Beautifully explained. I have a test tomorrow, and never heard of Lorentz transformations till about half an hour ago and this was just such a lovely, concise manageable explanation. So thank you. If you end up lecturing, just know your students would be very lucky to have you. I wish my lecturers explained things like that, it's obviously possible.
I'm literally watching this out to shear love of physics and want and need to learn quantum physics. I don't know how far this self teaching will go but if they can do it in the past so can I!
@@karebuu1383 glad to hear that...My current self learning is teaching me Maxwell's equations, Lorentz equations, And I just finished understanding the Michelson- Morley experiment
I was born in 1950. It has been my experience that someone who has just mastered a concept can be a very good teacher of it because the things that were confusing so recently are still fresh in mind. And here we have a freshman who has mastered the Lorentz Transformation "recently" explaining it very well.
After my viewing many videos and reading countless articles, you are the first person to make clear to me how motion affects our perception of time. Thank you
The most complicated way to explain such a simple thing. You could have just used a moving rocket with a light pulse bouncing off vertically from mirrors. So many other simple ways to visualize and derive using just Pythagoras theorem. Your video is a perfect example of how to complicate simple things.
I watched this video because my friend wants to change his new name to Lorentz when he gets his citizenship and he's very excited about and loves physics. And I wanted to test my right audio channel. Great video by the way and well done! I feel smarter already ;-)
I think you want to map the vector (x, t) to the vector (x’, t’) in a linear way. Linear means given by a matrix which in this case consists of the A B and the D E on the row beneath that. Because it’s a linear mapping it will sent the origin to the origin (you both started at the same place x = x’ = 0, t = t’ = 0) and straight lines in the x,t plane will be mapped to straight lines. This means if one observer sees something that travels with a constant speed, the other observer will also see it travel with a constant speed (which may be different of course) This is just my thoughts on this, and I do not have a degree in Physics (although I am following a course about this topic right now) so I could be wrong.
Sorry, I think you do not have enough information about history of science. Lorentz transformation occurred before special relativity. Einstein theory leads to this transformation. Lorentz derived these transformation to keep Maxwell's equation invariant.
You are correct that Lorentz Transformation occurred before Special Relativity. However, Lorentz Transformation is only mathematics and has nothing to do with reality. vixra.org/abs/1706.0498
Vahid Dabbagh i understand what you mean, although saying 'the lorentz transformation takes into account Einstein's Relativity' isn't necessarily saying that Lorentz came after Einstein, it's just saying that the equations work with Relativity,mas opposed to Gallileian Transformation which takes into account Newtonian Mechanics but not Einstein's Relativity. It's just saying that this maths fits with this physics
It simply means that x' depends linearly on x and t. Similarly, t' depends linearly on x and t. This is how to derive Lorentz transformation equations. ruclips.net/video/Ba-GvGMcgEY/видео.html
Everyone who is complaining about the audio is not too witty. The author of this video OBVIOUSLY did this on purpose to account for your reference frame!
The Lorenz Transformation Einstein used the Lorenz transformation to describe Special Relativity in his 1905 paper, while here we see SR used to describe the Lorenz Transformation. What then, exactly, is the Lorenz Transformation? And why is the Pythagorean Theorem renamed to this exotic and esoteric sounding Lorenz Transformation*? Thank you in advance. * *[Which in the 1905 paper, by the way, was used to describe non-Newtonian physics using Newtonian principles - just as confusing to an ordinary mortal like myself]
3:15 how did you get to know that there must be a linear relationship between x dash and x,t and also between t dash and x,t. In other words, how can you be sure that A,B,D,E are constants and itself not functions of x or t?
In Einstein's paper: "In the first place, it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time".
But does your brain think that your left ear is far away or in it's usual position to your right ear ? to determine this fact one would need to know the speed of sound relative to air pressure or as in most cases altitude. This question was first posed by the famous dutch scientist van Gogh .
I did not understand one thing. In the video light is drawn as a sun which is spherical. And travelling light is represented by the movement of the sun. How do we know the presence of light at a fixed point at a fixed time? How do we know whether light is coming or going? Is light like an object that has endpoints like a rod? How do we label light?
