haha it's the same for me. i had to pause after he showed the star bending spacetime because my mind was blown by how i've literally just understood for the first time lol
I think it was Einstein who said something along the lines of “if you can not explain something complex in the simplest terms, it is because you do not understand it.” It’s a profound statement that I don’t think was meant to belittle anyone, as much as just to emphasize the scientific method, as well as humble both students and teachers.
@@masterofalltrades_not really. there's really no alternative to string theory. so it's not just about proving it wrong, we have to provide something better as well. and so far, there's none except string theory
I built a time machine when I was a kid. I flipped over a really large cardboard box, climbed inside, and waited ten minutes. When I climbed out, I had traveled ten minutes into the future. It was really exciting. My mother didn't understand the genius of my invention, though, and threw it away not long after I had made it.
Tbh you're not far off the truth, time exists, but we experience it differently for our monkey brains to comprehend, when you have fun, time passes quickly, when you're bored. Time is very real, but our perception of it is varied, we have an internal body clock that keeps us alive but an external one that allows us to predict physical events, this helps with our survival. However going back in time, is impossible unless we bend physics with the close proximity of a black hole, going forwards in time is easy, fall asleep, you will go 8-9 hours in time and be none the wiser, welcome to time.
I've watched numerous physics related videos in the past, but this physicist's explanations have been by far the most straightforward and easy to grasp compared to anyone I've encountered before.
Because his answers are simplified to the point they do not paint exact picture anymore. So while easy to grasp, they can also be a source for misconceptions.
@@SublustrisAvisI don't think he said anything false in and of itself. Maybe saying "pieces of atoms" when talking about fusion is technically less than precise but that's pretty pedantic.
@@mastod0n1 He didn't said anything false, I said he oversimplified explanations. Take his light wave/particle demostration. His plate has only one slit, yet interferense pattern still emerge, but his explanations doesn't give you answer why, as it involves two slits to "create" two waves. To understand some quantum effects you have to know they are often emerge as statistics phenomenons. Or his explanation to quantum entanglement might lead you to believe, that quantum states always match, when in fact they can be opposite, or that there's real FTL connection between entagled particles, while full explanation adds a lot more to it, like act of measurement/observation, decoherence etc.
Quantum entanglement is the same as superposition, only people usually think of superposition as being "on" and "off" at the same time or being in many positions at the same time but close together, like an electron probability density cloud. In reality you can have a particle that is in a superposition of being in two places a kilometer (or however long) apart. The weirdness of being in superposition at large distances merited its own name and concept known as spooky action at a distance or quantum entanglement. Superposition is like "this object is like many objects!" entanglement is like "these objects are somehow like one object" but they both talk about the same thing
Fun fact, the light physics that he talks about(LIGO, Young's double slit,etc) is known as optics, and if you don't know optics, you should check it out! Love to see my fellow optics people represented
The opening question helped me tremendously. I've been trying to get my mother-in-law to stop orbiting me, and it turns out it's because she's both massive AND dense. Thanks, physics!
I'm the guy on the thumbnail! Haha Your answer is on point! My goal of this tweet was getting people to answer either this or that, without admitting it can be both Nice video
A better way of explaining Quantum Entanglement with Dice is that whenever one dice is rolled the other die has the opposite value where if you add them up the total value is 7. So if I roll my die and get a "1" then the other die will have the value of "6" thus always adding up to "7".
@@mtzyzyno, op just said complimentary is better…although there are no classical analogs to quantum entanglement, so any explanation that is not quantum mechanics is misleading in some key way.
@@isaiahblue7269 Musk dares challenge this guys overlords. This guy needs someone to do his thinking for him how can you do that with unadulterated free speech?! lol
This was awesome. I love physics, but I could never grasp the math. Like, I understand the theories and concepts, and I love learning about it, but the actual math is beyond me. I've tried!
A good teacher helps. It clicked for me when I realized that all the formulas are just complex explanations for how values relate to one another. If I write F=ma, then I am saying many things at once: for example, when I apply more force to the same mass, I get more acceleration. Or that I need more force to accelerate a larger mass the same as I'd need for a smaller mass. Stuff like that.
The observable universe is finite. What is beyond the observable universe, as the name suggested, is not observable. We really know whether the universe is infinite or not.
Special relativity is called special because it’s a special case where one considers two objects experiencing relative motion without considering acceleration due to any field. This is a way to introduce concepts of relativity without using higher level mathematics such as tensors that deal with the more sophisticated case of general relativity, which factors in accelerating reference frames in gravitational fields.
I thought it was 'special' relativity because it deals with the 'special' case of uniform motion, and general relativity came later to deal with all types of motion, more specifically acceleration?
The problem with string theory is that it is unverifiable, THAT is why it is a dead end. It's beautiful and elegant and parts of it do describe all of these as-of-yet unexplainable problems in physics, but no observations and no repeatable experimentation = wishful math.
