Hey, I just want to let you know that I really appreciate the videos you make. It's rare to find someone committed to communicating such difficult topics as found on your channel to the public.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky but there's a possibility to create antigravity without violation of physics laws. For example, satellites around the earth. If they will increase their "horizontal" velocity above the first space speed they will change their orbit to upper orbit. Imagine that you have vehicle which's centre of mass is rotating with speed of more than 8km per second. Then it must fictive force which will push it up. And it will be antigravity. Thanks a lot for your attention and for your prompt response.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky sorry for inconvenience, rotating a center of mass (on the earth with the speed more than 8km per second) around the axis which perpendicular to the surface.
Your channel is a gem. The fact that you are able to animate and explain difficult and abstract concepts with such clarity is a testament to your mastery over these topics. Thank you for all the videos and effort you put in!
I always come to your channel to understand the concepts from my textbook better. I'm not one of those people who say "I learnt more here in 12 minutes than a whole year of school" because that's simply not true. I wouldn't have understood anything had I watched your videos directly; without preliminary knowledge of the topic which I learnt from school, and similarly, I wouldn't have understood a lot of things from my textbook had I not stumbled upon this channel. Thank you for clearing a lot of concepts visually (especially your videos on interference, and Bernoulli's principle). I really appreciate the effort.
just be careful bud. theres still a lot of disinformation being used by academia leading to another generation indoctrinated with bad ideas. not all teachers and faculty are up to date on recent discoveries. always keep an open-mind and remember your subjective experience can be even more vital than empirical evidence which is currently in a replication crisis.
I'm just a regular guy. I drink beer, watch football, and I work in a factory. But the nature of reality is very important to me. Thank you for sharing these data, ideas, and videos!
Wouldn’t it be awesome if somehow, we could use spooky action to move through space time, like switching points of entanglement to its corresponding opposite point somewhere in space time? Idk
From what I understand, that would be great of course, but entanglement while in superposition is like delivering 2 letters with red and blue on the inside, you don't know which one you'll get but once you do you automatically know what the other one is but you can't know beforehand or change anything afterwards, putting some red on the blue one doesn't add any blue to the red on for instance, in other words afaik you can't manipulate entanglement for communication or any other reason because while it's decided at the end it is as if it has been decided already, does that make sense? It would of course definitely be cool though :)
Interesting, your videos inspire me to think about the analogies. Then I have ideas for different ones. Richard Feynman, I hope I spelled that right, said to think of things in a different way, as to understand it from a different perspective. Truly amazing. Again thanks for the amazing video.
Ok, but if I did an experiment within my box that determines there was a different rate of acceleration at different parts of the box, I would be 99.9% sure I was in a gravitational field because that is way more likely than a uniform gravitational field existing in the entire universe that cancels out the variation in gravity in just my little box.
The uniform gravitational field throughout the entire would cancel out the gravity only at one specific point in your box. Even if you don't believe that such a uniform gravitational field exists throughout the Universe, the issue is that there is no experiment we could perform that would prove it, and this is what General Relativity states.
And yet that supposition requires testing the entire universe to prove. Seeing as how it’s impossible to explore an infinite universe we would always be supposing rather than knowing about any of our scientific information. Unless some alien race whispered us all the secrets of the universe with certainty then we may never understand how to produce true antigravity
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Maybe if we use sensors to our sides that can measure their locations with respect to us in the center of the box. I'm thinking of geodesics, straight lines as we approach the surface of earth. But maybe the atmosphere inside the box would prevent movement of the sensors, so the box would have to be a vacuum, lol. We would suffocate, but we would have our answers:)
Please do another video like this one but with the space-time field moving or flowing toward the center of objects. It makes it much easier to understand when you visualize it that way. It also seems that that description is the closest explanation as to what is actually happening.
02:00 It is possible to distinguish acceleration from a gravitational field. There is no uniform gravitational field: Gravitation create tide forces and acceleration doesn't. The explanation at 08:00 seem more satisfactory to me (geodesics) Great video as always!!
About to reach 1 mill. Let's go. It should have reached way before but happy to see more people are appreciating this channel. At 980k but still an underrated channel.
Inside the accelerating box, she feels the force of the box pushing at her feet, with each atom propagating that force to the atom above it in the direction of the force. If the box were an antigravity device, all atoms within the box accelerate at the same time, so there would be no force propagating from the floor upwards - the gravity outside has no impact inside, they are entirely different frames. The person inside would thing she is in constant free-fall no matter which direct a force was applied to the box. Outside of the box, people would see it move, but inside all motion is relative to the box only, which would seem like antigravity to her, because there is no way for her to tell the difference.
But how does one affect gravity in only a small space without in turn affecting the surrounding space? Would that device need to generate a force that would act in agonist towards the gravitational field at all times? In that sense it’s not an “antigravity” device as much as it is an hot air balloon or blimp at that point, both of which require fuel to resist the force of gravity.
What if we rephrase the question to “Is it possible to efficiently manipulate space time geometry?” Can a machine alter the geodesic which it traverses?
