Special Relativity | Lecture 1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 апр 2012
- (April 9, 2012) In the first lecture of the series Leonard Susskind discusses the concepts that will be covered throughout the course.
In 1905, while only twenty-six years old, Albert Einstein published "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and effectively extended classical laws of relativity to all laws of physics, even electrodynamics. In this course, Professor Susskind takes a close look at the special theory of relativity and also at classical field theory. Concepts addressed here includes space-time and four-dimensional space-time, electromagnetic fields and their application to Maxwell's equations.
Originally presented in the Stanford Continuing Studies Program.
Stanford University:
www.stanford.edu/
Stanford Continuing Studies Program:
csp.stanford.edu/
Stanford University Channel on RUclips:
/ stanford
Imagine getting lectured on special relativity by Prof. Susskind for free, what a time to be alive
For free? Only on yt
Very original comment. I have not read this same comment a million times. Obviously not. Your brain sure comes up with new creative ideas every time. Bravo
@@saimbhat6243 imagine being bitter over seeing many people be grateful for the same thing
@@jesusthroughmary its hard to imagine "jesusthroughmary" actually appreciates the physical science involved. don't you people think the earth was made 6 thousand years ago or something? I'd always figured with folks like that in your community, y'all must not appreciate science very much?
@@lillyclarity9699 and you claim to be educated, what a world
I fell asleep listening to Veritasium and somehow ended up here when I woke up to this.
If Veritasium is an exotic starter, then this is the main course and I'm loving it!
Good Job you.... YT machine learning recomendation engine!!
Me too. How wonderful
Me too. That’s pretty awesome.
always ends up in some kind of stanford lecture for me when i wake up lol. wish i could retain knowledge while i was sleeping.
I fell asleep to professor Dave
I fell asleep watching a philosophy channel and woke up to this lol 🤣
I fell asleep watching different ways too cook an omelette and somehow woke up to this. I know I don’t belong here so I’ll see myself out hehe
Hahahaha it's completely the same thing what happened to me rn
How fast was the omelette going, with respect to your reference frame?
get back here, google knows something you dont, it knows you need more quantom physics
I was watching how to make 3d rockets, so i feel i am at least in the same universe, plus i recognise Prof. Suskind
Veritasium - Simplest math problem no one can solve, RUclips autoplayed this next ... um ok .. sure I suppose I'm ready for this now, after watching that... saved myself thousands on college ..
I fell asleep with my phone on and this is what i found, not disappointed
Yeah me too
Same lol.... Leonard Suskind is pretty entertaining
XD
dude same lmao
Me too lol
I’ve waken up to this video so many times I’m starting to sort of understand special relativity
Lies again? Special moment
I woke up to this... I'm going to watch from the beginning to make sure I get it right.
Thank you Stanford University, having access to these lectures means more than you know. I was an average student in grade school who couldn't pinpoint what direction to follow and now at 28 it's clearer and although the signs have always been there I'm seeing and listening with clearer senses and again I'm so very grateful you have these lectures available for people like me. Education in this world is important more now than ever and I hope you all know how much value you're adding to the world by sharing knowledge. Thank you again so very much. I hope one day to be an official student.
What direction did you choose to follow?
Wondering why these kind of lectures help me sleep so well when I came to the ugly realization that it's most likely because it brings me back to a simpler time of... sleeping in class.
Countless times i have been studying length contraction
This is the first clear explanation about the meaning of measurement
"No contradiction"
Thank you so much to whoever was behind the decision to film these and post them online for free. I'm going through it slowly but it's amazing to have the opportunity to watch these amazing lectures.
Yeah it is
or sum
i wake up every morning, & when my mind is freshest i make a few flashcards. A gentle stream cuts through stone
I use supermemo to stop me from forgetting what i learnt
This is because in the past, i worked through this really nice, gentle big book called Engineering Maths (by KA Stroud). But I forgot a lot of it = it was rather a case of "in 1 ear & out the other". But with Supermemo the knowledge is permanent
@@alwaysdisputin9930 ip
I respect professors who go read the original work of scientists and turn it into an amusing lecture. I just enjoyed every second of this video. Thank you very much Sir
Many thanks to Stanford and Prof. Susskind. I've watched a few series, and I really love the way he explains things, in a very logical and simple way. Helped me understand many things that apparently were not as clear as they should have been to me!
