And a ns correspond to one clock period of a GHz clock. In a 3GHz processor the signals move 10cm per clock (or actually some 7cm). Incredibly fast. It is really great engineering work in there. And cheap enough for most people to have, even more impressing.
light can only run 30cm in a nanosecond, that's super slow, like come on. 30cm is nothing, the GPU is 4cm away from the CPU, you already lost like 16 cycles of latency from the round-trip, for a machine running at 4GHz, 30cm/ns is kinda slow. can you imagine if all electromagnetic waves traveled 6000Km in a nanosecond ? I could have the RAM of my computer in Germany and my CPU computer in the US and it would work without losing any performance. or even better, I could make a CPU core the size of a 40 inch television, which would be amazingly powerful, or I could make a super big CPU that runs at 100Ghz without it literally being hotter than the Sun core, because instead of packing billions of transistors in 2sqcm, it can be bigger and less dense, and without having problems with clock propagation and synchronization, because electromagnetic fields travel faster now. Well, theoretically I can already make a computer in "normal light speed", but then it needs to be an asynchronous digital device, which is hell to make, computers without clock are super hard to engineer, but can you even imagine having to consider relativistic effects when designing a CPU ? lol.
Is that factoring in that a CPU *cycles* at 3GHz? It's on, off, on, off. Meaning if your processor is on 50% of the time and off 50% of the time, you're really only getting 5cm to work with (though I suppose you could be killing the power while you're still waiting for the output...)
I wish all teachers said that last sentence (if you're traveling 670 mil mph, light is still traveling 671 mil FASTER). It cuts right to the chase, and immediately forces you think of relativity differently.
@@alucard0712 If you were to travel say 99% of the speed of light thelight would still travel the speed of light faster than the speed you're currently going at
Hi nick I’m not an educated person I’m 58 years of age love space docs I find your videos educational but l struggle on a lot of your topics on understanding if I had a teacher like you I would learn so much cos you keep me transfixed you have humour and something special that is so rare please don’t change or stop making these videos I can’t get enough of them I’ve watched them ALL OVER AND OVER and I would like to thank you so much sir , I doubt you will ever read this comment as you must be so busy preparing the next video and so on , and also so many comments already written so once again sir thank you very; very; much. John Uttley.
BTD it is not clear to me if time does not pass or if it passes infinitely fast. I've heard that from the perspective of the photon, it arrives at the moment it departs.
Nick, I have a physics question not related to the video: According to Newton's third law, when we are stood on the surface of the Earth, there is an equal and opposite reaction force coming from the centre of the Earth equal and opposite to our weight. When we are in free fall or jumping into a swimming pool, are we still experiencing a reaction force from the centre of the Earth, if we are is it still equal and are the two forces balanced? Is it only a Newton's third law pair if we are stood on the surface? Like if a book is on a shelf, it is experiencing it's weight on the shelf, and a reaction force from the shelf, and it's weight to the centre of the Earth? Where is the effect of the reaction force on the book from the Earth? Or if anyone could answer that would be helpful.
Two things moving towards each other at 60% speed of light. To one observer it will appear the other is going faster than light which according to relativity he is. Right?
Cheese and f'ing rice!! Your vids always fascinate me, but this one blew me away! Most physics hobbiests know that light is measured the same from all reference frames, but I don't think they (me included!) ever extrapolate that out to what that implies realistically. This is phenomenal. Thank you!!
@@xX_swagger_Xx Really, it is. E.g.: 1 degree C is wide for thermostats; pascals are way to small for pressure; grams are small; vehicle fuel economy is horrendously wordy. In imperial: 1 btu/hr works well with heating water (1 lb, 1 F); a foot can easily be walked off for distance estimate. On the other hand, watts work well with electric power, and millimeters work well with things such as tiny drill bits. Just being realistic.
