relativity, that all frames of reference are equally valid So the layman will walk away thinking, “all I have to do to understand relativity is to find the real reference frame” when that is very incongruent with the concepts of formal relativity. Making the layman no better of them when they started, maybe worse off Also the example of straight and curved path at the beginning is going to fly right by someone unfamiliar with the difference between inertial and noninertial reference frames. With layman just plain confused
You missed the point of the glass. He was not saying it was a frame of reference. He was saying you could not know your frame of reference without the glass because you were in a void. The external sphere was just for visuals and was not a part of the example. He was saying you need three points in space to calculate your motion relative to other objects.
Ok, I'll try. In Interstellar, because the black was so large you can be relatively close to the event horizon and not feel crushed or pulled by gravity because the resulting curvature is spread over a large volume around the horizon. It's not until you're deep inside the horizon that you would start to feel the "tidal forces" of gravity.
I don't know if the event horizon corresponds to the curvature of spacetime in any real sense, because the mass distribution of a black hole, whether traditional (in the sense of a singularity) or alternative (in theories that propose some kind of repellant force that overcomes gravity just before a singularity occurs) is effectively pointlike. so shouldn't tidal forces be extremely steep, even outside the horizon? I always thought that was the reason for christopher nolan showing massive tidal waves on the planet. the gravitational field from the planet's frame of reference is extremely anisotropic because the huge majority of mass is confined to the singularity, the center of mass. so the gravitational field is extremely distorted in the axis parallel to both the planet's center and to the singularity. hence, tidal waves in that direction. although I guess it also depends on the amount of mass energy in the accretion disk. they don't show relativistic jets but I would assume a black hole of that prodigious size and obvious activity would probably have jets, but someone correct me if I'm wrong
@@ToxicallyMasculinelol a gravity field provides constant acceleration. Just being in the field slows time. Think, you're being accelerated towards the ground by an offset inertia, or if it makes makes more sense it's the offset force of angular momentum thats causing the force of gravity. Going in two directions simultaneously creates that offset angle of accelerative force. The precession force that makes a top wobble. Once it's at rest on the surface of the graviting object, all it's momentum is combined with the momentum of the objects angular momentum which terminates to a point which causes that force to be expressed as the gravitational force. Now when the main gravitional object enters a black hole horizon is where there's a duality with electromagnetic forces of charges and the gravitional forces of mass and acceleration have at least mathematical duality. As in the same equations using charge determining charges are used only in a blackhole, it's just the variables are mass and velocities. All because of that pesky horizon. Termination to point maybe like a third force that forces some of that angular acceleration to cause the force what we call gravity to be directly under our feet. The central point may be the cause of creating the third offset
My problem with Interstellar was wondering what idiot ever thought that a planet parked right next to a black hole would make a good candidate for colonization? Duh.
@@ToxicallyMasculinelol You are correct for normal black holes. It's the super massive black holes that are different. Because of their size, the event horizon is pushed so far away from the singularity that it would have the same effect as a star with equal mass. The gravity would be immense but, it would be ubiquitous. You wouldn't be "spaghettified," as they say. CAVEAT - I get my info from RUclips
WHY EINSTEIN'S EQUATIONS PREDICT THAT SPACE IS EXPANDING OR CONTRACTING IN AND WITH TIME, AS E=MC2 IS clearly F=MA ON BALANCE: Ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma IN BALANCE. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience, AS E=MC2 is clearly F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is clearly F=ma ON BALANCE. ACCORDINGLY, the known mathematical unification of Einstein's equations AND Maxwell's equations (given the addition of A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION) is proven and explained. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, carefully consider what is THE EARTH/ground ON BALANCE !!! Great. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. (Notice the term c4 from Einstein's equations.) It is all CLEARLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This is the ultimate mathematical unification of physics/physical experience. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. I have truly unified physics/physical experience. Consider THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. (Notice that THE DOME of a person's eye is ALSO VISIBLE.) OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND DESCRIPTION) is improved in the truly superior mind. Indeed, the ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. In fact, I have also clarified, clearly identified, and corrected the limited notion of curved "SPACE" !!! MY BALANCED UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS SURPASSES ALL OTHERS. E=mc2 IS F=ma. A galaxy is basically FLAT. Think !!! GREAT. Notice the black space of what is THE EYE as well. ON BALANCE, it ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is F=ma ON BALANCE.) ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The Sun AND the Earth are F=ma AND E=mc2, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! LOOK at what is the BLUE SKY. The EARTH is ALSO blue. NOW, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 is clearly F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE !!!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Beautiful !!! BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This CLEARY explains F=ma AND E=mc2 ON BALANCE !!! GREAT !!! ACCORDINGLY, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. It is fully, CLEARLY, and consistently proven ON BALANCE !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 is clearly F=ma (ON BALANCE); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. So, carefully consider what is the speed of light (c). Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Objects (and WHAT IS the falling MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=MC2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is clearly gravity ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. I have also CLEARLY explained ON BALANCE why the planets will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN. SO, BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand; AS it ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense !!! E=MC2 is F=ma ON BALANCE. Finally, carefully consider what is the speed of light (c) !!! NOW, ON BALANCE, carefully consider what is THE EARTH/ground as well !!! Great !!! E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. By Frank DiMeglio
The light inside the clock went the same distance on both routes. The distance within the clock hasn't changed at all based on the speed of the vehicle or the distance the vehicle is driving. It goes the same distance over five seconds on each route.
I'm not sure that light clock was a good example because if you think about it, let's say the light clock is 4 units wide when you move the light clock to the side, and you move in a certain very high speed - for example: a quarter of the speed of light, the photon will move 3 units to one side and 5 units to the other side instead of 4 to each side, basically meaning it will still move 8 units at the same amount of time as when it was stationary. Think about it. When you move the light clock, you don't really move the photon, you just change the space that the photon has to play with. If the photon moves to the right at one time and you move the light clock one unit to the left at the same time it takes the photon to complete a run, then the photon will move 3 units to the right, and then when the photon returns, and you still move the light clock one unit to the left for every 4 units that the photon moves, then it will have to go 5 units because the other end was moved far away by one unit at the same time the photon "tried" to complete the run. And thus no matter what speed you go, the photon's speed and distance traveled will still stay the same and won't even need to bend space time to be possible. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that the theory of general relativity is false or something, I completely believe it is in fact very much real until more information is found and people potentially change it a bit (or not). What I'm trying to say is that I think his example wasn't as good. Just my theory though, I'm not an expert or anything so feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.
You seem to only use one frame of reference in your example. You wouldn't need General Relativity if there is nothing to relate (another frame of reference i.e. someone moving with the clock and someone stationary watching the clock move by).
@@churchboy316 yeah you're right. General relativity isn't really relevant in what I said, I just added that part because I wanted to make sure people don't think I'm trying to claim that Einstein's general relativity is wrong :)
This isn't entirely true. You're forgetting proportions in your example. You're measuring the units it has to travel, but you need to consider the time it takes to travel those units too. If time was stationary (ie his example was wrong) Suppose I have this clock but it's length is 1lightsecond. On standstill it would take 2s to travel two units. Now if I move the clock at half the speed of light, from the clock pov it still moves back and forth once, yes. But going from the front to back will take half the time and going forward will take double the time. 0.5 + 2 = 2.5. Hey that's not 2. So even from that thinking there is time dilation. It's true if you are in the same reference frame as the clock, you won't notice this dilation and that's exactly why it's a good example. Your example is in reference to the clock. Someone not traveling with it, standing still, will see this time dilation happen
@@delayedcreator4783 Because everything is relative to the observer. The "time" that surrounds me as an entity (more like every single point in spacetime that makes up the matter of my body) is constant - but only for me. No matter what happens, 1 second is equal to 1 second. It helps if you think of "1 second" as being equivalent to the amount of time it takes light to travel from point A to point B, and not so much an abstract force imposing itself on you. Light will always travel at the speed of light - for me. The same is true for you, and everyone else (every other point in spacetime). But you are not me. So from an outside reference (you observing me and vice versa) we are 'traveling' through time at different 'speeds.' Time is essentially warping around us to make sure that for EVERY frame of reference, the speed of light is constant. If we both calibrated clocks, and then I got on a high speed jet and flew around the world, our clocks would measure two different times when I got back, even though we both went through the same 'length' of time -- relatively. This is why a lot of science fiction uses the concept of 'warping' spacetime to travel faster than light, but that's a whole other post. We've gotten pretty far with understanding HOW relativistic physics (time dilation) works, but as far as WHY it happens? Well, if you could answer that you would probably go down in history as one of the greatest physicists to have ever lived. I hope that helps.
@@thanksfornoprivacy " If we both calibrated clocks, and then I got on a high speed jet and flew around the world, our clocks would measure two different times when I got back, even though we both went through the same 'length' of time " is this true
@@delayedcreator4783 Yes. To be clear, the time dilation in that instance would be so miniscule that it would be imperceptible to us, but there would be a measurable discrepancy. When I landed and we checked the clocks: To me -- You would have 'traveled' through more time, i.e. you would be older than you were "supposed" to be; and to you --- I would have "traveled" through less time, i.e. I would be younger than I was "supposed" to be. In fact, this time dilation effect is something that scientists actually have to take into account when building GPS satellites. They have to continually correct for the fact that they are 'traveling' through time slower than stuff here on the Earth's surface (this is a function of gravity and mass as well but I digress). I don't think I can post a link here but if you search on google for "satellite gps time dilation" there's a bunch of links that talk about it. There's a lot of complicated math that goes into calculating the specifics, but you don't really need to know that to understand the general concepts.
"Accelerated Frame of Reference" word thought. Time dilation is the engine of gravity - high pressure time vs. low pressure time, the difference yielding acceleration, known as gravity. Different from mechanical acceleration. Time is fluid.
Because of the law of relative motion. In reality all three objects ARE moving relative to each other but at different relative velocities. Acceleration is quite different to relative (or constant) motion in space because it requires the application of a constant force in order to accelerate. An object moving at a constant velocity in space will continue to move without the need for an applied force. Therefore, you can always tell which object is accelerating and which is not because its velocity will vary over time if it is accelerating (or decelerating, which is the same thing).