@@V1ralB1ack No they aren't, if something is unverifiable/unfalsifiable, it is not science. All scientific ideas that are pushed nowadays need to be testable and you have to be able to prove them wrong. It's why science doesn't bother with faith or the concept of a deity, it cannot be proven right or wrong in the material world.
It's not string theory, but ALL physics theories about quantum Gravity that are unverifiable, that's because the energy required to investigate plank length scales is so large.
That's awesome! My physics teachers in school managed to make it boring, when it doesn't have to be! I love physics, I've learned so much through youtube! 😊
Small correction: when you move quickly you don't FEEL time going more slowly. But the time compared to someone stationary will differ (clocks not synchronized).
Right, both people holding a stopwatch would experience one second as feeling and looking like "one second", but they wouldn't line up when compared to each other, yes?
@@ABc-nu6jbHmm maybe the best way to explain is the following thought experiment: - Imagine you're in a spaceship moving at 90% lightspeed - At these speed the time slows down a lot; any kind of "motion" is slowed down within the spaceship. This includes chemical reactions, the circuits of your brain and any kind of clocks - Because everything in your brain is also slowed down the "subjective feeling" of time doesn't change at all. When you measure your pulse, it would seem normal as usual. - However, since clocks (time) are also slowed down within the ship, this causes the difference compared to a stationary one.
One thing I'd like to ask to Jeff : what if the universe never ends? Yes, I know, data shows that its curvature is unlikely negative, BUT! What if its topology is like a Möbius strip, or a torus, and singularities just lead to the other face of the universe, made of dark matter and dark energy, that we cannot detect because we're on this side on the universe?
When I got to know about the fact that string theory invokes more than 3 dimensions(10 or 11) it really hit me what the idea is. Understanding 1D, 2D and 3D worlds helped me get an idea about it.
I don't know if the guy that Tweeted knew it and was making a joke, but special means something like "specific" in the sense of "restricted to a certain subset. It doesn't mean special in the most common use of the word we do today. In many languages it is translated as something like "restricted relativity", and after that came General Relativity, of which special relativity is a subset under specific conditions.
0:57 is almost a good example, except the fabric is more like a cubed those sheets in all directions, and it doesn't get more tension so the orbiting marbles are actually able to keep motion because they create their own curvature within the curvature of another object.
I mean, it's a pretty bad example IMO but people love it in these kinds of videos and leave at least believing they've learned something (even if that's pretty questionable).
that makes a lot of sense, every time I see this demonstration I'm like "can't you see it doesn't act like it's in orbit whatsoever", thought it was a friction issue but it still goes off "orbit" way too fast for that
Today I learned that Interstellar is almost 10 years old. Definitely doesn't feel like it's been that long Also, would have loved if the answer to the time dilation question to have ended after saying "long story short"😂
When I was in my college years, i really wanted to major in Theoretical Physics. I was just unlucky that both Optics and Theoretical Physics advisors weren't present in the university that year. 💀 I took Particle Physics (other choices were Material Science, BioPhysics, & Medical Physics). Particle Physics was nice but I should've done my research, there's too much programming. 💀
His answer to splitting a nucleus was interesting, because the most common splitting of atoms, nuclear reactors, require us to slow down the neutrons. They're not slamming into the nucleus, the idea is that you want the nucleus to capture the neutron.
That's because nuclear reactors use fuel that can undergo nuclear fission even when struck by a neutron of a low energy. If reactors required you to speed up atom to the speeds of the LHC it wouldnt be worth it.
@@Koooo4 I know, I'm aware of neutron capture cross sections, my point is that we probably split more nuclei in LWRs (that require slowing them down) than we do in something like the LHC (that requires speeding them up).
No, they are shear waves. The distortion is perpendicular to the direction of travel. This is also true light waves and gluons…it’s a general property of “massless gauge” fields. Compression is like sound waves, totally different…the distortion has no direction.
He explained 8:40 wrong. That is totally not the reason. It's the interaction of light with electrons that reduces the front of the light wave, making it appear to move slower.
Very interesting, on the topic of gravitational waves in elementary school I got to visit the LIGO center in Livingston Louisiana. If you ever get the chance look it to it. It’s crazy technology. Very cool place as well, kind of had a Riley’s believe it or not type of room with a nail bed and other physic related things.
To the people saying that this is the first time they've had physics explained to them in a way that makes sense: that's not on you, that's on the people who expected you to just accept one form of presentation. It's not terrifying, and you're not incapable of getting it. I think maybe you just figured that out 😊 By the way, props for what must be an underappreciated joke using dice to demonstrate entanglement.