I am just pointing out what General Relativity says about this. Yes, General Relativity could be wrong. All scientific theories always have the potential of being replaced with better theories.
I love your video, it explains the subject well and simply. I do have one issue with it, however. It is more precise to say that the AG device would violate the assumptions upon which the General Theory of Relativity is based.
An anti-gravity machine would certainly be preferable to an anti-Rick Astley machine, because that one is always gonna give you up and always gonna let you down....
Pretty inspiring video. Opens new horizons for me. It seems like anti-gravity devices out of option for future technologies. Is imaginary elevator experiment a solid test for general relativity? Can it still give true results for reverse curved space time or something gives reversed reaction(or geodesic trajectory) to normal space time curvature?
Hi, will there be more videos about particle physics in the future? I find this topic very interesting but hard to get my head around. I watched both Your videos on elementary particles and nuclear forces. Nevertheless, I'll watch with awe anything You post. One of the best channels on the entirety of UA-cam. Thank You for what You do. Greetings.
Yes, I plan to make more videos on particle physics. Thanks for the compliments. I am glad you like my videos. By the way, I recently made a new playlist for my videos on nuclear and particle physics at ua-cam.com/play/PLkyBCj4JhHt-uU7uZECW3aZx8g1klRg8_.html
Hi Eugene Khutoryansky , could you please create a video that illustrates how a light beam approaching an accelerating spaceship from the Rindler horizon cannot reach it in relativity due to the hyperbolic geometry of spacetime? While I can understand the concept by examining the diagram, your exceptional 3D animation could further enhance my understanding. Outstanding video as always!
Always totally love your videos they are fascinating and the visuals really help! One question though, and this may or may not be answered elsewhere, like the field equation video, but obviously there's the fact that both the standard model and/or GR are incomplete and while an anigrav machine doesn't work under GR 'as we know it' that is all we can say.... Though I suppose that's all we can *ever* say 😅 but here I mean specifically because of the quantum gravity issue
I am just pointing out what General Relativity says about this. Yes, the fact that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics contradict each other means we expect there to be a better theory which replaces both of them.
Unless there are other vectors of time which a antigravity machine could travel through. To us it would look like it’s violating our observable linear direction of time but in actually it’s traveling along a different vector of time which makes it appear that way
I don't really follow general relativity but a bit confused by an example. Let's say instead of with or against gravity Victoria is in a box & is accelerated by an outside force lateral to gravity. Due to inertia she would be put in contact with the side of the box the force was applied to. Like driving a car & accelerating to merge into a highway or oppositely be breaking to avoid a collision. Would that violate GenRel?
No, that doesn't violate General Relativity. That is just another example of Victoria being inside a box that is accelerating due to a force, other than gravity, as was shown in this video.
Great video, great explanations of the thought experiments. Not 100% sure I buy the outcomes and limitations of Einstein's theories. Watched a TED talk about the variable speed of light theory, also interesting stuff. Not subjects that my sanity will allow long periods of time on, lol
Gravity isn't a force. So, there's nothing to block. But, even a second grader can build and operate anti-gravity machine. They're rather simple. Locate an empty drink bottle and remove the cap. The bottle can be of any type, 2-liter, individual serving, milk jug, etc., it doesn’t matter. Put a small hole on the bottle’s side somewhere close to the standing base. Put a finger over the pin hole and fill the bottle with water. It might be a good idea to test the hole before continuing. Make sure the pin hole allows for a noticeable stream of water to shoot out when the blocking finger is removed. Fill the bottle again blocking the pin hole. Now, climb a ladder, go to a second-story window, just hold the bottle above your head outdoors, use a balcony at a school building, stand on a chair, etc., allow the pin hole to start streaming water, pause for a second or two, and let go of the bottle so it enters freefall. Once released, water will no longer stream out of the hole on the side of the bottle. The water within the bottle has achieved weightlessness and is no longer under the influence of Earth’s gravity. And, just like any other amusement ride, it’s over rather quickly. The higher one takes the water bottle before dropping, the longer the inside of the chamber experiences no gravity.
@@jaredsmith112 All models have their uses and limitations. But, to conceptualize gravity as a force is beyond a long stretch requiring it to be a very smart force since it impacts varying masses differently, i.e., differing masses respond to it *_exactly_* the same. A cue ball and a bowling ball when acted upon by the same force of a pool cue, accelerate at obviously different rates. Not so with gravity where the cue ball and the bowling ball accelerate at the *_exact_* same rate. All models are useful. Some models, however, are more accurate than others. IM me for a link to an essay on gravity. UA-cam does not allow external links, even GoogleDocs in comments. Idiots!
Гравитация - есть мера плотности (отсюда вытекает понятие - кривизны) искривления пространства. Как доказать это утверждение ? Поместите как можно ближе к траектории движения пучка протонов в БАК любой хронометр. Разгоните пучок протонов до около световой скорости а затем сбросьте скорость пучка протонов до нуля. С момента разгона пучка протонов кривизна пространства вблизи пучка будет иметь одно направление, с момента торможения до момента остановки пучка протонов, кривизна пространства будет отрицательной. Теоретически, энтропия будет то же иметь обратное направление с момента торможения, что можно было бы наблюдать по хронометру у траектории движения пучка.