Awesome video! The only minor imperfection is that the audio track(s) is kinda insufficient to complement the beauty of symmetry expressed in the Lorentz Transformation here... Otherwise, great job!
2:24, the distance from racket ship to light, d=ct, is no correct, should be d=(c-v)t, other way if d=ct, when v=c, mean the ship will be all time the same distance from light, because they have the same speed, but the formula d=ct is showing increasing the distance with increasing the time.You must define what is X and what is X', because You are mixing them. In all scenario x=vt, so the formula x'=A(x-vt), (x-vt) will be 0, which is correct for the system O' mean x'=0 So sorry , all further explaining is out of order. Theory of relativity is using Lorentz transformation, to explain Lorentz transformation ,You don't use theory of relativity, but to coordinate system moving in reference on each other.
Can someone explain this to me... Around 6:30 when we look from spaceship frame why it is said that light pulse travel in two directions at once : y and x? It might seem that way but you have to take 3 dimensional coordinates for light, astronout and spaceship to determine where exactly these are in space and time. Obviously if all of them started at the same point then knowing of each speed and direction it will be easy to find out at what time and place they are at every single microsecond. HOWEVER, light can travel only in one direction unless force of gravity is pulling it towards it. THEREFORE, spaceship cannot see that light traveling in two directions at once as this would mean that light pulse is within gravity force range. Also, from spaceship frame, seeing light pulse travelling y and x axis that light coming from it would have more and more distance to travel to the spaceship. Thus, there would be more and more delay for spaceship to receive the signal from the light pulse. Secondly, when Pythagoras theorem is used why distance of ct' is treated as c and t' separately? Splitting distance into speed and time doesn't make any sense as the other two x' and y' are treated as distance values. Pythagoras theorem can be used if all components are in the same values of measurement. If you want to use seconds as a measurement of distance than it's fine, centimeters fine too but mixing these to fit your idea is wrong use of this theorem
How to defense personal safety against high refresher rate of camera sweep light over facial 20 mhz light intensity miliwat can equate to a ton of force mean near magawat
Here's the flaw in the whole thing, it can't work when light is traveling in opposite directions at the same time in an inertial frame as observed from another inertial frame. There is no theory postulating that time at the back end of an inertial frame is ahead of time at the front end from the perspective of a stationary or slower moving inertial frame. Even if that were the case, it would mean that observers at each end would see different times on a single clock in the other inertial frame, varying from their own by the same amount as theirs appeared to vary from the other frame's perspective, which is obviously ludicrous. Where's the thought experiment suggesting that people at one end of a moving train car see a different time on a single clock beside the track than people at the other end even though the entire train car is moving at the same relative velocity? Well that's what would have to happen in the case of opposite direction beams originating from the middle of the train car and striking clocks at each end for light speed to appear to be constant from the viewpoint of the stationary track. The clock at the rear would have to appear to be ahead of the clock at the front for both beams to strike the respective clocks when the same time is showing on each from the track viewpoint, and the time variance of each would have to be reciprocal to the stationary clock. It would mean that by you moving from the back of the train car to the front while watching the track clock the whole time, you would actually see the track clock going backwards, you would see things happening in reverse in the track frame, people walking backwards, to put it in an exaggerated form.
+DuckQuickly Let's assume for a moment that it isn't the case, that x' = x^2*A+B*t. As you can see x' depends on the square of x. Let's suppose that we are given x', A,B and t and we're trying to solve for x. If we solve for x, we might sometimes get two solutions beacause it is a quadratic equation. So if we suppose that in the "prime" reference system an event is happening at the distance x', then we get that in the "non-primed" system of refference the event is happening at two different locations: x1 and x2. This is absurd. Therefore, the relation between the two systems must be linear.
That certainly disqualifies x^2 dependence, or any noninvertible function, but it could still be something like x' = A*x^3+B*t. For every x, there is a corresponding x' and vice versa, all other quantities held constant. :)
1 year too late, but leaving it for anyone else. Minkowski diagrams only include straight lines. What the Lorentz transformation does is a transformation in them, thus, it only makes sense for the transformation to be linear.