To the best of our ability to know right now, yeah, it is. Our best measurements of the curvature of spacetime overall show it to be flat, which implies an infinite universe. Is that a 100% guarantee? No. But every experiment or equation we perform or write down that depends on that fact ends up working, so for the moment and for the foreseeable future it is perfectly reasonable to state definitively the universe is infinite.
Yeah but the known observable size of the universe is infinite as far as we can tell. Its a safe bet that its infinite or at least as close to infinity as possible in our reality
I think it's because we're driven by a primal urge to KNOW the answers to the next question. No time to get hung up on the "feelings" it leaves us with. We physicists tend leave all that "existential crisis" stuff to the philosophers.🙃😉
13:50 "If I don't know how fast [a particle is] moving, I don't know where it is." This simply isn't true and is a source of a lot of misconceptions about quantum mechanics. You *_can_* measure both position and momentum, even in quantum mechanics. The uncertainty principle simply puts a limit on how *precisely* our predictions for our measurements of both position and momentum can be.
It’s intriguing to me that every explanation of the effect of mass on space time, aka gravity, uses a fabric and an object that implies gravity itself. It is like saying that the gravity of a black hole is like the gravity of this object. It doesn’t explain anything. I’m not trying to be mean, but it just demonstrates the little we know about gravity and mass and what is space time.
Considering going the speed of light slows down time for the traveler, would that not be a form of time travel? You're essentially traveling into the future further than you would have naturally.
In theory yes, exactly : if we could approach enough the speed of light we could go as far in the futur as we want in just seconds for us ! (If you like to read, I recommend "The Forever War", a hard science fiction book written by Joe Haldeman, talking about this precise topic 🙂) (When he said it's impossible, he probably talked about travelling in the past)
@@Drewsterman777 I didn't watch this show, maybe I'll try at least the pilot ^^ And yes, that's what people think about when the talk about time travel, but we still can say that we are actually travelling in time, like, one second in the futur every second :p
It seems like Pr. habzoun is certain about heat death as our future, what about other scenarios (rebound etc.), aren’t they as plausible as heat death ?
The fact that the twins in his paradox explanation are female is so cool! "She decided to be an astronaut". Sounds nice, thank you doctor, you explain things very well.
Chemistry starts when atoms bond, or molecules break. Some call that molecular physics…..well then chemistry is when it happens Avogadros number of times.
Thought experiment: What if the universe is made of array of zero point particles that have no mass These particles have no properties until energy is applied. So instead of a particle moving through space, the energy is transmitted across these tiny particles. Light passes its energy across each particle and when that energy is ‘occupying’ that point in space we can measure it as a particle but the movement is actually a wave of energy flowing through and across these particles.
It behaves both like a particle and a wave but there's nothing like that in our day to day perception of reality. It's not a paradox, it's just not intuitive to understand, nothing in quantum physics really is
🇮🇳 Thank you so much Professor, to explain the mystery of Physics and the Universe, I won't thought that kind way, It's a fresh perspective, I wish you a wonderful day 😊.
re - 8:20 Yeah, but according to relativity, motion is relative. So, relatively, it wasn't the spaceship that moved, rather, the earth moved away at the speed of light (or near it) and then came back to the astronaut. So how do we decide which is true? According to relativity, they're both true, so does that cancel the time dilation effects? Does it double them?
(My second comment disappeared: Minute Physics made a video to explain it : search for "The Twins Paradox Hands-On Explanation | Special Relativity Ch. 8" on UA-cam, it's a very good explanation in just less than 5 minutes 🙂)
No, that’s the paradox, right, both view each other as the stationary body, but the actual explanation is the twin on the rocket ship has to accelerate
@@epicchocolate1866 When you say "This twin accelerates/ has to accelerate," you're _collapsing the wave form._ You're ending the paradox. You've identified a mover and a stay-er
@@Raz.C That's... that's not the point of the paradox; of course you'd identify a mover or a stayer, because by your relative state, there is one. But, someone in a different state would have a different answer. That's the point of relativity, they are both true RELATIVE to the person. If you went the speed of light, you'd say someone else's clock is slower, and they'd say yours is slower. You are both correct.
I would be happy to help answer any other questions as simply as I can and also link you to the exact things you'd like to understand better. Ask them here in the reply.😎
@@AirwavesEnglishhow do we know the earth will stop orbiting the sun if it disappears when the only way it can disappear is to collapse into a singularity and be destroyed, in which case we will continue to orbit the singularity?
So one thing he says about splitting atoms is that you shoot a neutron at a nucleus "very very fast" to induce fission. This isn't the necessarily the case, for U235 slower neutrons are more effective
Taking physics next year and using these specific types of videos as a recovery method may correlate with my chances of becoming a individual within physics right?
Why doesn't a particle accelerator explode? We always talk about the huge amount of energy that arises when the particles hit. How huge is it? And how do we get the particles nearly as fast as the light?