Same way you know that you must travel to a store... the store doesn't come to you; unless, you get something delivered. But, let's say that Earth started trading glass with Zeta Reticuli... then your question would become quite relevant, as to the relative time it would take to meet up in space.
Dude... did I just finally understand time dilation? And what is your channel doing having so very few subscribers? I just wanna say thanks for this video bro keep it up! +1 subscriber
I don't think the car salesman example is a good explanation of time dilation. Both men travel for 5 seconds, and they travel at different speeds. The light clock acts the same in both journeys. So what?? It matters not that one man traveled a greater distance than the other. He was driving at a higher rate of speed! What is the significance here? If both men drove at the same speed and used the same amount of time for different distances, then I'd say you have something very interesting here. But you don't. The photon went back and forth the same number of times in both journeys because the amount of time for each journey was the same. It's just two guys traveling two different distances in the same amount of time by driving different speeds.
Both men drove at speeds that allowed them to arrive at the destination in 5 seconds. However, their clocks didn't match because the curved path experienced acceleration (you must accelerate in another direction to curve) - hence, time dilation.
@@churchboy316 You said: "Both men drove at speeds that allowed them to arrive at the destination in 5 seconds. However, their clocks didn't match because the curved path experienced acceleration..." Well, if that's the case, then they both did not travel for 5 seconds. If they both traveled for 5 seconds, then their clocks would match up. Look at time dilation this way instead: Let's say a man is on a bus bouncing a basketball. The bus is traveling at 20 MPH. In his reference frame, he observes the basketball traveling only up and down. The total distance the basketball travels is the sum of the total distance the ball travels up, plus the total distance that the ball travels down. But his friend on the sidewalk who's watching the bus drive down the street sees things a bit differently. In his reference frame, he too can see the basketball traveling up and down, but he also see's it traveling down the street at 20 MPH. So, what's happening, is that an object is traveling two different distances during the same event. One guy sees the ball going up and down, while the other guy sees the ball going up and down and also horizontal. Because distance / speed = time, there will be two different amounts of time that have elapsed during this single event. The guy on the bus observe the movement of the ball as up and down only. They guy on the sidewalk observes the movement of the ball as a wavy line traveling down the street. Time Dilation is the difference in the amount of time that elapses during a single event, as observed by two different people each in their own reference frame.
@@stephenmcgrew8868 I understand it's difficult to see in the example, but it's actually mathematically correct. The equations of general relativity would yield the same results.
I think you don't need acceleration for time dilation. Any relative velocity is enough for clocks to slow down in comparison to clocks that are at rest.
I always found these kind of theories anthropocentric, to me is simple, time is something we cannot measure correctly (as most or every other metric), time is always the same everywhere and at everytime but, our devices to measure time always have to work with our own physics, thats what you call relativity, physics obviously change on a state of acceleration, there is no doubt, so it is logical to think that in this example time dind't change, but the physics of the box and the bouncing light which measured time did. In other words, we have not yet discover a way to measure time without physical means, since even digital devices work via physics. Time is just one and is moving at the same rate, matter and energy do not, taking the simulator example, imagine that the real time, the same we cannot measure yet without a physical mean, is the one that affects the CPU and not the one we are measuring as a part of the similation or software, since we only can function with the simulation physics, we cannot measure the time outside the CPU. My point is that we are making the same mistake as we did when we thought the earth was the center of the universe, quantum physics do not settle when we measure the particles, they are already settled, it is just that with our little minds and primitive tools we cannot know where they settled until we "measure" them, it is like trying to guess the hight of another person, you inmediatly compare his hight with yours eyeballing it, but maybe you are not taking into account the floor elevation because you think it is perfectly flat and you ended up calculating that the person was 5cm shorter than you when he is actually 5 cm taller. Science is about skepticism, and scientists today are anything but sckeptics, our academia bends the knee to politics and ideologies rather than followind the scientific method, which is essentially that we should always be skeptics and repeat the fucking experiment because maybe this time something different will occur because of a ridiculously tiny difference in the elements, remember that pure water does not conduct electricity by itself, it is the minerals in our skin that make the water a conductor.
Basically time is an unseen basis for reality to exist; you can't see it, measure it, or interact with it, but the fact reality isn't a single, static state confirms that it exists. Humanity's imagination tries to think of ways it can be altered, but it cannot; it's a background constant that cannot be interacted with.
@@DisemboweII You can't see it proper, but you can see its effect on everything, and it is constantly interacting with everything, I believe we even have a pretty good Idea of its concept, we just can't measure it acurately without altering the result, maybe in the future once we understand better the effect of acceleration/velocity/movement on objects, particles, waves and energy we would be able to measure it with more accuracy, for now this video literally just says that acceleration and/or velocity has an effect on the device used to measure time.
Honest review: this video is incredibly confused and unstructured. It seeks to undo misconceptions of time dilation, but then adds more to replaces them. I love every other video on this channel.
The actual results of the experiment would be different than hypothesized. In the constant velocity scenario, the light will simply keep traversing the same path and eventually hit the back wall of the box it is in. It will not just move with the box because the box is moving. In the accelerated experiment as the car starts moving, the light wave is not going to magically change direction or velocity so that it moves automatically in synchronization with the car's motion, either. Instead, it will continue on the same direction that it was traveling before the car started moving. This causes a transnational motion between the light wave and the detector. However, the angle of incidence is changing as the car travels around the curve and this causes the light to change course with each reflection. As the light reflects off of the reflector on the outside of the curve, the angle of incidence causes the light to get reflected towards the back of the reflector on the inside of the curve. When the light reflects off of the reflector on the inside of the curve, the angle of incidence causes the light to reflect towards the front of the reflector on the outside of the curve. Depending on the radius of the curve that the car is traveling, the light may end up hitting the back wall instead of the reflectors at some point in the experiment.
Because the universe is a computer simulation which does not allow travel faster than light, so as you approach light speed time slows down and your mass increases so that you can not go faster than light. If you create 2 particles which are identical in every way, the universal computer simulation get fooled and treats the 2 particles as the same particle, allowing quantum entanglement.
With respect to the movie interstellar, where they portray a planet orbiting a black hole, it is plausible that the gravity you would feel on that planet would be determined mostly by the size that planet. That's because for a planet to orbit a black hole it would have to be traveling at an incredible speed in order to maintain its orbit and not be sucked into the black hole. The planet is like a ship traveling at near light speed. Orbital speed cancels out most of the black hole's gravity except for bodies of water because large bodies of water are more sensitive to tidal force. At such an incredible orbital speed, time would be dilated to pass slower on that planet. Matching the gravitational time dilation with respect to proximity to the black hole. Every point of reference has it's own clock. As far as a spaceship actually being able to land on such a planet the spaceship would have to match the planet's speed in order to even approach it. The energy needed for a spaceship to reach and match that speed is the part I see as tricky.
IMPORTANT CORRECTIONS: 1) For light to travel a greater distance, more time (not less) is needed! So this isn't a valid explanation of gravitational time dilation. The only valid thought experiment I know of involves a vertical light clock on a building that someone looks at while free falling past it. 2) The computer/buffering thing is confusing, misleading, and of no value IMO. It's not even analogous to anything in physics. 3) The equivalence principle is NOT that "gravity is identical to acceleration"! It's that standing still in a gravitational field (on the ground) is identical to acceleration (upward). The weak equivalence principle is that free fall toward the ground is equivalent to floating out in flat space. In contrast, the way you're explaining it implies that free fall is equivalent to acceleration, which is mixed up!
I did not understand the speed explanation, Is he saying that light travels the speed of itself and the car's speed combined, if yes then it should be wrong because light's speed is constant it does not change
@@Dark-NETwcry What he’s saying is that light *would* have to go faster in order to travel the curved path in the one reference frame in the same amount of time it takes it to travel the straight path in the other frame but that time dilation happens in the former to prevent this. But this is wrong. Time dilation actually has the opposite effect and that’s ok - light can actually travel faster than its normal speed over a distance through *curved * spacetime since it still travels at its normal speed locally.
I made a 2 miniute video, "The Physical Reason time slows at the Speed of Light" which explains the actual reason why time slows. (Special Relativity). I hadn't seen anyone explain it this way before.
If velocity is relative, how can it cause time dilation? A ship moving past earth at the speed of light, technically means the earth (and many other objects) is speeding past the ship. Velocity is relative, gravity and acceleration are not.
@ButWhySci How about this thought experiment: We are living in a computer simulation and the clock-rate of the computer processor is equal to the Planck time. So the maximum speed of anything happening inside the simulation is based on that rate. However the simulation itself is operating at a lower clock-rate. If two frames of reference in the simulation are moving relative to each other, the simulation must compensate the “movement time” in order to maintain the same experiance in each frame of reference. The compensation is made by slowing down the clock-rate of the corresponding frame of reference. The person inside the frame of reference itself could not “feel” the time dilation because the “feeling” itself and anything else happening inside his frame of reference (the perception of time itself) is based on its clock-rate.
Relativity is based on Lorentz transformation. In Galileo system, x=vt, if only if dx/dt is constant. Lorentz transformation goal is distances (x, x’) x=f(v,t)and x’=g(c, t’) are mathematically equal in both systems with symmetry. So c is not Galileo or classic velocity, and t’ is not classic time. In Galileo, v varies, t is uniform at any point in space; whilst in Lorentz, t’ varies, c is constant in space. c =eu , is really the property of the space, or medium, or Ether. It is not velocity in Galileo.( v, C),(t,t’), they are (Apple, Orange), (Peach,Grape) in two math systems. People are still thinking they are same things. That causes confusion. Saying 1) if an object moves at speed of light, time stops. Moving object slows clock, etc. That’s wrong. It should be said t’ in Lorentz stops, or equal to 0. In Galileo, t is uniform, it doesn’t stop or slow. 2). Speed of light C is constant from any observer at different speeds. That is wrong. c in Galileo changes from observers, C in Lorentz as the property of space is constant. Then there is no ambiguity, confusing, both accurate in their own system for/from measurements. Time dilution, space-time curvature, etc. are all bogus by mixing concepts in two systems. If you use Fourier series to express a signal S, it is not the signal in time domain, it’s amplitude A in frequency domain. Nobody treats A-S as “signal dancing”. But sigma of all these series by frequency goes back to the value of signal in time domain. They are just mathematically equivalent, not necessarily physically same. There are many ways to do it mathematically, too. Relativity is just another way of measuring of the nature using electric magnetic wave in Lorentz system. It has advantages over Galileo system in Astronomy, because Maxwells equations describe electromagnetic wave in vacuum with eu as constant, which is the space property and its value equals to speed of light in Galileo. In Algol events (visit Algol website) can prove the speed of light wave in Galileo system changes with observer’s or earth’s motion.