I cannot think of physics without prof Suskind. It is amazing to see a genius like him teach being humble to the core despite his genius! He is exemplary in every way! God bless him and wish he gets his Nobel Prize which he richly deserves very soon!
Professor Leonard Susskind is one of the fathers of string theory, I am happy to watch this lecture series.
a sahaniss iy mazigh 😀
this video is amazing. Truly easy and fundamental. Thank you so much for the upload. Much appreciated. And professor Susskind, I must say that I am a big fan!
This is a God sent seriously. Been reading through three books today and a lecture discussing the same topics u talked about in the first 11 minutes. Yours made so much sense - I really appreciate all the chronological science history as you teach. So many leave the little things out.
Im using these videos to fall asleep too to hopefully learn something and get smarter the same way i learnt every word to every song i use to sleep
It's actually amazing that working through deriving the way space and time relate to each other under coordinate transformations is extraordinarily clear and makes total sense, as long as the only special assumption is that the speed of light must remained fixed. Also, I've always wondered why Einstein would make that assumption in the first place, but his mention of thinking about Maxwell's Equations also makes total sense. You shouldn't be able to make the electromagnetic field vanish by moving fast enough.
Njjybbh hi ghnkyhhubsw. A
TIME DILATION IS FULLY EXPLAINED, AS THE ULTIMATE MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS CLEARLY PROVEN:
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; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, as C4 is a POINT that is ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (ON BALANCE) as SPACE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. E=mc2 IS F=ma. A planet AND a star thus constitute what is A POINT in the night sky. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ACCORDINGLY, I have ALSO fully explained the MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION of Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations (GIVEN THE ADDITION OF A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The Sun AND the Earth are F=ma AND E=mc2. Great. SO, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. AGAIN, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Indeed, this NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (E=mc2 IS F=ma.) Therefore, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. MOREOVER, 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 ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. E=mc2 IS F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) E=MC2 IS F=ma. Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Magnificent !!!
By Frank DiMeglio
This is what you need to know.
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
UNDERSTANDING TIME AND THE CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity:
ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS “mass”/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Therefore, the planets will move away very, very, very slightly in BALANCED relation to what is THE SUN. (Also, carefully consider what is THE EARTH.) Great !!! This explains the cosmological redshift AND the “black hole(s)”. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS 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 F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. SO, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; AND objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course) !!! Time dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. Time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! GREAT. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 Speed of light being constant in al frames I believe Einstein learned from the Michelson-Morley Experiment into the luminiferous ether.
This first lecture really blew my mind the first time i saw. This isn't gold; it's platinum! Susskind continues to inspire my own teaching, and of course, my study of physics :)
This is one of my favorite topics! Thank you so much!
I can only say that prof Suskind is one of his kind and I feel I am really privileged to hear him speak and teach physics. He is a real genius!
Super thanks for making this public. My classes and text barely touch on these concepts. Can't thank you enough.
I have always had trouble thinking about relativity and this really helped me in starting to wrap my head around it
And, so did you notice any corresponding change in your relations with special relatives? 🤔
@@woodpeckery starting to understand them better as well
@@woodpeckery LMAO
I watched this, well more like tried to watch this right before I started my bachelors in Astrophysics a couple years ago. I was beyond lost. Now after a couple years under my belt, it makes so much sense now. I love the way he teaches this topic.
Thank you Dr Susskind. Posting this comment right at the top here as a high school physics teacher. The first 4 lectures are the perfect introduction for my students into special relativity, taught the way it was meant to be taught--straight from Einstein's paper, explained in common language. I show these first 4 videos every year at the end of our units on classical mechanics as a follow-up. The kids love them, and love Dr Susskind. Thank you thank you! Follow up--thank you for our list of Susskind-isms--"time is time is time is time", "derove", and who could forget poor Seymore, out there on his world line all alone waiting for a light ray.
The word "derove" did stand out in my memory but I didn't think of anything wrong with it until I read your comment, haha
What's the difference between this course "Special Relativity" and "Modern Physics: Special Relativity" also by Susskind?
