@mikeb4650 A lot of new theories are redone and reworked with every failure. However, too many researchers are not able to walk away from an idea they have worked on for years. It may be the source of their funding, no strings, no money.
I got my degree in physics in 1970 and I decided that I was not going to let the number of times that the Earth circled the Sun put a mental effect on my future. I really put aging in the back of my mind. I now am 79 and had to pause to remember it. I have enjoyed a fine journey and thank our maker !
Nice. I just tried to explain to someone under a previous video that redshift is really relativistic because the distant quasars get time dilated. There was a Nature Astronomy paper about that in 2023. I'm glad you picked this up (or is it a coincidence?).
i don’t think the word you’re looking for is coincidence (as there is no such thing as coincidence.) in mathematics, we call a coincidence “the solution.” In my personal life i witnessed events that i could not explain….until i heard of Carl Jung’s book “Synchronicities.” Finally i had an adjective to describe what i was witnessing 🤓
@arctic_haze Would the earliest matter detected be even more time-dilated due to the increased density of the primordial universe (due to increased gravity's effect)? I've always been really curious about this and it looks like we're close to answering.
Thank goodness for this channel. I keep getting click bait pseudo-sciency channel recommendations that I keep suppressing. I can tell they're click bait just by the titles. "Meteor to hit Earth in 6 months" kind of click bait. It's amazing how many channels there are to suppress. Please - PLEASE never use click baity headlines. Your channel is all the keeps me sane.
@@ronaldturner4849 "Space alien big foot rapes wife. Now HE's pregnant." -- an actual headline in the National Enquirer way back in the 80s. smh, clickbait has been around since before the internet.
I wish I had someone to share this with. Also, I wish Carl Sagan could see so many mind-blowing discoveries. I'm happy to be alive, but at the same time, I feel like shit, because I can't do anything with this information. Can't even share it. I tried and got the normal reaction: "Okay, but how exactly does this change my life?". I should have learned by now... Anyway, thank you so much for bringing this, Anton.
It affects and changes your life by giving you more appreciation.of how incredible the universe is. In vastly enhances your perspective. How is that changing your everyday life And besides, with physics/astronomy and good music, you don't need drugs, and that saves a hell of a lot of money.
this is the place in which you can find the community you search for. Unfortunately, in our day to day lives, the chances of meeting someone capable & INTERESTED enough to engage in conversation w/you about these complex/abstract topics isnt very likely (although it does happen.) Thats alright with me though, as i need to maintain balance in all aspects of my life (social is no different.) PS: this comment may sound arrogant to some, i apologize in advance :)
What's fascinating me is that far distant objects we study are objects that could look at us as their far distant objects. Whatever we deduce from them is something affecting us aswell.
sometimes i like to try to imagine creatures who can move around at relativistic speeds and aren't fully matter and they get headaches trying to imagine our lives where time seems constant or particles trying to imagine life in a giant universe where things don't just pop in and out of existence but are stable for eons... and trying to live in such a dull world 🙂
I'm autistic with ADHD & have tried to watch this video several times now only to get distracted thinking about how the further away an object is, the slower it appears to be moving. For instanc, you can wave your hand in front of your eyes too fast for your eyes to see each finger but when we watch a jet fly across the sky we can easily make out the details even though it's going _much much faster_ - unless it's too close of course, then it's a blur. I sometimes wonder if this is why the stars _appear_ motionless, they're too far away for us to make out the movement with our naked eye. Idk if this has anything to do with the video, I'm just hoping I'll be able to pay attn to the video now that I've gotten this out. Thank you for your patience while I chased this squirrel
Actual gps satellites experience time a little bit faster than on the surface of the earth. They do experience time 7 microsecond per day slower due to their orbital speed, but they also experience time 45 microseconds faster by virtue of being in a lower gravitational field, for a net effect of experiencing time 38 microseconds faster than on the surface of the earth.
they dont experience time any difference that we do on the surface. they're time is the same as our time. yes when you compare the time difference yes there is a difference but they're experiencing it in that time at the same rate we are. and we as an external dont perceive them as moving slower or faster because their time is different. we see them in our time moving at their rate according to our time. and they see us passing by at their rate according to their time. i guarantee you sitting on the planet witnessing something pass by our planet 10% the speed of light as moving fast not slow. but when you checked the clocks at after the pass our time would be more in the future than theirs. but we still "experience" time the exact same way, no faster, no slower. we witness our surroundings on our timeline not theirs. they would not be appearing to move slower.
@@Larry_fm_MD To their reference frame yes, time would progress the same. But, from the perspective of our reference frame time progression is different for gps satellites and has to be accounted for to make gps positioning work.
Beat me to it ... There are special AND general relativity effects with opposite consequences for satellites. The general relativity effects are larger and win out. Time passes FASTER for the satellites.
@@rockapedra1130for GPS satellites, not for regular ones. GPS are too distant, so the general relativity wins for them. 36 thousand kilometers is no joke. Plus they are much slower. So, astronauts experience time slower due to much closer proximity to Earth and faster speed. SR effect is more prominent, GR is much less.
It’s misleading to say rapidly moving objects “appear to move in slow motion” because of time dilation. The objects appear to be moving as they are, at speeds a significant fraction of c. It’s internal processes within the object that appear to be slowed.
@@SimulationAdmin nono, the biological proces continues. the spacetraveller at the speed of light, wont see time change or anything else that will be his perception of reality. But meanwhile he still has to eat sleep and do other biological things. Then after his trip of 60 years travelling at the speed of light he lands on earth again, sees his 80 year old twin brother, and then he sees himself in the mirror, (now he is able to see get perception of change, he now sees the seconds on watch changing), and now he sees himself looking same as his twinbrother 60 years older. Al these 60 years of travelling at the speed of light, the photons which reflected on his surrounding were never able to catch up with his eyes, to show the changes. So conclusion not all Holywood scifi is acurate portraying reality.....
they should consider looking at empty space as being in a state of chronometric flux. and that gravity fields modulate that flux with a bias to the past which scales at range but which appears to be a nominal constant due to causality of the emissions from the relative object per its position. i have theorized for a while that on the galactic scale, the modulation of this flux going past it's peak at spatial position x might cause more supernova in the rear quadrant of a galaxy relative to its drift vector, and perhaps a surge in star birth and water formation in the rotational lead boundary of the forward facing 90* difficult to correlate the data over our short observational interval though.
So is this time dilation the reason we are seeing these galaxies that are older than they should be? Like, they’re not really that old, because of time dilation? Or is the Big Bang older? There are brilliant cosmologists, I’m sure they’ve thought of this, but it never seems to enter any discussions that I’ve followed.
The BB is theory, the same as inflation. Expansion is complex. "is the Big Bang older" No, but yes because of inflation. Basically the universe (observable part) was very small, but expansion made it very large and because expansion further away appears faster than light and light is slow to travel across an expanding universe and took so much longer to get here it all appears bigger, or maybe is bigger.
No this doesn't explain distant galaxy observations. These sorts of time dilation effects are accounted for in the basic cosmology equations that we've used for around 100 years. We don't really discuss time dilation because it's well understood what general relativity predicts on cosmic scales. Notably that any globally uniform time dilation is simply a redifinition of time coordinates and has no physical reality. What we're talking about in this video is a purely observational effect due to redshift.
Something Anton is not mentioning is that under current cosmological models, this cosmological time dilation is perceived, not real. At the end of the video he states "it's real", but he referring to the effect, not the dilation itself. The examples given of satellites undergoing time dilation on the other hand is real time dilation, not perceived.
What do you mean not real? Your observations of a distant event are as valid as an observer close to that event. You can disagree about things, but there is no paradox.
@ianstopher9111 think of a far away galaxy moving away from us, sending photons our direction. Each subsequent photon has a slightly longer distance to travel than the one before it, so two photons sent one second apart would arrive slightly more spaced out, creating a "slowed down" observation.
I don't know how technical the terms "real" and "perceived" are, but I understand what you're saying. Time is not actually moving more slowly in those distant galaxies (Edit: this statement is imprecise, see below), we only observe it to be moving more slowly, since those galaxies have a large relative velocity to us. While satellites in a sense actually experience time moving a different speed than we do (although it's complicated as someone said above, since their orbital velocity slows time for them while being in a lower gravitational potential speeds it up). The difference I believe is between special and general relativity - and, if we want to be technical, the fact that Earth satellites are essentially in the same spatial location as Earth. Gravitational fields and accelerations change things. The resolution to the twin paradox comes from the fact that, in order to turn around and come back to Earth, the astronaut twin has to accelerate / change their reference frame. You can only ever talk about whether two objects have experienced different amounts of time passing if those objects begin in the same location, and end in the same location.
@@halfstache1070 Actually, this is just propagation delay of the light, not time dilation. In observations of distant galaxies, there will be both propagation delay effects since the distance between us and the galaxies is changing, and time dilation effects since we have a large relative velocity to those galaxies. The propagation delay I assume can be worked out from the redshift, and the rest is time dilation.