It is lag. More mass is more processes in one point. Thats why time and space is lagging so much around black holes. Speed is potential energy and that is lagging spacetime slightly.
If time dilation is associated with both mass and speed playing a part together, it is the movement or no movemement of mass that creates time dilation. The speed at which mass moves through the aether determines how much time dilation there will be. Mass plus its speed determine how much the time is slowed down. A massive body moving "slowely" can have or create as much time dilation as a small mass moving at extreme speeds. It comes down to how much aether is displaced over a set period of time. A small object traveling at extreme speeds can displace as much aether as s larger mass does that moves slower. In both cases, it is the aether displacement pressing against the mass that causes time dilation and gravity. This pressure, I call gravity. The pressure causes the matter, its true mass, the quarks, to expend energy fighting the pressure and thereby the vibrations of the atomic forces slows down. The atoms experience a slowing down of time, how they "experience" the passing of "time". Time, itself, does not slow down. What does slow down is the matter and how matter reacts to other matter. Computers' functions slow down. The half life of radioactive elements increases. Our brains, our bodies move slower because the matter that makes us, runs slower. We move slower because our cells cannot move any faster. Think of that SiFi movie where the actor moves fast past people who seem to be frozen in place. Each person, all matter, is moving as fast as the matter it or he is made of allows. A big mass moving slow and a smaller mass traveling fast can experience the same amout of time dilation. It is the reaction of mass to the aether and visa versa that controls. A black hole, because of its intense mass and “gravity”, stops all matter from moving; the strong forces are neutralized. The protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks.. become one big mass with NO space between them. Their linearity contracts to nothing. Their mass expands to “infinity”, as measured per volume compared to what it was before being a black hole. Matter traveling at or near the speed of light experiences similar results. There is extreme length contraction; the matter is compressed so there is no room at all between the protons, neutrons, electrons. The mass of the matter is compressed to a small point so that mass per cubic nanometer reaches infinity. Mass per volume increases.
The car analogy needs to be explained as an analogy. Literally, all that is happening is the driver of the shorter route is slowing down to take five seconds; time is not dilating. Only when we start discussing 4D paths does this take on any significance for this video"s purpose. Please revise accordingly.
The start of this video makes no sense. The 2 scenarios were rigged to be 5 seconds each. That doesn't prove anything "weird" is going on. Just that the car going straight between the points slowed down to ensure it took 5 seconds. 5 Seconds passed in both cars because you MADE each trip last 5 seconds. WOW.
This is excellent. I've been studying Time Dilation for some months and most physicists use the photon clock and claim one can extrapolate automatically to all mechanical clocks and all entropy events (heat beat, metabolism, the aging of everything including humans, etc.) That is not obvious and they fail to present a good case for that statement. Sabine Hossenfelder did mention "acceleration" but she failed to give detail and explain. Such a critical theory or fact like this needs good explanations and this one is fantastic. Who is the person creating this site?
My hypothesis on that was based on the event horizon of black holes. Where I came to the conclusion that time and motion are the same thing, and they're modulated by the variable density of spacetime. So it's like a tube in a rubber block being extended via the whole block deforming, and time is the speed at which you move through that tube. And when I say motion is time, I mean every motion, down to every subatomic quantum particle or energy knot, so the physical progression of anything within that range is effectively slowed.
The confusion here already is why isnt 'accelerating' being used in the title because even at lower speeds during this type of movement you are already passing through the space coodinate faster than you are passing through the time coordinate due to 'accelerating' and thats considered time dialation too?
Time slows down is because inside the black hole theres no dark mater stretching space thus no time. The closer you get to gravity the closer you are to the other dimension where tome doesnt exist. So we visualize it as it slowing down when it's actually slowly disappearing
When gravity itself causes things to accelerate, it is no different from a graph with an x squared equation. in such a situation, what is the speed then??? The speed is incremental, hence time pass faster. That doesn't necessarily mean you go farther. It is like jogging on the spot faster and faster and going no where fast. When you are in a flatter part of space, it is linear, so you travel further in the same time. Now if you compare the further distance covered in linear space to that of accelerated (or bent) space, obviously for the same distance traveled your time will appear slow in non-accelrated space. Acceleration = You reach that speed in a snap of the finger. No acceleration = You are in constant speed. Distance in accelerated space = more snaps of the finger = more time has past Distance in non-accelerated space = you are still within that one snap of the finger. Makes sense?
That computer buffering analogy just didn't really work for me. There is no buffering at work and calculations are not being made. It's happening in real time, that time just slows down around massive objects and with velocity.
The physicist who created the science theory behind Interstellar (Kip Thorne) was told by Nolan that he should make this extreme amount of time dilation on the wave planet happen because its necessary for the plot. But even with the gravity of the black hole you would only have a few hours or days of difference. So he made the Blackhole (in theory) spinning and the planet rotating with it (at about 98% of light speed). Nothing of this fast movement is actually shown in the movie but its not general relativity but special relativity. There is also a scientific paper of Kip thorn about the actual science in interstellar...
It is not special relativity. Special relativity was Einstein's initial stab at the theory and it excludes all acceleration. No acceleration means nothing can be spinning or changing velocity. This is why he referred to it as special, since it only applies to very specific situations. By excluding acceleration all you need is grade 11/12 math in order to work through the formulae.
Equivalence of Mass Time Dilation AND Speed Time Dilation By Csaba A. Bodor; March 1, 2022 The twin paradox disappears if viewed in this context. In both the things that are in common are (1) the aether, and; (2) gravity. Baryonic matter, including electromagnetic waves, and the aether cannot mix. The aether is pushed aside by the matter BUT pushes back against the matter in the form of, what we call, gravity. The greater the mass, the greater the push. Even with this push there is a large amount of space between the components of the matter. The push, gravity, however, affects those components by pressing on them and slowing down all the properties of matter. Wave length, frequency, spin, speed of movement, everything. Including time. So, the greater the push back of the aether, the greater the time dilation or slower movement of time. Yes, time is a indirect component of baryonic matter. With speed dilation there are similarities and differences. The, as i said, aether resists change. Matter disrupts the aether's symmetry and the aether fights back with a push. The aether also dislikes matter when the matter pushes against it in the form of motion or speed. Moving matter is like something moving through air or water; both mediums resist the motion. The aether pushes back against the push of matter causing the same disruptions it does with baryonic matter. Everything is slowed down including time. Time dilation, again, comes into being. Gravity comes into being, as with when the mass disrupts the aether. Here it is speed that disrupts the aether and creates gravity, not mass. Time dilation, whether caused by mass or speed, is caused by the gravity created by the aether pressing on "stationary" mass or a moving mass. The time dilation is proportional to the amount and-or speed of the mass. Can speed time dilation and its associated gravity be created artificially? If an element or isotope if an element were to be massive enough AND it could be sped up enough, perhaps. How? Manufacturing such element into a disk that could spin at a high enough speed would not be practical; the centripetal forces and vibrations would probably tear the apparatus apart. What if a sufficiently large amount of such element, however, could be forced to vibrate at a very high frequency? The motion of the protons and neutrons moving and vibrating, even though in extremely small sub atomic distances, might get fast enough to affect the aether inside and outside that element to create the gravity needed to cause time dilation. The frequency would need to be very high. Perhaps such a setup could create speed induced artificial gravity. Bob Lazar, if you read this, hope it helps.
You can experience time dilation here on Earth.. A boring job, school, waiting in a doctor’s office, waiting for an upcoming vacation.. all these things cause time to slow down
This is the beginning of a really good channel
Wait i thought this was a 1M+ subbed channel before seeing your comment
I was here at 51k subs
But why?
@@jingomcbright3687 bro?
@@chemicallystimulated476 it deserves it
The last statement made my day - "If you feel time is slipping away the best way to slow it down is try to go to different paths and accelerate yourself and constantly have new experiences."
I am just about to change my job and move to a different organization. However I'm a bit worried and anxious about how comfortable I am here and how it would turn out there but nonetheless I had the feeling of time passing by and I'm not able to do anything new or make any progress in life. After hearing this last sentence I'm assured once again that I made the right decision. 🙏
All the best. Use that statement to prepare for unforeseen things too. Only difference is you wont have control over it. But remember equivalence principle - as long you have acceleration it's okay. Doesn't matter _what_ gave that acceleration;-)
All the best for you.
@@neelroy2918 Thanks! That is a comforting statement as well
It puts me at ease knowing it’s been a month since you wrote that
@@dom85ross Thanks and I have joined the new organization and things turned out to be quite good actually 😊
In Interstellar, Miller's planet isn't only deep in Gargantua's gravity well, but it's also orbiting at the innermost stable orbit, meaning its orbital velocity is relativistic. So you get a combination of the extreme curvature close to Gargantua's event horizon causing time dilation, combined with special relativistic time dilation of the whole planet orbiting at a significant fraction of c, bodies in orbit are in freefall and don't "feel" forces, which is why we don't feel a pull towards the earth, we just feel the earth pushing up against us. You don't feel centripetal force keeping your car on the bend in the road, you feel the car pushing back against your inertia as you go around the bend, you're pushed inward by the tires acting on the axle through the car chassis, but it feels like you're pulled outward by a fictitious centrifugal force. In Miller's planet's case, there is no force on the planet, but the relative motion to Gargantua and the other bodies results in a slower clock and the high curvature from proximity to Gargantua add together, but not the extreme gravitational "forces" so the only force felt by Coop, Brand and Doyle is the surface of Miller's planet pushing up against it's own curvature within the curvature of Gargantua, Romily is orbiting Gargantua at a farther orbit where the Endurance isn't moving at relativistic speeds, and is high enough in Gargantua's gravity well to experience 7 years for every hour that the Ranger's crew spends on Miller's planet. The only inaccuracies in the film were the lack of doppler shifting, since the prograde side of Miller's planet would reflect visible light back in x-rays and the retrograde side would be reflecting microwaves, same for the accretion disk. Other than that, everything is accurate.