I shall watch this particular lecture regarding Lorentz Transformations. This Is amazing lecture by an amazing teacher. Dr. Susskind.
Isn't this guy Mike from Breaking Bad?
lmao thats 1st thing i thought of too
This knowledge is so valuable. It was so difficult to find a lecture that used this simple method of plotting these quantities on a Cartesian plane. That makes it so much easier to see how all these quantities relate. Sure, it is a longer video than you find on some of the pop science channels that are popular. But an investment of a hour is more than worth it. The attempts to gloss over this step on popular videos might make the video get more plays and likes. But it shorts the viewer on the necessary steps.
❤Precisely . Those steps require real care.
Wow. when he got to the lorenz transformations I was just blown away. I had seen this before but seeing how einstein actually worked this through... it gave me chills. a true legend. thank you prof susskind.
Yeah, I read somewhere that Einstein's method was like climbing the hill from a very steep path where there is a less steep one available (now).
@@zombiesalad2722 I heard the same thing from minutephysics.
The funny thing is, if you know absolutely nothing about physics, you can discover SR all by yourself. Sadly, most folk have been trained to think that this is not the case at all, even though a high school dropout can do it.
@@new-knowledge8040 yes for sure only if he has the same level of boldness as sir Einstein to declare time is not absolute:)
Zabzazim
Below is an attempt at calculating how many people go on to complete all the lectures.
As of July 15, 2021, here are the stats for the views and likes for the 10 videos in this series:
Lecture 1: 897024; 6.7k
Lecture 2: 212144; 1.2k
Lecture 3: 225383; 1.2k
Lecture 4: 139619; 779
Lecture 5: 99385; 543
Lecture 6: 80824; 512
Lecture 7: 65712; 478
Lecture 8: 67962; 480
Lecture 9: 74709; 464
Lecture 10: 71365; 508
Around 900k people watched the first video, and 6.7k liked it. 71k watched the last video, and 508 liked it. As a rough first approximation, at most around 8% of the viewers who watched the first video might have gone on to complete all the lectures.
This is great! I am in the equivalent of last year of high school and love watching university lectures of subjects I have in school. Having a proper explanation of these concepts makes understanding the analogies we’re fed in school a lot more digestible. Can’t wait for University next year!
Wow ur cool
These special relativity lectures, and the whole series of physics courses of which they are a part, are excellent. Susskind's explanations are very thorough. Thanks to them, I understand the material better than I did when I was a physics major 40 years ago. He does occasionally slip up with minus signs, but this gives you the opportunity to redo the derivation and figure out where the slip occurred, where doing this definitely helps you learn the material better.
Rather, the idea is based on an error in logic:
_"The 2 photons will have been sent simultaneously only if they arrive simultaneously at the midpoint, therefore if they arrive simultaneously at the midpoint then they will have been sent simultaneously."_
That is, "if p then q, therefore if q then p".
This is a formal fallacy in propositional logic, called "affirming the consequent".
The truth of the matter is that the photon at B is fired later than the photon at the origin, and this because it has to travel a shorter distance in order to arrive at A at the same time as the photon from the origin arrives at A. And so we see from the chart that B is at t>0.
So there is only 1 time scale, t, for you can't have a moving system of clocks and have those clocks not tick. Clocks tick. That's what they do.
So t' is only 0 along the x axis, which is where (and when) the first photon is fired, for the first photon is fired at the origin and at the origin t' is on the x axis. After that, t' is greater than 0, because its clocks are ticking. And so t' is synonymous with t, and therefore superfluous: we only need t.
The problem is that the issue is not really a physics issue, but a logic issue. Physicists are not necessarily good at logic. Logic is a different skill.
If you wish to see how SRT is errant at its very first derivational step, just search "Nullification of Relativity Theory via the Sufficiency of the Galilean Velocity Transformation", click on the viXra link, and then click on v2 of the PDF.
@@lawrence1318 yea, dude, I'm sure you're right and physicists are wrong.
Thanks Stanford, and Dr Susskind for these great lectures! Never had the chance to take relativity.
Very good! Thank you Stanford.
YOU ARE LEGENDS. THANK YOU FOR THE VIDEO LECTURES. Forever in your debt.
Grateful.