Great video. It makes several things clear about relativity. A question: Does Dark Energy make a gravitational field weaker? Will Dark Energy eventually shrink the event horizon of black holes?
The effects of Dark Energy only become significant when viewed on the very large scale. So, it doesn't make much of a difference for a black hole. But, it makes a very big difference for the entire universe as a whole.
About fifty years ago I had a friend who thought some sort of rotor device could lift itself without using the air in any way, so could be used in space. Would this be antigravity (if it worked)?
Some types of insects and spiders use electrostatics, that have an anti-gravity effect. Electrostatic propulsion will be the next technological paradigm shift. They can replicate the forces on a stronger scale.
Man vs. machine is popular right now with AI, oddly on the losing end because it can't mow the lawn while wishing it was at a bar. But I wonder if the anti-gravity machine is not possible because of our perceptions of relative motion or our inability to fit gravity into the standard model? Victoria will hit the ground at some point. With no shoes
There's a problem though. Matter and space effect each other. So since space can move ftl but matter can't is weird. Matter was shown to effect space when moving in circles and or accelerating. Also the effect on space bu Matter increases to the power of four with decreasing radius or motion. This effect is called a gravity wave. So a device that can move energies close to the speed of light in a circular motion in very tight circles would amplify it'd mass energy greatly and cause a spatial effect. This effect would cause gravity waves and a twisting above and below the device. These would repel stationary gravity because of the spatial effects. Thus we have a logical paradox using the same principles taught by Einstein for both the case and case against. Also, I also know that any field that radiates from a point is associated with a mass, there is no mass less magnets or charges and light is its own field not a emmitor of it for that reason
this helped me realize that an anti gravity device would be functionally equivalent to a reactionless drive. And of course it's easy to show a reactionless drive is impossible
In Newtonian physics, yes. However we barely understand gravity and our model of quantum physics is incomplete, so I wouldn't be so quick to rule out things that seem impossible based on our incomplete understanding. In the case of gravity, we are observing a phenomenon that makes objects move in a completely reactionless manner, so why rule out the ability to harness this natural force that's all around us when we don't even really understand it? In principle, a reactionless drive could function by manipulating spacetime. We don't know how to do this (yet), but what evidence do we have that it's impossible?
@@guyincognito. well you have to be careful when you say "new physics will allow it", keep in mind that any system of new physics will have to still explain every experimental result of every experiment ever done, including all "reactionless drives" and "antigravity machines" that were proven not to work. Also, when gravity acts on an object, there is an equal and opposite force from the gravitating body itself. A falling object will accelerate towards the earth, but the earth will also accelerate a tiny amount towards the falling object (just an amount that's so small it's impossible to measure with current tech).
Aerodynamic lift is not generated just by air flowing downward. The camber of a wing having more curve on the upper surface causes the air to need to move more quickly to regain its place in the air column aft of the wing, this higher velocity airflow creates a net lower pressure just above the wing. Meanwhile the slower moving air below the wing (having less distance to travel in the same time) creates a higher pressure acting against the wing's surface. The result is that you feel a repulsive force pushing you from the higher pressure region below towards the lower pressure region above, as well as a complementary attractive force *pulling* you up towards the slight vacuum, or combined what we call 'lift' or 'lifting force'. That's not to say that you can't achieve aerodynamic *control* by redirecting the lateral flow of air -- That's the acting principle behind flight control surfaces, and the wing angle of attack; but that's not what keeps a plane in the air on its own.
What I said in the video is not that the lift is "caused" by the downward deflection of the air, but that the lift is "associated" with the downward deflection of the air. This remains a true statement, regardless of what you think the "cause" of the lift is. This is simply the result of Newton's third law of motion. For there to be an upward force on the wings, there has to be an equal and opposite downward force on something else.
Have to ask though, are the two sentences at 10:04 and 11:20 repeated intentionally?! If not, I'm curious to know what was supposed to be said instead 😅
You would have to build a machine that displaces space time. It is earths displacement of spacetime that caused the effect of gravity the closer you are to the surface. You would need something that displaces timespace as much as the earth does and place yourself between that device and the earth while keeping their resulting gravitational fields from pulling the device and the earth together while you float between them. Good luck with that.
Thank you Eugene, that's another great video, I just got confused on one part though, The accelerating box and a gravitational field cannot be told apart from each other, But how is that possible since in the accelerating box the clocks at the top and the bottom won't tick at different speeds because they are both at the same speed (the sensor on the top so register higher frequency but the clock runs at the same speed, doesn't it?), in the gravitational field the reason for the higher frequency is different than in the box, Also is there any way for the person in the box experience spaghettification (like objects falling into black holes) if you accelerate the box enough? Thank you for your content I really appreciate it
When the box is accelerating, and the clocks are running at the same speed, the bottom clock reads a different frequency simply because it is moving towards the light pulses. Look at the animation, and count how many light pulses per second are hitting the bottom, as compared to how many light pulses per second are leaving the top. As for spaghettification, that is a function of the fact that the gravitational field is not uniform. A uniform gravitational field wouldn't do this. This is the same way you would be fine inside the accelerating box, regardless of the rate of acceleration, until you hit the floor of the box.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky thank you for the reply, I do understand the light pulses frequency from the animation but the thing that is not really clear to me is that it is said someone inside the accelerating box cannot tell if they are inside such a box of just under the influence of a gravitational field, I cannot get this because if you attach one high precision clock at the top of the box and one high precision clock at the bottom, you could measure the difference between the two clocks after some time has passed, if the box is in the gravitational field the clocks will be out of sync but if the box is just accelerating the clocks will be perfectly synced, won't they? Wouldn't this violate this statement that someone cannot tell the difference from acceleration vs gravitational field?