I read this twice and I still am confused
But thanks anyways!
Wow... beautifully put, thanks bud.
So in all intense purposes what do you think it would look like to the observer on the endurance, and even better if he had someway of recording the said situation. Especially since if the gravity well was so intense that it could cause such a significant change in time yet hardly move in retrospect to the ship which is outside of the orbit.
@@Thebaconmurderer 'To all intents and purposes' if you looked away from Gargantua you would see everything sped up (planets rotating about their axis more quickly and revolving around the Blackhole more quickly for example) and possibly somewhat blueshifted as you occupy a region that is slowed down to the outside universe... you are after all situated somewhere 'down' the 'funnel' of Gargantua's gravity 'well'.
Looking towards Gargantua you would see things slowed down and redshifted to varying degrees.
Apart from that, everything except love-is-the-only-force-known-to-man-that-can-transcend-the-boundaries-of-space-and-time is accurate!
Keep up this sort of content. RUclips needs less nonsense and more content that relates to reality.
On average a human being has three billion heartbeats in his lifetime. And he'll have those heartbeats whether he's in a gravitational well, or being constantly accelerated, or just drifting in intergalactic space. An observer in another inertial frame of reference would simply see whether his pulse seemed speeded up or slowed down relative to his own. (Assuming both measure the same heart rate in their own frame).
This comment helped me understand it. Thanks.
Oh wow same here, very simply put
Another way of putting this is that if a film strip is playing at 24 frames per second, and a DVD is playing at 30 frames per second for a 2 hour movie. Then ultimately, the 30 fps movie will have more frames that a 24 frame movie, even though they are both the same over all play time. If you were "walking" the distances frame by frame, the 30 fps journey would seem longer, even though it takes the same amount of time, because you are taking more steps to get to the same point. From your perspective, time slowed down.
that is a great exapmle I'm gonna totally steal and credit to some randome person on a youtube comment.
This explanation will help some people out IMENSLY
This is such a good way to visualise it!
Uhm, would it feel longer? Aren't you "walking" a bit less between the 30fps frames than you are between the 24fps frames, precisely because two 24fps frames are further apart in time than two 30fps frames? You're just subdividing time into different amounts of varying size "brackets", this doesn't have anything to do with relativity, and it's a false analogy.
What you're describing is more akin to Achilles and the Tortoise, or to Supertasks.
@@Michelino_M5 This analogy is more about the "feeling" part imo.
Maybe to put it in a different way. Do you know the feeling when you're driving down a road by bike (or car, but I personally have it more on a bike) and stretches of industrial area feel shorter than stretches of individual housing even though they are the same length? I think this is because our brain is registering more and it feels like there is more space to cross because on the on side are 10 buildings and on the other side only one.
In a smiliar manner the 30fps movie "feels" longer (and is longer if you would lay it out frame by frame) than the 24fps movie, eventhough they have the same runtime.
@@slinelol Ok sure, but then I could also say that a good analogy to general relativity is this: When I sleep, time seems to skip from the moment I fall asleep, to the moment I wake again, while if I stay awake all night, time goes slower.
This doesn't have anything to do with relativity, but (according to you) since it's more about the "feeling" part it still holds.
An analogy is only any good when you're making an apples to apples comparison, and how exactly two movies playing at different framerates are supposed to be some relativistic phenomenon is beyond me. It's like saying that Earth is attracted to the Sun in a way that's analogous to the action of gluons. Those are two entirely different things.
Also, no, the 30fps movie is not longer if you "lay it out frame by frame". What does that mean? You take every frame, you print them to paper, then you put them one next to the other, and then say "they cover a longer distance, therefore the movie is longer"? It's like saying that since a movie in .mp4 is 2 GB, but the same movie in raw format is 2 TB, the movie in raw format is longer. That's even farther away from a reasonable comparison.
0:01 Best part of the video
Most beautiful woman I've ever seen
I actually can't believe this video only has 200 views
Thanks for the kind words, I still think I have room to improve and hopefully you can enjoy it along the way. I'm really excited about my next video, it's more in my field of expertise.
3 days later, I am viewer number 2344 :)
@@ButWhySci this vid is awesome. thanks
would like to travel into the chicks britches
It's up to 15k. Has the increase in views improved or have had a positive effect on your life?
I never understood time dilation until now. I knew what it was but couldn’t grip a basic understanding of the why. You’re a great teacher
6:30 time slows to allow the clock to think about how much buffering is needed? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on the nobel prize for that theory...
It would difference in the clocks of the accelerated and inertial frames. The accelerated clock is slower so it adds time - the buffer.
0:04 I wish I could be there with my father. So many things I never understand, so many times I failed express my deepest emotions. I love you dad & still miss you.
but why did you drink and hit me?
wait wtf are you two talking about?
@@sidviscous5959 it's nothing to do with me with any sort.
@@SkinsFirstGeneration this is some Theater of the Absurd level of incoherence to context lmao what does 0:04 have to do with anything
its funny how light going faster is absolutely impossible but the time itself slowing down is completelly fine
Ikr 😭
Time is relative precisely because c is constant
@@AMC2283 time itself does not slow down. 'c' is not constant otherwise GPS satellites wouldn't work.
When the police stop me for driving at 90mph in a 70mph limit I will use this video to explain that they might just be using a different frame of reference to me.
In the smallest clock, the atom, the electron has to adjust it's path as the video describes how time flow changes. With a higher velocity, or in high gravity, the electron has to adjust it's orbit in the atom. To adjust for the electron's behavior, maintaining the constant speed of C, the "clock" has to slow down by widening the orbital path of the electron. Mass is actually stretched out like a raindrop, or a parabolic orbit. Reaching the boundaries of the speed of C, or the event horizon of a black hole, the electrons separate from nucleus and the electrons orbit the black hole just outside the event horizon, as the protons and neutrons fall into the singularity. A black hole is actually an atomic structure which amassed such a nucleus that it has exceeded normal boundaries for chemistry. It's stability is in it's unopposable gravity. The constant C suggests that the event horizon of a black hole is the boundary of electron orbit.
You don't hang in infinitely slowed time at the edge of a black hole. Only your frame of reference for time slows down. Which means, before you know it, you turn into plasma as your electrons separate on their own journey.
Thank you. Best reasoning I've been able to find
I always wondered how time dilation occurs in the microscopic level but everyone seems to use the same argument. Could you please elaborate on what you are saying or refer me to a specific chapter of a book or link a website or article or a video where it explains this phenomena thoroughly and leaves no questions to be asked because I have found all these explanations in these videos unsatisfying and incomplete.
@@fugitive6549 I'm just using my imagination to work a model from what I know. I don't find the video a satisfying explanation, either.
@@enjerth78look up the RUclipsr floatheadphysics and check out his explanations he tried to make it intuitive understanding since the reason for time dilation is physical. Since time doesn't exist and the universe is in constant motion I believe that the phrase "spacetime" itself is counterintuitive. I believe that they tried to help by combining both concepts but really there's only one. When is honesty less of it's own thing and just another way of saying where.
This is one of the best explanations I’ve ever seen
Indeed👏🏾... and this is like the 10th video I'm watching. Glad it's my last😌
This is a well-meaning video but unfortunately it suffers from many conceptual problems about how the theory of relativity works:
1. In the example of the rocket shooting a bullet into the glass panel, you said that we don't have a defined frame of reference and hence multiple outcomes are possible. This is not true, as every observer must measure the same physical phenomena. This is because frames of reference aren't physical, they are just useful but imaginary tools we use to make calculations, like parallels and meridians on Earth. This means that changing from one frame to another must not change the behavior of the physics, since, well, that's what's real. In the example you gave, assuming the 90 m/s thing is according to the glass, then in every frame you define the bullet always breaks the glass, since it's still relative to the ship, so only one outcome happens, as it should.
2. I don't see how from your example you conclude that the speed of light must be constant.
3. Time dilation and length contraction not just apply with acceleration, in fact you just need different relative speeds to have both. This means that time dilation and length contraction depend on reference frame. In the part of your video with the car, the car gets contracted according to an external observer, but for the person in the car, it is the rest of the universe that gets contracted, not the car. Same with time dilation. So time dilation and length contraction happen because of how you compare different frames of reference.
4. Laws of Physics DO NOT change in different frames of reference, since they are also physical or 'real' phenomena. This is actually one of the pillars of relativity and it has a name: Principle of Relativity. The speed of light doesn't change in different frames because it is also a law of physics.
5. Gravity is NOT a force (in relativity), and hence it doesn't cause acceleration. Time doesn't run slower in Miller's planet than on Earth because it experiences acceleration (in fact, it doesn't experience any since the planet is in free fall), but because of the spacetime curvature caused by the black hole.
You can watch this video that explains how time dilation actually happens: ruclips.net/video/5qQheJn-FHc/видео.html
This has got to be one of the best visual explanations I've ever seen. Please make more of these physics videos!
This is the dumbest explanation I have ever seen. The analogy doesn't give rise to insight and is flawed in how it explain the mechanism for what makes time go slower.
I disagree, it wasn’t helpful and i feel like it’s not even correct.
@@jaredf6205 same I'm so confused still like the time it takes for someone to get from one point back is the same time you'll have to wait for them
@@johnbrah364 if you want elaborate on what you don’t get and I could try explain it
5:10 the best explanation I've seen, dang
Very good video mate. One thing, though: the "computer analogy" has something which breaks the fondamental symmetry two reference frames have.
How so
@@AfricanLionBat WHY AND HOW THE CLEAR, TOP DOWN, ULTIMATE, AND BALANCED MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY IS GIVEN BY THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA:
Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Consider the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma !!! SO, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Moreover, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. The Earth constitutes the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE in BALANCED and UNIVERSAL relation to what is the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!! (The sky is BLUE, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!!) Accordingly, time DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! INDEED, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. Think. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Great !!! SO, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out EQUAL AREAS in equal times consistent WITH/AS E=MC2, F=ma, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great !!!! Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. MAGNIFICENT !!!!
By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 WHY are you WRITING LIKE THIS?
My understanding is that the closer you get to a black hole, the faster your time will pass relative to those outside. I think it is exponential so that by the time you hit the event horizon, you will be stopped in time from an external point of view and from your point of view the universe will fizzle out into the end times what ever that may be.