If neuroscientists explained basic neurophysiology with the same breath and brevity as modern physicists describe space time, we’d be laughed out of a job. The flash of astronomy ascribes their academics with the prowess to describe space time as ‘the thing we’re living in’. Please, don’t overly complicate matters Dr. Hazboun.
This guy explains physics so clearly, that this is the closest I've ever come to still not quite understanding it.
haha it's the same for me. i had to pause after he showed the star bending spacetime because my mind was blown by how i've literally just understood for the first time lol
🤣
Can confirm this guy is just as clear in a classroom as in the video, he's actually my Astrophysics professor! :D
@@FuzzyFirechuthat must be awesome!
Lmfaooo 😂😂
The hallmark of a great educator is one that can break down an idea into its purest form. This guy is it.
I think it was Einstein who said something along the lines of “if you can not explain something complex in the simplest terms, it is because you do not understand it.” It’s a profound statement that I don’t think was meant to belittle anyone, as much as just to emphasize the scientific method, as well as humble both students and teachers.
still defending string theory is pure copium though
@@masterofalltrades_not really.
there's really no alternative to string theory. so it's not just about proving it wrong, we have to provide something better as well. and so far, there's none except string theory
I built a time machine when I was a kid. I flipped over a really large cardboard box, climbed inside, and waited ten minutes. When I climbed out, I had traveled ten minutes into the future. It was really exciting. My mother didn't understand the genius of my invention, though, and threw it away not long after I had made it.
@Bulldogg6404 dude you're practically the tony Stark of our world!!! Shame your mother threw the only hope of time travel 😶
I hope she at least didn't throw away Hobbes when she got rid of the box.
I guess you didn't even jave a chance to build a transmogrifier 😔
You know, even I time travelled last night. I fell asleep at night and woke up in the morning.
Tbh you're not far off the truth, time exists, but we experience it differently for our monkey brains to comprehend, when you have fun, time passes quickly, when you're bored.
Time is very real, but our perception of it is varied, we have an internal body clock that keeps us alive but an external one that allows us to predict physical events, this helps with our survival.
However going back in time, is impossible unless we bend physics with the close proximity of a black hole, going forwards in time is easy, fall asleep, you will go 8-9 hours in time and be none the wiser, welcome to time.
I've watched numerous physics related videos in the past, but this physicist's explanations have been by far the most straightforward and easy to grasp compared to anyone I've encountered before.
It's because he's oversimplifying them knowing his audience is likely not that interested in physics.
And yet i still don’t understand physics…
Because his answers are simplified to the point they do not paint exact picture anymore. So while easy to grasp, they can also be a source for misconceptions.
@@SublustrisAvisI don't think he said anything false in and of itself. Maybe saying "pieces of atoms" when talking about fusion is technically less than precise but that's pretty pedantic.
@@mastod0n1 He didn't said anything false, I said he oversimplified explanations. Take his light wave/particle demostration. His plate has only one slit, yet interferense pattern still emerge, but his explanations doesn't give you answer why, as it involves two slits to "create" two waves. To understand some quantum effects you have to know they are often emerge as statistics phenomenons. Or his explanation to quantum entanglement might lead you to believe, that quantum states always match, when in fact they can be opposite, or that there's real FTL connection between entagled particles, while full explanation adds a lot more to it, like act of measurement/observation, decoherence etc.
Quantum entanglement is so crazy that it can only be described to the layman as "it is what it is"
It’s actually very easy to describe. This guy just didn’t do a great job.
Quantum entanglement is the same as superposition, only people usually think of superposition as being "on" and "off" at the same time or being in many positions at the same time but close together, like an electron probability density cloud. In reality you can have a particle that is in a superposition of being in two places a kilometer (or however long) apart. The weirdness of being in superposition at large distances merited its own name and concept known as spooky action at a distance or quantum entanglement. Superposition is like "this object is like many objects!" entanglement is like "these objects are somehow like one object" but they both talk about the same thing
@@badguardian can this somehow relate to parallel universe concept?
@@chekote Very true. Many of the answers in this video were pretty bad in general. (I'm a physics major)
I love the fact that he's explaining things while using regular objects. As if he was an elementary teacher talking to his class.
Fun fact, the light physics that he talks about(LIGO, Young's double slit,etc) is known as optics, and if you don't know optics, you should check it out! Love to see my fellow optics people represented
nope, that's quantum mechanics (basically the birth of quantum mechanics)
@@jiuhuaqu372 It is both.
It is both@@jiuhuaqu372
@@jiuhuaqu372wait till you hear about quantum optics 😮
@@jiuhuaqu372the experimenters are using optics to study quantum physics. It's both.
The opening question helped me tremendously. I've been trying to get my mother-in-law to stop orbiting me, and it turns out it's because she's both massive AND dense. Thanks, physics!