@@lukasaudir8 no because it is still measuring the same phenomenon regardless of what you call it. By finding that the clocks differ in time you would only draw the conclusion that SOME FORCE was affecting you, not to be able to tell which force it was. The point of the video (if I have understood it properly) is that because gravity and acceleration can be thought of as the “same thing” you measure them in the same way. Time is one method of measurement but not a method of determining between which force is present. I hope I’m right, that sounded really smart and I want to believe I understood the video hahaha
Lucas, keep in mind that in Special Relativity, observers in different reference frames will disagree on the simultaneity of different events. Therefore, different observers will disagree about whether or not the clocks at the top and at the bottom of the box are synchronized. And they will both be equally correct.
@@lukasaudir8 - correct, there would be no difference in time for the clocks in the box since they would both be accelerating equally. The presentation is wrong.
Hey, I just want to let you know that I really appreciate the videos you make. It's rare to find someone committed to communicating such difficult topics as found on your channel to the public.
Thanks for the compliments. I am glad you like my videos.
I agree.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky but there's a possibility to create antigravity without violation of physics laws. For example, satellites around the earth. If they will increase their "horizontal" velocity above the first space speed they will change their orbit to upper orbit. Imagine that you have vehicle which's centre of mass is rotating with speed of more than 8km per second. Then it must fictive force which will push it up. And it will be antigravity. Thanks a lot for your attention and for your prompt response.
Mahir, I don't think I understand what you are saying. I don't see why you think a rotating object would move itself to a higher orbit.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky sorry for inconvenience, rotating a center of mass (on the earth with the speed more than 8km per second) around the axis which perpendicular to the surface.
Your channel is a gem. The fact that you are able to animate and explain difficult and abstract concepts with such clarity is a testament to your mastery over these topics. Thank you for all the videos and effort you put in!
Thanks for the compliments. I am glad you like my videos.
@@greeneagle5437 Not an alt account.
The quality of this channel is out of this world.
Thanks.
Favorite channel, helped me understand most complex and complicated concepts. Thank you for existing.
I am glad to hear that this is your favorite channel and that my videos have been helpful. Thanks.
I always come to your channel to understand the concepts from my textbook better. I'm not one of those people who say "I learnt more here in 12 minutes than a whole year of school" because that's simply not true. I wouldn't have understood anything had I watched your videos directly; without preliminary knowledge of the topic which I learnt from school, and similarly, I wouldn't have understood a lot of things from my textbook had I not stumbled upon this channel.
Thank you for clearing a lot of concepts visually (especially your videos on interference, and Bernoulli's principle). I really appreciate the effort.
just be careful bud. theres still a lot of disinformation being used by academia leading to another generation indoctrinated with bad ideas. not all teachers and faculty are up to date on recent discoveries. always keep an open-mind and remember your subjective experience can be even more vital than empirical evidence which is currently in a replication crisis.
Love this channel! The animations go so far to help visualize the concepts!
Thanks!!!
I'm just a regular guy. I drink beer, watch football, and I work in a factory. But the nature of reality is very important to me. Thank you for sharing these data, ideas, and videos!
Thanks.
Wouldn’t it be awesome if somehow, we could use spooky action to move through space time, like switching points of entanglement to its corresponding opposite point somewhere in space time? Idk
From what I understand, that would be great of course, but entanglement while in superposition is like delivering 2 letters with red and blue on the inside, you don't know which one you'll get but once you do you automatically know what the other one is but you can't know beforehand or change anything afterwards, putting some red on the blue one doesn't add any blue to the red on for instance, in other words afaik you can't manipulate entanglement for communication or any other reason because while it's decided at the end it is as if it has been decided already, does that make sense?
It would of course definitely be cool though :)
This channel continually inspires me during my pursuit of a physics degree and hopefully a graduate degree. Incredible videos
Thanks for the compliments.
Excellent description of presently known concepts. Of course I expect them to change someday, but for our current understanding, this is gold.
Thanks for the compliment.
Almost ten years watching this channel. Your videos are a treasure I share with everyone.
Thanks!!!
As Feynnman said. We have anti-gravity machines such as a chair, which opposes gravity for a reasonable unlimited time.
The secret is, that you part each sentence with pauses. This makes understanding easier. Nobody else does, afaik. Keep it on. Спасибо.
Thanks!