Sahi bole bhaai...Gajab hai ye to
@@physicsevolutionandscope9588 hi indian
@@jeeaspirant2016 vwcevqvqvqvvvgeb lkkkjjjjjjjjjjjpoppjjppojppjojopjkjjjjkkmkkkmkkkkkmllllmllmmmlmkllllllllllllmlmlmlmmlkllklkkllllllklkmllmmmlmlmkkkkkkkllpmlppmpllllllllllllklklmpllllllpmllkklllllllkllklkklllkllllllpkllkllkllklllpllklllmkkmlkllllllkllppkkllklkllllkkklllllllkkkkllllllkmppplllkkpllklmlkllllllkkmlkklllklkkllklkmkkkllllllklkllmklfffffg
I beg you please to allow for at least auto-generated subtitles to be turned on, so I can share this with Spanish speaking friends.
NOPE, sorry but your friends are not allowed to synchronize their watches with any X’s, V’s, or T’s. It's just not possible, I'm sorry.
@@TheOGC4 si
At 1:27:25, it shows t is dilated when t'=1 from the view point of moving frame, but t' is contracted from the view point of the rest frame. For example t=1, x=1 are both contraceted in the moving frame to sqrt(1-v^2). Time and space are both contracted in the moving frame. Contraction of time is slowing down of the clock, i.e. dilation of time.
these lectures are so valuable
Give this man a nobel prize for teaching
RUclips knows me well. Fell asleep watching a Jon Stewart interview, woke up to this… luckily I am passingly familiar with physics and relativistic physics so, I quite enjoyed this and was unable to go back to sleep.
A very nice series of introductory lectures pervaded of Richard Feynman's spirit.
Amazing. I hope I can take it until lecture 10.
Fred = Leonard
28:45 _"My friends who are separated by equal distance: there's me, the 1 in front of me & the 1 in front of him"_
30:52 _"Let's give these people names: Fred, Anne..._
_& See More"_
@vikram T
That's a good question.
But the galaxies are not being separated by their movement. It's space itself that is expanding. Their distance is increasing exponentially, but their velocity isn't.
Wow, this prof is really good. Never in my lifetime I can get to be lectured on Can'tafford university. XD
Jers N thats Leonard Suslikin (excuse the spelling ) the father of string theory, hes very famous
can anyone tell me what is x prime i didnt understand it
It's the spatial coordinate of the moving reference frame. 13:58
Enter the Braggn' False
If you think he is good, I wonder what kind of teachers you have had.
Every time when I have class about special relativity, I consider myself taking philosophy.
Lol, that was funny. But on a serious note, the barrier is indeed high but once you cross it, it makes perfect sense.
@@aloknathsingh4647 thx bhai how long is is taking you? maths in sr very simple for me but concepts in problems is very hard
Alok Nath Singh The problem is that’s wrong. The first postulate is impossible.
Approaching philosophical questions happens all the time with Sean Carrol biggest questions in the universe, Cosmology beginning of universe and black holes. Sean Carroll is another great explainer.
@@HughesMath1 🔹°= -🔹🚽❓♓/t-2.Special relativity x y and z.Transfers and rotations.Spacial set of coordinates.Thank you thinking out loud use of objective units.Yipes,my coordinates are different from your coordinates.I end up apologizing to someone.Is it year of the Ox yet?
All flowed over my head but I am glad that I watched this anyway
I wonder has my brain learned something of these lectures all the time I have listened to these while sleeping 😂
I think I will subscribe to this channel, thank you for putting out free education.
I have seen this type of work from renowed teachers but the way Einstein himself have done and explained by this sir was absolutely great....thanks for making it understandable
If I could meet Einstein, I’d bring him the best strongest coffe I could get, and just sit back and see what happens, science!!
I just want to thank you, Stanford University, for uploading these lectures. awesome info here!
@@agiarusso keep your kinda cool babe babe I miss know knew it I y hmm Nakul good jkk
@@darkmemer6663 mmm
thanks Stanford and Susskind Sir for these amazing lectures❤🙏
Thanks for the information, Romero. As for our friend Timeisabsolute, I totally agree. It is his faith now. But the main point is that he thinks Einstein said that two cloks which were synchronized at some piont in space will be forever synchronized whenever they meet again. As far as I understood it, that's exactly the opposite that means relativeness of time.