GPS satellites experience time *faster* because the general relativistic effect of being outside the earth’s gravitational well (they experience about 1/4 the gravity compared to MSL) is about +45 microseconds/day, while the special relativistic effect of moving faster (they move at about 4 km/s) than a person at rest is -7 microseconds. Therefore the net effect is +38 microseconds/day. They program the clocks to be -38 microseconds/day on the ground before launch such that the clocks tick at the nominal/desired frequency on orbit. Receivers do have to account for the eccentricity of their orbits, which brings them closer to the earth and faster at perigee (both effects slow the clock) and slower and farther from the earth at apogee (both effects speed up the clock). But the net effect of a full orbit on the clock is zero.
Now we're getting into a topic that I can sink my teeth into. The time dilation factor (γ) is given by the Lorentz factor: [ \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} ] where (v) is the relative velocity between the observers and (c) is the speed of light. This is the cool math 🙏🙏🙏 Great show Anton 👍
Not quite right. If you have a fixed observer viewing a moving clock you have to take into account the changing disttance between the fixed observer and the moving clock. the Lorenttz factor gives the time dilation that is measured by a continuum of observers in the observer's reference frame such that the moving clock is observed by the observer at exactly the same position as the clock. When you take into account the changing distance of the clock from the fixed observer you will find that the moving clock is apparently slower than given by Lorentz and an approaching clock always appears tto be faster than the stationary observer's clock. This correction is essential to make sense of the twins paradox
@@rogerphelps9939 twins paradox demonstrates that the twin who travels at high speed and undergoes acceleration will age less than the twin who remains in a relatively stationary, inertial frame of reference. The resolution of facts are becoming more clear as science observations become clear and we learn trust in the tools we use.
@@rogerphelps9939 Exactly! The actual time dilation is caused by the speed differential. The changing distance however is causing a purely "optical illusion" doppler shift effect that SEEM to slow down / speed up the object's clock. Up to both those effect, is is Special Relativity and (relatively) quite simple maths. The twin paradox is resolved fully only if you ALSO take into account which object is actually accelerating, as interpreted NOT by the actual distance change per second squared, but by the "feeling an acceleration" kinda force. Being immobile on a planet is feeling it's gravity, and yields the exact same effects as being in an "actually" accelerating spaceship. The actual baseline being when one is in true inertial "free fall" movement. And once you add in acceleration, you need General Relativity, and its maths are a REAL headache to fully grasp and even worse to actually compute.
Well said.. However, it's important to remember that even though distant objects appear time dilated, they still exist in the present. Just because that distant object looks like it's slowing down doesn't mean that it actually is. When we observe distant objects, we're viewing them as they were back in time, when they existed within the cosmic event horizon. As time progressed, they have fallen from view such that their light will never reach us now. It doesn't mean that they cease to exist. It just means space has expand faster than light. Btw, I was just chatting with someone about this very subject. Maybe you read my thread? That would be cool.
You are confusing the time light takes to get to us with time dilation. These aren't the same thing. Their time is absolutely slower compared to the time we are experiencing. It doesn't just appear to us to be slower, it is slower. Thats what time dilation is. Time is relative.
@@NG-VQ37VHR Your mistaken. Firstly, the Nobel prize was awarded in 2022 for proving the universe isn't locally real. So, you're going to have to fit that into your interpretation of GR somewhere. Think about it. Secondly, I'm not confusing light and time dilation. It was my point that light and time dilation don't have anything to do with each other so GR's interpretation of time dilation is incorrect. The universe isn't locally real.
@@catpoke9557 It means that what you see isn't actually what's happening to the object due to the speed of light creating a time delay. You see an image of the past. What you see isn't "locally real".
@@MatrixVectorPSI But then why do our calculations of how the clocks of satellites should be adjusted work? According to our understanding, satellites should experience time differences in both directions, their time moving a bit slower due to their much higher velocity, but also their time moving a bit faster due to being further out in the Earth's gravity well; the latter effect is larger, so their time should actually move a slight bit faster than ours (+38 microseconds per day), and their clocks before launch are adjusted to fit this. With these adjustments, though there are variations from moment to moment since their orbits aren't perfectly spherical, their clocks over the course of a full orbit run on average at the same speed as ours. If either one of the considerations used here was wrong in some way, then the current calculations we use would not work
Interesting video, Anton. You do realize that this experiment you describe using white dwarfs is constrained to galaxies with z < 4, no older than 13 Gyr. We will NEVER see Type Ia supernovae in galaxies with z > 4. Why? In order for a Type Ia supernova to occur, there must be a white dwarf progenitor star. These stars represent the final evolutionary stage for stars below 4 solar masses. More massive stars have shorter lives and end either as neutron stars (4-8 solar masses) or as Type II supernovae (8 solar masses and greater). These stars < 4 solar masses must live out their lives to the end - we have to wait for them to exhaust their compliment of hydrogen and run through the helium that was built up before the white dwarf phase. For a solar-mass star, this takes about 12 billion years. A 4-solar mass star reaches this point in about 400 million years. Thus, the only white-dwarf progenitors would be those from stars whose initial mass was between 3 and 4 solar masses. For lower-mass stars, there simply wasn’t enough time for their white dwarfs to form in the very young universe. For a solar-mass star to reach its white dwarf phase, we would need almost the current age of the universe as a wait time! Using the stellar evolution of 3-4 solar-mass stars, we constrain the redshift when Type Ia supernovae would first appear. This constraint corresponds to a “look-back time” of 13 billion years (z = 4) as follows: 13.8 Billion years - (380 million years for the first stars to form + 400 million years for progenitor white dwarfs to form) = 13 billion years look-back time (z = 4). Currently, we see no evidence of Type Ia supernovae in galaxies with redshifts greater than 4. These early galaxies and the very young universe simply weren’t old enough at 800 million years for white dwarfs to have formed.
Sam and Jake stood under the warm spray of the shower, steam swirling around them. Their laughter echoed off the tiles as they washed away the grime of the day. “You know,” Sam said, lathering shampoo into his hair, “I was reading this article about the history of hand jobs. It’s fascinating.” Jake chuckled, rinsing soap off his arms. “Only you would find that interesting. What did it say?” “Well,” Sam began, “it turns out that hand jobs were a common part of male bonding rituals in some cultures. It was more about camaraderie than sex.” Jake raised an eyebrow. “Really? That’s pretty wild. Imagine explaining that at a family dinner.” They both laughed, the sound blending with the noise of the water. “Hey, knowledge is power,” Sam grinned, rinsing his hair. Jake nodded, smiling. “Just another quirky piece of trivia for the books. Only you, Sam.”
That's pretty cool. If we could zoom in and see their version of a Sloth, and it was talking, it would probably be talking in super slow motion, and it would be funny.
Albert Einstein is, by far, the greatest scientist of all time. He created an original proof of the Pythagorean Theorem at the age of 10; read and understand Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Kant's Critique of Practical Reason by the age of 11, taught himself integral and differential calculus by the age of 14, wrote his first scientific paper (that was published) by the age of 16. He had perfect scores on the math and physics sections of the Entry Exam to the Zurich Polytechnic in Switzerland (named the ETH), but due to poor scores on French and history he wasn't accepted that year into the ETH. However, it's important to note that the youngest the ETH accepted any student was 18 and Einstein took the exam at 16 years old. Before the age of 23 Einstein had received the entire foundations of Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics from first principles, a Herculean feat of genius and diligence. Unfortunately, Einstein isn't more famous for this work (a trilogy of papers between 1901 and 1904) because J.W. Gibbs had already done it but Gibbs work hadn't yet been widely translated into German so the Germam physics community didn't know. From 1905 to his death I'm 1955 Einstein revolutionized science in a way that hadn't been seen in the history of knowledge. The closest historical analog is Isaac Newton in 1666 but the mathematics in Newton is child's play compared to Einstein. Einstein started the quantum revolution in 1905 with his earth-shattering paper on light quanta and then shattered physics again in the same year with his mind-bending paper on Special Relativity which gave us spacetime and relativistic kinematics. Einstein then quantized the radiation field, proved the duloung-petit law, discovered wave-particle duality in 1909, Spontaneous and Stimulated Emission (the LASER), gave us Bose-Einstein Condensates and Bose-Einstein Statistics, Quantum Entanglement, Wormholes, and several other amazing discoveries. Most science historians believe Albert Einstein should have won at least 10 Nobel Prizes. Let that sink in. When polled in the year 2000 by the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) which physicist was the greatest in history, the top living physicists in 2000 voted Albert Einstein number one. Without Einstein, we wouldn't have modern technology, including the GPS! Heck, Einstein even managed to solve the Tea Leaf Paradox in his spare time before he died, and this was a mystery that eluded many of the greatest minds of the past several centuries. For any history buff, he is the GOAT scientist and well deserving of being synonymous with genius 👑🐐.
@@ronvaw despite photons having no mass, they still have a speed and carry momentum, which means they can exert a force when they bounce off a reflective surface like a sail, effectively pushing it forward. This force is called radiation pressure, and while small from a single photon, the cumulative effect of many photons hitting a large sail can provide propulsion in space since there’s no friction or resistance in a vacuum.
1. Some objects as redshift indicating a velocity > c, at least up to 4c (since space is traveling away faster than c). => What kind of time dilation can we expect for them? 2. Also, studying events in slow motion should make it possible to study them more in detail, right?