This is a good explanation, but I have a problem. It's all about what each observer SEES. Whereas relativity expressly excludes the time it takes for light to reach the observers' eyes. The equations are derived based on what observers see, and not what actually happened. Einstein's relativity is supposed to be about what is actually happening - i.e that's why the twin in teh twin paradox comes back younger. It's easy to understand this if it is only about what people see, even if you don't buy the constant speed of light thing.
Hi, Can anyone explain how (A(x-vt))^2 becomes (A(-vt))^2 at 7:07 ???? how they removed the x from the term? Thanks for reading and if you comment here
Because (x,y,z) is defined as the position of the light/photon as seen from the astronaut on the planet (i.e. the planet is the origin (0,0,0) ). As the light has only moved in the y-direction relative to the planet, its coordinates relative to the planet is (0,y,0), so x is equal to 0, and hence all terms involving x disappear from both sides.
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: A small prize for a big brain. A prize will be given to the first person to prove that Lorentz transformation does not violate the conservation of momentum. The prize is open to the public from high school students to physics professors. Please go to the following website for more details. sites.google.com/view/physics-news/home/challenge
Jesus, can someone explain this to a total beginner? It seems absolutely impossible--this is my 4th or 5th video and it's still impenetrable. I still haven't a clue what a Lorentz transformation is or how exactly it differs from a Galilean one. You people that know this must have learned this from some sort osmosis that is unearthly or inhuman--as you seem unable to explain to human beings. At least more ordinary ones. Ugh.
Hi! Uhm, I have a question regarding the final equation in 7:07, how was (-vx/c^2) removed from the right hand side and the x removed from the left hand side? I'm not really good at math and I've been trying to figure this out for the past hour. I'm very grateful if anyone can kindly explain this to me.
Because (x,y,z) is defined as the position of the light/photon as seen from the astronaut on the planet (i.e. the planet is the origin (0,0,0) ). As the light has only moved in the y-direction relative to the planet, its coordinates relative to the planet is (0,y,0), so x is equal to 0, and hence all terms involving x disappear from both sides.
In my opinion, the last line does not follow from the one before last. On the line before last, there is A^2 x^2 on the left-hand side, and A^2 (v^2/c^2) x^2 on the right hand side. So, the x^2 terms cancel out only if (v^2/c^2) = 1, i.e., v = c.
A cash prize will be given to the first person to prove that Lorentz transformation does not violate the conservation of momentum. More detail in the following website. sites.google.com/view/physics-news/home/challenge
Although 7 months late, but here's my 2 cents: X=0 because the light pulse is moving in the Y direction only and there is no movement in the X direction considering coordinate system of the astronaut. As only the ship is moving in the X direction hence its has a coordinate system whose X' value is not zero.
Because there isn't any difference in the velocity between the astronaut inside the ship and the ship AND between the person on the planet and the planet.
Because (x,y,z) is defined as the position of the light/photon as seen from the astronaut on the planet (i.e. the planet is the origin (0,0,0) ). As the light has only moved in the y-direction relative to the planet, its coordinates relative to the planet is (0,y,0), so x is equal to 0, and hence all terms involving x disappear from both sides.
what if C^ the speed of the light pulse slows down after time t' reaches infinity... if your thoughts are moving at the speed of light does your brain stop aging
+RiddleswithAnswers.com just a stranger's opinion: how could time "reach" infinity? infinity cannot be reached.... and just because your position is moving at the speed of light does not mean your thoughts are too...
+Ryan Quin thoughts don't have mass, things without mass can move at light speed . I've had some experience where time seem to slow down when thoughts are racing
+RiddleswithAnswers.com All of these things are nothing to do with the speed of light. Thoughts are mediated by electrical signals, which are much, much slower than the speed of light. Time can appear to slow down under times of immense stress / shock, and it's a chemical response of the body.