Interesting, your videos inspire me to think about the analogies. Then I have ideas for different ones. Richard Feynman, I hope I spelled that right, said to think of things in a different way, as to understand it from a different perspective. Truly amazing. Again thanks for the amazing video.
Thanks! I am glad you like my videos.
This type of content is why I’m a patreon supporter. Great work!
Thanks. I very much appreciate your support.
On the same topic, There is another great video by Vsauce named “which way is down”. 100% recommended.
Your videos can make anyone understand complicated physics.
Thanks.
Ok, but if I did an experiment within my box that determines there was a different rate of acceleration at different parts of the box, I would be 99.9% sure I was in a gravitational field because that is way more likely than a uniform gravitational field existing in the entire universe that cancels out the variation in gravity in just my little box.
The uniform gravitational field throughout the entire would cancel out the gravity only at one specific point in your box. Even if you don't believe that such a uniform gravitational field exists throughout the Universe, the issue is that there is no experiment we could perform that would prove it, and this is what General Relativity states.
And yet that supposition requires testing the entire universe to prove. Seeing as how it’s impossible to explore an infinite universe we would always be supposing rather than knowing about any of our scientific information. Unless some alien race whispered us all the secrets of the universe with certainty then we may never understand how to produce true antigravity
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Maybe if we use sensors to our sides that can measure their locations with respect to us in the center of the box. I'm thinking of geodesics, straight lines as we approach the surface of earth. But maybe the atmosphere inside the box would prevent movement of the sensors, so the box would have to be a vacuum, lol. We would suffocate, but we would have our answers:)
Please do another video like this one but with the space-time field moving or flowing toward the center of objects. It makes it much easier to understand when you visualize it that way. It also seems that that description is the closest explanation as to what is actually happening.
If you have not already seen it, I focus on that in my video on Black Holes at ua-cam.com/video/t2_hNdlEuMg/v-deo.html
Its awe-strikingly simple and easy to understand. I just love your content.🧡🧡🧡. I have cleared many basic concepts of advance physics. Thanks again.
Thanks!
02:00 It is possible to distinguish acceleration from a gravitational field. There is no uniform gravitational field: Gravitation create tide forces and acceleration doesn't.
The explanation at 08:00 seem more satisfactory to me (geodesics)
Great video as always!!
Great graphical representations -- I'm going to watch it again tomorrow, I think I'm beginning to understand some of it :)
About to reach 1 mill. Let's go. It should have reached way before but happy to see more people are appreciating this channel. At 980k but still an underrated channel.
Thanks!
_"Hello, this is the H.R. department, we've just received a complaint from Victoria."_
Inside the accelerating box, she feels the force of the box pushing at her feet, with each atom propagating that force to the atom above it in the direction of the force. If the box were an antigravity device, all atoms within the box accelerate at the same time, so there would be no force propagating from the floor upwards - the gravity outside has no impact inside, they are entirely different frames. The person inside would thing she is in constant free-fall no matter which direct a force was applied to the box. Outside of the box, people would see it move, but inside all motion is relative to the box only, which would seem like antigravity to her, because there is no way for her to tell the difference.
But how does one affect gravity in only a small space without in turn affecting the surrounding space? Would that device need to generate a force that would act in agonist towards the gravitational field at all times? In that sense it’s not an “antigravity” device as much as it is an hot air balloon or blimp at that point, both of which require fuel to resist the force of gravity.
Close to a million subscribers let’s go Eugene!
Nice license plate on the car! Loved the video, as usual:)
Thanks!!!
What if we rephrase the question to “Is it possible to efficiently manipulate space time geometry?”
Can a machine alter the geodesic which it traverses?
well, the Alcubierre drive does that and It doesn't violate any law, on the contrary, it uses general relativity
I love the license plate, "Vegan for Animals" lol
One of your best Eugene.
I am glad you liked my video.
So much about physics we may not know yet like the deep fundamental aspects,nothing should be said to be impossible
I am just pointing out what General Relativity says about this. Yes, General Relativity could be wrong. All scientific theories always have the potential of being replaced with better theories.
Awesome stuff!!! :)
This is really interesting and fulfilling, thanks for your hard work 🌀 🧠 👨🏫
Thanks. I am glad you enjoyed my video.
Ваш канал источник света! Уважение и признательность за Ваш колоссальный труд!
Как Вас можно поддержать копеечкой?
I love your video, it explains the subject well and simply. I do have one issue with it, however. It is more precise to say that the AG device would violate the assumptions upon which the General Theory of Relativity is based.
Thanks. Yes, General Relativity could be wrong. All scientific theories always have the potential of being replaced with better theories.
Love your channel!
Thanks.
This is brilliant! Instantly subbed 👍
Thanks for the compliment. I am glad to have you as a subscriber.
I discovered this channel due to the Lagrangian video, and I've loved it ever since!
Thanks. I am glad you like my videos.
Always great content!
Thanks. I am glad you like my videos.
An anti-gravity machine would certainly be preferable to an anti-Rick Astley machine, because that one is always gonna give you up and always gonna let you down....
Love your explaining video,s ❤👍👋
Thanks!