A distant observer would see objects freeze. But if you were hovering like the space ship, you would see a lot of light before it red shifted too much. So, you would see the object fall into the black hole (kind of).
Well the event horizon doesn't mark the end there, that's just the point that light can't escape. Time still goes on, although slower, but the universe doesn't fizzle out at your reference just yet. Only when you reach the singularity does that (perhaps) happen
Time will stop at the space-time singularity in the centre......not at the event horizon
@@skillfulfighter23 According to Dr Matt Dowd at PBS Spacetime, time and space flip roles at the event horizon. The Einstein field equations demonstrate this phenomenon, but we have no idea what it physically means.
Apparently am wrong. See the end of this excellent video: ruclips.net/video/4rTv9wvvat8/видео.html
i don't understand how Fred moving the car slower in a straight line to make it a 5 second trip is the same thing, but i think im just missing something lol
The shortest path between two points is a straight line, basically. You've overcomplicated
Same. Like, he had to drive slower for the car to move from A to B in 5 seconds. What does this have to do with time dilation haha
@@crateer He was moving slower, therefore the speed of the photon was not pushed farther, leading to less time dilation
@@irok1 he was moving slower, yes, and the photon bounced the same amount of times yes, but he was moving SLOWER (and I know that that leads to time dilation of an insignificant amount) but I'm still confused. He wasn't moving at the same speed he was moving slower therefore the photon moved less distance in the same amount of time
@@smileyp4535 The photon moved the same distance in the same relative time. As the frame of reference speeds up to an outside observer, the photon must not travel a further distance in the same time. To fix this, time dilates. Time is sped up for that frame of reference from an outside perspective, meaning that the photon travels more in more time
So just because light “can’t” travel faster than its maximum velocity the universe has to alter every other scientific law to keep from speeding tickets?
Love this comment
Cumbersome explanation. Analogies need to be simpler and directly correlated to our experiences with time, speed and distance.
I have experienced extreme time dilation.. It was when I was at school. Double maths lesson, all of Friday afternoon. Time went SOOOOOO SLOOOOWLYYYY!!!!!
Time can behave like an illusion, your perspective determines a large portion of your ideas about time. It's set in one direction (I owe someone money) for sure but it's able to appear to speed up to slow down but that's the flow of your being in relation to the flow of what's being judged.
THE FULL UNDERSTANDING OF TIME (AND TIME DILATION), AS E=MC2 IS CLEARLY F=MA ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity:
INSTANTANEITY is fundamental to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience (in and with TIME), AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.) THE EARTH/ground AND THE SUN are CLEARLY E=MC2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!!! TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Balance and completeness go hand in hand. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! Comparatively, consider the man who IS in outer "space". Great. AGAIN, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !! AGAIN, TIME DILATION ULTIMATELY proves in what is a BALANCED FASHION that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE. E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!! NOW, carefully consider that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!! Great !!! "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is balanced electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!!
By Frank DiMeglio
I want my fucking money, by the way.
It's pretty easy to visualize. Just think about the moving photon clock. You notice that the photons have to travel a further distance to "tick". The physics, and chemical reactions in in an accelerating body take longer because the particles need to move a further distance from our reference frame.
So is that why time on work passes slowly but when im playing videogames it passes faster than speed of light?
Vsauce made a good video about this specific topic.
That was a great video. Watched it twice to make sure I could kind of understand it. Thanks, dude
It’s a well known fact that it is essential for a RUclips-video to catch the users attention in the first few seconds in the video, a technique this creator made good use of.
First of all, the idea of "Time" is a very delicate one. With carefull observation we could define "Time" as 2 different things.
1) coordinate time
2) proper time
Coordinate time is your velocity in time through spacetime and proper time is the value of the velocity of time that YOU the observer measure.
For example:
2 stars sit 1 light year appart.
We have 2 objects, A and B:
A is moving (relative to the 2 stars) at near the speed of light towards the 2nd star (lets say about 99.98% C...
B is sitting stationary on the second star (stationary relative to both stars)
B one will measure that A took about ~ 1 year to reach the 2nd star. That's coordinate time.
A though, will measure that it only took about some ~ 7 days to make the same trip! That's proper time.
So clearly someone can travel faster than 300,000 km/s if he wants... Completing the journey in 7 days, but he CAN'T be seen doing so for an entire year from any outside observer! ... Time dilation and lenth contraction are just visual distortions of reality due to its nature...
Light itself is moving at infinite speed - therefore it will appear from every other observer's point of view as having a single, fixed and invariant speed because of the same visual effects.
That number will be 1 light second per second.
There is a direct cause and effect between the passage of time and being in class, going to the dentist, and doing your taxes. In each case, time is like, well, just slow all clocks down to 1/10th for the aforementioned activities
How has this channel not exploded
I didn’t do nearly enough drugs to be watching this at 10p right before bed.
i love your explanations
the hypothetical scenarios + 3D animations really work for me
This was really good, I always struggled to understand why time dilation occurred! Great explanation!
I found it easier to visualize a ball being bounced on a moving train. On the train, it just goes up and down. Seen from the side of the tracks by a stationary observer, the ball has a horizontal component in addition to the vertical, therefore, travels a longer distance.
Outstanding video. Well done!
Many of the details here are just a bit off which is a bit misleading and kind of annoying. Special Relativity is about inertial frames not accelerated frames. There seems to be some conflation between Special and General Relativity. (The latter *is* about accelerated frames.) Both Special and General Relativity result in time dilation but for different reasons. I feel like the effort to simplify these concepts has led to some misinformation. The way the equivalence principle is presented is not particularly clear either. *Locally* an observer could not perform any experiment that differentiated between gravity and being accelerated (for example in a closed box). But that doesn't mean that acceleration and gravity are the same universally. Lots of gravitational effects couldn't be reproduced with acceleration (I'm thinking frame dragging, tidal forces, gravitational waves... I'm sure there are others...). Finally, the physicist Kip Thorne was the science advisor on Interstellar and he is a widely recognized expert in gravitational physics and black holes, having won the Nobel Prize... I'm pretty sure he got the relativity calculations right. My understanding is that they did fudge what the black hole would look like for cinematic effect... but all the time dilation stuff was right on.
If we understand a theory we should be able to explain it simply so I don't think we understand it at all unless we do understand it and it proves we are in a simulated universe.
@@MikeSmith-cl4ix well general relativity is a complicated theory, so a demand that it be explainable in a simple way is not really a reasonable one. The statement that a simple explanation for the general theory not being forthcoming means we don't understand it (what is 'it'? gravity? accelerated frames? not clear) at all, is a false dilemma logical fallacy. But general relativity is explainable. From personal experience I can say that with a couple of years of calculus, some linear algebra and the basics of tensor calculus, you can get a reasonable *basic* understanding of Einstein's field equations in a couple of quarters.
It's not clear how a lack of a coherent theory of "it" would prove a simulated reality. Does the simulated reality not have gravity or accelerated frames? I feel like you are just kicking the can down the road. In any case, general relativity accurately predicts how the universe behaves in a broad set of circumstances. Understandable or not, it is experimentally verifiable.
In any case, my comment was a criticism of the clarity of the explanation, not the theory. There is short shrift given to the equivalence principle in the video even though that is where Einstein began with General Relativity. Further, why does the video substitute a confusing thought experiment involving curved motion, and therefore centripetal acceleration, for Einstein's own thought experiment of an elevator, free falling and accelerated.
On further review of the video, it seems to imply that all inertial frames will agree on timing of events. (Something it refers to as a "constant frame of reference".) But special relativity already demonstrates this is not true. For two events that are spatially separated (that is, neither is within the light cone of the other), generally two observers will not agree on whether they were simultaneous or which precede the other. It's a lot to wrap one's head around, but I don't think this video does a good job of helping viewers do so...
@@ldl50 you're funny because you can't even give a simple answer to a simple statement.
@@MikeSmith-cl4ix I think what he's saying here is that you have to have a decent grasp of the language in order to understand the theory and that the translation to examples without knowing that language of math is trickier than it seems. I don't think his comment is unreasonable at all.
@@ldl50 don't mean to be insulting, you sound very well-educated but you and the one who made this video should recognize that if you have to use 20 minutes of analogies to answer a simple question then you should throw out the theory and start over..
I always assumed time dilation was the result of all particles/energy in an affected frame of reference simply being slowed down, the same way they would in a lowering of it's temperature, but much more uniformly, perfectly. If I were on gargantuan, every particle in my body is moving slower, including the electrical impulses in my brain. To me, it would seem as though the universe around me were moving faster. To summarize, time isn't moving slower or faster in relation to a frame of reference. Energy is, and therefore matter.
Awesome, this channel will go to the top!
I agree.
If Fred knew what an apex was he'd be even faster :) Nice work!
Love your work. Everyone always tries to explain time dilation in terms of the difference between observable clocks and sort of just add "time slows down at relatiivistic speeds" as a footnote. But you showed a hard experiment that demonstrates the principle perfectly. Keep explaining Samwell Tarly. :)
Everyone learns differently,
So, if light had the ability to speed up and slow down, then time dilation wouldn't exist? If so, then wouldn't that mean that light has some immense power that can force the universe to bend?
As long as there’s inertia there ought to still be relativity. Space time doesn’t warp because of light per se but because of mass energy
U guys make me feel stupid lol
@@numOG you’re watching the video, you’re on the right track
@@AMC2283 I guess, I just got nostalgic and wanted to see that I could slow down time and enjoy it more
“This looks interesting. I would love to learn about the intricacies of time dilation.”
….
“Stock footage tits!”
I don’t like sounding like a hater, but this is a classic example of a science video that is better at making the viewers feel like they have learned something but it uses very misleading examples
I’ll point out one for the sake of constructive criticism.
3:45 an example to show how confusing relativity can be from multiple frames, ends with an insinuation the the glass is the real frame to be considered ( my words, not yours). It is implied that analysis should done from frame the glass occupies. This undermines the biggest insight of relativity, that all frames of reference are equally valid
So the layman will walk away thinking, “all I have to do to understand relativity is to find the real reference frame” when that is very incongruent with the concepts of formal relativity. Making the layman no better of them when they started, maybe worse off
Also the example of straight and curved path at the beginning is going to fly right by someone unfamiliar with the difference between inertial and noninertial reference frames. With layman just plain confused
You missed the point of the glass. He was not saying it was a frame of reference. He was saying you could not know your frame of reference without the glass because you were in a void. The external sphere was just for visuals and was not a part of the example. He was saying you need three points in space to calculate your motion relative to other objects.