Thanks Anton, Time Dialation it's mind bending stuff . The Universe is amazing and thanks to you I'm learning more about it every day which is definitely a good thing. I'm still WAVING AND STAYING WONDERFUL. HAVE A GREAT WEEK EVERYONE. PEACE AND LOVE TO EVERYONE ❤❤.
There are two types of time dilation: kinematic and gravitational. Anton described kinematic. The movie "Interstellar" demonstrated gravitational (since thet were close to a massive black hole.) To a distant observer time actually appears to stop at the event horizon of a BH.
We have a ton more senses than 5, but none of them are spiritual in nature :) Balance, thermoception, possibility some of us can detect barometric pressure or magnetic fields, slight night vision but not as good as animals. Some of us can even see extra colors! No ESP though, everything works on science 😁
Every time I mention on YT that time is not linear and that these old galaxies that only appeared '400m years' after the BB are influenced by time dialation I get laughed off. This proves my point. Cheers for another great show, Anton. PS> This could explain the rotation of spiral galaxies more so than the mythical Dark Matter.
so taking your last bit of info, you were referencing the fact that Sagittarius A - our local blackhole- which is known to spin at near the theorized limits. that it might be effecting things locally with said time dilation?
I don’t get it distant stars will have time dilation with respect to our clocks, but an observers at that distant star will also see us red shifted and observe us as being time dilated. How is that possible? ???
I think the original poster was not speaking of "us", as more events in our Milky Way will proceed more slowly when viewed by a distant observer who considers our galaxy moving away from them. Events in their galaxy look slowed to us. Events in our galaxy look slowed to them.
That's the twin paradox baby. The short answer is that we've both got different definitions time and what events happen at the same time. For us 200 years have past while some aliens have only expereinced 100 years. Yet for those aliens Their 100 year party is at the same time as when we've only past 50 years. Our time axes are unaligned. It's a crazy stuff universe we live in.
@@juanningatlifetechnically it’s a unit of measurement that we use based on the sun’s rotation. We also use it as a way of describing things like aging but it’s subjective. How would you measure your time in another solar system? What if you was on a planet the sun didn’t touch? You would you a different type measurement system to create time for yourself.
At least for astronomical math, that's pretty easy math. Someone would've noticed that already and it's probably already accounted for. That effect is also not the only observed effects of the proposed dark matter.
If everything was destroyed on Earth and we had to start over without knowing what existed in the past, people would have to reinvent new religions, but the science would stay exactly the same. "Thank god" for science!!!
Some followup questions on another great video on an interesting topic! Can you break things down a bit more? My understanding of time dilation is that it is relative. We observe fast moving objects in slow motion. But there is also time dilation due to the expanding universe which is what shifts the light emitted by photons to longer wavelengths. Because light is massless, all observers observe it in the same way. But, there is also time dilation due to the presence of large masses. So, for these super-nova, I suppose what is happening is that we observe them to be happening in slow motion simply because of their apparent velocity. So, whether they are far or near, if they are moving much faster than us, we would see the same slow motion effect, right? But, the light emitted would only redshift for those very far away objects because of the time dilation due to the expanding universe. Right?
@M.F.-lq7jb That's wrong. Satellites have their clocks tuned to be slower than the desired Earthside clock frequency because they will run FASTER in orbit. The speedup from being further from Earth is greater than the slowdown from orbital velocity.
I imagine that it has been a gradual change not sudden, time has been speeding up since the beginning of the universe, and it probably still is. Great video, I guess i could say that it started off slow but picked up at the end.
the only way i can make any sense of this is we live on a finite cluster of matter in an infinite universe. If energy is constantly roiling up from the void pushing everything apart then it must be infinite and what we think of as the big bang must’ve been the event that created the matter in this patch of it. I haven’t seen any evidence that points to the creation of the universe, just that matter. As far as I know we con only see light created by stars, right? Sure it’s bent and stretched but it’s still starlight right? I’ve never heard any suggestions on where the edge might be. Just very old, very distant light that’s observed in a way that suggests it’s all spreading out and has been since the beginning. From what I can tell everyone is assuming the universe was born when the matter in it was… but I can’t see any reason that same energy wasn’t just humming away before the matter arrived. Am I wrong? Please help if you know why my conception is wrong it seems logical to me but i don’t have an education on this i just watch a lot of science videos and this is what i gather
I also feel like I’m coming close to something in the ball park of existing ideas like whats it called, inflationary multiverse or something like that, but I feel like I’m thinking of it very differently. I’m really trying to visualize what I’m being told i think just with the idea that, this quantum foam type thing is interesting i’d like to see a simulation of this foam running
I think I get you; why does 'matter' denoted the beginning of the 'now'. Could it not just be an indicator of a phase change: a point at which the energy stopped just humming along freely. Or, am I off the mark?
Does this mean that the stars orbiting Sagittarius A* are actually orbiting much faster than we see? And since they have elliptical orbits, the dilation would change (a lot?) with distance.
What effect does time dilation have on the calculation of the Hubble Constant? I ask because I'm not sure whether further away galaxies are actually moving more slowly or if they only appear to be, from our perspective.
This time dilation is only an apparant time dilation, and it also has the exact same mechanism as what causes redshift, which is part of the basic equations used to calculate the most classic measurements of the hubble constant. So all of the spacetime effects of an expanding universe were taken into account from the start.
Time dilation isn't just how things appear, and actually the Lorentz transform doesn't even give you what you see, just how relativistic things behave. Then this doesn't necessarily indicate time dilation, but is just how it appears as it moves away and the signals from it take a longer time to arrive which is just a propagation delay and not time dilation. I'm their local space they probably aren't moving that fast through space but space they are in is moving away...
They can know the propagation delay from the redshift though. Redshift gives the relative speed between us and distant galaxies, which gives the propagation delay. Then the rest of the effect is time dilation. Edit: Also, the Lorentz transform is special relativity only. Time dilation can be both a special or general relativistic effect.
@@qzamboni yeah but it's not just propagation delay from there to here but an increasing delay because they are moving further and further away over the time they are emitting the signal. That's not time dilation. Time dilation would be that the event actually does take longer. This is really just that the event is seen as longer.
I'm probably wrong on this but my understanding was that the closer you are to a gravitational mass (like the Earth) the slower time would move for you. This would mean that satellites travel through time faster than we do on the surface which is the opposite of what you stated? Love the channel!
Time dilation is typically observed through the interaction between particles or objects with a common reference frame. The act of measurement with imperfect instruments/methods Itself can introduce uncertainties and distortions, which may be misinterpreted as time dilation. Time dilation is often described as a consequence of relative motion between observers. However, what if the concept of "relative motion" itself is illusory? In other words, what if the apparent motion between observers is merely a subjective interpretation of their respective reference frames? If so, then time dilation would be a result of our collective perception rather than an objective feature of spacetime. Some theories suggest that spacetime is a flexible, dynamic entity that can warp and bend under various influences. What if the fabric of spacetime is not affected by mass-energy distributions or motion, but rather, our understanding of spacetime is influenced by our observations and measurements? In this scenario, time dilation would be a consequence of our imperfect understanding of spacetime, rather than an inherent property of it. Time dilation seems to imply a cause-and-effect relationship between the accelerating object and the resulting time contraction. However, what if causality is not absolute? What if the observed effects of time dilation are simply a manifestation of our attempt to make sense of the world, rather than an actual cause-and-effect sequence? This perspective would suggest that time dilation is not an objective feature of spacetime but rather an emergent property of our cognitive processing. The fabric of spacetime at the quantum level can be thought of as a "quantum foam," where space-time fluctuations are inherent to the fabric itself. What if these fluctuations are responsible for the apparent effects of time dilation, rather than being caused by external factors such as motion or gravity? In this scenario, time dilation would be an emergent property of the quantum foam, rather than an objective feature of spacetime. I've presented an argument that time dilation might be relative and not exist at its source, though it is an unconventional view, there should be further investigation taken seriously. Instinctively, this is what I believe.
I have some difficulties with discerning the effects of different phenomena. So there is the classical Doppler effect causing a song played in a car moving away from me to be played slower, the playing time would be twice as long if the Doppler effect caused the pitches to sound lower by one octave (which would require quite a fast car). Now, in the universe you have the additional effects of the expanding space and moving objects, in which, however, I am wondering what it means to have space expanding faster than the speed of light. Anyway, if we have a redshift doubling the wavelength, it is no wonder to me that the event would last teice as long for us observers. I mean, we should observe the same amount of periods of the light signal? So how is it that we can attribute this effect to time dilation if the formula is the same in the classical world? To me it seems that - assuming that nothing can move faster than light - the mere fact of observing a redshift larger than 2 indicates that time dilation is a real thing.
The further away it is the greater the red shift, which means the light feed is stretched out over a greater distance, so you should expect to see the event last longer the further you are away from it. Has this principle of light taking longer to reach us due to the stretching of space been taken into considering the age of the universe?