Pretty inspiring video. Opens new horizons for me. It seems like anti-gravity devices out of option for future technologies. Is imaginary elevator experiment a solid test for general relativity? Can it still give true results for reverse curved space time or something gives reversed reaction(or geodesic trajectory) to normal space time curvature?
You are crucial in many of our journies in physics.....Please continue making such content.
Thanks for the compliment. More videos are on their way.
I love the animations! I am on the autism spectrum and I greatly enjoy the colors used!
I am glad you like my animations. Thanks.
❤i love science N i like ur explanations😍
Thanks. I am glad you like my explanations.
Hi, will there be more videos about particle physics in the future? I find this topic very interesting but hard to get my head around. I watched both Your videos on elementary particles and nuclear forces.
Nevertheless, I'll watch with awe anything You post.
One of the best channels on the entirety of UA-cam.
Thank You for what You do.
Greetings.
Yes, I plan to make more videos on particle physics. Thanks for the compliments. I am glad you like my videos. By the way, I recently made a new playlist for my videos on nuclear and particle physics at
ua-cam.com/play/PLkyBCj4JhHt-uU7uZECW3aZx8g1klRg8_.html
I will tell my future generations about you. Thank you so much!
Thanks!
Difficult, but very interesting, thank you
Thanks.
Very cool animation, had a couple of "wow wtf" realisations!
Thanks.
Always recommend my students to catch a glimpse, of what's going on x)
Fantastic E.👏🏼👏🏽💯
Thanks.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Thank you.
Could you please make video about Boinc distributed computing software,nasa citizen science projects, quantum moves, foldit, eterna etc?
Cool video. What's an inverted geodesic?
Love this Channel make me understand thing easily!.
Thanks. I am glad my videos are helpful.
I missed a lot your Relativity and gravity videos!
Thank you. Things are getting more and more interesting after a session of Physics with Eugene Khutoryansky.
Hi Eugene Khutoryansky , could you please create a video that illustrates how a light beam approaching an accelerating spaceship from the Rindler horizon cannot reach it in relativity due to the hyperbolic geometry of spacetime? While I can understand the concept by examining the diagram, your exceptional 3D animation could further enhance my understanding.
Outstanding video as always!
I will add that to my list of topics for future videos. Thanks.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Thank you!
If possible, please tell me the best organic chemistry(synthesis) book upto advanced level, I will extremely be gratefull to you!!
My goodness! Poor Victoria! That must be the worst job a cg character could possibly have!
Victoria was fine, as can be seen by the fact that she was still OK in later scenes. No pixels were harmed in the making of this video.
There's so much more left to discover. Humans only know the tiniest fraction. Airplanes and trips to the moon were once impossible too.
Airplanes and trips to the moon were never against the laws of physics. They were just engineering challenges.
Hi Eugene, I really like your videos! You must do a video on Hanbury Brown Twiss experiment! you will be a hero if you manage to explain this
Thanks. I will add the Hanbury Brown Twiss experiment to my list of topics for future videos.
I was watching in a very noise environment I didn’t get a single thing you said but great animation👍
I am glad you liked my animations. If you are in a noisy environment and can't hear anything, you can always turn on the subtitles.
...for G.R.
I await the graviton field exclusion/ quantum locking video and your live video feed of the viable anti-grav machine.
Great video keep it up
Thanks!
I love Physics, Kira, and Eugene! ;-)
Thanks!
I'm still waiting on my hoverboard from Back the the Future II.
My favorite youtube channel ever ❤
Thanks! I am glad you like my videos.
Great videos
Thanks.
Always great
Thanks.
Always totally love your videos they are fascinating and the visuals really help!
One question though, and this may or may not be answered elsewhere, like the field equation video, but obviously there's the fact that both the standard model and/or GR are incomplete and while an anigrav machine doesn't work under GR 'as we know it' that is all we can say.... Though I suppose that's all we can *ever* say 😅 but here I mean specifically because of the quantum gravity issue
I am just pointing out what General Relativity says about this. Yes, the fact that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics contradict each other means we expect there to be a better theory which replaces both of them.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky I see! Thank you for responding and thank you again for all you amazing educational content! :)
Thanks.
Unless there are other vectors of time which a antigravity machine could travel through. To us it would look like it’s violating our observable linear direction of time but in actually it’s traveling along a different vector of time which makes it appear that way
Your videos are so good though
Thanks.
Loved it when the AI girl smacks her head on the floor a couple of times.
Amazing content
Thanks.
I don't really follow general relativity but a bit confused by an example. Let's say instead of with or against gravity Victoria is in a box & is accelerated by an outside force lateral to gravity. Due to inertia she would be put in contact with the side of the box the force was applied to. Like driving a car & accelerating to merge into a highway or oppositely be breaking to avoid a collision. Would that violate GenRel?
No, that doesn't violate General Relativity. That is just another example of Victoria being inside a box that is accelerating due to a force, other than gravity, as was shown in this video.
Great video, great explanations of the thought experiments. Not 100% sure I buy the outcomes and limitations of Einstein's theories. Watched a TED talk about the variable speed of light theory, also interesting stuff. Not subjects that my sanity will allow long periods of time on, lol
Gravity isn't a force. So, there's nothing to block.
