Physicist Answers Physics Questions From Twitter | Tech Support | WIRED

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 20 тра 2024
  • Physicist Jeffrey Hazboun visits WIRED to answer the internet's swirling questions about physics. How does one split an atom? Is light a wave or a particle...or both? How soon will the universe end? Is time travel is possible given physicists' current understanding? What's the deal with string theory?
    Director: Lisandro Perez-Rey
    Director of Photography: AJ Young
    Editor: Marcus Niehaus
    Talent: Jeffrey Hazboun
    Creative Producer: Justin Wolfson
    Line Producer: Joseph Buscemi
    Associate Producer: Paul Gulyas
    Production Manager: Peter Brunette
    Production and Equipment Manager: Kevin Balash
    Casting Producer: Vanessa Brown
    Camera Operator: Lucas Vilicich
    Sound Mixer: Kara Johnson
    Production Assistant: Fernando Barajas
    Post Production Supervisor: Alexa Deutsch
    Post Production Coordinator: Ian Bryant
    Supervising Editor: Doug Larsen
    Additional Editor: Paul Tael
    Assistant Editor: Billy Ward
    Still haven’t subscribed to WIRED on UA-cam? ►► wrd.cm/15fP7B7
    Listen to the Get WIRED podcast ►► link.chtbl.com/wired-ytc-desc
    Want more WIRED? Get the magazine ►► subscribe.wired.com/subscribe...
    Follow WIRED:
    Instagram ►► / wired
    Twitter ►► / wired
    Facebook ►► / wired
    Tik Tok ►► / wired
    Get more incredible stories on science and tech with our daily newsletter: wrd.cm/DailyYT
    Also, check out the free WIRED channel on Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, and Android TV.
    ABOUT WIRED
    WIRED is where tomorrow is realized. Through thought-provoking stories and videos, WIRED explores the future of business, innovation, and culture.
  • Наука та технологія

КОМЕНТАРІ • 711

  • @jopo7996
    @jopo7996 6 місяців тому +1835

    This guy explains physics so clearly, that this is the closest I've ever come to still not quite understanding it.

    • @carolineleneghan119
      @carolineleneghan119 6 місяців тому +27

      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

    • @cristinaf3844
      @cristinaf3844 6 місяців тому +7

      🤣

    • @FuzzyFirechu
      @FuzzyFirechu 6 місяців тому +41

      Can confirm this guy is just as clear in a classroom as in the video, he's actually my Astrophysics professor! :D

    • @isabelab6851
      @isabelab6851 6 місяців тому

      @@FuzzyFirechuthat must be awesome!

    • @Ulucies
      @Ulucies 6 місяців тому +2

      Lmfaooo 😂😂

  • @Bulldogg6404
    @Bulldogg6404 5 місяців тому +386

    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.

    • @Nup222
      @Nup222 4 місяці тому +20

      @Bulldogg6404 dude you're practically the tony Stark of our world!!! Shame your mother threw the only hope of time travel 😶

    • @LamanKnight
      @LamanKnight 2 місяці тому +8

      I hope she at least didn't throw away Hobbes when she got rid of the box.

    • @IllustriousCrocoduck
      @IllustriousCrocoduck 12 днів тому

      I guess you didn't even jave a chance to build a transmogrifier 😔

  • @milkgrapes6420
    @milkgrapes6420 6 місяців тому +330

    The hallmark of a great educator is one that can break down an idea into its purest form. This guy is it.

  • @stone21island
    @stone21island 6 місяців тому +324

    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.

    • @JamesAbramsPianoPoker
      @JamesAbramsPianoPoker 6 місяців тому +18

      It's because he's oversimplifying them knowing his audience is likely not that interested in physics.

    • @javierb479
      @javierb479 6 місяців тому +1

      And yet i still don’t understand physics…

    • @SublustrisAvis
      @SublustrisAvis 6 місяців тому +4

      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.

    • @mastod0n1
      @mastod0n1 5 місяців тому

      ​@@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.

    • @SublustrisAvis
      @SublustrisAvis 5 місяців тому +2

      @@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.

  • @Chiberia
    @Chiberia 6 місяців тому +229

    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!