I wish I could hear the audience questions. For that matter, closed captions would help, too.
use headphones
Esteemed professor
Yes Galileo did write about
Wonderful pages about a moving ship
Train did not exist yet at his age
Thanks
I feel asleep to John mulaney comedy clips. I woke up to this. Not disappointed.
44:00 The 2 in the numerators come from twice the distance between the moving clocks. Since the 2's cancel, the slope v is independent of the units of this value. We could change the distance between the moving clocks and the slope of the line joining the moving clocks at 0 and b would still be v. This shows that the t' = 0 axis passes through b.
Just reading his new book “Special Relativity and Classic Field Theory”
NO KIDDING! YOU KNOW, I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING! IF I WERE TAKING A CLASS I WOULD HOPE TO GET SOMETHING OUT OF IT.( REGURUTATINE. IS IT WHAT I AM PAYING 4. SOME1 HAS TO TEACH A CLASS BASED ON EVERYONE ELES'S HISTORY BOOK BULLSHIT! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SIT IN A CLASS WONDERING? WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TEACH ME SOMETHING? YES, YES. I HAVE HERD ALL OF THAT BULLSHIT BEFORe. FUCK! I COULD WATCH THAT ON THE DISCOVERY. HISTORY CHANNEL. LOLOLOLOLOLOL JUST( AMGEN ) ALL OF THE MONEY THAT I COULD SAVE!!! WOW!!! THAT IS FUCKING AMAYZZZZZING. P.S. LOOK AT( AMERICA IS NOT THE GREATESt CONTRARY) WE NEED TO WAKE UP PEOPLE. BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE BEING 2ND BEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@robbyandrews6318 you're an intellectual
unrelenting awesomeness haha
Godammm. How right that You are. Lol.
CLASSIC FIELD. YOU DO MEAN OR IS THAT WITH AN I? CLASSIC POS. TELL YOU WHAT HUNNY. IF YOU ARE THAT GOOD. LEAVE ME A MESSAGE. WHEN YOUR N- PHYSICS IS BETTER THAN MINE. PLEASE CALL ME!! I CAN'T FUCKING WEIGHT. M-0 G-0. Know if EYENSTIN. DID I SPELL THAT WRONG. TELL ME THEN. WHAT WAS HIS UP TAKE ON HYGIENE. YESTERDAY'S BULLSHIT.
'We DEROVE the invariant!'- luvvv the guy!
Shut up
Thank you very much for the videos, I really love it!
He is very clear in his explanation. there is no need of any subtitile
Can anyone tell me in which of his lectures he teaches spacetime diagrams?
Clocks and lengths do not actually change in YOUR frame or reference when you are moving. They only appear to in somebody's else frame of reference that is stationary relative to yours. And Visa a Versa..
You have not understood special relativity
@@Banjo-ed5vv More than you, really
@@HilbertXVI I have a big shlong that's all mate
It is possible to derive 2 contradictory time dilation equations. The first paragraph below describes the situation with Sally aiming a flashlight straight up and down so that Sally sees the light moving straight up and down and John is outside the spaceship and sees the light forming a triangle with the floor of the spaceship. The second paragraph describes Sally aiming a flashlight towards the left while the spaceship moves to the right. Now the situation is exactly reversed. Sally sees the light forming a triangle with the floor and John sees the light bouncing straight up and down.
Sally is in a moving spaceship. John is outside the spaceship. Sally is moving to the right at .6c. The height of her spaceship is .8 light-seconds. If Sally has a light clock with the light bouncing straight up and down the light will make a 3-4-5 right triangle from the viewpoint of John. If the change in time for Sally is delta T_o and the change in time for John is delta T then the following equation can be derived: delta T = delta T_o/((1-.6^2)^.5). So .8 seconds for Sally = 1 second for John.
Now Sally has a light clock but this time she is holding a flashlight at an angle of 53.13 degrees above the horizontal and pointed to the left. Now the leftward movement of the light exactly matches the rightward movement of the spaceship from John's viewpoint. Now the light is bouncing straight up and down from the viewpoint of John and the light is making a 3-4-5 right triangle from viewpoint of Sally. If the change in time for Sally is delta T_o and the change in time for John is delta T then the following equation can be derived: delta T_o = delta T/((1-.6^2)^.5). So 1 second for Sally = 0.8 seconds for John. The 2 equations are in direct contradiction to each other.