But, even a second grader can build and operate anti-gravity machine. They're rather simple.
Locate an empty drink bottle and remove the cap. The bottle can be of any type, 2-liter, individual serving, milk jug, etc., it doesn’t matter. Put a small hole on the bottle’s side somewhere close to the standing base. Put a finger over the pin hole and fill the bottle with water. It might be a good idea to test the hole before continuing. Make sure the pin hole allows for a noticeable stream of water to shoot out when the blocking finger is removed. Fill the bottle again blocking the pin hole. Now, climb a ladder, go to a second-story window, just hold the bottle above your head outdoors, use a balcony at a school building, stand on a chair, etc., allow the pin hole to start streaming water, pause for a second or two, and let go of the bottle so it enters freefall. Once released, water will no longer stream out of the hole on the side of the bottle. The water within the bottle has achieved weightlessness and is no longer under the influence of Earth’s gravity. And, just like any other amusement ride, it’s over rather quickly. The higher one takes the water bottle before dropping, the longer the inside of the chamber experiences no gravity.
The full gravity essay:
docs.google.com/document/d/1w859kGNICVV_PWec_riBzPw46zuFCZDJ_poctHlyOQQ/edit?usp=share_link
In Newtonian physics gravity is conceptualized as a force whereas Einstein describes it as a curvature of space. Both have utility in science
@@jaredsmith112 All models have their uses and limitations.
But, to conceptualize gravity as a force is beyond a long stretch requiring it to be a very smart force since it impacts varying masses differently, i.e., differing masses respond to it *_exactly_* the same.
A cue ball and a bowling ball when acted upon by the same force of a pool cue, accelerate at obviously different rates. Not so with gravity where the cue ball and the bowling ball accelerate at the *_exact_* same rate.
All models are useful. Some models, however, are more accurate than others.
IM me for a link to an essay on gravity. UA-cam does not allow external links, even GoogleDocs in comments. Idiots!
The ultimate anti-stealth radar would be some kind of gravity detection as you would need to invent anti-gravity to avoid it.
Гравитация - есть мера плотности (отсюда вытекает понятие - кривизны) искривления пространства. Как доказать это утверждение ? Поместите как можно ближе к траектории движения пучка протонов в БАК любой хронометр. Разгоните пучок протонов до около световой скорости а затем сбросьте скорость пучка протонов до нуля. С момента разгона пучка протонов кривизна пространства вблизи пучка будет иметь одно направление, с момента торможения до момента остановки пучка протонов, кривизна пространства будет отрицательной. Теоретически, энтропия будет то же иметь обратное направление с момента торможения, что можно было бы наблюдать по хронометру у траектории движения пучка.
I believe that gyroscopic antigravity is possible.
BEST CHANNEL ON UA-cam
Thanks for the compliment.
Great video. It makes several things clear about relativity.
A question: Does Dark Energy make a gravitational field weaker?
Will Dark Energy eventually shrink the event horizon of black holes?
The effects of Dark Energy only become significant when viewed on the very large scale. So, it doesn't make much of a difference for a black hole. But, it makes a very big difference for the entire universe as a whole.
You can't ask such questions when we don't even know what dark energy is, or even if it exists.
@@Lolwutdesu9000 At least we know there is something we don't know..
About fifty years ago I had a friend who thought some sort of rotor device could lift itself without using the air in any way, so could be used in space. Would this be antigravity (if it worked)?
Some types of insects and spiders use electrostatics, that have an anti-gravity effect. Electrostatic propulsion will be the next technological paradigm shift. They can replicate the forces on a stronger scale.
@Mike Michelson Scientists have recently discovered that Ballooning spiders use it.
Very interesting Eugene
Thanks.
You always seem to know exactly which sentences I need to hear twice.
Victoria jumps right before the box hits the ground, will she live? 😂
looks like a new pink floyd album cover 😁
Thank you!!!!🙌
You are welcome and thanks.
Hi Eugene, can you please do a video on spherical harmonics?
That is on my list of topics for future videos.
Man vs. machine is popular right now with AI, oddly on the losing end because it can't mow the lawn while wishing it was at a bar. But I wonder if the anti-gravity machine is not possible because of our perceptions of relative motion or our inability to fit gravity into the standard model? Victoria will hit the ground at some point. With no shoes
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
There's a problem though. Matter and space effect each other. So since space can move ftl but matter can't is weird. Matter was shown to effect space when moving in circles and or accelerating. Also the effect on space bu Matter increases to the power of four with decreasing radius or motion. This effect is called a gravity wave. So a device that can move energies close to the speed of light in a circular motion in very tight circles would amplify it'd mass energy greatly and cause a spatial effect. This effect would cause gravity waves and a twisting above and below the device. These would repel stationary gravity because of the spatial effects. Thus we have a logical paradox using the same principles taught by Einstein for both the case and case against. Also, I also know that any field that radiates from a point is associated with a mass, there is no mass less magnets or charges and light is its own field not a emmitor of it for that reason
this helped me realize that an anti gravity device would be functionally equivalent to a reactionless drive. And of course it's easy to show a reactionless drive is impossible
In Newtonian physics, yes. However we barely understand gravity and our model of quantum physics is incomplete, so I wouldn't be so quick to rule out things that seem impossible based on our incomplete understanding. In the case of gravity, we are observing a phenomenon that makes objects move in a completely reactionless manner, so why rule out the ability to harness this natural force that's all around us when we don't even really understand it? In principle, a reactionless drive could function by manipulating spacetime. We don't know how to do this (yet), but what evidence do we have that it's impossible?