I still don't understand this. For this to be true for a moving object to observe light as always traveling at C the moving object would have a time range where it would be in infinitely different times in order for all radiation it eminates to be moving at C according to it's perspective. Light would hit when it hits. We share the perspective of the thing that is being acted upon. I was hit in the face then hit in the shin. I know the order in which it happened I am the thing it happened to. If I shoot a light beam in front and a light beam behind me the total distance both beams have moved should match a non moving observer. If something moves slower in time though the total distance these two beams move would be different. The moving thing would measure the total movement of these two beams of light as traveling further over time due to the fact its moving slower in time as compared to stationary observer. That beam of light is going to hit in the shin at the same point in time. I understand the clocks don't match up but they share points in time. If a beam of light hits at 3 minutes from the perspective of a stationary observer and I am moving two thirds the speed of the stationary observer, the beam of light should hit at 2 minutes for me and 3 for the stationary observer. That means anything I shoot behind me well as long as it's directly behind me I will have to speed up in time in order to observe it as traveling at C away from me.
can you prove the galilean transformation instead of stating the definition, in a universe that has no photons, you can know your location by touching around or some sort. or can you tell me the requirement of the galilean transformation like in special relativity's requirement (c=x/t=x'/t')? PS; make sure the other person in his coordinate is a liar.
my right ear is now smarter than my left
Sam Sand I think you put wrong earphone in wrong ear😂😂
My left ear is smarter.
you may want to switch your earbuds...
yah switch that shit, aim this at ur right hemisphere
Beautifully explained. I have a test tomorrow, and never heard of Lorentz transformations till about half an hour ago and this was just such a lovely, concise manageable explanation. So thank you. If you end up lecturing, just know your students would be very lucky to have you. I wish my lecturers explained things like that, it's obviously possible.
he is not a teacher wtf he is a student
@@samuelrana5603 this video was done in 2015, he could be holding lectures of somekind by now.
(”If you end up...”)
@@h.l.69 oh my bad, didnt see that part. Feel pretty stupid now lol..
@@samuelrana5603
Ah, that's a small mistake in comparison to some. No one will mind.
I'm literally watching this out to shear love of physics and want and need to learn quantum physics. I don't know how far this self teaching will go but if they can do it in the past so can I!
Same! Have you tried Khan Academy? they have a great physics course(s)!
With all of the amazing online physics resources, like MIT OCW , it can go as far as you'd like it to.
Same here too. How is it going? So far I've been to the main concepts of Quantum Physics.
Great. Me too :)
@@karebuu1383 glad to hear that...My current self learning is teaching me Maxwell's equations, Lorentz equations, And I just finished understanding the Michelson- Morley experiment
This approximately 9 minute video helped me understand Lorentz Transformation than my professor's 3 hour lecture.
I was born in 1950. It has been my experience that someone who has just mastered a concept can be a very good teacher of it because the things that were confusing so recently are still fresh in mind. And here we have a freshman who has mastered the Lorentz Transformation "recently" explaining it very well.
After my viewing many videos and reading countless articles, you are the first person to make clear to me how motion affects our perception of time. Thank you
Best Lorentz explanation online.
Well done. 👍
The video proved to be very useful in gaining a deeper understanding into special and general relativity. Thank you for posting.
wow. . .for 5 minutes I thought my headphones suddenly were broken. face palm after reading these comments. . .
Brilliant professor it took me years to find out how
Lol, thumbs up bro👍😆
damn to think of and develop such complex ideas, some human brains truly are astonishing
This is a really great and simple explanation. Thanks!
Happily you only confused one of my hemispheres.
This video made my right ear go deaf.
thank you so much, you're so great. Please continue doing things like these c:
...Explained much better then my professor at college
Big Thumbs Up
The audio is physically hurting me, did just add the audio to the left track ?
Koshy George same here
I pull my headphone connector out (only a Little bit) and all is ok and I'm listening im Mono on both ears.
@@wernertrptube 😆
The most complicated way to explain such a simple thing. You could have just used a moving rocket with a light pulse bouncing off vertically from mirrors. So many other simple ways to visualize and derive using just Pythagoras theorem. Your video is a perfect example of how to complicate simple things.