    • @milkgrapes6420
      @milkgrapes6420 6 місяців тому

      Your mama's so so fat that Stephen Hawking based his Black Hole Theory on her bum hole ( - brody)

    • @ghostbaconhair
      @ghostbaconhair 6 місяців тому +3

      LOL mother in law slander >

    • @isidroguadarramarea3266
      @isidroguadarramarea3266 5 місяців тому +29

      You’d actually be orbiting her then..

    • @lifesbutastumble
      @lifesbutastumble 5 місяців тому +2

      And if she disappears, it would be just 8 minutes before you realised 😅

    • @studioofall4084
      @studioofall4084 5 місяців тому +2

      ​@@lifesbutastumbleno man she is not at a distance of sun

  • @yayekit
    @yayekit 6 місяців тому +239

    I like the fact that everyone still calls it "Twitter", feels like a mіddlе fingеr to Musk 🤗❤

    • @isaiahblue7269
      @isaiahblue7269 6 місяців тому +3

      What did he do to make you want to give him the finger?

    • @weston1115
      @weston1115 6 місяців тому

      musk doesnt care about your dumbass opinion hes too busy advancing the human race

    • @FilipinoFurry
      @FilipinoFurry 6 місяців тому

      ​@@isaiahblue7269he changed the social media name

    • @teeff__
      @teeff__ 6 місяців тому +24

      @@isaiahblue7269 lolz.

    • @MrAtaguas
      @MrAtaguas 6 місяців тому +1

      @@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

  • @gonzalot.605
    @gonzalot.605 6 місяців тому +34

    I love the fact that he's explaining things while using regular objects. As if he was an elementary teacher talking to his class.

  • @katelynb2913
    @katelynb2913 6 місяців тому +108

    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

    • @jiuhuaqu372
      @jiuhuaqu372 6 місяців тому

      nope, that's quantum mechanics (basically the birth of quantum mechanics)

    • @Laminar-Flow
      @Laminar-Flow 6 місяців тому +9

      @@jiuhuaqu372 It is both.

    • @coreyanderson3288
      @coreyanderson3288 6 місяців тому

      It is both@@jiuhuaqu372

    • @kyleboschen6220
      @kyleboschen6220 6 місяців тому

      ​@@jiuhuaqu372wait till you hear about quantum optics 😮

    • @girlofanimation
      @girlofanimation 6 місяців тому +4

      ​@@jiuhuaqu372the experimenters are using optics to study quantum physics. It's both.

  • @abpob6052
    @abpob6052 6 місяців тому +6

    Was in Geneva in May and visited Cern. Felt amazing just being near the eye into the tiny-verse

  • @TheGreatCalsby
    @TheGreatCalsby 6 місяців тому +28

    Quantum entanglement is so crazy that it can only be described to the layman as "it is what it is"

    • @chekote
      @chekote 22 дні тому

      It’s actually very easy to describe. This guy just didn’t do a great job.

    • @badguardian
      @badguardian 3 дні тому

      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

  • @prapanthebachelorette6803
    @prapanthebachelorette6803 6 місяців тому +10

    Oh gosh. Usually math and physics was my ptsd material but he explained it all very well. Thanks 😊

  • @phunkydroid
    @phunkydroid 6 місяців тому +16

    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.

    • @slobodaninic3434
      @slobodaninic3434 4 місяці тому

      Yeah this guy is pushing his school of thoughts agenda

    • @gorgeousfreeman1318
      @gorgeousfreeman1318 3 місяці тому +1

      For all intent and purpose, it might as well be

    • @ANGRYpooCHUCKER
      @ANGRYpooCHUCKER 22 дні тому

      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.

    • @phunkydroid
      @phunkydroid 22 дні тому

      @@ANGRYpooCHUCKER our best measurements can only put a lower bound on its size, not prove it's flat and infinite

    • @hannieldossantos7683
      @hannieldossantos7683 21 день тому

      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

  • @kidmohair8151
    @kidmohair8151 Місяць тому +4

    the balloon analogy for fission is the best one I have seen

  • @Beastintheomlet
    @Beastintheomlet 6 місяців тому +18

    I appreciate Wired still calling it Twitter, that is all.

  • @friendlybello
    @friendlybello 6 місяців тому +9

    Whoa this guy has some intensity, I love it

  • @uk101uk
    @uk101uk 6 місяців тому +6

    More videos with this guy please!

  • @HappyComfort
    @HappyComfort 7 годин тому

    That was really interesting! Thank you so much for taking the time to share all of this intriguing knowledge 👍🥳🌷

  • @itsjeninMass
    @itsjeninMass 6 місяців тому +46

    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!