Yes. The effective distance light has to travel through an expanding universe is referred to as the luminosity distance and can be related to other properties such as cosmic time by well known path integrals over the metric for any given FLRW cosmology.
one could also maybe average pulsar frequencies by distance, although they're probably also all over the place. can we see pulsars in other galaxies at all?
if something is moving away from you, it would look like youre dropping frames or losing fps. But its not because there is less fps, its because its further away, making frames travel greater distances. So does that mean the time dilation only happens for the observer and no one else?
Oh, time dilation is absolutely real and measurable, just like Einstein predicted with his little theory of relativity. The twin paradox? That's just a cute illustration showing how different inertial frames mess with the passage of time. And let’s not forget the grand role of acceleration in this paradox-it’s just there to switch reference frames and make that all-important comparison. But don't kid yourself, it's not the star of the show when it comes to the time difference.
Could this explain the red dots that JWST found popping all over the place? You just made a video on these red dots and I'm just watching this older video and making the connection.
Hello Anton Petrov, Thank you very much for your brilliant contributions. I have found Louise Riofrio's cosmological model (GM=c*t³) exciting for several years. Because it so elegantly solves countless problems of the current cosmological model. In their model, the speed of light has been decreasing continuously since the Big Bang. According to them, their "discovery" is not a violation of Einstein's principle of relativity. Rather, it is an extension that significantly simplifies the model overall.
Where do you think the missing matter is? Much of it is in a different time from our perspective as well as photons. Also light can be matter to alfa radiation is basically Hydrogen. Black holes make more matter than consume and space expanded because of the matter energy thrown back into this space....
I was just wondering, how much effect does time dilation of the early universe have on the red-shift of light? For example, the gravity (density) of a black hole will red shift light passing near the event horizon due to time dilation. Light emitted in the high-density state of the early universe that traveled all the way to the lower density state of the modern universe would also experience the effects of time dilation. How much does that contribute to the red-shift?
Anton, I think satellite clocks run a bit faster than those on Earth not slower, because they are in free fall so they experience a weaker gravitational field. You always choose good topics and that is appreciated, but I think you could be a bit more accurate on the theory.
@@avsystem3142 Nope. He is wrong. The lower gravity means the satellite clock runs faster. It's general relativity. The extra clock speed of the satellite is not enough to counter this effect. Get it right please. Time in a gravity well runs slower relative to free space. Look it up. Learn something.
Please, forgive my ignorance, but if the closer you are to massive objects the slower time passes, how come time passes slower in the space station than to someone on earth, who is therefore closer to the massive object?
Hep me out here, I am missing something. If I am understanding correctly, time dilates at a more or less constant rate the further objects are from Earth? Are we thinking we are at the center of the Universe again? Since Anton didn't say anything about this only working when the telescope is pointed in one direction, can I assume time dilates in every direction radiating out from Earth equally? Are we concluding that time was different in the early Universe long ago, or it is different the further out you go (even though we are seeing light from billions of years ago)? Time passes differently on the Moon than the Earth's surface, even a high tower top differs slightly. Would Earth time seem dilated from the perspective of the Sun, Pluto more so? Does time pass faster half-way to the center of the Earth than the surface? Is it infinite at the center?
Is there time dilation as we age? Why do days and weeks seem to pass at blinding speed as I get old? Nothing seems to have blue shifted, but here it is, tomorrow already! Thanks for yesterday's program on time dilation, Anton.
There is research into this too. Partly it is simply because as we get older the same interval is relatively smaller portion of our life. For example for 5 year old 1 year is 20% of their whole life, for 50 year old it is just 2%, so it seems to go so much faster. Also it might be because brain is getting older and slower at processing thoughts. And because we take longer to take to conclusion, it seems like the world around is moving faster. But no, it should not be caused by relativistic effects, more like psychological.
if a standard candle burns slower, would it also be weaker, as energy released is soread over a longer period? So it would not quite be a standard candle?
Ok, so this supports something I've been considering about Red shift being used to show that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Couldn't Red shift also be theoretically explained by time dilation and the space between galaxies expanding?
Watched a presentation from Caltech yesterday. They have a simulation on supercomputers running that includes cosmic time dilation and a new model of the entire universe that General Relativity can't account for. Should be done in 5 years.
Hi, Just to summerize because the 'time dilation' animation was kinda meh. Time dilation happens for objects in motion. So standing on a fast moving object, the faster you go, the more time slow down. But when we messure time dilation from far away objects the time dilation we messure is based upon the relative speed it moves away from us (or towards us). And you also have the red shift due to expansion of the universe. So if I am right you are talking about 3 types of time dilation. 1. Red shift time dilation due to expasion of the universe. 2. Relative time dilation from distance planets compared to their sun seen from Earth. 3. Absolute time dilation which is the speed of the object in the universe. Did I get it right? Did I miss something?
It seems to me that Anton is talking about two phenomenons intermixed? I have thought of time dilation due to redshift as analogous to doppler effect and thus not a relativistic phenomena. E.g. the light reaching the observer stretched, like a slowed up casette tape. Or am I mistaken? The slowing of time due to relativistic speeds however is entirely different, as the effect affects the traveler's time permanently, not only the light received by the observer.
help me understand Einstein, time and relativitty? We observe light in a telescope, light is a particle, particle path can be "slowed down" by gravity. So why do we need time? I am wainting to discuss
My boss has somehow been able to call upon time dilation when I'm there.
That's how he prevents you from getting your raise on time...
lol same. bastards
@@dennycote6339 I ¢ what you did there...
Billy stop watching and commenting on youtube and get back to these invoices.
He's an expansive man.
When the science is good, it is reconfirmed in different ways.
Science is about source's evidence is pseudo science conspiracy theory
And whenit does not work, stop adding "repairs" learn from Al!
@mikeb4650 A lot of new theories are redone and reworked with every failure. However, too many researchers are not able to walk away from an idea they have worked on for years. It may be the source of their funding, no strings, no money.
I know of many scientific fields that are reconfirmed but your nit allowed to discuss.
Nobody censures astronomical research for now.
@@marknovak6498 Like the great thinkers of the renosance, we are bound by what we are taught and forbidden to think outside the normal. FLAT EARTH?
Hello wonderful Anton, this is person. Thank you for bringing distant universe to Earth.
lol
As always, bye bye.
Hello wonderful Anton, this is person. Thank you for bringing distant universe to Earth.
I experience time dilation every time I sit down to play video games. Just like that and the day is over and I have Cheeto dust all over my chest.
Gotta take bong hits in between games for extra time dilation effects
Your icon is stunning!
That might be time contraction
@experienceofchris1108 some of us do dab hits to experience the full effects of time dilation
your pfp got me acting up
I got my degree in physics in 1970 and I decided that I was not going to let the number of times that the Earth circled the Sun put a mental effect on my future. I really put aging in the back of my mind. I now am 79 and had to pause to remember it. I have enjoyed a fine journey and thank our maker !
How much did it ever pay?😂
Nice. I just tried to explain to someone under a previous video that redshift is really relativistic because the distant quasars get time dilated. There was a Nature Astronomy paper about that in 2023. I'm glad you picked this up (or is it a coincidence?).
Or is it a Time Dilation 🌞
@@cef-ym3gb😂🫡🤝🤝🤝
i don’t think the word you’re looking for is coincidence (as there is no such thing as coincidence.) in mathematics, we call a coincidence “the solution.” In my personal life i witnessed events that i could not explain….until i heard of Carl Jung’s book “Synchronicities.” Finally i had an adjective to describe what i was witnessing 🤓
@@cef-ym3gb There is a quasar in your closet ooooOOooo
@arctic_haze Would the earliest matter detected be even more time-dilated due to the increased density of the primordial universe (due to increased gravity's effect)? I've always been really curious about this and it looks like we're close to answering.
Thank goodness for this channel. I keep getting click bait pseudo-sciency channel recommendations that I keep suppressing. I can tell they're click bait just by the titles. "Meteor to hit Earth in 6 months" kind of click bait. It's amazing how many channels there are to suppress.
Please - PLEASE never use click baity headlines. Your channel is all the keeps me sane.
Yellowstone eruption imminent! 🌋😵
@@ronaldturner4849 "Space alien big foot rapes wife. Now HE's pregnant."
-- an actual headline in the National Enquirer way back in the 80s. smh, clickbait has been around since before the internet.
I wish I had someone to share this with. Also, I wish Carl Sagan could see so many mind-blowing discoveries. I'm happy to be alive, but at the same time, I feel like shit, because I can't do anything with this information. Can't even share it. I tried and got the normal reaction: "Okay, but how exactly does this change my life?". I should have learned by now...
Anyway, thank you so much for bringing this, Anton.
Odds are you'll eventually find yourself with people that share your interests. Hang in there. :)
It affects and changes your life by giving you more appreciation.of how incredible the universe is. In vastly enhances your perspective.
How is that changing your everyday life
And besides, with physics/astronomy and good music, you don't need drugs, and that saves a hell of a lot of money.
@@George-rk7ts that's true. Thank you for giving me a new way to look at things.
We might be living quite distant from each other, but you are not alone feeling like that. Greetings from Germany wonderful person.
this is the place in which you can find the community you search for. Unfortunately, in our day to day lives, the chances of meeting someone capable & INTERESTED enough to engage in conversation w/you about these complex/abstract topics isnt very likely (although it does happen.) Thats alright with me though, as i need to maintain balance in all aspects of my life (social is no different.)
