Black hole Physics student reaction on Animation vs. Physics by Alan Backer | Comprehensive analysis
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 гру 2023
- As a student of black hole physics with some research experience in this field, I've made an effort to explain each physics concept (frame by frame) presented in this extraordinary masterpiece. I would greatly appreciate your comments this review, as this interaction would contribute to our mutual learning.
I began crafting my review merely an hour after the video's release and now I have completed and published it. Alan, I must say, your work is out of this world.
Animation vs Math in Urdu Hindi with English Subtitles
• Animation vs Math in ...
Alan Becker Video: Animation vs. Physics
• Animation vs. Physics
Alan Becker: Animation vs. Physics REACTION!!!
#alanbecker #animation #animationvsmath #animationvsphysics #alanbecker #
@alanbecker
![Breaking the Laws of Physics....WITH PHYSICS?! [Animation vs. Physics]](/img/n.gif)
So far this is the most comprehensive breakdown of the quantum space part I've seen, but I still wish someone that understood what was going on could breakdown what the 2nd orange guy (I guess wise animation) did when he tapped the einstein rosen bridge to select a different thing before going through it and leaving the original animation with the 3rd one. I'm tired of looking though, but you definitely deserve to have your video seen by more people.
Always love the explanations. Good job!
Thank you
what a beautiful explanation !outstanding
Thanks for your compliment
Wow! I hope Alan sees this honestly. Could be cool to read reaction of the studio
its always interesting to see Alan's science videos is based on real things / theory. And you doing a great job for explain everything, thx you.
Thanks
Better than any sci-fi movies. Nice explanation bro.
0:33 Isn't Velocity Defined As Rate Of Change of "Displacement" Instead Of Distance?
Direction is understood
There are some grammatical errors. Otherwise, pretty good job + underrated
Second language
A more thorough version of 5:36 is the bidirectional reflectance distribution function. I became familiar with it to simulate realistic lighting in computer graphics. Helps in avoiding inaccuracies like specular highlights that are too bright (or else it's like you're creating extra energy out of nothing).
AMAZING
2:52 I think it’d take a lot more than a little nudge to get an object that size in motion😂😂😂😂😂
Nice explanation overall, I spotted some iaccuracies though.
a) gravity assist isn't as simple as described by you.
b) the rod isn't metallic, it's ferromagnetic.
c) you missed the nod to the different types of string theories ar the very end. (Orange sliding on the hyperbolic space befor disappearing)
Thanks for highlighting
It might be touching on the Bootstrap Paradox at the end. Or at least a type of open time loop where the events infinitely repeat but with the next generation of characters.
Orange learned everything from a future version of himself. Then we see his past version emerge the same why he did. The loop then repeats.
Why it keeps on continuing, is there no end what is this called ?
Thx for all of this
May there be an error in the video?
1) Magnetic rings should not accelerate the rocket, since, after going through it, the rocket should be pulled backwards, leaving scape velocity (the initial velocity) as the final velocity
Also, the surface is not frictionless (mu=0.1). This is important because otherwise he could not increase its velocity by throwing the ball since it would break linear momentum conservation
Small comentary on the solenoid:
Solenoids (AKA coils) don't transform currents into magnetic fields, which then can get converted into motion. However, they do not need to be ferromagnetic or magnetised for this, and the animation does not show any flow of current (though it mentions the relation between current, turns and the magnetic field))
I've been seeing other reacts/explains of this video, as the first time I watched I was also skeptical about the magnet Canon. However after watch videos, and reading other comments, I think it is (theoretically) possible because of the initial velocity and thrust. If the rocket were to begin at rest, yes it would oscillate. However the rocket is coming in with a velocity, acceleration, and most importantly momentum.
In the end, my stance is that he would gain some speed as his time in the red side would be greater than the time in the blue side
thank you for this amazing job! Very cool explanation
Glad you liked it!
Glad you liked it!
Excellent explainer. Thanks.
I think u understood swing bys wrong. it's not the gravity of the planet that gives you speed, but actually you steal it's orbital velocity around the sun. you need a third reference frame to make sense of it (the solar system reference frame). Also since TSC is always accelerating, he's not on a geodesic, he's doing powered swing bys, making use of the oberth effect.
In general relativity, an accelerating body can follow a curved path, which corresponds to a geodesic in curved spacetime. This is described by the equivalence principle, where acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable locally
@@boomaletslearntogether That's not the point. If you just fall into a gravity well, you'll emerge at the same velocity you fell into it.
If you enter a moving gravity well, you can gain some momentum by slowing down, the moving well. The impulse you have, that is perpendicular to the moving well is affected by the acelleration experienced towards the center of mass.
The impulse changes direction.
In the frame of reference of the planet the velocity of the ship dosen't change. It's following a geodesic after all.
In the solar systems reference frame, the velocity of the planet has been added to the velocity of the spaceship.
@@boomaletslearntogetherYou sound like you just read that off Wikipedia.
Thank you so much for this!
You're so welcome!