Lou Fazio I don’t see how in what context 1 degree Celsius would be wide but you can just use decimals if that’s the case. The metric is more mathematically rigourous in both the sense that every unit increases by a factor of 10 and is very easy when converting between other measurements. For example if you think a gram or pascal is too small then use kilograms or kilopascals
@@xX_swagger_Xx Celsius: the context is its larger increment. Kilo-: Yes, I know. They're wordy. kilogram - 3 parts to its pronunciation; kilopascal - 4 parts.
I like trig. You should do a series on it. Your teaching style would make anyone interested. Most people don't realize how clever and cool it really is. It's technically the study of triangles, but really, it STARTS with right triangles, expands to all triangles via the unit circle, then expands to curves via the graphs of the trig functions (sine and cosine especially, but most of not all of them graph as some sort of curve). Even when you are using trig to figure something out that requires using the trig functions directly on a right triangle (these are easiest trig problems that you get at the beginning of a trig course), there isn't usually a physical triangle. Rather, you imagine a triangle. In short, trig sounds like it's not very useful or interesting because it's just about triangles and functions, but that's really only the beginning -- It goes way beyond that and can be very useful in a variety of circumstances. If you've got no idea what I've been talking about, don't worry. This post is aimed at people who already have a basic understanding of trig, but don't realize how cool it can be. If you want a good introduction to trig, I recommend betterexplained.com, mathisfun.com, and Khan academy.
The most mind blowing thing about light...is how big it makes you realize how big the universe is. Even the speed of light is slow when to comes to galactic distances.
It's key to mention the time dilation here, as that's what really makes the 100% speed of light always the same speed for every observer. Relativity explains all those observations, but people often forget that it doesn't really say the the third person observer and two "relatively stationary" points observer reference isn't valid. And because such third person observer can describe what makes sense from outside the scope of the moving observers (of course, still the whole scope can be moving, but it changes nothing) it gives you a sensible connection to classic physics. And that is, that light going 100% SOL from the pov of the "stationary" source and target is going only a tiny bit faster than an object going 99,999%, to be precise it will only be 0,001% faster than that object, and the time of them reaching the target will correspond to that (time measured let's say at the middle of the experiment, synced with source and target time. So it's only the internal scope of the object going 99,999% where the light appears to go 100% SOL faster than it is going, and the reason for this is that time dilation on objects with mass at that speed will slow down it's clock by 99,999something%, causing that 0,001% SOL speed difference (from the outside observer pov), appear to be 100% SOL from the fast moving object pov. Of course, as far as relativity goes, all of us could be moving 99,9999% SOL right now and in theory we would not be able to notice that, so in that sense a "stationary" observer makes no sense, but an outside, third person observer, makes perfect sense still.
I just recommend this video insteed of explaining things myself. Not because I'm lazy but because you're simply the best in explaining. :-) I wished that your channel was much larger, UA-cam's algoritm needs to wake up! But seeing you still react to questions in the comment section is amazing. That would not be possible if this channel had been as large as it should have been.
No matter how big the channel gets, I will keep reading and responding to comments. I might not be able to respond to _everyone,_ but I'll always do my best.
Well done, great way of explaining. This is explained many times the "wrong" way. I wish I had met your channel 20 years ago, it would have saved me years of brain-gymnastics.