My right ear enjoyed the video
My left ear knows too much now.
The right is just chilling there.
I finally need a sound box
sorry I JUST stumbled "on" you... great channel and source of knowledge... will follow furthermore...
Thank you man great video. Helped a lot to understand the concept....😌😌
I watched this video because my friend wants to change his new name to Lorentz when he gets his citizenship and he's very excited about and loves physics. And I wanted to test my right audio channel. Great video by the way and well done! I feel smarter already ;-)
@ 4:59: We don't plug anything in the transformation-equations here; the transformation-equation of t-prime is plugged into the last result.
too bad, the forms Ax+Bt and Dx+Et are neither well established nor explained in this video. Otherwise, this would be a good introduction.
EXACTLY, if you could explain it clearly, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
explain ?
I think you want to map the vector (x, t) to the vector (x’, t’) in a linear way. Linear means given by a matrix which in this case consists of the A B and the D E on the row beneath that. Because it’s a linear mapping it will sent the origin to the origin (you both started at the same place x = x’ = 0, t = t’ = 0) and straight lines in the x,t plane will be mapped to straight lines. This means if one observer sees something that travels with a constant speed, the other observer will also see it travel with a constant speed (which may be different of course)
This is just my thoughts on this, and I do not have a degree in Physics (although I am following a course about this topic right now) so I could be wrong.
Sorry, I think you do not have enough information about history of science. Lorentz transformation occurred before special relativity. Einstein theory leads to this transformation. Lorentz derived these transformation to keep Maxwell's equation invariant.
You are correct that Lorentz Transformation occurred before Special Relativity. However, Lorentz Transformation is only mathematics and has nothing to do with reality. vixra.org/abs/1706.0498
Vahid Dabbagh i understand what you mean, although saying 'the lorentz transformation takes into account Einstein's Relativity' isn't necessarily saying that Lorentz came after Einstein, it's just saying that the equations work with Relativity,mas opposed to Gallileian Transformation which takes into account Newtonian Mechanics but not Einstein's Relativity.
It's just saying that this maths fits with this physics
Really helpful video !!!!!! Thank you so much !!!
I don't understand why we have the equations x'=Ax+Bt and t'=Dx+Et.
It simply means that x' depends linearly on x and t. Similarly, t' depends linearly on x and t. This is how to derive Lorentz transformation equations. ruclips.net/video/Ba-GvGMcgEY/видео.html
Everyone who is complaining about the audio is not too witty. The author of this video OBVIOUSLY did this on purpose to account for your reference frame!
The Lorenz Transformation
Einstein used the Lorenz transformation to describe Special Relativity in his 1905 paper, while here we see SR used to describe the Lorenz Transformation. What then, exactly, is the Lorenz Transformation? And why is the Pythagorean Theorem renamed to this exotic and esoteric sounding Lorenz Transformation*? Thank you in advance. *
*[Which in the 1905 paper, by the way, was used to describe non-Newtonian physics using Newtonian principles - just as confusing to an ordinary mortal like myself]
thanks for giving me something more information about transformation.
3:15 how did you get to know that there must be a linear relationship between x dash and x,t and also between t dash and x,t. In other words, how can you be sure that A,B,D,E are constants and itself not functions of x or t?
In Einstein's paper: "In the first place, it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time".
This was very good for me, thank you ^^
@ 1:52: We have a bit of a peculiar astronaut here. He stays at home and sends his little kid in space! ;-)
nice brief derivation
Wonderful thank you very much!
Amazing 👌. It was very nice video I learnt this easily. Thank you
But does your brain think that your left ear is far away or in it's usual position to your right ear ? to determine this fact one would need to know the speed of sound relative to air pressure or as in most cases altitude. This question was first posed by the famous dutch scientist van Gogh .
u did so much hardwork for this video but u could not even fix the audio!
Good job on this one. I understood it quite well ^^
❤️❤️👌💥 nice explanation...
I did not understand one thing. In the video light is drawn as a sun which is spherical. And travelling light is represented by the movement of the sun. How do we know the presence of light at a fixed point at a fixed time? How do we know whether light is coming or going? Is light like an object that has endpoints like a rod? How do we label light?