    • @ReadDeadRedemption_
      @ReadDeadRedemption_ 6 місяців тому +2

      So true 😶‍🌫️

    • @Swampdragon102
      @Swampdragon102 4 місяці тому +5

      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.

  • @Spacemonkeymojo
    @Spacemonkeymojo 6 місяців тому +2

    THIS GUY IS AWESOME!!!!! WOW. He seems to really know his stuff.

  • @ArmyGuyClaude
    @ArmyGuyClaude 6 місяців тому +70

    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".

    • @mtzyzy
      @mtzyzy Місяць тому

      So the professor in the video is wrong?

    • @ArmyGuyClaude
      @ArmyGuyClaude Місяць тому

      @@mtzyzy I'm not stating one answer is more right than the other. I'm implying one answer is easier to understand.

    • @user-82086
      @user-82086 Місяць тому

      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

  • @shininio
    @shininio 6 місяців тому +3

    Brilliant guest! kudos wired

  • @Gage725
    @Gage725 6 місяців тому +3

    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.

  • @Kataang101
    @Kataang101 6 місяців тому +1

    One of those rare times where they show you an actual equation which helps answer a question

  • @erebuxy
    @erebuxy 6 місяців тому +8

    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.

    • @vincevvn
      @vincevvn 6 місяців тому +2

      Came here to say this. Idk how he could have made that mistake

    • @stellarwind1946
      @stellarwind1946 6 місяців тому +1

      The heat death of the universe is also not a certain thing.

  • @Terra_Incognita2004
    @Terra_Incognita2004 6 місяців тому +28

    You explain things so well! You would make a great teacher/professor :)

    • @loganholler4137
      @loganholler4137 6 місяців тому +22

      He is! He is currently a physics professor at Oregon State University (can confirm he's an amazing professor :) )

    • @Terra_Incognita2004
      @Terra_Incognita2004 6 місяців тому +7

      @@loganholler4137 Dude, I need to move to Oregon and enroll in his class!!!

    • @irredemption
      @irredemption 6 місяців тому

      @@Terra_Incognita2004do it!! He’s great

    • @elizabethstranger3122
      @elizabethstranger3122 6 місяців тому +1

      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! 😊

    • @jackwhitbread4583
      @jackwhitbread4583 Місяць тому

      He is already a professor, most physicists teach.

  • @thereallegitimatemontblanc
    @thereallegitimatemontblanc 2 місяці тому +6

    time travel being impossible is clearly a lie, it happens to me whenever i go to sleep

  • @evanmartinez2852
    @evanmartinez2852 6 місяців тому +19

    50 billion years for the heat death of the universe? That doesn't sound right. It has to be wayyyyy longer than that.

    • @ABc-nu6jb
      @ABc-nu6jb 6 місяців тому

      No exactly 59 billion years not one day longer or shorter lol

    • @Malkovith2
      @Malkovith2 6 місяців тому +4

      He made a lot of shortcuts in explaining things, which is unavoidable with this format

    • @vincentgrinn2665
      @vincentgrinn2665 6 місяців тому +2

      he likely meant 50 billion trillion, which is in the ball park for the shorter theories about the heat death

    • @stellarwind1946
      @stellarwind1946 6 місяців тому +2

      We don’t actually know there will be a heat death.

    • @drefrazier4266
      @drefrazier4266 2 місяці тому +1

      Yeah wth was that about? Red dwarfs can last Trillions of years by current estimates.

  • @shadowskullG
    @shadowskullG 6 місяців тому +13

    I like this, make it a series with this guy, he's very energetic!

  • @expiringsoul
    @expiringsoul Місяць тому

    Physics has always been confusing for me but this dude explained it so well

  • @StellarFacts12
    @StellarFacts12 28 днів тому

    You explain things like the double slit experiment better than any book I read

  • @mikloskallo9046
    @mikloskallo9046 Місяць тому

    These guys are really-really-really patient.

  • @mrjonathansiegrist
    @mrjonathansiegrist 6 місяців тому +4

    This guy is great!

  • @mixuaquela123
    @mixuaquela123 6 місяців тому +49

    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).

    • @shawnweddel1271
      @shawnweddel1271 6 місяців тому +15

      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-nu6jb
      @ABc-nu6jb 6 місяців тому

      What do you mean exactly? Can you explain more concrete please?