Got my attention from first 4 seconds. Great video btw.
Underrated channel, glad the algorithm sent you to me.
Ok, I'll try.
In Interstellar, because the black was so large you can be relatively close to the event horizon and not feel crushed or pulled by gravity because the resulting curvature is spread over a large volume around the horizon. It's not until you're deep inside the horizon that you would start to feel the "tidal forces" of gravity.
So it shouldn't of slowed time down so much then, right?
I don't know if the event horizon corresponds to the curvature of spacetime in any real sense, because the mass distribution of a black hole, whether traditional (in the sense of a singularity) or alternative (in theories that propose some kind of repellant force that overcomes gravity just before a singularity occurs) is effectively pointlike. so shouldn't tidal forces be extremely steep, even outside the horizon? I always thought that was the reason for christopher nolan showing massive tidal waves on the planet. the gravitational field from the planet's frame of reference is extremely anisotropic because the huge majority of mass is confined to the singularity, the center of mass. so the gravitational field is extremely distorted in the axis parallel to both the planet's center and to the singularity. hence, tidal waves in that direction. although I guess it also depends on the amount of mass energy in the accretion disk. they don't show relativistic jets but I would assume a black hole of that prodigious size and obvious activity would probably have jets, but someone correct me if I'm wrong
@@ToxicallyMasculinelol a gravity field provides constant acceleration. Just being in the field slows time. Think, you're being accelerated towards the ground by an offset inertia, or if it makes makes more sense it's the offset force of angular momentum thats causing the force of gravity. Going in two directions simultaneously creates that offset angle of accelerative force. The precession force that makes a top wobble. Once it's at rest on the surface of the graviting object, all it's momentum is combined with the momentum of the objects angular momentum which terminates to a point which causes that force to be expressed as the gravitational force. Now when the main gravitional object enters a black hole horizon is where there's a duality with electromagnetic forces of charges and the gravitional forces of mass and acceleration have at least mathematical duality. As in the same equations using charge determining charges are used only in a blackhole, it's just the variables are mass and velocities. All because of that pesky horizon. Termination to point maybe like a third force that forces some of that angular acceleration to cause the force what we call gravity to be directly under our feet. The central point may be the cause of creating the third offset
My problem with Interstellar was wondering what idiot ever thought that a planet parked right next to a black hole would make a good candidate for colonization? Duh.
@@ToxicallyMasculinelol You are correct for normal black holes. It's the super massive black holes that are different. Because of their size, the event horizon is pushed so far away from the singularity that it would have the same effect as a star with equal mass. The gravity would be immense but, it would be ubiquitous. You wouldn't be "spaghettified," as they say. CAVEAT - I get my info from RUclips
Before this video, I got an ad for planks constant. Took me half a minute to realise it wasn't the video.
Time dilation is the main reason I believe in simulation theory.
I had this idea the first time I learned about time dilation.
Care to elaborate? I'd love to hear your idea
@@frankdimeglio8216 😂
WHY EINSTEIN'S EQUATIONS PREDICT THAT SPACE IS EXPANDING OR CONTRACTING IN AND WITH TIME, AS E=MC2 IS clearly F=MA ON BALANCE:
Ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma IN BALANCE. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience, AS E=MC2 is clearly F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is clearly F=ma ON BALANCE. ACCORDINGLY, the known mathematical unification of Einstein's equations AND Maxwell's equations (given the addition of A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION) is proven and explained. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, carefully consider what is THE EARTH/ground ON BALANCE !!! Great. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. (Notice the term c4 from Einstein's equations.) It is all CLEARLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This is the ultimate mathematical unification of physics/physical experience. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. I have truly unified physics/physical experience. Consider THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. (Notice that THE DOME of a person's eye is ALSO VISIBLE.) OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND DESCRIPTION) is improved in the truly superior mind. Indeed, the ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. In fact, I have also clarified, clearly identified, and corrected the limited notion of curved "SPACE" !!! MY BALANCED UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS SURPASSES ALL OTHERS. E=mc2 IS F=ma. A galaxy is basically FLAT. Think !!! GREAT. Notice the black space of what is THE EYE as well. ON BALANCE, it ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is F=ma ON BALANCE.) ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The Sun AND the Earth are F=ma AND E=mc2, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! LOOK at what is the BLUE SKY. The EARTH is ALSO blue. NOW, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 is clearly F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE !!!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Beautiful !!! BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This CLEARY explains F=ma AND E=mc2 ON BALANCE !!! GREAT !!! ACCORDINGLY, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. It is fully, CLEARLY, and consistently proven ON BALANCE !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 is clearly F=ma (ON BALANCE); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. So, carefully consider what is the speed of light (c). Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Objects (and WHAT IS the falling MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=MC2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is clearly gravity ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. I have also CLEARLY explained ON BALANCE why the planets will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN. SO, BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand; AS it ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense !!! E=MC2 is F=ma ON BALANCE. Finally, carefully consider what is the speed of light (c) !!! NOW, ON BALANCE, carefully consider what is THE EARTH/ground as well !!! Great !!! E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 😂 What a clown.
How has your brain gone from "time is relative" to "I am a computer program"?
Reasonable arguments only.
The light inside the clock went the same distance on both routes. The distance within the clock hasn't changed at all based on the speed of the vehicle or the distance the vehicle is driving. It goes the same distance over five seconds on each route.
Not if the mirror is moving away from it as seen by a stationary observer
Hey, it's Silpo at 00:34 and Comfy ua at 00:37! But why?
holy shit balls even testicles, man i am shocked
+
I'm not sure that light clock was a good example because if you think about it, let's say the light clock is 4 units wide when you move the light clock to the side, and you move in a certain very high speed - for example: a quarter of the speed of light, the photon will move 3 units to one side and 5 units to the other side instead of 4 to each side, basically meaning it will still move 8 units at the same amount of time as when it was stationary. Think about it. When you move the light clock, you don't really move the photon, you just change the space that the photon has to play with. If the photon moves to the right at one time and you move the light clock one unit to the left at the same time it takes the photon to complete a run, then the photon will move 3 units to the right, and then when the photon returns, and you still move the light clock one unit to the left for every 4 units that the photon moves, then it will have to go 5 units because the other end was moved far away by one unit at the same time the photon "tried" to complete the run. And thus no matter what speed you go, the photon's speed and distance traveled will still stay the same and won't even need to bend space time to be possible.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that the theory of general relativity is false or something, I completely believe it is in fact very much real until more information is found and people potentially change it a bit (or not). What I'm trying to say is that I think his example wasn't as good.
Just my theory though, I'm not an expert or anything so feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.
You seem to only use one frame of reference in your example. You wouldn't need General Relativity if there is nothing to relate (another frame of reference i.e. someone moving with the clock and someone stationary watching the clock move by).
@@churchboy316 yeah you're right. General relativity isn't really relevant in what I said, I just added that part because I wanted to make sure people don't think I'm trying to claim that Einstein's general relativity is wrong :)
This isn't entirely true. You're forgetting proportions in your example.
You're measuring the units it has to travel, but you need to consider the time it takes to travel those units too.
If time was stationary (ie his example was wrong)
Suppose I have this clock but it's length is 1lightsecond.
On standstill it would take 2s to travel two units.
Now if I move the clock at half the speed of light, from the clock pov it still moves back and forth once, yes.
But going from the front to back will take half the time and going forward will take double the time.
0.5 + 2 = 2.5. Hey that's not 2. So even from that thinking there is time dilation.
It's true if you are in the same reference frame as the clock, you won't notice this dilation and that's exactly why it's a good example. Your example is in reference to the clock. Someone not traveling with it, standing still, will see this time dilation happen
@@JB940 thanks for taking the time to explain this to me!
So... is the time actually slowing down with acceleration, or is just the measuring of time delayed? =)
yeah right , like isnt time a constant , how could it slow down
@@delayedcreator4783 Because everything is relative to the observer. The "time" that surrounds me as an entity (more like every single point in spacetime that makes up the matter of my body) is constant - but only for me. No matter what happens, 1 second is equal to 1 second. It helps if you think of "1 second" as being equivalent to the amount of time it takes light to travel from point A to point B, and not so much an abstract force imposing itself on you. Light will always travel at the speed of light - for me. The same is true for you, and everyone else (every other point in spacetime).
But you are not me. So from an outside reference (you observing me and vice versa) we are 'traveling' through time at different 'speeds.' Time is essentially warping around us to make sure that for EVERY frame of reference, the speed of light is constant. If we both calibrated clocks, and then I got on a high speed jet and flew around the world, our clocks would measure two different times when I got back, even though we both went through the same 'length' of time -- relatively.
This is why a lot of science fiction uses the concept of 'warping' spacetime to travel faster than light, but that's a whole other post.
We've gotten pretty far with understanding HOW relativistic physics (time dilation) works, but as far as WHY it happens? Well, if you could answer that you would probably go down in history as one of the greatest physicists to have ever lived.
I hope that helps.
@@thanksfornoprivacy " If we both calibrated clocks, and then I got on a high speed jet and flew around the world, our clocks would measure two different times when I got back, even though we both went through the same 'length' of time " is this true
@@delayedcreator4783 Yes. To be clear, the time dilation in that instance would be so miniscule that it would be imperceptible to us, but there would be a measurable discrepancy. When I landed and we checked the clocks: To me -- You would have 'traveled' through more time, i.e. you would be older than you were "supposed" to be; and to you --- I would have "traveled" through less time, i.e. I would be younger than I was "supposed" to be.
In fact, this time dilation effect is something that scientists actually have to take into account when building GPS satellites. They have to continually correct for the fact that they are 'traveling' through time slower than stuff here on the Earth's surface (this is a function of gravity and mass as well but I digress). I don't think I can post a link here but if you search on google for "satellite gps time dilation" there's a bunch of links that talk about it.
There's a lot of complicated math that goes into calculating the specifics, but you don't really need to know that to understand the general concepts.