PS: this comment may sound arrogant to some, i apologize in advance :)
Hello wonderful Anton! 😊 I am frigging grateful that You are! And doing what you do!
You are the best science teacher ever!
I can say that you have one of the most interesting UA-cam channels. Your diversity of topics is always interesting and well done.
What's fascinating me is that far distant objects we study are objects that could look at us as their far distant objects. Whatever we deduce from them is something affecting us aswell.
Except we're not a supernova or quasar or anything else likely detectable at such distances
The universe just gets weirder and weirder, and I love it.
There a few tech signatures but our own rule it's never aliens creates the Fermi paradox
sometimes i like to try to imagine creatures who can move around at relativistic speeds and aren't fully matter and they get headaches trying to imagine our lives where time seems constant or particles trying to imagine life in a giant universe where things don't just pop in and out of existence but are stable for eons... and trying to live in such a dull world 🙂
Einstein explained kinematic time dilation in 1905 and gravitational time dilation in 1915.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ proof that god does not exist and scientists are going to hell and that jesus was no engineer
Actually, our understanding of the universe is weird and it keeps getting less.
I'm autistic with ADHD & have tried to watch this video several times now only to get distracted thinking about how the further away an object is, the slower it appears to be moving.
For instanc, you can wave your hand in front of your eyes too fast for your eyes to see each finger but when we watch a jet fly across the sky we can easily make out the details even though it's going _much much faster_ - unless it's too close of course, then it's a blur.
I sometimes wonder if this is why the stars _appear_ motionless, they're too far away for us to make out the movement with our naked eye.
Idk if this has anything to do with the video, I'm just hoping I'll be able to pay attn to the video now that I've gotten this out. Thank you for your patience while I chased this squirrel
That's just the parallax effect, nothing to do with time dilation :)
Actual gps satellites experience time a little bit faster than on the surface of the earth. They do experience time 7 microsecond per day slower due to their orbital speed, but they also experience time 45 microseconds faster by virtue of being in a lower gravitational field, for a net effect of experiencing time 38 microseconds faster than on the surface of the earth.
they dont experience time any difference that we do on the surface. they're time is the same as our time. yes when you compare the time difference yes there is a difference but they're experiencing it in that time at the same rate we are. and we as an external dont perceive them as moving slower or faster because their time is different. we see them in our time moving at their rate according to our time. and they see us passing by at their rate according to their time. i guarantee you sitting on the planet witnessing something pass by our planet 10% the speed of light as moving fast not slow. but when you checked the clocks at after the pass our time would be more in the future than theirs. but we still "experience" time the exact same way, no faster, no slower. we witness our surroundings on our timeline not theirs. they would not be appearing to move slower.
@@Larry_fm_MD To their reference frame yes, time would progress the same. But, from the perspective of our reference frame time progression is different for gps satellites and has to be accounted for to make gps positioning work.
Whoa. Cool.
Beat me to it ... There are special AND general relativity effects with opposite consequences for satellites. The general relativity effects are larger and win out. Time passes FASTER for the satellites.
@@rockapedra1130for GPS satellites, not for regular ones. GPS are too distant, so the general relativity wins for them. 36 thousand kilometers is no joke. Plus they are much slower.
So, astronauts experience time slower due to much closer proximity to Earth and faster speed. SR effect is more prominent, GR is much less.
It’s misleading to say rapidly moving objects “appear to move in slow motion” because of time dilation. The objects appear to be moving as they are, at speeds a significant fraction of c. It’s internal processes within the object that appear to be slowed.
Dude no one going understand what hell your saying lol.
I'm glad you said that, I thought I was going mad.
@@SimulationAdmin nono, the biological proces continues. the spacetraveller at the speed of light, wont see time change or anything else that will be his perception of reality. But meanwhile he still has to eat sleep and do other biological things. Then after his trip of 60 years travelling at the speed of light he lands on earth again, sees his 80 year old twin brother, and then he sees himself in the mirror, (now he is able to see get perception of change, he now sees the seconds on watch changing), and now he sees himself looking same as his twinbrother 60 years older. Al these 60 years of travelling at the speed of light, the photons which reflected on his surrounding were never able to catch up with his eyes, to show the changes.
So conclusion not all Holywood scifi is acurate portraying reality.....
It's all relative at this point!
@@stealplow8462I believe he's talking to those who do.
Excellent presentation for an introduction to time dilation! Thank you. Maybe you can share some theories regarding Bootes Void.
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 👍🙂
Relatively exciting study about a mind blowing principle
they should consider looking at empty space as being in a state of chronometric flux. and that gravity fields modulate that flux with a bias to the past which scales at range but which appears to be a nominal constant due to causality of the emissions from the relative object per its position. i have theorized for a while that on the galactic scale, the modulation of this flux going past it's peak at spatial position x might cause more supernova in the rear quadrant of a galaxy relative to its drift vector, and perhaps a surge in star birth and water formation in the rotational lead boundary of the forward facing 90*
difficult to correlate the data over our short observational interval though.
Bro wtf are you on abt
Lol
IKR? How can anyone be expected to comprehend a sentence containing multiple independent clauses in this day and age.
Is that you Terrence Howard?
Sabine just posted about this too,great video as well!
So is this time dilation the reason we are seeing these galaxies that are older than they should be? Like, they’re not really that old, because of time dilation? Or is the Big Bang older? There are brilliant cosmologists, I’m sure they’ve thought of this, but it never seems to enter any discussions that I’ve followed.
The BB is theory, the same as inflation. Expansion is complex.
"is the Big Bang older" No, but yes because of inflation. Basically the universe (observable part) was very small, but expansion made it very large and because expansion further away appears faster than light and light is slow to travel across an expanding universe and took so much longer to get here it all appears bigger, or maybe is bigger.
@@axle.studentSo your answer to that question was no?
@@joebloggs396 ""is the Big Bang older" No, but yes ..." ?
Unknown is the correct answer.
No this doesn't explain distant galaxy observations. These sorts of time dilation effects are accounted for in the basic cosmology equations that we've used for around 100 years. We don't really discuss time dilation because it's well understood what general relativity predicts on cosmic scales. Notably that any globally uniform time dilation is simply a redifinition of time coordinates and has no physical reality. What we're talking about in this video is a purely observational effect due to redshift.
@@stuartl7761time dilation is special relativity, not general relativity
For the Algorithm the story and your nice way to level my way to see, think and understand complex information.
Big hug from Hamburg 🎉.
Perfect timing 👌 Cheers, Anton 🙏 ❤
Anton's videos are never late.
Nor are they early.
They are perpetually considered to be perfectly timed.
Thanks!
Something Anton is not mentioning is that under current cosmological models, this cosmological time dilation is perceived, not real. At the end of the video he states "it's real", but he referring to the effect, not the dilation itself. The examples given of satellites undergoing time dilation on the other hand is real time dilation, not perceived.
What do you mean not real? Your observations of a distant event are as valid as an observer close to that event. You can disagree about things, but there is no paradox.
@ianstopher9111 think of a far away galaxy moving away from us, sending photons our direction. Each subsequent photon has a slightly longer distance to travel than the one before it, so two photons sent one second apart would arrive slightly more spaced out, creating a "slowed down" observation.
I don't know how technical the terms "real" and "perceived" are, but I understand what you're saying. Time is not actually moving more slowly in those distant galaxies (Edit: this statement is imprecise, see below), we only observe it to be moving more slowly, since those galaxies have a large relative velocity to us. While satellites in a sense actually experience time moving a different speed than we do (although it's complicated as someone said above, since their orbital velocity slows time for them while being in a lower gravitational potential speeds it up).
The difference I believe is between special and general relativity - and, if we want to be technical, the fact that Earth satellites are essentially in the same spatial location as Earth. Gravitational fields and accelerations change things. The resolution to the twin paradox comes from the fact that, in order to turn around and come back to Earth, the astronaut twin has to accelerate / change their reference frame. You can only ever talk about whether two objects have experienced different amounts of time passing if those objects begin in the same location, and end in the same location.
@@halfstache1070 Actually, this is just propagation delay of the light, not time dilation. In observations of distant galaxies, there will be both propagation delay effects since the distance between us and the galaxies is changing, and time dilation effects since we have a large relative velocity to those galaxies. The propagation delay I assume can be worked out from the redshift, and the rest is time dilation.
Anton, seriously a big fan. let’s go!!!
GPS satellites experience time *faster* because the general relativistic effect of being outside the earth’s gravitational well (they experience about 1/4 the gravity compared to MSL) is about +45 microseconds/day, while the special relativistic effect of moving faster (they move at about 4 km/s) than a person at rest is -7 microseconds. Therefore the net effect is +38 microseconds/day.
They program the clocks to be -38 microseconds/day on the ground before launch such that the clocks tick at the nominal/desired frequency on orbit. Receivers do have to account for the eccentricity of their orbits, which brings them closer to the earth and faster at perigee (both effects slow the clock) and slower and farther from the earth at apogee (both effects speed up the clock). But the net effect of a full orbit on the clock is zero.