If I’m travelling at 630 million mph, light will still be travelling at 631 million mph from my point of view. Does not... make... intuitive... sense! Yes, yes, I know. The universe isn’t obligated to make sense to me 🙄
It is not „intuitive“ 😳 if one forgets that both the measurement of distance 📏and time ⏱are diminished for an observer who (as you have done) chooses to consider himself in motion 🚀as compared to a designated „stationary“ 🛌 reference frame. If one remembers that velocity is a ratio ⚖️ of measured distance over measured time 📏/⏱ then the smaller distance over the smaller time will be the same as for an observer in the „stationary“ frame- the „dilation“ 🎛 factor for both distance and time is the same and cancels out of the ratio- that is why both observers, „stationary“ and „moving“, will measure light speed to be the same; just as 4/6 equals 2/3. Velocity is a “comparison” 🍎🍎🍎 vs 🍊🍊🍊🍊between two measurements: a distance measurement and a time measurement- it is a derived concept from more fundamental principles. What is not intuitive is that the measurement of distance and time for observers who are moving relative to each other would be different; one just doesn’t experience these differences in their usual day to day interactions 🏄🏽♂️🤸🏼♀️🎳 unless perhaps one works at a particle accelerator! 👩🏼🏭💫 Newton (reasonably) assumed that measurements of time and distance would be absolute for any and all observers and it is this unquestioned assumption that stiffled the thinking of scientists for centuries until Maxwell’s successful electrodynamics contradicted Newton’s mechanics by predicting a universal speed for his electromagnetic wave〰️. It was Einstein’s “Special Relativity” that resolved that conflict but at the expense of the false assumption that measurements of space and time are absolute and universal. Relativity is demanded if the “Laws of Physics” 🏛📜 are to be the same for observers 👀 in all moving frames of reference.🚲🚂🎡🛩🛸 Maxwell’s electrodynamics would itself be soon be challenged as scientists attempted to make sense of the behavior of light and matter 🌈💡and began to develop atomic theory🤹🏻♂️; it is of course Quantum Theory 🎲🎲 that resolved the conflict between the implications of Maxwell’s electrodynamics and physical reality- atoms don’t collapse on themselves 🌀 and the universe continues to exist. 🦋 Ironically it was the great Einstein’s own stubborn adherance to the false assumption that reality is deterministic and that the properties of particles are preexisting that stifled the latter half of his scientific career. Once again, my apologies for the long response: I’ve got to stop drinking so much coffee in the morning! ☕️☕️☕️☕️
I entered this video comfortable with my understanding of light and space time, but you skewed that over harder than fiction depicts blackholes with your hyperbolic tangents and observing angles, *you mad man*
well think about it dark is even faster than light . the light might get 8 minutes from the sun to reach earth .. the moment the light is gone the dark is already there :D
I had some data the other week where I wanted to take a fast fourier transform of said data and the first thing I thought of was "FAST FAST fourier transform" *sigh* I guess I'm going crazy.
What's really amazing is just fast light is compared to any speed we can even imagine (the fastest manmade object is some kind of rocket that goes something like 0.034% the speed of light) and yet, if you consider just how vast even the *observerable* universe is, it's actually pretty slow -- heck the nearest galaxy to us is *25,000* lightyears away. That means that, even if we could travel at lightspeed -- which is physically impossible, unless there's something seriously wrong with our understanding of physics -- it would still take *25,000* years just to get to the *nearest* galaxy! 🤯🤯🤯
Yeah, we are not likely to ever leave our galaxy even if we manage speeds that allow us to leave our solar system. Hell, just achieving that feat would be astounding. getting back to our solar system would be an even bigger feat. navigating a spiral galaxy is a computational nightmare. everything is spiraling around the galactic core. once a spaceship left the gravitational influence of our solar system the solar system would be moving along its orbit without the space craft being tethered to it's gravity (like it is just going between planets). this means the return trip would have to calculate the trajectory of our solar system and you'd have to aim the ship where the solar system will be when you get there not where it was when you left or when you started heading back. leaving the galaxy itself and getting back... wooo well consider this: galaxy's move much faster than solar systems orbit a core of a galaxy.
@@DenverStarkey A spaceship is for "space travel". We need to think beyond the concept of space, if we are to transcend the natural constraints of space, as a magnitude. Think of it like this: We bypass roads with expressways, and cities with highways, and states with airways. One day we will bypass space with "Intergalactic Trans-Spaceways". All we need to get there is to "Think outside the spaceship...
> Came here to get my mind blown. > admire some quality content > Nick gives a shoutout to Ilya Yasin > Ilya is a prominent young politician from MOSCOW, who running a mayoral campaign. IN MOSCOW. > MIND BLOWN
Nice video as always! I have a problem. The path of light can be changed gravitationaly, how this remains consistent with light's point of view(to be present at every point along the direction of velocity)?