Thank you very much for this video! I'm in the 12th grade and it helps me a lot for tomorrow test
Excellent!...thanks
Awesome video! The only minor imperfection is that the audio track(s) is kinda insufficient to complement the beauty of symmetry expressed in the Lorentz Transformation here... Otherwise, great job!
Which country bilong with you
Thank u so much!
thank you so much!! helped a lot
Excellent video. Check your video codec, your voice disappear sometimes.
2:24, the distance from racket ship to light, d=ct, is no correct, should be d=(c-v)t, other way if d=ct, when v=c, mean the ship will
be all time the same distance from light, because they have the same speed, but the formula d=ct is showing increasing the
distance with increasing the time.You must define what is X and what is X', because You are mixing them.
In all scenario x=vt, so the formula x'=A(x-vt), (x-vt) will be 0, which is correct for the system O' mean x'=0
So sorry , all further explaining is out of order. Theory of relativity is using Lorentz transformation, to explain Lorentz transformation ,You don't use theory of relativity, but to coordinate system moving in reference on each other.
The distance of rocket ship to light is d'=ct'
Thank you
hi steven, does MIT have a course on stereo audio recording?
I only like it in my left ear teehee
😂😂😂😂 Don't hate Peter G. Youre just Peanut Butter and Jealous!
Thank you. I hope the past seven years have been good years.
my left ear understood it all
helped a lot!! thank you
good work
How can you assume that the time has to dilate cause the speed of light is the same for all observers.
helped me alot... thank u...
Can someone explain this to me... Around 6:30 when we look from spaceship frame why it is said that light pulse travel in two directions at once : y and x? It might seem that way but you have to take 3 dimensional coordinates for light, astronout and spaceship to determine where exactly these are in space and time. Obviously if all of them started at the same point then knowing of each speed and direction it will be easy to find out at what time and place they are at every single microsecond. HOWEVER, light can travel only in one direction unless force of gravity is pulling it towards it. THEREFORE, spaceship cannot see that light traveling in two directions at once as this would mean that light pulse is within gravity force range. Also, from spaceship frame, seeing light pulse travelling y and x axis that light coming from it would have more and more distance to travel to the spaceship. Thus, there would be more and more delay for spaceship to receive the signal from the light pulse.
Secondly, when Pythagoras theorem is used why distance of ct' is treated as c and t' separately? Splitting distance into speed and time doesn't make any sense as the other two x' and y' are treated as distance values. Pythagoras theorem can be used if all components are in the same values of measurement. If you want to use seconds as a measurement of distance than it's fine, centimeters fine too but mixing these to fit your idea is wrong use of this theorem
Hello, I do have a question, how did we start with x' = Ax + Bt? How was this formed?
Yes, why assume a linear relationship. This puzzled me too.
my left ear feels educated
Please define 'light pulse'.
How to defense personal safety against high refresher rate of camera sweep light over facial 20 mhz light intensity miliwat can equate to a ton of force mean near magawat
Here's the flaw in the whole thing, it can't work when light is traveling in opposite directions at the same time in an inertial frame as observed from another inertial frame. There is no theory postulating that time at the back end of an inertial frame is ahead of time at the front end from the perspective of a stationary or slower moving inertial frame. Even if that were the case, it would mean that observers at each end would see different times on a single clock in the other inertial frame, varying from their own by the same amount as theirs appeared to vary from the other frame's perspective, which is obviously ludicrous.
Where's the thought experiment suggesting that people at one end of a moving train car see a different time on a single clock beside the track than people at the other end even though the entire train car is moving at the same relative velocity? Well that's what would have to happen in the case of opposite direction beams originating from the middle of the train car and striking clocks at each end for light speed to appear to be constant from the viewpoint of the stationary track. The clock at the rear would have to appear to be ahead of the clock at the front for both beams to strike the respective clocks when the same time is showing on each from the track viewpoint, and the time variance of each would have to be reciprocal to the stationary clock. It would mean that by you moving from the back of the train car to the front while watching the track clock the whole time, you would actually see the track clock going backwards, you would see things happening in reverse in the track frame, people walking backwards, to put it in an exaggerated form.