Oh, is it hard coded? I thought they were compensating in real time by measuring speed and altitude
all fake
Now we're getting into a topic that I can sink my teeth into. The time dilation factor (γ) is given by the Lorentz factor: [ \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} ] where (v) is the relative velocity between the observers and (c) is the speed of light. This is the cool math 🙏🙏🙏 Great show Anton 👍
Not quite right. If you have a fixed observer viewing a moving clock you have to take into account the changing disttance between the fixed observer and the moving clock. the Lorenttz factor gives the time dilation that is measured by a continuum of observers in the observer's reference frame such that the moving clock is observed by the observer at exactly the same position as the clock. When you take into account the changing distance of the clock from the fixed observer you will find that the moving clock is apparently slower than given by Lorentz and an approaching clock always appears tto be faster than the stationary observer's clock. This correction is essential to make sense of the twins paradox
Now they just have to build time dilators around radioactive sources.
@@rogerphelps9939 twins paradox demonstrates that the twin who travels at high speed and undergoes acceleration will age less than the twin who remains in a relatively stationary, inertial frame of reference. The resolution of facts are becoming more clear as science observations become clear and we learn trust in the tools we use.
I thought time moves fractionally slower on Earth with respect to satellites, because we're at the bottom of Earth's gravity well ?
@@rogerphelps9939 Exactly! The actual time dilation is caused by the speed differential. The changing distance however is causing a purely "optical illusion" doppler shift effect that SEEM to slow down / speed up the object's clock.
Up to both those effect, is is Special Relativity and (relatively) quite simple maths.
The twin paradox is resolved fully only if you ALSO take into account which object is actually accelerating, as interpreted NOT by the actual distance change per second squared, but by the "feeling an acceleration" kinda force. Being immobile on a planet is feeling it's gravity, and yields the exact same effects as being in an "actually" accelerating spaceship. The actual baseline being when one is in true inertial "free fall" movement.
And once you add in acceleration, you need General Relativity, and its maths are a REAL headache to fully grasp and even worse to actually compute.
Your videos are fascinating. Thanks.
Well said.. However, it's important to remember that even though distant objects appear time dilated, they still exist in the present. Just because that distant object looks like it's slowing down doesn't mean that it actually is. When we observe distant objects, we're viewing them as they were back in time, when they existed within the cosmic event horizon. As time progressed, they have fallen from view such that their light will never reach us now. It doesn't mean that they cease to exist. It just means space has expand faster than light.
Btw, I was just chatting with someone about this very subject. Maybe you read my thread? That would be cool.
You are confusing the time light takes to get to us with time dilation. These aren't the same thing.
Their time is absolutely slower compared to the time we are experiencing. It doesn't just appear to us to be slower, it is slower. Thats what time dilation is. Time is relative.
@@NG-VQ37VHR Your mistaken. Firstly, the Nobel prize was awarded in 2022 for proving the universe isn't locally real. So, you're going to have to fit that into your interpretation of GR somewhere. Think about it.
Secondly, I'm not confusing light and time dilation. It was my point that light and time dilation don't have anything to do with each other so GR's interpretation of time dilation is incorrect. The universe isn't locally real.
@@MatrixVectorPSI Can I ask for an explanation of what "locally real" means?
@@catpoke9557 It means that what you see isn't actually what's happening to the object due to the speed of light creating a time delay. You see an image of the past. What you see isn't "locally real".
@@MatrixVectorPSI But then why do our calculations of how the clocks of satellites should be adjusted work? According to our understanding, satellites should experience time differences in both directions, their time moving a bit slower due to their much higher velocity, but also their time moving a bit faster due to being further out in the Earth's gravity well; the latter effect is larger, so their time should actually move a slight bit faster than ours (+38 microseconds per day), and their clocks before launch are adjusted to fit this. With these adjustments, though there are variations from moment to moment since their orbits aren't perfectly spherical, their clocks over the course of a full orbit run on average at the same speed as ours. If either one of the considerations used here was wrong in some way, then the current calculations we use would not work
Interesting video, Anton. You do realize that this experiment you describe using white dwarfs is constrained to galaxies with z < 4, no older than 13 Gyr. We will NEVER see Type Ia supernovae in galaxies with z > 4.
Why?
In order for a Type Ia supernova to occur, there must be a white dwarf progenitor star. These stars represent the final evolutionary stage for stars below 4 solar masses. More massive stars have shorter lives and end either as neutron stars (4-8 solar masses) or as Type II supernovae (8 solar masses and greater).
These stars < 4 solar masses must live out their lives to the end - we have to wait for them to exhaust their compliment of hydrogen and run through the helium that was built up before the white dwarf phase. For a solar-mass star, this takes about 12 billion years. A 4-solar mass star reaches this point in about 400 million years. Thus, the only white-dwarf progenitors would be those from stars whose initial mass was between 3 and 4 solar masses. For lower-mass stars, there simply wasn’t enough time for their white dwarfs to form in the very young universe.
For a solar-mass star to reach its white dwarf phase, we would need almost the current age of the universe as a wait time!
Using the stellar evolution of 3-4 solar-mass stars, we constrain the redshift when Type Ia supernovae would first appear. This constraint corresponds to a “look-back time” of 13 billion years (z = 4) as follows:
13.8 Billion years - (380 million years for the first stars to form + 400 million years for progenitor white dwarfs to form) = 13 billion years look-back time (z = 4).
Currently, we see no evidence of Type Ia supernovae in galaxies with redshifts greater than 4. These early galaxies and the very young universe simply weren’t old enough at 800 million years for white dwarfs to have formed.
Can we use time dilation to skip UA-cam ads?
Sam and Jake stood under the warm spray of the shower, steam swirling around them. Their laughter echoed off the tiles as they washed away the grime of the day.
“You know,” Sam said, lathering shampoo into his hair, “I was reading this article about the history of hand jobs. It’s fascinating.”
Jake chuckled, rinsing soap off his arms. “Only you would find that interesting. What did it say?”
“Well,” Sam began, “it turns out that hand jobs were a common part of male bonding rituals in some cultures. It was more about camaraderie than sex.”
Jake raised an eyebrow. “Really? That’s pretty wild. Imagine explaining that at a family dinner.”
They both laughed, the sound blending with the noise of the water.
“Hey, knowledge is power,” Sam grinned, rinsing his hair.
Jake nodded, smiling. “Just another quirky piece of trivia for the books. Only you, Sam.”
That's pretty cool. If we could zoom in and see their version of a Sloth, and it was talking, it would probably be talking in super slow motion, and it would be funny.
Far out, man
Someone is blazed out of their mind
@@acestapp1884I believe you would indeed need to be far out for this to be observed.
And the sloth would be saying "badoing badoing badoing"
for them we are slower , F1 race seems like sloth race here
Albert Einstein is, by far, the greatest scientist of all time.
He created an original proof of the Pythagorean Theorem at the age of 10; read and understand Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Kant's Critique of Practical Reason by the age of 11, taught himself integral and differential calculus by the age of 14, wrote his first scientific paper (that was published) by the age of 16. He had perfect scores on the math and physics sections of the Entry Exam to the Zurich Polytechnic in Switzerland (named the ETH), but due to poor scores on French and history he wasn't accepted that year into the ETH. However, it's important to note that the youngest the ETH accepted any student was 18 and Einstein took the exam at 16 years old.
Before the age of 23 Einstein had received the entire foundations of Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics from first principles, a Herculean feat of genius and diligence. Unfortunately, Einstein isn't more famous for this work (a trilogy of papers between 1901 and 1904) because J.W. Gibbs had already done it but Gibbs work hadn't yet been widely translated into German so the Germam physics community didn't know.
From 1905 to his death I'm 1955 Einstein revolutionized science in a way that hadn't been seen in the history of knowledge. The closest historical analog is Isaac Newton in 1666 but the mathematics in Newton is child's play compared to Einstein.
Einstein started the quantum revolution in 1905 with his earth-shattering paper on light quanta and then shattered physics again in the same year with his mind-bending paper on Special Relativity which gave us spacetime and relativistic kinematics. Einstein then quantized the radiation field, proved the duloung-petit law, discovered wave-particle duality in 1909, Spontaneous and Stimulated Emission (the LASER), gave us Bose-Einstein Condensates and Bose-Einstein Statistics, Quantum Entanglement, Wormholes, and several other amazing discoveries.
Most science historians believe Albert Einstein should have won at least 10 Nobel Prizes. Let that sink in.
When polled in the year 2000 by the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) which physicist was the greatest in history, the top living physicists in 2000 voted Albert Einstein number one. Without Einstein, we wouldn't have modern technology, including the GPS! Heck, Einstein even managed to solve the Tea Leaf Paradox in his spare time before he died, and this was a mystery that eluded many of the greatest minds of the past several centuries.
For any history buff, he is the GOAT scientist and well deserving of being synonymous with genius 👑🐐.
einstein is the greatest scam in history
The time is slower for a fast objet but light isnt affected by time or speed, what a mindfuck
i think youve got it backwards friend
@@TerribleShmeltingAccident Which part
Light has no mass. No mass = no time experience. I think ?🤔
@@thebxsavage if light (photons) has no mass, how can a light sail work?