Special relativity is falsified.
@ Opethfullcovers: it the quadrature rule of the nominator, (a- b)^2 = a^2 -2ab +b2 and denominator sqrt(1-v^2)^2 = 1-v^2
I love this man... going to be a very sad day when he departs us!
@DeeJay1210 Pretty sure he means when he retires mate.
I would be highly grateful if english auto generated subtitles would be provided for this playlist
This is good stuff, I hope that I'll be able to understand more of it as I go on :)
1/3
It may be for we first describe a 3D space and then we had time in it. So we try to describe the motion in one or more dimensions in a way we are more comfortable in visualising it. The following is an extract from wikipedia:
Great Lectures, thanks Prof. Susskind
.....SUS
“If Einstein is right”… that statement alone transforms this into a philosophy class alas to run with it is mind-boggling.
Both of you go sip some fucking tea
There are professor's who are born to lecture, and he's one of them. Amazing. The way interacts, asks questions during the problem solving he's awesome
This man is so well spoken and looks great... don't know why I felt the need to say that.
He looks like Mike from Breaking Bad
lol true
He looks like a mix between John Malkovich and that guy lol
oh man..that's him!!!!
I was thinking the same thing.
For me he looks like Jacque Fresco
first of Susskind's videos that I feel I'm ahead of... that's a first.. wish I had started here:)
The point is that any line at this angle can be written as y=-x + c (for some constant c) ... and yes that c intercept is the constant since rearranging gives y+x=c along that line.
Time stops at velocity=c. He covers this toward the end of the lecture while discussing time-like and space-like intervals. Watch at around 1:45:00.
No book has shown that why (ct)^2 - (X^i)^2 is the length element. They just say it is because of invariant purpose.
It's a statement of the invariance of the speed of light.
The fact that the expression you wrote is the same in any two frames is a statement that the speed of light c is the same in those two frames.
If anyone is looking for an easier explanation of special relativity's concepts, I highly recommend VSauce's "Would Headlights Work at the Speed of Light?" video. He has a lot of graphical and animated explanations there, while these lectures involve more mathematical proofs and calculations. I found learning the concepts first and coming back here for the math much easier, especially since I'm doing this before quantum mechanics (standard curriculum teaches QM first).
+RunItsTheCat I would argue that Special Relativity is MUCH easier than QM. And, indeed, at my university special relativity is taught in 1st year whereas QM is taught in 2nd year
+RunItsTheCat First notice that their is an Eter. Thats fact! So no we debunk this
shit by the sionist fraud St Einstein. Dayton Miller redid the
Michaelsson experiments but 10000 more carefully and did se interaction.
To day we see it for Bifeldt Brown , Casmir effect and 100 other
things. The EM wave does spread out transversal into Eter with C but
the dielectric vawe propagates faster ( Tesla did calculate) . The
magnetic propagation vawe never determined at all ! But true they
probably are longitudal and thats for study. So no go and study the
artifact,, co-rotating magnet and faraday disk for example. If we
check two conductors parallell with same vector currents. If you are the
"electron" propagating in one conductor and your buddie is in the other
conductor moves parallell to you with same speed, do you se any
relative movement? No HELL no. You are moving at constant speed and so
is your friend. BUT YOU VILL notice that your conductor moves to your
friends conductor and the opposite !!!!!!!!! The relativists explains
this with circular argument introducing their fraud theory. If we take
in an eter you got your relativity but the relativists does not like
eter but today they call it dark energi and a lot of other crap. REad
Bjerknes book St Einstein pdf at youtube to get why the banksters gaved
us this fraud. E = MC2 was known by Maxwell before Einstein was dry
behind the ears. The space is working by electricity and birkeland,
Tesla and the real physisits did all this finnished together with the
guru and legend Hannes Alfvén. The establishment does not wont us to
know as they want us to live dumbed down.
Zekerias Varg "Quality trolling"
+Alter Kater Nature was my teacher.
+Alter Kater "bullshit" that you cant debunk.
These lectures helped me a lot with my studies! Thank you very much!!!