    • @mixuaquela123
      @mixuaquela123 6 місяців тому +1

      @@shawnweddel1271Exactly

    • @mixuaquela123
      @mixuaquela123 6 місяців тому +9

      @@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.

    • @ABc-nu6jb
      @ABc-nu6jb 6 місяців тому

      I don’t understand what he means with the entagled dices..example for that in real life?

  • @hetvishah4456
    @hetvishah4456 4 місяці тому

    best explanation so far..

  • @firearmnightcore3054
    @firearmnightcore3054 6 місяців тому +2

    thanks for the knowledge, Taika Waititi

  • @IchBinRiq
    @IchBinRiq Місяць тому +7

    He looks like he could be Mark Ruffalo’s cousin

  • @ghostbuster_winchester
    @ghostbuster_winchester Місяць тому

    He describes physics like Oppenheimer. Very thorough and well explained

  • @Nobody2989
    @Nobody2989 6 місяців тому +20

    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
      @V1ralB1ack 6 місяців тому +1

      a lot of things in science are unverifiable. We're on a rock with limited resources 🤷‍♂️

    • @gorgeousfreeman1318
      @gorgeousfreeman1318 Місяць тому

      @@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.

    • @kiiturii
      @kiiturii Місяць тому

      sounds like most science. If it works mathematically that's enough

    • @simonepellegrino2337
      @simonepellegrino2337 7 днів тому

      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.

  • @nicholascrow8133
    @nicholascrow8133 6 місяців тому +5

    I love how he explained the equation for time dilation with a crayon marker! 🤣

  • @muhammadabuzar7508
    @muhammadabuzar7508 6 місяців тому

    How can someone explains complicated concepts in such a simple way? 😮😮

  • @MuhammadQasim-th3ed
    @MuhammadQasim-th3ed 10 днів тому

    Brilliant knowledgeable man 👍👍💛🙌 ...

  • @Captainumerica
    @Captainumerica 6 місяців тому +2

    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?

  • @aaronwjs
    @aaronwjs 6 місяців тому +1

    This seems like it will be fun!

  • @KrakenIsland64
    @KrakenIsland64 5 місяців тому

    Yes I learned a lot... and yes I have more questions than before watching this.

  • @samuellyngdoh9982
    @samuellyngdoh9982 6 місяців тому

    This is how physics should be taught in schools! Fun, interesting and easy to understand.

  • @goifpro
    @goifpro 6 місяців тому +9

    I love this series! Would love to see an economist at some point :)

    • @coxapple1
      @coxapple1 6 місяців тому

      Strangely quantum physics makes a 'worm hole' between the two disciplines as economics is built on probability and related concepts.

  • @aka3673
    @aka3673 6 місяців тому +1

    He just explained it very simple

  • @ringoisacandyapple
    @ringoisacandyapple 6 місяців тому

    The blue‘s clues crayon was a nice touch 🥰

  • @elfrebel1604
    @elfrebel1604 6 місяців тому +15

    Yippee finally a physics one!

  • @poopstick924
    @poopstick924 2 місяці тому

    3:54 that's really interesting about the way that gravitational waves propagate. To me it seems similar to the way that sound waves move through a proper medium of matter.

    • @lepidoptera9337
      @lepidoptera9337 Місяць тому

      Sound waves are scalar. Electromagnetic waves are vectors and gravitational waves a 2nd order tensors. Similar, yes, but there are very important technical details that make them very different.

  • @camdenwhite4657
    @camdenwhite4657 6 місяців тому +2

    Dang, wish I was in this guy's Astrophysics class

  • @JuanAriza
    @JuanAriza 4 місяці тому

    this was a great video i loved it, this was info i needed for my test tomorrow I'm in the 4th grade and my mom will be proud of me for watching this video. IM also currently edging uhhhhh feeelllllssss so good

  • @mastod0n1
    @mastod0n1 5 місяців тому +1

    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.

  • @no1...
    @no1... 15 днів тому

    I watched so many physics videos on yt that I was able to have the answers of almost all the questions in the video 💀

  • @kara1852
    @kara1852 6 місяців тому +13

    How physicists don’t walk around in a constant state of existential crisis is beyond me. 😅

    • @AirwavesEnglish
      @AirwavesEnglish 6 місяців тому

      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.🙃😉

  • @plaguedoct0r
    @plaguedoct0r 19 днів тому +3

    So if I'm not mistaken, you could play snakes and ladders light-years apart?