Stereo please!
relative in the frame of reference
Good explanation. What justification is there to assume the transformation is linear? Thank you.
+DuckQuickly Let's assume for a moment that it isn't the case, that x' = x^2*A+B*t. As you can see x' depends on the square of x. Let's suppose that we are given x', A,B and t and we're trying to solve for x. If we solve for x, we might sometimes get two solutions beacause it is a quadratic equation. So if we suppose that in the "prime" reference system an event is happening at the distance x', then we get that in the "non-primed" system of refference the event is happening at two different locations: x1 and x2. This is absurd. Therefore, the relation between the two systems must be linear.
That certainly disqualifies x^2 dependence, or any noninvertible function, but it could still be something like x' = A*x^3+B*t. For every x, there is a corresponding x' and vice versa, all other quantities held constant. :)
1 year too late, but leaving it for anyone else. Minkowski diagrams only include straight lines. What the Lorentz transformation does is a transformation in them, thus, it only makes sense for the transformation to be linear.
best video...
This is a good explanation, but I have a problem. It's all about what each observer SEES. Whereas relativity expressly excludes the time it takes for light to reach the observers' eyes. The equations are derived based on what observers see, and not what actually happened. Einstein's relativity is supposed to be about what is actually happening - i.e that's why the twin in teh twin paradox comes back younger. It's easy to understand this if it is only about what people see, even if you don't buy the constant speed of light thing.
Voice super sir
@3:40 From t=t'=0 and x=x', wouldn't it follow that A=1 and D=0?
Hi, Can anyone explain how (A(x-vt))^2 becomes (A(-vt))^2 at 7:07 ???? how they removed the x from the term?
Thanks for reading and if you comment here
+1 how is the x term removed?
@@PeterXGao Since the change of x co ordinate of light in y direction is always zero ,if we consider the point of projection to be the origin.
Because (x,y,z) is defined as the position of the light/photon as seen from the astronaut on the planet (i.e. the planet is the origin (0,0,0) ). As the light has only moved in the y-direction relative to the planet, its coordinates relative to the planet is (0,y,0), so x is equal to 0, and hence all terms involving x disappear from both sides.
At 2:14 Why does the spaceship see the light pulse travelling at speed c, instead of c minus v?
It’s a postulate of Einstein’s relativity.
Originally based on experimental evidence.
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:
A small prize for a big brain.
A prize will be given to the first person to prove that Lorentz transformation does not violate the conservation of momentum. The prize is open to the public from high school students to physics professors. Please go to the following website for more details.
sites.google.com/view/physics-news/home/challenge
how did u know it had to be a linear combination a priori?
aaam!that was cool,but I don't clearly get the variabls A?
Primed coordinates (x', t') are transformed coordinates, while x & t are the coordinates which are transformed? Correct?
Jesus, can someone explain this to a total beginner? It seems absolutely impossible--this is my 4th or 5th video and it's still impenetrable. I still haven't a clue what a Lorentz transformation is or how exactly it differs from a Galilean one. You people that know this must have learned this from some sort osmosis that is unearthly or inhuman--as you seem unable to explain to human beings. At least more ordinary ones. Ugh.
sir i need your pdf from which you are reading please give me the link
Wha, that's great
Hi! Uhm, I have a question regarding the final equation in 7:07, how was (-vx/c^2) removed from the right hand side and the x removed from the left hand side? I'm not really good at math and I've been trying to figure this out for the past hour. I'm very grateful if anyone can kindly explain this to me.
Since v
Since the change of x co ordinate of light in y direction is always zero ,if we consider the point of projection to be the origin.
Because (x,y,z) is defined as the position of the light/photon as seen from the astronaut on the planet (i.e. the planet is the origin (0,0,0) ). As the light has only moved in the y-direction relative to the planet, its coordinates relative to the planet is (0,y,0), so x is equal to 0, and hence all terms involving x disappear from both sides.