These lectures made you extremely stupid.
@@Mnemonic-X you were at costco yesterday i love you uncle brian
@@feelthemoodshiftin What is costco?
@@Mnemonic-X how?
I went to sleep with a two hour vsauce playlist and now I’m here
Thanks a million times for the video, but could the camera man be less active and be more static throughout the lecture? I'm feeling dizzy..
Too many shifts in reference frames!
Is there a recommended textbook to go with these lectures?
There are different ways to think about this problem. And the scenario used @ 33:10 to explain the dynamics makes it simpler.
I have been investigating propagating Electromagnetic fields for many years. My investigations revealed that these fields and the information in these fields propagate nearly instantaneously when they are created and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the farfield.
According to Albert Einstein, if the speed of light is not a constant, then his theories of Special and General Relativity are wrong. This can be seen in Einstein's time dilation result due to a moving observer: t=r t' and the length contraction result: L=L'/r, where t and L are reference to the stationary frame, and t' and L ' are reference to the moving frame, and r is the Relativistic gamma factor: r =1/Sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). These results are easily derived using Einstein's light clock thought experiment using simple algebra. But if propagating EM fields with infinite speed near the source are used in the derivation, then c = Infinity, and r=1. If propagating EM fields far from the source are used, then c = the speed of light, and r= the standard Relativistic gamma factor. What comes out of this is that the effects on time and space are completely different depending on whether one uses propagating fields near or far away from the source, which can't be true since time and space are real. So the conclusion must be that Einstein's Relativity is wrong and time and space do not change with respect to moving reference frames, Galilean Relativity is correct, and that Einstein's equations just enable us to back calculate to the correct answer, givin the time delays observed by the propagating EM fields used in measuring the effects.
But these results do not account for the time dilation observed by moving atomic clocks in airplane experiments, but can be accounted for using variable light speed theory (VLS), origionally proposed by Einstein, and later improved by Robert Dicky in 1957. In this theory, spacetime is not curved by gravity as suggested by General Relativity, instead Newtons theory of gravity is correct and the many other known effects of gravity are due to the affect of gravity on the of light speed. For instance the observed bending of light by mass, which caused General Relativity to be accepted, can be explained, by the gravity generated by the mass, changing the speed of light, causing the light to bend around the mass. This effect is analogous to the bending of light in glass. Since lasers are used in atomic clocks to measure time, then the observed time dilation in atomic clocks in moving airplanes can be explained as due to the effects of light speed changes in the clocks due to changes in gravitation as the plane goes up and down. It should also be noted that several researchers have shown the relation E=mc^2 can be derived without Relativity using Newtonian mechanics, and the Michelson Morley experiment can be explained using the Doppler effect, ref Nathan Rapport 2021
In summary, this research shows that Einstein's theories are wrong and that time and space do not change with respect to moving observers, Galilean Relativity is correct, Newtons theory of gravity is correct, and many of the other effects of gravity can be explained as gravity simply changing the speed of light. The importance of this research is that it completely changes our understanding of time and space and gravity, and simplifies our theories. Perhaps this new understanding will finally enable researchers to finally unite Gravitational theory with quantum mechanics which have been incompatible since scientists accepted Einstein's theories for Special and General Relativity. For instance, Relativity is incompatible with quantum entanglement, which requires communication faster than light, but can perhaps can be explained by
superluminal propagating fields between entangled particles.
It should be mentioned that this superluminal effect is also observed in the propagating gravitational fields generated by an oscillating mass using Newtonian gravitational theory, and is nearly infinite near the source and reduces to speed of light far from the source. This matches very well with observations of the stability of the planets, which would not be possible if gravity propagates at light speed, and was origionally proposed by Simone Laplace in his famous book: Mécanique Céleste in the late 1700's, where he estimated the speed of gravity to be 7x10^6 times greater than the speed of light.
More humor at 1:23:00. That Rolex watch from New York stole the show. This was an excellent lecture, professor. :)
Try 1:44:00 too. 'Derove'... ;)
So this is why I'll be going to school on 4 hours of sleep.