Great job, sir. Appreciate your effort 👏🏻
I love the animation. But in the subtitles, something was botching the terms for me, like eg the name Penrose or the word quantum, as if they had been warped by the extreme pysical conditions.
Thank you for telling me all this, but when I was little, I don’t know anything about high advance physics
Very cool explanation
Glad you liked it
Alan Becker: I really liked Interstellar...
*let's make a physics video with Bob*
Definitely I will try
2:16 Pretty sure this doesn't work at all. If there's no friction, you can't just throw an object and then use it to pull yourself forward. Those two will cancel out.
When throwing a ball on a string and the string becomes taught, some amount of force is exerted onto both the ball, and you. We don't move because we're standing on a surface with friction. TSC since he's on a frictionless surface, will begin moving; though very slowly. That's also why you see TSC throwing the ball multiple times; to gain some credible velocity. Also, TSC would begin moving regardless if the ball was pulling him, or if he was pulling the ball; which in this case, the former is true.
@@danielwenzel3877 The force exerted on the ball and on you when the string goes taught will exactly cancel out the force exerted on the ball and you when you threw it.
@@__nog642 The rotational momentum of the ball is being converted into linear momentum by allowing it to continue along its current inertial path. You would be correct if he was just throwing it, but he is spinning it first so that the throw does not push him backward.
@@alexleavitt7590 That is not how it works. It's not like the ball has rotational momentum instead of linear momentum when he is spinning it. It always has linear momentum. If he started motionless then started spinning it, the horizontal component of the linear momuntum of the ball would always cancel out with his own horizontal linear momentum. He would basically be wiggling back and forth slightly while spinning it. So when letting go of the ball while it is moving forward, he would be moving backwards with equal momentm. Then when the string goes taught, they cancel out and he is motionless again.
❤
You should have more subscribers!
In 6:30, I don't think his hat give much difference. It's more of the direction of his rocket that changed the rocket orbit.
At first, TSC pointed the rocket up or vertical (6:32), thus making the orbit smaller and guarantees impact as the star's gravity is too strong. Instead, at 6:40, TSC pointed the rocket horizontally to make the orbit wider-- enough to encircle the star once without hitting it. No need to fight gravity full-on. His increasing velocity helps too.
Though, based on other comments here, I am unsure if the planet gravity assists are the same as the assist from the star. "Oberth maneuver", is what my understanding goes so far. I'll leave that to smarter people to enlighten.
It is also easy to miss the change of the rocket's direction as the hat and cowboy act took the spotlight.
Can anyone explain in 7:46 he makes a magnet by organizing the magnetic domains, then he wraps it around the rocket, why does putting the original horse shoe magnet on the rocket produce a bigger magnetic field and how does all of that passing through a circular magnet increase its speed some sources are saying there is electricity used but i dont see where
It called magnetization where a material gets magnetic properties when placed in a magnetic field
@@justunlocktheuniverseand applying the horseshoe magnet turns the coiled magnetic bar into a solenoid.
I hope you would talk in video, its hard to kept reading subtitles.
In 1:49 why that is third newton’s laws
We move forward because as we push the Earth backward, it reacts by pushing us in the opposite direction, following Newton's 3rd law. This principle is evident in the movement of a boat with its paddle-by pushing water backward, the water, in turn, propels the boat forward. Similarly, swimmers move forward by pushing against the water.
@@boomaletslearntogetherbut why when we in frictionless we can’t motion ?
@@user-lr8ok2ns2k Because, we would have nothing to grip onto And something else about every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction
@@user-lr8ok2ns2k because due to frictionless surface we are unable to push back surface.
@@user-lr8ok2ns2k For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
We push on earth, earth pushes on us, so they are equal, opposite forces.
If we can't push in a direction, we can't generate an opposite force
no force --> means no force <
it's the same reason you can't normally move in space, because you can't push on anything. The rocket had to push stuff out to start moving.
8:07 would the magnet not try and pull him back after he goes through?
maybe hes too fast for the magnet to pull him back??? idk
my best guess, if you're well centered through the magnet, before the rocket reaches the center of the magnet, it gets pulled in, the moment the rocket reaches the center and moves past it, the current induction of the magnet onto the rocket turns into a repulsion one, effectively pushing it away from it at a higher velocity.
the best comparison to an irl application would be a railgun, since the projectile follows the same principles as the one shown here between the rocket and the magnets
@@paburrito ooooooo ok!
No according to the lenz law
@@paburritowell, what’s seen in the animation is more of a Gauss Gun
In 13:59, can someone explain me about the Ψ | x , y > ?
your life will be better if you dont read it, believe me
@@SiddhanthRoyal What's a little wave function between friends? :)
yo no hablo ingles pero tu contendido lo entendia la perfeccion muy buen video
what happened at 15:31?
Quantum teleportation? I guess not sure
My understanding is that this is a repreaentation of Witten's M-Theory. Only five types of universes would be possible under this interpretation of superstring theory, and the old stick figure selects a different one to travel to.
@@ikiteru-ew1yd actually I can't see clearly what is mentioned on the button below.
@@boomaletslearntogetherthe first one says “Type I” (Roman numerals) and the second one says “Type IIB”