In my opinion, the last line does not follow from the one before last. On the line before last, there is A^2 x^2 on the left-hand side, and A^2 (v^2/c^2) x^2 on the right hand side. So, the x^2 terms cancel out only if (v^2/c^2) = 1, i.e., v = c.
Where
x' = Ax + Bt
t' = Dx + Et
Come from?
Galilean transformation
A cash prize will be given to the first person to prove that Lorentz transformation does not violate the conservation of momentum. More detail in the following website.
sites.google.com/view/physics-news/home/challenge
How did you make that
Why are simple things being complicated with Mathematical equations.
how did you get into MIT duh?
omg I literally Ordered a new pair of headphones from Amazon because I thought mine were dying but they werent!! I feel like I've betrayed them oh god
can someone tell me why X'=Ax+Bt is used
same
I use Ax-Bvt and the results are the same. It is just the Galilean transformation, but A and B are scalars.
@@Elvidentequemevecan you just explain when i did it i got -Av=Bv not B only
7:06 I know I'm 2 years late, but can anyone explain to me why *x* is equal to 0? (At step 4 the *x* disappears which indicates that x=0)
Although 7 months late, but here's my 2 cents: X=0 because the light pulse is moving in the Y direction only and there is no movement in the X direction considering coordinate system of the astronaut. As only the ship is moving in the X direction hence its has a coordinate system whose X' value is not zero.
Because there isn't any difference in the velocity between the astronaut inside the ship and the ship AND between the person on the planet and the planet.
Because (x,y,z) is defined as the position of the light/photon as seen from the astronaut on the planet (i.e. the planet is the origin (0,0,0) ). As the light has only moved in the y-direction relative to the planet, its coordinates relative to the planet is (0,y,0), so x is equal to 0, and hence all terms involving x disappear from both sides.
what if C^ the speed of the light pulse slows down after time t' reaches infinity... if your thoughts are moving at the speed of light does your brain stop aging
+RiddleswithAnswers.com just a stranger's opinion: how could time "reach" infinity? infinity cannot be reached.... and just because your position is moving at the speed of light does not mean your thoughts are too...
+Ryan Quin thoughts don't have mass, things without mass can move at light speed . I've had some experience where time seem to slow down when thoughts are racing
+RiddleswithAnswers.com All of these things are nothing to do with the speed of light. Thoughts are mediated by electrical signals, which are much, much slower than the speed of light.
Time can appear to slow down under times of immense stress / shock, and it's a chemical response of the body.
My brain hurts...
Mono/Stereo issue or something :(
I still don't understand this. For this to be true for a moving object to observe light as always traveling at C the moving object would have a time range where it would be in infinitely different times in order for all radiation it eminates to be moving at C according to it's perspective. Light would hit when it hits. We share the perspective of the thing that is being acted upon. I was hit in the face then hit in the shin. I know the order in which it happened I am the thing it happened to. If I shoot a light beam in front and a light beam behind me the total distance both beams have moved should match a non moving observer. If something moves slower in time though the total distance these two beams move would be different. The moving thing would measure the total movement of these two beams of light as traveling further over time due to the fact its moving slower in time as compared to stationary observer. That beam of light is going to hit in the shin at the same point in time. I understand the clocks don't match up but they share points in time. If a beam of light hits at 3 minutes from the perspective of a stationary observer and I am moving two thirds the speed of the stationary observer, the beam of light should hit at 2 minutes for me and 3 for the stationary observer. That means anything I shoot behind me well as long as it's directly behind me I will have to speed up in time in order to observe it as traveling at C away from me.
LEFT!!!!!!
Einstein ripped Poincare off!
Superluminal communication
can you prove the galilean transformation instead of stating the definition, in a universe that has no photons, you can know your location by touching around or some sort. or can you tell me the requirement of the galilean transformation like in special relativity's requirement (c=x/t=x'/t')?
PS; make sure the other person in his coordinate is a liar.
I only wish that you could speak a little bit sloweeeeer!
Hi,sidney46d I will discuss this paper with you.
aaaaaaaaa........bit confused abt the vdo....