@@ronvaw despite photons having no mass, they still have a speed and carry momentum, which means they can exert a force when they bounce off a reflective surface like a sail, effectively pushing it forward. This force is called radiation pressure, and while small from a single photon, the cumulative effect of many photons hitting a large sail can provide propulsion in space since there’s no friction or resistance in a vacuum.
1. Some objects as redshift indicating a velocity > c, at least up to 4c (since space is traveling away faster than c).
=> What kind of time dilation can we expect for them?
2. Also, studying events in slow motion should make it possible to study them more in detail, right?
Thanks Anton, Time Dialation it's mind bending stuff . The Universe is amazing and thanks to you I'm learning more about it every day which is definitely a good thing. I'm still WAVING AND STAYING WONDERFUL. HAVE A GREAT WEEK EVERYONE. PEACE AND LOVE TO EVERYONE ❤❤.
There are two types of time dilation: kinematic and gravitational. Anton described kinematic. The movie "Interstellar" demonstrated gravitational (since thet were close to a massive black hole.) To a distant observer time actually appears to stop at the event horizon of a BH.
Add in mild music in the background already to your videos! The kind of music they use in space docs.;
We spend our lives forcing ourselves to use only 5 senses to experience the universe. So much to learn, so little time.
So is it the accumulation of knowledge that allows us to perceive the sense of time which extends beyond the five classical senses?
We have a ton more senses than 5, but none of them are spiritual in nature :)
Balance, thermoception, possibility some of us can detect barometric pressure or magnetic fields, slight night vision but not as good as animals. Some of us can even see extra colors! No ESP though, everything works on science 😁
Every time I mention on YT that time is not linear and that these old galaxies that only appeared '400m years' after the BB are influenced by time dialation I get laughed off. This proves my point. Cheers for another great show, Anton.
PS> This could explain the rotation of spiral galaxies more so than the mythical Dark Matter.
PS> No it couldn't
Anton, you are an inteligent and interesting person. What I CAN SEE, is that you have a heart of gold.😊
Does time dilation also lower the apparent brightness of objects, as they’re emitting less energy per second to our observations?
so taking your last bit of info, you were referencing the fact that Sagittarius A - our local blackhole- which is known to spin at near the theorized limits. that it might be effecting things locally with said time dilation?
I don’t get it distant stars will have time dilation with respect to our clocks, but an observers at that distant star will also see us red shifted and observe us as being time dilated. How is that possible? ???
Einstein’s theory of special relativity.
I think the original poster was not speaking of "us", as more events in our Milky Way will proceed more slowly when viewed by a distant observer who considers our galaxy moving away from them. Events in their galaxy look slowed to us. Events in our galaxy look slowed to them.
That's the twin paradox baby. The short answer is that we've both got different definitions time and what events happen at the same time. For us 200 years have past while some aliens have only expereinced 100 years. Yet for those aliens Their 100 year party is at the same time as when we've only past 50 years. Our time axes are unaligned. It's a crazy stuff universe we live in.
Dude you are absolutely brilliant. This is such a good video
It gets deeper when you realize there is no time
I thought there was no "SPOON!"😶😉🤣
Expound pls
You don’t know that.
@@juanningatlife not sure how well that's gonna go lol
@@juanningatlifetechnically it’s a unit of measurement that we use based on the sun’s rotation. We also use it as a way of describing things like aging but it’s subjective. How would you measure your time in another solar system? What if you was on a planet the sun didn’t touch? You would you a different type measurement system to create time for yourself.
Thank you Anton!
I still don't understand why time dilation isn't the reason why we think spiral galaxies spin wrong.
I think you are absolutely correct 👍 🤝
I think the effect you're talking about is indeed there but it's not enough to account for the observed velocities
It is accounted for but it is nowhere enough to explain the velocities observed.
At least for astronomical math, that's pretty easy math. Someone would've noticed that already and it's probably already accounted for. That effect is also not the only observed effects of the proposed dark matter.
Mainstream scientists are stupidly blind.
You have a beautiful smile Anton!! 😊❤
Well you bet there is time dilation, not only was everything more dense in the early universe, but it is also moving away from us at high speeds.
@Anton Petrov Please note for future videos, that the plural of supernova is either supernovae or supernovas. Love your channel. Thank you!
If everything was destroyed on Earth and we had to start over without knowing what existed in the past, people would have to reinvent new religions, but the science would stay exactly the same. "Thank god" for science!!!
God would stay the same as well. So thank God for God.
@@stephenphillips4984unless there is no god.
@@stephenphillips4984maybe he'd become Allah or Buddha!!
Some followup questions on another great video on an interesting topic! Can you break things down a bit more? My understanding of time dilation is that it is relative. We observe fast moving objects in slow motion. But there is also time dilation due to the expanding universe which is what shifts the light emitted by photons to longer wavelengths. Because light is massless, all observers observe it in the same way. But, there is also time dilation due to the presence of large masses. So, for these super-nova, I suppose what is happening is that we observe them to be happening in slow motion simply because of their apparent velocity. So, whether they are far or near, if they are moving much faster than us, we would see the same slow motion effect, right? But, the light emitted would only redshift for those very far away objects because of the time dilation due to the expanding universe. Right?
Pure pedantry: satellites experience time slightly *faster* than us, not slower.
Yes, time is slower on earth than in orbit. Time runs slower in a gravity well.
The are both not in a gravity well and are going fast, both of which slow time. Wrong in your pedantry.
@M.F.-lq7jb
That's wrong. Satellites have their clocks tuned to be slower than the desired Earthside clock frequency because they will run FASTER in orbit. The speedup from being further from Earth is greater than the slowdown from orbital velocity.
To be clear I'm not criticizing Anton. If he never misspoke even slightly, then he wouldn't be human and I would be worried he was actually an AI!
thanks for the information anton
I imagine that it has been a gradual change not sudden, time has been speeding up since the beginning of the universe, and it probably still is. Great video, I guess i could say that it started off slow but picked up at the end.
the only way i can make any sense of this is we live on a finite cluster of matter in an infinite universe. If energy is constantly roiling up from the void pushing everything apart then it must be infinite and what we think of as the big bang must’ve been the event that created the matter in this patch of it. I haven’t seen any evidence that points to the creation of the universe, just that matter. As far as I know we con only see light created by stars, right? Sure it’s bent and stretched but it’s still starlight right? I’ve never heard any suggestions on where the edge might be. Just very old, very distant light that’s observed in a way that suggests it’s all spreading out and has been since the beginning. From what I can tell everyone is assuming the universe was born when the matter in it was… but I can’t see any reason that same energy wasn’t just humming away before the matter arrived. Am I wrong? Please help if you know why my conception is wrong it seems logical to me but i don’t have an education on this i just watch a lot of science videos and this is what i gather
I also feel like I’m coming close to something in the ball park of existing ideas like whats it called, inflationary multiverse or something like that, but I feel like I’m thinking of it very differently. I’m really trying to visualize what I’m being told i think just with the idea that, this quantum foam type thing is interesting i’d like to see a simulation of this foam running
so is it really time slowing or just the light stretching. I think i’m going to have to watch this again.
I think I get you; why does 'matter' denoted the beginning of the 'now'. Could it not just be an indicator of a phase change: a point at which the energy stopped just humming along freely. Or, am I off the mark?
Sweet video thanks anton
When I think of dilation my mind normally starts going in the gutter. Anton thank you from straying me away from that filth
Does this mean that the stars orbiting Sagittarius A* are actually orbiting much faster than we see? And since they have elliptical orbits, the dilation would change (a lot?) with distance.
no because they are in the same intertiel frame of reference
What effect does time dilation have on the calculation of the Hubble Constant?
I ask because I'm not sure whether further away galaxies are actually moving more slowly or if they only appear to be, from our perspective.
This time dilation is only an apparant time dilation, and it also has the exact same mechanism as what causes redshift, which is part of the basic equations used to calculate the most classic measurements of the hubble constant. So all of the spacetime effects of an expanding universe were taken into account from the start.
0:02 “Today we’re going to discuss a RELATIVELY exciting study”
I see what you did there!
could time dialation happen from gravity over distance and time bending the light into a redshift?
Time dilation isn't just how things appear, and actually the Lorentz transform doesn't even give you what you see, just how relativistic things behave.
Then this doesn't necessarily indicate time dilation, but is just how it appears as it moves away and the signals from it take a longer time to arrive which is just a propagation delay and not time dilation. I'm their local space they probably aren't moving that fast through space but space they are in is moving away...
Is certainly a nail in the coffin of a steady state universe...
They can know the propagation delay from the redshift though. Redshift gives the relative speed between us and distant galaxies, which gives the propagation delay. Then the rest of the effect is time dilation.
Edit: Also, the Lorentz transform is special relativity only. Time dilation can be both a special or general relativistic effect.
@@qzamboni yeah but it's not just propagation delay from there to here but an increasing delay because they are moving further and further away over the time they are emitting the signal. That's not time dilation. Time dilation would be that the event actually does take longer. This is really just that the event is seen as longer.
So is it **the actual passage of time** that gets dilated, or simply our observation of it?
Anton is the man for all galactic topics, 😅
I'm probably wrong on this but my understanding was that the closer you are to a gravitational mass (like the Earth) the slower time would move for you. This would mean that satellites travel through time faster than we do on the surface which is the opposite of what you stated? Love the channel!