Your mama's so so fat that Stephen Hawking based his Black Hole Theory on her bum hole ( - brody)
LOL mother in law slander >
You’d actually be orbiting her then..
@lifesbutastumbleno man she is not at a distance of sun
You're the one orbiting her, doofus
I'm the guy on the thumbnail! Haha
Your answer is on point!
My goal of this tweet was getting people to answer either this or that, without admitting it can be both
Nice video
Was in Geneva in May and visited Cern. Felt amazing just being near the eye into the tiny-verse
the balloon analogy for fission is the best one I have seen
Oh gosh. Usually math and physics was my ptsd material but he explained it all very well. Thanks 😊
Dr. Hazboun is the definition of an educator. So passionate to explain concepts that are beyond complex.
A better way of explaining Quantum Entanglement with Dice is that whenever one dice is rolled the other die has the opposite value where if you add them up the total value is 7. So if I roll my die and get a "1" then the other die will have the value of "6" thus always adding up to "7".
So the professor in the video is wrong?
@@mtzyzy I'm not stating one answer is more right than the other. I'm implying one answer is easier to understand.
如果我們觀察處於量子糾纏態的兩個粒子中的一個，並測得他是上自旋，則另一顆必為下自旋
Thanks for the explanation.
@@mtzyzyno, op just said complimentary is better…although there are no classical analogs to quantum entanglement, so any explanation that is not quantum mechanics is misleading in some key way.
Whoa this guy has some intensity, I love it
I appreciate Wired still calling it Twitter, that is all.
I like the fact that everyone still calls it "Twitter", feels like a mіddlе fingеr to Musk 🤗❤
What did he do to make you want to give him the finger?
musk doesnt care about your dumbass opinion hes too busy advancing the human race
@@isaiahblue7269he changed the social media name
@@isaiahblue7269 lolz.
@@isaiahblue7269 Musk dares challenge this guys overlords. This guy needs someone to do his thinking for him how can you do that with unadulterated free speech?! lol
This was awesome. I love physics, but I could never grasp the math. Like, I understand the theories and concepts, and I love learning about it, but the actual math is beyond me. I've tried!
So true 😶🌫️
A good teacher helps. It clicked for me when I realized that all the formulas are just complex explanations for how values relate to one another. If I write F=ma, then I am saying many things at once: for example, when I apply more force to the same mass, I get more acceleration. Or that I need more force to accelerate a larger mass the same as I'd need for a smaller mass. Stuff like that.
@@Swampdragon102 its a bit wilder than that. Using wave- / differential equations etc
Same, I could listen to the theories all day but don't show me an equation I will disassociate
The observable universe is finite. What is beyond the observable universe, as the name suggested, is not observable. We really know whether the universe is infinite or not.
Came here to say this. Idk how he could have made that mistake
The heat death of the universe is also not a certain thing.
It's not infinite, I think infinity can only exist as nothingness... As long as all of this matter exists then the universe is finite.
Special relativity is called special because it’s a special case where one considers two objects experiencing relative motion without considering acceleration due to any field. This is a way to introduce concepts of relativity without using higher level mathematics such as tensors that deal with the more sophisticated case of general relativity, which factors in accelerating reference frames in gravitational fields.
50 billion years for the heat death of the universe? That doesn't sound right. It has to be wayyyyy longer than that.
No exactly 59 billion years not one day longer or shorter lol
He made a lot of shortcuts in explaining things, which is unavoidable with this format
he likely meant 50 billion trillion, which is in the ball park for the shorter theories about the heat death
We don’t actually know there will be a heat death.
Yeah wth was that about? Red dwarfs can last Trillions of years by current estimates.
thanks for the knowledge, Taika Waititi
I thought it was 'special' relativity because it deals with the 'special' case of uniform motion, and general relativity came later to deal with all types of motion, more specifically acceleration?
He looks like he could be Mark Ruffalo’s cousin
He describes physics like Oppenheimer. Very thorough and well explained
The problem with string theory is that it is unverifiable, THAT is why it is a dead end. It's beautiful and elegant and parts of it do describe all of these as-of-yet unexplainable problems in physics, but no observations and no repeatable experimentation = wishful math.
a lot of things in science are unverifiable. We're on a rock with limited resources 🤷♂️
@@V1ralB1ack No they aren't, if something is unverifiable/unfalsifiable, it is not science. All scientific ideas that are pushed nowadays need to be testable and you have to be able to prove them wrong. It's why science doesn't bother with faith or the concept of a deity, it cannot be proven right or wrong in the material world.
sounds like most science. If it works mathematically that's enough
It's not string theory, but ALL physics theories about quantum Gravity that are unverifiable, that's because the energy required to investigate plank length scales is so large.
You explain things so well! You would make a great teacher/professor :)
He is! He is currently a physics professor at Oregon State University (can confirm he's an amazing professor :) )
@@loganholler4137 Dude, I need to move to Oregon and enroll in his class!!!