  • @maidenless_tarnished
    @maidenless_tarnished 6 місяців тому +6

    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"😂

  • @coxapple1
    @coxapple1 6 місяців тому +2

    When is he on next. I want to ask where the boundary is between physics and chemistry.

  • @animeshsrivastava2398
    @animeshsrivastava2398 9 днів тому

    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.

  • @antoniousai1989
    @antoniousai1989 6 місяців тому +2

    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.

    • @anonymes2884
      @anonymes2884 6 місяців тому +1

      Yeah, like a lot of the answers in the video, that one left a lot to be desired.

  • @fieryweasel
    @fieryweasel 6 місяців тому +3

    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.

    • @Koooo4
      @Koooo4 6 місяців тому +1

      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.

    • @fieryweasel
      @fieryweasel 6 місяців тому

      @@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).

  • @JustJanitor
    @JustJanitor 6 місяців тому +1

    Lots of fun

  • @mandelleli
    @mandelleli 6 місяців тому +3

    Let's go physics!!!! ❤

  • @PWNHUB
    @PWNHUB 6 місяців тому +6

    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.

    • @anonymes2884
      @anonymes2884 6 місяців тому

      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).

    • @kiiturii
      @kiiturii Місяць тому

      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

  • @ademirze1721
    @ademirze1721 6 місяців тому

    That's great....thank you...

  • @hart.felt-
    @hart.felt- 22 дні тому

    Bro he looks exactly like every physics professor I’ve ever seen that’s insane

  • @sethlawson8544
    @sethlawson8544 6 місяців тому +5

    50 billion years feels a bit early for universal heat death, I believe he forgot a few orders of magnitude lmao

    • @vincentgrinn2665
      @vincentgrinn2665 6 місяців тому

      he probably meant to say billion trillion years, 10^21 is atleast in the ballpark of the shortest estimates for heat death

    • @gravityrambler8004
      @gravityrambler8004 6 місяців тому +3

      Yeah, that was definitely an accidental understatement on my part! Good catch

  • @genghisgalahad8465
    @genghisgalahad8465 4 місяці тому +1

    Thumbnail Question answer: Yes. 🔦

  • @Raz.C
    @Raz.C 3 місяці тому +2

    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?

    • @pritzilpalazzo
      @pritzilpalazzo 3 місяці тому

      (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 🙂)

    • @epicchocolate1866
      @epicchocolate1866 2 місяці тому

      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

    • @Raz.C
      @Raz.C 2 місяці тому

      @@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

    • @gorgeousfreeman1318
      @gorgeousfreeman1318 Місяць тому

      @@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.

  • @iamthereasonyoucame
    @iamthereasonyoucame 6 місяців тому +2

    I'm so happy the title says twitter and not "x"

  • @patrikengas6479
    @patrikengas6479 6 місяців тому +2

    12:10, didn't know this was confirmed 😮

    • @stellarwind1946
      @stellarwind1946 6 місяців тому

      It’s speculation. We can’t see or measure what is beyond cosmological horizons, only make predictions.

  • @wiloux
    @wiloux 16 днів тому +1

    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 ?

  • @Raz.C
    @Raz.C 3 місяці тому

    re - 6:00
    I LOVE it!!! Far too few people these days use the phrase "Heat death of the universe." I LOVE that it was his go-to answer. I wish it were more commonly used, but people seem to have found descriptions that they prefer, that don't have the same impact as I feel this one has!

  • @cruros9084
    @cruros9084 4 місяці тому

    It's actually mind boggling to think about how gravitational waves are compression waves through the fabric of reality itself.

  • @ecks_
    @ecks_ 6 місяців тому +4

    He has such beautiful fingernails. And a beautiful smile. Oh, and a beautiful way of explaining science.

    • @Koooo4
      @Koooo4 6 місяців тому +1

      thirsty much?..

    • @kamcorder3585
      @kamcorder3585 6 місяців тому +1

      I can't stop looking at his fingernails now they look so healthy

  • @oliviavinken6459
    @oliviavinken6459 6 місяців тому +6

    i got so happy when the astronaut was a she! its the bare minimum but the fact he didnt automatically make them a male makes me really happy!