Hey Anton, YOU are a wonderful person!
Time dilation is typically observed through the interaction between particles or objects with a common reference frame. The act of measurement with imperfect instruments/methods Itself can introduce uncertainties and distortions, which may be misinterpreted as time dilation.
Time dilation is often described as a consequence of relative motion between observers. However, what if the concept of "relative motion" itself is illusory? In other words, what if the apparent motion between observers is merely a subjective interpretation of their respective reference frames? If so, then time dilation would be a result of our collective perception rather than an objective feature of spacetime.
Some theories suggest that spacetime is a flexible, dynamic entity that can warp and bend under various influences. What if the fabric of spacetime is not affected by mass-energy distributions or motion, but rather, our understanding of spacetime is influenced by our observations and measurements? In this scenario, time dilation would be a consequence of our imperfect understanding of spacetime, rather than an inherent property of it.
Time dilation seems to imply a cause-and-effect relationship between the accelerating object and the resulting time contraction. However, what if causality is not absolute? What if the observed effects of time dilation are simply a manifestation of our attempt to make sense of the world, rather than an actual cause-and-effect sequence? This perspective would suggest that time dilation is not an objective feature of spacetime but rather an emergent property of our cognitive processing. The fabric of spacetime at the quantum level can be thought of as a "quantum foam," where space-time fluctuations are inherent to the fabric itself. What if these fluctuations are responsible for the apparent effects of time dilation, rather than being caused by external factors such as motion or gravity? In this scenario, time dilation would be an emergent property of the quantum foam, rather than an objective feature of spacetime.
I've presented an argument that time dilation might be relative and not exist at its source, though it is an unconventional view, there should be further investigation taken seriously. Instinctively, this is what I believe.
I have some difficulties with discerning the effects of different phenomena.
So there is the classical Doppler effect causing a song played in a car moving away from me to be played slower, the playing time would be twice as long if the Doppler effect caused the pitches to sound lower by one octave (which would require quite a fast car).
Now, in the universe you have the additional effects of the expanding space and moving objects, in which, however, I am wondering what it means to have space expanding faster than the speed of light.
Anyway, if we have a redshift doubling the wavelength, it is no wonder to me that the event would last teice as long for us observers. I mean, we should observe the same amount of periods of the light signal? So how is it that we can attribute this effect to time dilation if the formula is the same in the classical world?
To me it seems that - assuming that nothing can move faster than light - the mere fact of observing a redshift larger than 2 indicates that time dilation is a real thing.
Usually we only have significant time dilation around black holes. So what causes the early universe time dilation?
The further away it is the greater the red shift, which means the light feed is stretched out over a greater distance, so you should expect to see the event last longer the further you are away from it. Has this principle of light taking longer to reach us due to the stretching of space been taken into considering the age of the universe?
Yes. The effective distance light has to travel through an expanding universe is referred to as the luminosity distance and can be related to other properties such as cosmic time by well known path integrals over the metric for any given FLRW cosmology.
one could also maybe average pulsar frequencies by distance, although they're probably also all over the place.
can we see pulsars in other galaxies at all?
if something is moving away from you, it would look like youre dropping frames or losing fps. But its not because there is less fps, its because its further away, making frames travel greater distances. So does that mean the time dilation only happens for the observer and no one else?
Anton was mistaken (0.57), Satellites experience time faster, not slower. Time goes slower close to a body of mass.
Oh, time dilation is absolutely real and measurable, just like Einstein predicted with his little theory of relativity. The twin paradox? That's just a cute illustration showing how different inertial frames mess with the passage of time. And let’s not forget the grand role of acceleration in this paradox-it’s just there to switch reference frames and make that all-important comparison. But don't kid yourself, it's not the star of the show when it comes to the time difference.
0:57
The best teacher Anton!! 👍👍
at teaching you science fiction?
Could this explain the red dots that JWST found popping all over the place? You just made a video on these red dots and I'm just watching this older video and making the connection.
Hello Anton Petrov,
Thank you very much for your brilliant contributions. I have found Louise Riofrio's cosmological model (GM=c*t³) exciting for several years. Because it so elegantly solves countless problems of the current cosmological model. In their model, the speed of light has been decreasing continuously since the Big Bang. According to them, their "discovery" is not a violation of Einstein's principle of relativity. Rather, it is an extension that significantly simplifies the model overall.
Where do you think the missing matter is? Much of it is in a different time from our perspective as well as photons. Also light can be matter to alfa radiation is basically Hydrogen. Black holes make more matter than consume and space expanded because of the matter energy thrown back into this space....
can you do show on what is time? then another one on the truth about space time?
I was just wondering, how much effect does time dilation of the early universe have on the red-shift of light? For example, the gravity (density) of a black hole will red shift light passing near the event horizon due to time dilation. Light emitted in the high-density state of the early universe that traveled all the way to the lower density state of the modern universe would also experience the effects of time dilation. How much does that contribute to the red-shift?
Anton, I think satellite clocks run a bit faster than those on Earth not slower, because they are in free fall so they experience a weaker gravitational field. You always choose good topics and that is appreciated, but I think you could be a bit more accurate on the theory.
Anton is correct, you are wrong.
@@avsystem3142 Anton is not correct, you are wrong.
@@editherdeiyou and the other guy are wrong. Anton is correct
@@avsystem3142 Nope. He is wrong. The lower gravity means the satellite clock runs faster. It's general relativity. The extra clock speed of the satellite is not enough to counter this effect. Get it right please. Time in a gravity well runs slower relative to free space. Look it up. Learn something.
Please, forgive my ignorance, but if the closer you are to massive objects the slower time passes, how come time passes slower in the space station than to someone on earth, who is therefore closer to the massive object?
Hep me out here, I am missing something. If I am understanding correctly, time dilates at a more or less constant rate the further objects are from Earth? Are we thinking we are at the center of the Universe again? Since Anton didn't say anything about this only working when the telescope is pointed in one direction, can I assume time dilates in every direction radiating out from Earth equally? Are we concluding that time was different in the early Universe long ago, or it is different the further out you go (even though we are seeing light from billions of years ago)? Time passes differently on the Moon than the Earth's surface, even a high tower top differs slightly. Would Earth time seem dilated from the perspective of the Sun, Pluto more so? Does time pass faster half-way to the center of the Earth than the surface? Is it infinite at the center?
Is there time dilation as we age? Why do days and weeks seem to pass at blinding speed as I get old? Nothing seems to have blue shifted, but here it is, tomorrow already!
Thanks for yesterday's program on time dilation, Anton.
There is research into this too. Partly it is simply because as we get older the same interval is relatively smaller portion of our life. For example for 5 year old 1 year is 20% of their whole life, for 50 year old it is just 2%, so it seems to go so much faster. Also it might be because brain is getting older and slower at processing thoughts. And because we take longer to take to conclusion, it seems like the world around is moving faster.
But no, it should not be caused by relativistic effects, more like psychological.
It's also like taking a trip in a car. It seems shorter the more times you make it.
if a standard candle burns slower, would it also be weaker, as energy released is soread over a longer period? So it would not quite be a standard candle?
I just love how Anton always call me a wonderful person, knowing full well I am not 😂 Every single time❤️
Presumably someone located at one of those supernova looking at us will see us in slow motion as well due to our apparent redshift from them…?
Hey, I guess this would give us an idea of how far away supernovae were in history due to the length they were recorded
Ok, so this supports something I've been considering about Red shift being used to show that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Couldn't Red shift also be theoretically explained by time dilation and the space between galaxies expanding?
Watched a presentation from Caltech yesterday. They have a simulation on supercomputers running that includes cosmic time dilation and a new model of the entire universe that General Relativity can't account for. Should be done in 5 years.
Hi, Just to summerize because the 'time dilation' animation was kinda meh. Time dilation happens for objects in motion. So standing on a fast moving object, the faster you go, the more time slow down. But when we messure time dilation from far away objects the time dilation we messure is based upon the relative speed it moves away from us (or towards us). And you also have the red shift due to expansion of the universe. So if I am right you are talking about 3 types of time dilation. 1. Red shift time dilation due to expasion of the universe. 2. Relative time dilation from distance planets compared to their sun seen from Earth. 3. Absolute time dilation which is the speed of the object in the universe. Did I get it right? Did I miss something?
"Relatively exciting" LOL!
How do you tell the difference between time dilation from velocity and gravity?
🖖Hello Anton! This is the Federation of Wonderful persons!
It seems to me that Anton is talking about two phenomenons intermixed? I have thought of time dilation due to redshift as analogous to doppler effect and thus not a relativistic phenomena. E.g. the light reaching the observer stretched, like a slowed up casette tape. Or am I mistaken? The slowing of time due to relativistic speeds however is entirely different, as the effect affects the traveler's time permanently, not only the light received by the observer.
help me understand Einstein, time and relativitty? We observe light in a telescope, light is a particle, particle path can be "slowed down" by gravity. So why do we need time? I am wainting to discuss
What does that tell us about objects, rotating at relativistic speeds?
8:31 wasn’t there another video on disappearing stars