@@Terra_Incognita2004do it!! He’s great
That's awesome! My physics teachers in school managed to make it boring, when it doesn't have to be! I love physics, I've learned so much through youtube! 😊
He is already a professor, most physicists teach.
More videos with this guy please!
Small correction: when you move quickly you don't FEEL time going more slowly. But the time compared to someone stationary will differ (clocks not synchronized).
Right, both people holding a stopwatch would experience one second as feeling and looking like "one second", but they wouldn't line up when compared to each other, yes?
What do you mean exactly? Can you explain more concrete please?
@@shawnweddel1271Exactly
@@ABc-nu6jbHmm maybe the best way to explain is the following thought experiment:
- Imagine you're in a spaceship moving at 90% lightspeed
- At these speed the time slows down a lot; any kind of "motion" is slowed down within the spaceship. This includes chemical reactions, the circuits of your brain and any kind of clocks
- Because everything in your brain is also slowed down the "subjective feeling" of time doesn't change at all. When you measure your pulse, it would seem normal as usual.
- However, since clocks (time) are also slowed down within the ship, this causes the difference compared to a stationary one.
I don’t understand what he means with the entagled dices..example for that in real life?
One thing I'd like to ask to Jeff : what if the universe never ends? Yes, I know, data shows that its curvature is unlikely negative, BUT! What if its topology is like a Möbius strip, or a torus, and singularities just lead to the other face of the universe, made of dark matter and dark energy, that we cannot detect because we're on this side on the universe?
When I got to know about the fact that string theory invokes more than 3 dimensions(10 or 11) it really hit me what the idea is. Understanding 1D, 2D and 3D worlds helped me get an idea about it.
These guys are really-really-really patient.
I would love for Wired to get Brian Cox for a video. Also this guy is great and if he's not a science communicator already, he should be.
That was really interesting! Thank you so much for taking the time to share all of this intriguing knowledge 👍🥳🌷
time travel being impossible is clearly a lie, it happens to me whenever i go to sleep
He has such beautiful fingernails. And a beautiful smile. Oh, and a beautiful way of explaining science.
thirsty much?..
I can't stop looking at his fingernails now they look so healthy
I like this, make it a series with this guy, he's very energetic!
THIS GUY IS AWESOME!!!!! WOW. He seems to really know his stuff.
I love this series! Would love to see an economist at some point :)
Strangely quantum physics makes a 'worm hole' between the two disciplines as economics is built on probability and related concepts.
That balloon example of explaining nuclear fission was amazing!
Brilliant guest! kudos wired
I don't know if the guy that Tweeted knew it and was making a joke, but special means something like "specific" in the sense of "restricted to a certain subset. It doesn't mean special in the most common use of the word we do today.
In many languages it is translated as something like "restricted relativity", and after that came General Relativity, of which special relativity is a subset under specific conditions.
Yeah, like a lot of the answers in the video, that one left a lot to be desired.
Ikr, that was weird: it deals with velocity and motion, no acceleration no gravity.
0:57 is almost a good example, except the fabric is more like a cubed those sheets in all directions, and it doesn't get more tension so the orbiting marbles are actually able to keep motion because they create their own curvature within the curvature of another object.
I mean, it's a pretty bad example IMO but people love it in these kinds of videos and leave at least believing they've learned something (even if that's pretty questionable).
that makes a lot of sense, every time I see this demonstration I'm like "can't you see it doesn't act like it's in orbit whatsoever", thought it was a friction issue but it still goes off "orbit" way too fast for that
How can someone explains complicated concepts in such a simple way? 😮😮
0:16 "anything that's massive will bend space time" , a smile slowly creeps on my face
I love how he explained the equation for time dilation with a crayon marker! 🤣
Question for Wired!! How do you all go about selecting the folks featured on Tech Support? I know a Professor that would be PERFECT!
Today I learned that Interstellar is almost 10 years old. Definitely doesn't feel like it's been that long
Also, would have loved if the answer to the time dilation question to have ended after saying "long story short"😂
When I was in my college years, i really wanted to major in Theoretical Physics. I was just unlucky that both Optics and Theoretical Physics advisors weren't present in the university that year. 💀
I took Particle Physics (other choices were Material Science, BioPhysics, & Medical Physics).
Particle Physics was nice but I should've done my research, there's too much programming. 💀
His answer to splitting a nucleus was interesting, because the most common splitting of atoms, nuclear reactors, require us to slow down the neutrons. They're not slamming into the nucleus, the idea is that you want the nucleus to capture the neutron.
That's because nuclear reactors use fuel that can undergo nuclear fission even when struck by a neutron of a low energy. If reactors required you to speed up atom to the speeds of the LHC it wouldnt be worth it.