    • @vincentgrinn2665
      @vincentgrinn2665 6 місяців тому +1

      honestly its surprising he didnt, considering nasa literally has identical twin brother astronauts(mark and scott kelly) who are different ages due to time dilation

    • @gorgeousfreeman1318
      @gorgeousfreeman1318 3 місяці тому

      If you're made happy because of the gender of a hypothetical, you need help

    • @oliviavinken6459
      @oliviavinken6459 3 місяці тому

      representation matters a lot, maybe you should wonder why this can be a big deal for someone instead of resulting to being rude.@@gorgeousfreeman1318

  • @isabellabanuelos9958
    @isabellabanuelos9958 6 місяців тому +2

    Question for Wired!! How do you all go about selecting the folks featured on Tech Support? I know a Professor that would be PERFECT!

  • @dtkikuchi9246
    @dtkikuchi9246 5 місяців тому

    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

  • @naimulislamrumi3028
    @naimulislamrumi3028 5 місяців тому

    1:30 so, how do you get that neutron, how was that particle split?

  • @CalciumEcho1000
    @CalciumEcho1000 6 місяців тому +1

    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?

  • @Gaak967
    @Gaak967 5 місяців тому

    Physics was the bane of my existence in high school. Thank god I barely passed it.

  • @99jei63
    @99jei63 День тому

    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. 💀

  • @owl77
    @owl77 11 днів тому +2

    So The Flash and Superman would age very slowly. 😅

  • @Abeeltariq
    @Abeeltariq 6 місяців тому +3

    A nice video after long time 🎉🎉🎉🎉

  • @blabla-kp5or
    @blabla-kp5or 6 місяців тому +1

    6:05 so squidward was right all along Aware

  • @marinaelliott8668
    @marinaelliott8668 6 місяців тому

    Coolest professor at OSU 😎

  • @samhayes-astrion
    @samhayes-astrion 6 місяців тому

    I thought he was going to do the pencil-and-paper wormhole analogy for a bit there...

  • @nubo1
    @nubo1 6 місяців тому +2

    why does the camera jump back and forth everytime mid sentence

  • @chrisyoung7362
    @chrisyoung7362 6 місяців тому

    Wow that was interesting

  • @moongods978
    @moongods978 6 місяців тому

    How do we send u searched questions

  • @latt.qcd9221
    @latt.qcd9221 3 місяці тому +1

    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.

  • @Wolf_Chawhee
    @Wolf_Chawhee 21 день тому

    Yes

  • @philipb2134
    @philipb2134 Місяць тому

    The Large Hadron Collider is not in Switzerland. It straddles the French-Swiss border near Geneva, with the larger portion actually in France.

    • @jackwhitbread4583
      @jackwhitbread4583 Місяць тому

      Both CERN and the LHC are listed as being in Switzerland, it's irrelevant where the majority of it lies.

  • @NameUnknownz
    @NameUnknownz 6 місяців тому +1

    We don't know for sure if Heat Death is how the universe ends but it's the more supported theory. 🤷‍♂️

  • @kalamardesk3666
    @kalamardesk3666 5 місяців тому

    actually i think that fission is more efficient with thermal neutrons than very fast ones

  • @ericthompson3982
    @ericthompson3982 24 дні тому

    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.

  • @Drewsterman777
    @Drewsterman777 3 місяці тому +1

    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.

    • @pritzilpalazzo
      @pritzilpalazzo 3 місяці тому

      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
      @Drewsterman777 3 місяці тому +1

      @pritzilpalazzo Ya I figured. Time travel typically refers to traveling through time itself outside of a linear method. Like the show Timeless.

    • @pritzilpalazzo
      @pritzilpalazzo 3 місяці тому

      @@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

  • @Ready_Set_Boom
    @Ready_Set_Boom Місяць тому

    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.

    • @tomlxyz
      @tomlxyz Місяць тому

      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

  • @FreekHoekstra
    @FreekHoekstra 3 місяці тому

    Do gravitational waves get affected by changes in space time?
    As gravity increases time passes more slowly does that include the time for propagation of a gravitational wave???
    Can we have gravitational gravitational wave lensing??

    • @tomlxyz
      @tomlxyz Місяць тому

      Gravitational waves are moving at the speed of light and are not affected by time dilation.
      I doubt you can use it as a lense if it moves that fast

  • @MonsterTurner1
    @MonsterTurner1 3 місяці тому

    9:11 Shoutout to the “Long story short” meta joke