I am attending online classes for 8hrs a day
This is amazing and simple
Question, around 51:25 when he shows that the two scaling functions (Lorentz factor) f(v) and g(v) must be equal for the space and time components by saying that when x = ct, x' = ct', doesn't this only show that f(c) = g(c)?
x' = (x - vt)•f(v) and t' = (t - vx)•g(v), setting x=t, x'=t',
x' = x(1 - v)•f(v) = x(1 - v)•g(v) = t'
(1 - v)•f(v) = (1 - v)•g(v) only for the initial assumption v = c.
I could construct a similar function (4 - v)•2v = (4 - v)•v² which is only true for v = 2.
Also, is the assumption the gamma is only a function of the magnitude of the velocity, and not the vector the assumption that the universe is isotropic?
One question after watching the first hour.. how was v supposed to be defined? In terms of the stationary reference frame? If so wouldn't the moving frame measure v differently since it measures x t differently?
v is just the relative speeds between the reference frame.
There is no such thing as a stationary reference frame. You arbitrarily choose a reference frame and call that stationary.
Let me phrase that better. The point of relativity is that there is no such thing as "the stationary reference frame". What we do instead is we compare two different reference frames, which move relative to each other at a speed v. There is no need to confuse yourself with the fact that x and t are measured differently. It is really a matter of symmetry. S' moves at a speed v relative to S means that the origin in the frame of reference of S, yes measured in x and t coordinates of S, moves at a speed v in the positive x-direction. But clearly, no-one stops you from choosing S' to be the frame that is stationary (i.e like jumping onto the spaceship which is moving relative to the earth), in which case clearly S will move with speed v in the opposite direction-:in your -x' direction.
You only begin to worry about x and t being measured differently when you consider TWO events which are separated in space or time. In this case you simply are tracking the origin of the other reference frame.
Its would fine if it in these lectura to have some translations, especially into spanish. Thanks a lot.
”c es c, en todo referencia cuadricula.”
Albertos Unostein, circa 1905
he basically goes over things learned in the last class, Quantum Entanglements. If you are having problems understanding, I recommend watching those 8 or 9 lectures.
"In May and November, the Earth is moving at "right angles" to the line to Algol. During this time we see minima happening regularly at their 2.867321 day intervals. However, during August, the Earth is rapidly moving towards Algol at about 107,229 km/hr as explained on my How Fast Are We Moving? page. (The Earth moves approximately 202 times its own size in one day.) So in 2.867321 days the Earth moves about 7,379,039 km closer to Algol. _But the varying light from Algol doesn't know this - its light waves left Algol 93 years ago and are travelling at a constant speed._ The result - we "catch a bunch of minima early" during August as shown on Chart 2. Exactly the opposite happens during February - the Earth is moving away from Algol that fast and it takes longer for the group of minima to reach us so we see them taking longer between events. How long? 7,379,039 km divided by the speed of light 299,792.458 km/sec is 24.61382 seconds. So in May and November when we are not moving towards or away from Algol - the period seems constant. It is our rapid movement towards or away from the events in August and February that causes the timing differences."
I assume that light is passing the earth at c when the earth isn't moving towards or away from Algol.
In February the earth is moving away from Algol and the time between the eclipses is 2.8675875347 days and the light is passing the earth at 186,265 mi/sec.
In May and November the earth is not moving towards or away from Algol and the time between eclipses is 2.867321 days and the light is passing the earth at 186,282 mi/sec.
In August the earth is moving towards Algol and the time between eclipses is 2.8670608912 days and the light is passing the earth at 186,299 mi/sec.
Cameraperson: if the prof writes something based on other info on the board, make sure that other info is also in frame.
sussy relativity
Exceptional lecture!
1:06:26 If anyone else is confused about why V on top is divided by C^2 as opposed to C: V and X are both proportional to the value of C. V/C*X/C == V/C^2*X.
thnk you for clearing the doubt
how to enable subtitles? thanks I am deaf
Subtitles don't work with this lecture. Try MIT Opencourseware Relativity where they work. Just click the CC on the bottom
thanks
on youtube i dont find MIT Opencourseware Relativity.. do you have a link?
ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/lecture-videos/lecture-1/
This guys axis' are giving me an aneurysm
What an interesting looss way to work out these calculations that are actuallz so simple.
This is awesome I have some ideas in physics but I don’t know where to publish them