@@Koooo4 I know, I'm aware of neutron capture cross sections, my point is that we probably split more nuclei in LWRs (that require slowing them down) than we do in something like the LHC (that requires speeding them up).
You explain things like the double slit experiment better than any book I read
He didn’t explain it, he did it!
I'm so happy the title says twitter and not "x"
It's actually mind boggling to think about how gravitational waves are compression waves through the fabric of reality itself.
No, they are shear waves. The distortion is perpendicular to the direction of travel. This is also true light waves and gluons…it’s a general property of “massless gauge” fields. Compression is like sound waves, totally different…the distortion has no direction.
Dang, wish I was in this guy's Astrophysics class
He just explained it very simple
Thumbnail Question answer: Yes. 🔦
This is how physics should be taught in schools! Fun, interesting and easy to understand.
6:05 so squidward was right all along Aware
Yippee finally a physics one!
He explained 8:40 wrong. That is totally not the reason. It's the interaction of light with electrons that reduces the front of the light wave, making it appear to move slower.
But the fact that gravity itself is used to describe the gravity around the planet in space time fabric is a little bit confusing.😅
Very interesting, on the topic of gravitational waves in elementary school I got to visit the LIGO center in Livingston Louisiana. If you ever get the chance look it to it. It’s crazy technology. Very cool place as well, kind of had a Riley’s believe it or not type of room with a nail bed and other physic related things.
Woah that is so cool. The best science thing I saw in elementary school was the waste water treatment plant.
The absolute best term I've heard for light being both a wave and a particle is to call it a "wavicle".
To the people saying that this is the first time they've had physics explained to them in a way that makes sense: that's not on you, that's on the people who expected you to just accept one form of presentation. It's not terrifying, and you're not incapable of getting it. I think maybe you just figured that out 😊 By the way, props for what must be an underappreciated joke using dice to demonstrate entanglement.
12:10, didn't know this was confirmed 😮
It’s speculation. We can’t see or measure what is beyond cosmological horizons, only make predictions.
It's not confirmed! I didn't agree with a lot of what this guy said 😅
So if I'm not mistaken, you could play snakes and ladders light-years apart?
When you said the universe IS infinite, you were a bit more confident in that statement than I think you should be. That is not a proven fact yet.
Yeah this guy is pushing his school of thoughts agenda
For all intent and purpose, it might as well be
To the best of our ability to know right now, yeah, it is. Our best measurements of the curvature of spacetime overall show it to be flat, which implies an infinite universe.
Is that a 100% guarantee? No. But every experiment or equation we perform or write down that depends on that fact ends up working, so for the moment and for the foreseeable future it is perfectly reasonable to state definitively the universe is infinite.
@@ANGRYpooCHUCKER our best measurements can only put a lower bound on its size, not prove it's flat and infinite
Yeah but the known observable size of the universe is infinite as far as we can tell. Its a safe bet that its infinite or at least as close to infinity as possible in our reality
How physicists don’t walk around in a constant state of existential crisis is beyond me. 😅
I think it's because we're driven by a primal urge to KNOW the answers to the next question.
No time to get hung up on the "feelings" it leaves us with.
We physicists tend leave all that "existential crisis" stuff to the philosophers.🙃😉
Bro, we see Gods handiwork. It’s anti existential crisis.
When that guy mentioned a $1,000 he cut the lights and did a while demonstration to answer it 😂
Bro he looks exactly like every physics professor I’ve ever seen that’s insane
13:50
"If I don't know how fast [a particle is] moving, I don't know where it is."
This simply isn't true and is a source of a lot of misconceptions about quantum mechanics. You *_can_* measure both position and momentum, even in quantum mechanics. The uncertainty principle simply puts a limit on how *precisely* our predictions for our measurements of both position and momentum can be.
It’s intriguing to me that every explanation of the effect of mass on space time, aka gravity, uses a fabric and an object that implies gravity itself. It is like saying that the gravity of a black hole is like the gravity of this object. It doesn’t explain anything. I’m not trying to be mean, but it just demonstrates the little we know about gravity and mass and what is space time.
Can we put geniuses on very fast moving machines in order to have them live longer and provide more output?
The Large Hadron Collider is not in Switzerland. It straddles the French-Swiss border near Geneva, with the larger portion actually in France.
Both CERN and the LHC are listed as being in Switzerland, it's irrelevant where the majority of it lies.
Considering going the speed of light slows down time for the traveler, would that not be a form of time travel? You're essentially traveling into the future further than you would have naturally.
In theory yes, exactly : if we could approach enough the speed of light we could go as far in the futur as we want in just seconds for us !
(If you like to read, I recommend "The Forever War", a hard science fiction book written by Joe Haldeman, talking about this precise topic 🙂)
(When he said it's impossible, he probably talked about travelling in the past)
@pritzilpalazzo Ya I figured. Time travel typically refers to traveling through time itself outside of a linear method. Like the show Timeless.