@@thanksfornoprivacy so if you travel faster , your time slows down ??? I think that's cap bro (it's too hard to believe )
"Accelerated Frame of Reference" word thought. Time dilation is the engine of gravity - high pressure time vs. low pressure time, the difference yielding acceleration, known as gravity. Different from mechanical acceleration. Time is fluid.
With the ship and the glass, how do we know the glass isn't accelerating toward the ship and bullet?
Because of the law of relative motion. In reality all three objects ARE moving relative to each other but at different relative velocities. Acceleration is quite different to relative (or constant) motion in space because it requires the application of a constant force in order to accelerate. An object moving at a constant velocity in space will continue to move without the need for an applied force. Therefore, you can always tell which object is accelerating and which is not because its velocity will vary over time if it is accelerating (or decelerating, which is the same thing).
Same way you know that you must travel to a store... the store doesn't come to you; unless, you get something delivered.
But, let's say that Earth started trading glass with Zeta Reticuli... then your question would become quite relevant, as to the relative time it would take to meet up in space.
I was stuck for ages on the first frame of this for some reason.
I wish time slowed down such that this video is always on the first image.
Absolutely fantastic video!
Dude... did I just finally understand time dilation? And what is your channel doing having so very few subscribers? I just wanna say thanks for this video bro keep it up!
+1 subscriber
9:02 that was golden advice 🏆
I don't think the car salesman example is a good explanation of time dilation. Both men travel for 5 seconds, and they travel at different speeds. The light clock acts the same in both journeys. So what?? It matters not that one man traveled a greater distance than the other. He was driving at a higher rate of speed! What is the significance here? If both men drove at the same speed and used the same amount of time for different distances, then I'd say you have something very interesting here. But you don't. The photon went back and forth the same number of times in both journeys because the amount of time for each journey was the same. It's just two guys traveling two different distances in the same amount of time by driving different speeds.
Both men drove at speeds that allowed them to arrive at the destination in 5 seconds. However, their clocks didn't match because the curved path experienced acceleration (you must accelerate in another direction to curve) - hence, time dilation.
@@churchboy316 You said: "Both men drove at speeds that allowed them to arrive at the destination in 5 seconds. However, their clocks didn't match because the curved path experienced acceleration..." Well, if that's the case, then they both did not travel for 5 seconds. If they both traveled for 5 seconds, then their clocks would match up.
Look at time dilation this way instead: Let's say a man is on a bus bouncing a basketball. The bus is traveling at 20 MPH. In his reference frame, he observes the basketball traveling only up and down. The total distance the basketball travels is the sum of the total distance the ball travels up, plus the total distance that the ball travels down.
But his friend on the sidewalk who's watching the bus drive down the street sees things a bit differently. In his reference frame, he too can see the basketball traveling up and down, but he also see's it traveling down the street at 20 MPH. So, what's happening, is that an object is traveling two different distances during the same event. One guy sees the ball going up and down, while the other guy sees the ball going up and down and also horizontal. Because distance / speed = time, there will be two different amounts of time that have elapsed during this single event. The guy on the bus observe the movement of the ball as up and down only. They guy on the sidewalk observes the movement of the ball as a wavy line traveling down the street. Time Dilation is the difference in the amount of time that elapses during a single event, as observed by two different people each in their own reference frame.
@@stephenmcgrew8868 I understand it's difficult to see in the example, but it's actually mathematically correct. The equations of general relativity would yield the same results.
I can watch the first 4 seconds of this video forever
Good vid but who is the girl in red?
Fiona Johnson :D
I am just kidding, I have no idea. Fiona is the actress that played the girl in the red dress in the Matrix movie.
LOL
0:00 A man needs a name.
I think you don't need acceleration for time dilation. Any relative velocity is enough for clocks to slow down in comparison to clocks that are at rest.
This guy explains physics better than any other channel I know. Why the fuck isn’t he at a million? Let’s help him get there.
I always found these kind of theories anthropocentric, to me is simple, time is something we cannot measure correctly (as most or every other metric), time is always the same everywhere and at everytime but, our devices to measure time always have to work with our own physics, thats what you call relativity, physics obviously change on a state of acceleration, there is no doubt, so it is logical to think that in this example time dind't change, but the physics of the box and the bouncing light which measured time did. In other words, we have not yet discover a way to measure time without physical means, since even digital devices work via physics. Time is just one and is moving at the same rate, matter and energy do not, taking the simulator example, imagine that the real time, the same we cannot measure yet without a physical mean, is the one that affects the CPU and not the one we are measuring as a part of the similation or software, since we only can function with the simulation physics, we cannot measure the time outside the CPU. My point is that we are making the same mistake as we did when we thought the earth was the center of the universe, quantum physics do not settle when we measure the particles, they are already settled, it is just that with our little minds and primitive tools we cannot know where they settled until we "measure" them, it is like trying to guess the hight of another person, you inmediatly compare his hight with yours eyeballing it, but maybe you are not taking into account the floor elevation because you think it is perfectly flat and you ended up calculating that the person was 5cm shorter than you when he is actually 5 cm taller.
Science is about skepticism, and scientists today are anything but sckeptics, our academia bends the knee to politics and ideologies rather than followind the scientific method, which is essentially that we should always be skeptics and repeat the fucking experiment because maybe this time something different will occur because of a ridiculously tiny difference in the elements, remember that pure water does not conduct electricity by itself, it is the minerals in our skin that make the water a conductor.
Basically time is an unseen basis for reality to exist; you can't see it, measure it, or interact with it, but the fact reality isn't a single, static state confirms that it exists. Humanity's imagination tries to think of ways it can be altered, but it cannot; it's a background constant that cannot be interacted with.
@@DisemboweII You can't see it proper, but you can see its effect on everything, and it is constantly interacting with everything, I believe we even have a pretty good Idea of its concept, we just can't measure it acurately without altering the result, maybe in the future once we understand better the effect of acceleration/velocity/movement on objects, particles, waves and energy we would be able to measure it with more accuracy, for now this video literally just says that acceleration and/or velocity has an effect on the device used to measure time.
Dude seek help
Honest review: this video is incredibly confused and unstructured. It seeks to undo misconceptions of time dilation, but then adds more to replaces them.
I love every other video on this channel.
shoutout to the girl at the beginning for being the best part of this video 0:00
The actual results of the experiment would be different than hypothesized. In the constant velocity scenario, the light will simply keep traversing the same path and eventually hit the back wall of the box it is in. It will not just move with the box because the box is moving. In the accelerated experiment as the car starts moving, the light wave is not going to magically change direction or velocity so that it moves automatically in synchronization with the car's motion, either. Instead, it will continue on the same direction that it was traveling before the car started moving. This causes a transnational motion between the light wave and the detector. However, the angle of incidence is changing as the car travels around the curve and this causes the light to change course with each reflection. As the light reflects off of the reflector on the outside of the curve, the angle of incidence causes the light to get reflected towards the back of the reflector on the inside of the curve. When the light reflects off of the reflector on the inside of the curve, the angle of incidence causes the light to reflect towards the front of the reflector on the outside of the curve. Depending on the radius of the curve that the car is traveling, the light may end up hitting the back wall instead of the reflectors at some point in the experiment.
Because the universe is a computer simulation which does not allow travel faster than light, so as you approach light speed time slows down and your mass increases so that you can not go faster than light. If you create 2 particles which are identical in every way, the universal computer simulation get fooled and treats the 2 particles as the same particle, allowing quantum entanglement.
With respect to the movie interstellar, where they portray a planet orbiting a black hole, it is plausible that the gravity you would feel on that planet would be determined mostly by the size that planet.
That's because for a planet to orbit a black hole it would have to be traveling at an incredible speed in order to maintain its orbit and not be sucked into the black hole. The planet is like a ship traveling at near light speed. Orbital speed cancels out most of the black hole's gravity except for bodies of water because large bodies of water are more sensitive to tidal force.
At such an incredible orbital speed, time would be dilated to pass slower on that planet.
Matching the gravitational time dilation with respect to proximity to the black hole. Every point of reference has it's own clock. As far as a spaceship actually being able to land on such a planet the spaceship would have to match the planet's speed in order to even approach it.
The energy needed for a spaceship to reach and match that speed is the part I see as tricky.
my sixth graders were blown away by this.. i was too.. thank u!!
IMPORTANT CORRECTIONS: 1) For light to travel a greater distance, more time (not less) is needed! So this isn't a valid explanation of gravitational time dilation. The only valid thought experiment I know of involves a vertical light clock on a building that someone looks at while free falling past it. 2) The computer/buffering thing is confusing, misleading, and of no value IMO. It's not even analogous to anything in physics. 3) The equivalence principle is NOT that "gravity is identical to acceleration"! It's that standing still in a gravitational field (on the ground) is identical to acceleration (upward). The weak equivalence principle is that free fall toward the ground is equivalent to floating out in flat space. In contrast, the way you're explaining it implies that free fall is equivalent to acceleration, which is mixed up!
I did not understand the speed explanation, Is he saying that light travels the speed of itself and the car's speed combined, if yes then it should be wrong because light's speed is constant it does not change
@@Dark-NETwcry What he’s saying is that light *would* have to go faster in order to travel the curved path in the one reference frame in the same amount of time it takes it to travel the straight path in the other frame but that time dilation happens in the former to prevent this. But this is wrong. Time dilation actually has the opposite effect and that’s ok - light can actually travel faster than its normal speed over a distance through *curved * spacetime since it still travels at its normal speed locally.
The effects of time might slow down or change from what we’re used to but time doesn’t slow down.
Time does slow down in reality. That is exactly what relativity causes.
@@richardc2726 even if time stops, time keeps going, like I said only the effects of time slow down. How long could you stop time for?
I made a 2 miniute video, "The Physical Reason time slows at the Speed of Light" which explains the actual reason why time slows. (Special Relativity). I hadn't seen anyone explain it this way before.
If velocity is relative, how can it cause time dilation? A ship moving past earth at the speed of light, technically means the earth (and many other objects) is speeding past the ship.
Velocity is relative, gravity and acceleration are not.