@@guyincognito. well you have to be careful when you say "new physics will allow it", keep in mind that any system of new physics will have to still explain every experimental result of every experiment ever done, including all "reactionless drives" and "antigravity machines" that were proven not to work. Also, when gravity acts on an object, there is an equal and opposite force from the gravitating body itself. A falling object will accelerate towards the earth, but the earth will also accelerate a tiny amount towards the falling object (just an amount that's so small it's impossible to measure with current tech).
Aerodynamic lift is not generated just by air flowing downward. The camber of a wing having more curve on the upper surface causes the air to need to move more quickly to regain its place in the air column aft of the wing, this higher velocity airflow creates a net lower pressure just above the wing. Meanwhile the slower moving air below the wing (having less distance to travel in the same time) creates a higher pressure acting against the wing's surface. The result is that you feel a repulsive force pushing you from the higher pressure region below towards the lower pressure region above, as well as a complementary attractive force *pulling* you up towards the slight vacuum, or combined what we call 'lift' or 'lifting force'. That's not to say that you can't achieve aerodynamic *control* by redirecting the lateral flow of air -- That's the acting principle behind flight control surfaces, and the wing angle of attack; but that's not what keeps a plane in the air on its own.
What I said in the video is not that the lift is "caused" by the downward deflection of the air, but that the lift is "associated" with the downward deflection of the air. This remains a true statement, regardless of what you think the "cause" of the lift is. This is simply the result of Newton's third law of motion. For there to be an upward force on the wings, there has to be an equal and opposite downward force on something else.
How do you project the spin of greater than or less than
Have to ask though, are the two sentences at 10:04 and 11:20 repeated intentionally?! If not, I'm curious to know what was supposed to be said instead 😅
Yes, the sentences are repeated intentionally.
can you make a video about what is the navier stokes equation?
That is on my list of topics for future videos. Thanks.
You would have to build a machine that displaces space time.
It is earths displacement of spacetime that caused the effect of gravity the closer you are to the surface.
You would need something that displaces timespace as much as the earth does and place yourself between that device and the earth while keeping their resulting gravitational fields from pulling the device and the earth together while you float between them.
Good luck with that.
Bro I clicked faster than light and still came 30 min late.
Thank you Eugene, that's another great video,
I just got confused on one part though,
The accelerating box and a gravitational field cannot be told apart from each other,
But how is that possible since in the accelerating box the clocks at the top and the bottom won't tick at different speeds because they are both at the same speed (the sensor on the top so register higher frequency but the clock runs at the same speed, doesn't it?), in the gravitational field the reason for the higher frequency is different than in the box,
Also is there any way for the person in the box experience spaghettification (like objects falling into black holes) if you accelerate the box enough?
Thank you for your content I really appreciate it
When the box is accelerating, and the clocks are running at the same speed, the bottom clock reads a different frequency simply because it is moving towards the light pulses. Look at the animation, and count how many light pulses per second are hitting the bottom, as compared to how many light pulses per second are leaving the top. As for spaghettification, that is a function of the fact that the gravitational field is not uniform. A uniform gravitational field wouldn't do this. This is the same way you would be fine inside the accelerating box, regardless of the rate of acceleration, until you hit the floor of the box.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky thank you for the reply,
I do understand the light pulses frequency from the animation but the thing that is not really clear to me is that it is said someone inside the accelerating box cannot tell if they are inside such a box of just under the influence of a gravitational field,
I cannot get this because if you attach one high precision clock at the top of the box and one high precision clock at the bottom, you could measure the difference between the two clocks after some time has passed, if the box is in the gravitational field the clocks will be out of sync but if the box is just accelerating the clocks will be perfectly synced, won't they? Wouldn't this violate this statement that someone cannot tell the difference from acceleration vs gravitational field?
@@lukasaudir8 no because it is still measuring the same phenomenon regardless of what you call it. By finding that the clocks differ in time you would only draw the conclusion that SOME FORCE was affecting you, not to be able to tell which force it was. The point of the video (if I have understood it properly) is that because gravity and acceleration can be thought of as the “same thing” you measure them in the same way. Time is one method of measurement but not a method of determining between which force is present. I hope I’m right, that sounded really smart and I want to believe I understood the video hahaha
Lucas, keep in mind that in Special Relativity, observers in different reference frames will disagree on the simultaneity of different events. Therefore, different observers will disagree about whether or not the clocks at the top and at the bottom of the box are synchronized. And they will both be equally correct.
@@lukasaudir8 - correct, there would be no difference in time for the clocks in the box since they would both be accelerating equally. The presentation is wrong.