@@Drewsterman777 I didn't watch this show, maybe I'll try at least the pilot ^^
And yes, that's what people think about when the talk about time travel, but we still can say that we are actually travelling in time, like, one second in the futur every second :p
It seems like Pr. habzoun is certain about heat death as our future, what about other scenarios (rebound etc.), aren’t they as plausible as heat death ?
50 billion years feels a bit early for universal heat death, I believe he forgot a few orders of magnitude lmao
he probably meant to say billion trillion years, 10^21 is atleast in the ballpark of the shortest estimates for heat death
Yeah, that was definitely an accidental understatement on my part! Good catch
The blue‘s clues crayon was a nice touch 🥰
The fact that the twins in his paradox explanation are female is so cool! "She decided to be an astronaut".
Sounds nice, thank you doctor, you explain things very well.
When is he on next. I want to ask where the boundary is between physics and chemistry.
Chemistry starts when atoms bond, or molecules break. Some call that molecular physics…..well then chemistry is when it happens Avogadros number of times.
This guy is great!
Thought experiment: What if the universe is made of array of zero point particles that have no mass These particles have no properties until energy is applied. So instead of a particle moving through space, the energy is transmitted across these tiny particles.
Light passes its energy across each particle and when that energy is ‘occupying’ that point in space we can measure it as a particle but the movement is actually a wave of energy flowing through and across these particles.
It behaves both like a particle and a wave but there's nothing like that in our day to day perception of reality. It's not a paradox, it's just not intuitive to understand, nothing in quantum physics really is
🇮🇳 Thank you so much Professor, to explain the mystery of Physics and the Universe, I won't thought that kind way, It's a fresh perspective, I wish you a wonderful day 😊.
re - 8:20
Yeah, but according to relativity, motion is relative. So, relatively, it wasn't the spaceship that moved, rather, the earth moved away at the speed of light (or near it) and then came back to the astronaut. So how do we decide which is true? According to relativity, they're both true, so does that cancel the time dilation effects? Does it double them?
(My second comment disappeared: Minute Physics made a video to explain it : search for "The Twins Paradox Hands-On Explanation | Special Relativity Ch. 8" on UA-cam, it's a very good explanation in just less than 5 minutes 🙂)
No, that’s the paradox, right, both view each other as the stationary body, but the actual explanation is the twin on the rocket ship has to accelerate
@@epicchocolate1866
When you say "This twin accelerates/ has to accelerate," you're _collapsing the wave form._ You're ending the paradox. You've identified a mover and a stay-er
@@Raz.C That's... that's not the point of the paradox; of course you'd identify a mover or a stayer, because by your relative state, there is one. But, someone in a different state would have a different answer. That's the point of relativity, they are both true RELATIVE to the person.
If you went the speed of light, you'd say someone else's clock is slower, and they'd say yours is slower. You are both correct.
I watched so many physics videos on yt that I was able to have the answers of almost all the questions in the video 💀
One of the rare "support" videos where I'm more confused post-viewing.
I would be happy to help answer any other questions as simply as I can and also link you to the exact things you'd like to understand better.
Ask them here in the reply.😎
@@AirwavesEnglishhow do we know the earth will stop orbiting the sun if it disappears when the only way it can disappear is to collapse into a singularity and be destroyed, in which case we will continue to orbit the singularity?
So one thing he says about splitting atoms is that you shoot a neutron at a nucleus "very very fast" to induce fission. This isn't the necessarily the case, for U235 slower neutrons are more effective
Taking physics next year and using these specific types of videos as a recovery method may correlate with my chances of becoming a individual within physics right?
Physics was the bane of my existence in high school. Thank god I barely passed it.
9:11 Shoutout to the “Long story short” meta joke
best explanation so far..
Let's go physics!!!! ❤
Yes I learned a lot... and yes I have more questions than before watching this.
the big bang is a poker break and entropy is entanglement
i.e. everything is entangled... everything was 'contained' / 'put forth by' the big bang
Do you ever just think if there was time travel we’d know, by seeing future people in out times?
Why doesn't a particle accelerator explode? We always talk about the huge amount of energy that arises when the particles hit. How huge is it? And how do we get the particles nearly as fast as the light?
We don't know for sure if Heat Death is how the universe ends but it's the more supported theory. 🤷♂️
Do black holes. Connected to white holes through singularity 🌌
1:30 so, how do you get that neutron, how was that particle split?
If neuroscientists explained basic neurophysiology with the same breath and brevity as modern physicists describe space time, we’d be laughed out of a job.
The flash of astronomy ascribes their academics with the prowess to describe space time as ‘the thing we’re living in’. Please, don’t overly complicate matters Dr. Hazboun.