@ButWhySci How about this thought experiment: We are living in a computer simulation and the clock-rate of the computer processor is equal to the Planck time. So the maximum speed of anything happening inside the simulation is based on that rate. However the simulation itself is operating at a lower clock-rate. If two frames of reference in the simulation are moving relative to each other, the simulation must compensate the “movement time” in order to maintain the same experiance in each frame of reference. The compensation is made by slowing down the clock-rate of the corresponding frame of reference. The person inside the frame of reference itself could not “feel” the time dilation because the “feeling” itself and anything else happening inside his frame of reference (the perception of time itself) is based on its clock-rate.
It's not just acceleration and changes in reference frame. It's also velocity even if it's a straight line at a constant speed.
I like your channel's name. I immediately Subscribed.
Relativity is based on Lorentz transformation.
In Galileo system, x=vt, if only if dx/dt is constant. Lorentz transformation goal is distances (x, x’) x=f(v,t)and x’=g(c, t’) are mathematically equal in both systems with symmetry. So c is not Galileo or classic velocity, and t’ is not classic time. In Galileo, v varies, t is uniform at any point in space; whilst in Lorentz, t’ varies, c is constant in space. c =eu , is really the property of the space, or medium, or Ether. It is not velocity in Galileo.( v, C),(t,t’), they are (Apple, Orange), (Peach,Grape) in two math systems. People are still thinking they are same things. That causes confusion. Saying 1) if an object moves at speed of light, time stops. Moving object slows clock, etc. That’s wrong. It should be said t’ in Lorentz stops, or equal to 0. In Galileo, t is uniform, it doesn’t stop or slow. 2). Speed of light C is constant from any observer at different speeds. That is wrong. c in Galileo changes from observers, C in Lorentz as the property of space is constant. Then there is no ambiguity, confusing, both accurate in their own system for/from measurements. Time dilution, space-time curvature, etc. are all bogus by mixing concepts in two systems. If you use Fourier series to express a signal S, it is not the signal in time domain, it’s amplitude A in frequency domain. Nobody treats A-S as “signal dancing”. But sigma of all these series by frequency goes back to the value of signal in time domain. They are just mathematically equivalent, not necessarily physically same. There are many ways to do it mathematically, too.
Relativity is just another way of measuring of the nature using electric magnetic wave in Lorentz system. It has advantages over Galileo system in Astronomy, because Maxwells equations describe electromagnetic wave in vacuum with eu as constant, which is the space property and its value equals to speed of light in Galileo.
In Algol events (visit Algol website) can prove the speed of light wave in Galileo system changes with observer’s or earth’s motion.
It is lag. More mass is more processes in one point. Thats why time and space is lagging so much around black holes.
Speed is potential energy and that is lagging spacetime slightly.
I voted on your recent poll saying I had never gotten an ad, but I got one this time :(
If time dilation is associated with both mass and speed playing a part together, it is the movement or no movemement of mass that creates time dilation.
The speed at which mass moves through the aether determines how much time dilation there will be. Mass plus its speed determine how much the time is slowed down. A massive body moving "slowely" can have or create as much time dilation as a small mass moving at extreme speeds.
It comes down to how much aether is displaced over a set period of time. A small object traveling at extreme speeds can displace as much aether as s larger mass does that moves slower.
In both cases, it is the aether displacement pressing against the mass that causes time dilation and gravity.
This pressure, I call gravity. The pressure causes the matter, its true mass, the quarks, to expend energy fighting the pressure and thereby the vibrations of the atomic forces slows down. The atoms experience a slowing down of time, how they "experience" the passing of "time".
Time, itself, does not slow down. What does slow down is the matter and how matter reacts to other matter. Computers' functions slow down. The half life of radioactive elements increases. Our brains, our bodies move slower because the matter that makes us, runs slower. We move slower because our cells cannot move any faster. Think of that SiFi movie where the actor moves fast past people who seem to be frozen in place. Each person, all matter, is moving as fast as the matter it or he is made of allows.
A big mass moving slow and a smaller mass traveling fast can experience the same amout of time dilation.
It is the reaction of mass to the aether and visa versa that controls.
A black hole, because of its intense mass and “gravity”, stops all matter from moving; the strong forces are neutralized. The protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks.. become one big mass with NO space between them. Their linearity contracts to nothing. Their mass expands to “infinity”, as measured per volume compared to what it was before being a black hole.
Matter traveling at or near the speed of light experiences similar results. There is extreme length contraction; the matter is compressed so there is no room at all between the protons, neutrons, electrons. The mass of the matter is compressed to a small point so that mass per cubic nanometer reaches infinity. Mass per volume increases.
The car analogy needs to be explained as an analogy. Literally, all that is happening is the driver of the shorter route is slowing down to take five seconds; time is not dilating. Only when we start discussing 4D paths does this take on any significance for this video"s purpose. Please revise accordingly.
The start of this video makes no sense. The 2 scenarios were rigged to be 5 seconds each. That doesn't prove anything "weird" is going on. Just that the car going straight between the points slowed down to ensure it took 5 seconds. 5 Seconds passed in both cars because you MADE each trip last 5 seconds. WOW.
Glad someone else caught that.
This is excellent. I've been studying Time Dilation for some months and most physicists use the photon clock and claim one can extrapolate automatically to all mechanical clocks and all entropy events (heat beat, metabolism, the aging of everything including humans, etc.) That is not obvious and they fail to present a good case for that statement. Sabine Hossenfelder did mention "acceleration" but she failed to give detail and explain. Such a critical theory or fact like this needs good explanations and this one is fantastic. Who is the person creating this site?
My hypothesis on that was based on the event horizon of black holes. Where I came to the conclusion that time and motion are the same thing, and they're modulated by the variable density of spacetime. So it's like a tube in a rubber block being extended via the whole block deforming, and time is the speed at which you move through that tube.
And when I say motion is time, I mean every motion, down to every subatomic quantum particle or energy knot, so the physical progression of anything within that range is effectively slowed.
That final sentence won my sub. This is great.
The confusion here already is why isnt 'accelerating' being used in the title because even at lower speeds during this type of movement you are already passing through the space coodinate faster than you are passing through the time coordinate due to 'accelerating' and thats considered time dialation too?
That is *definitely* Tom Scott around 3:37 in the ball-throwing lab.
Time slows down is because inside the black hole theres no dark mater stretching space thus no time. The closer you get to gravity the closer you are to the other dimension where tome doesnt exist. So we visualize it as it slowing down when it's actually slowly disappearing
Really a good way of explaining
I love the animations that you put into the videos
When gravity itself causes things to accelerate, it is no different from a graph with an x squared equation. in such a situation, what is the speed then??? The speed is incremental, hence time pass faster. That doesn't necessarily mean you go farther. It is like jogging on the spot faster and faster and going no where fast. When you are in a flatter part of space, it is linear, so you travel further in the same time.
Now if you compare the further distance covered in linear space to that of accelerated (or bent) space, obviously for the same distance traveled your time will appear slow in non-accelrated space.
Acceleration = You reach that speed in a snap of the finger.
No acceleration = You are in constant speed.
Distance in accelerated space = more snaps of the finger = more time has past
Distance in non-accelerated space = you are still within that one snap of the finger.
Makes sense?
That computer buffering analogy just didn't really work for me. There is no buffering at work and calculations are not being made. It's happening in real time, that time just slows down around massive objects and with velocity.
The physicist who created the science theory behind Interstellar (Kip Thorne) was told by Nolan that he should make this extreme amount of time dilation on the wave planet happen because its necessary for the plot. But even with the gravity of the black hole you would only have a few hours or days of difference. So he made the Blackhole (in theory) spinning and the planet rotating with it (at about 98% of light speed). Nothing of this fast movement is actually shown in the movie but its not general relativity but special relativity. There is also a scientific paper of Kip thorn about the actual science in interstellar...
It is not special relativity. Special relativity was Einstein's initial stab at the theory and it excludes all acceleration. No acceleration means nothing can be spinning or changing velocity. This is why he referred to it as special, since it only applies to very specific situations. By excluding acceleration all you need is grade 11/12 math in order to work through the formulae.
I laughed so hard at the road sign at the end "same old" and "that new ish" LMAO
\
I missed that
Equivalence of Mass Time Dilation AND Speed Time Dilation
By Csaba A. Bodor; March 1, 2022
The twin paradox disappears if viewed in this context.
In both the things that are in common are (1) the aether, and; (2) gravity.
Baryonic matter, including electromagnetic waves, and the aether cannot mix. The aether is pushed aside by the matter BUT pushes back against the matter in the form of, what we call, gravity. The greater the mass, the greater the push. Even with this push there is a large amount of space between the components of the matter. The push, gravity, however, affects those components by pressing on them and slowing down all the properties of matter. Wave length, frequency, spin, speed of movement, everything. Including time. So, the greater the push back of the aether, the greater the time dilation or slower movement of time. Yes, time is a indirect component of baryonic matter.
With speed dilation there are similarities and differences. The, as i said, aether resists change. Matter disrupts the aether's symmetry and the aether fights back with a push. The aether also dislikes matter when the matter pushes against it in the form of motion or speed. Moving matter is like something moving through air or water; both mediums resist the motion. The aether pushes back against the push of matter causing the same disruptions it does with baryonic matter. Everything is slowed down including time. Time dilation, again, comes into being. Gravity comes into being, as with when the mass disrupts the aether. Here it is speed that disrupts the aether and creates gravity, not mass.
Time dilation, whether caused by mass or speed, is caused by the gravity created by the aether pressing on "stationary" mass or a moving mass. The time dilation is proportional to the amount and-or speed of the mass.
Can speed time dilation and its associated gravity be created artificially?
If an element or isotope if an element were to be massive enough AND it could be sped up enough, perhaps. How? Manufacturing such element into a disk that could spin at a high enough speed would not be practical; the centripetal forces and vibrations would probably tear the apparatus apart. What if a sufficiently large amount of such element, however, could be forced to vibrate at a very high frequency? The motion of the protons and neutrons moving and vibrating, even though in extremely small sub atomic distances, might get fast enough to affect the aether inside and outside that element to create the gravity needed to cause time dilation. The frequency would need to be very high.
Perhaps such a setup could create speed induced artificial gravity.
Bob Lazar, if you read this, hope it helps.
I dont see time as "relative", time passes and we can not slow down or stop time. I think many are misinterpreting the data.
You can experience time dilation here on Earth..
A boring job, school, waiting in a doctor’s office, waiting for an upcoming vacation.. all these things cause time to slow down