The physics talks, I don't quite see the problem. Light still propagates in straight paths, and in some sense is "present along every point", but the spacetime is curved, so those straight paths look curved on any rectangular map, they are geodesic lines. It's like you can sail from Pakistan to East Russia by moving straight, not turning left or right. This seems crazy on any 2D map but if you take a globe and watch straight paths on it, you can see how it's possible.
I'm going to make a generalized statement C is part of the cause and effect chain, entropy is what has happened during the amount of time it took for an effect to reach the cause. People can not "change" the effect, but they can learn from it (free will) and do something next time that causes a better outcome. The outcome is the solution to a cause and effect and is not final until that information has "reached" the "actor" or in physics which work but not in any decision making way is where the possibilities of the outcome come from. :)
If you're interested in knowing more about entropy: ua-cam.com/video/qQhv3YhiJ98/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/or8Rktj_HA4/v-deo.html Also, PBS Space Time did a good video on this: ua-cam.com/video/kfffy12uQ7g/v-deo.html
Entropy more classically defined as the distortion an object experiences as it exchanges virtual photons while moving through time. In this explanation you can visualize what happens as space-time conserves a "still" body" more than a moving one because the virtual photons *must* be able to interact, as one approaches C space-time will not be able to conserve the mass yes, but it is the |information|. This is obviously just a small portion of Thermodynamics.
WARNING: Contains information on the end of our Universe. Black Holes (Part 1): ua-cam.com/video/e-P5IFTqB98/v-deo.html Black Holes (Part 2): ua-cam.com/video/yWO-cvGETRQ/v-deo.html Two Part-er: Red Dwarfs (recommended video) This is Part 1 of said Two Part-er; please watch this one before the one on White Dwarfs & Black Dwarfs: ua-cam.com/video/LS-VPyLaJFM/v-deo.html White Dwarfs & Black Dwarfs (Part 2): ua-cam.com/video/qsN1LglrX9s/v-deo.html There you go. :) Oh, and by the way, Kurzgesagt (the channel which made these videos) has other videos on these topics, and other topics.
Light only seems fast when you look at it in terms on small distances. When you consider it takes over a day to communicate with the voyager probes light does not seem so fast then.
Please LIKE SO HE CAN SEE. Next video can you talk about space-time ? The are so many questions that science channels dont talk about. What is made of ? How it came to exist ?? Can be fabricated someway? How space-time can move faster tham light ? And how can the universe keep making more space-time in the expansion ? Thx a lot! Love your videos! This channel is a hidden gem.
I saw this. That is a lot of questions. 1) Space-time isn't _made_ of anything. It just is. 2) Space is not fabricated. It just gets bigger over time. 3) Space expansion doesn't travel faster than light. People need to stop saying that. Technically speaking, velocity (speed) is poorly-defined on those scales.
Glauco S : Hi, Your puzzlement is also something that bothered me for years as I, as a layman, attempted to understand what I was reading in popular writings about curved space-time. I would like to share here some insights that helped me resolve the puzzle: Space-Time isn’t “nothing” in the sense that it exists. Together with matter it can be thought of as two legs of the “holy trinity” of Physics: Matter-Space-Time that defines all of physical reality. Space as an aspect of fundamental reality has an identity and a specific nature and particular properties. Our naive conception of “space” being “nothing” comes from the idea of so called “empty space”: a void containing no matter or energy and this does not actually exist! The idea of space being “nothing” also comes from the mathematical abstraction by the same name. Concepts of area and volume are useful and meaningful but they are abstractions of reality and not replacements for reality. The concept of “empty” can be used to describe common things in our experience such as perhaps an empty box 📦 that had previously contained breakfast cereal. We use such analogies to attempt to grasp the concept of space itself setting aside for a moment the fact that the quite material cardboard sides define the limits of a volume of space within the box. The box is said to be “empty” of cereal. One can then carry the analogy further and imagine the box empty of air (a vacuum) and the walls becoming ever less material until the box itself is imagined as just the eight points defined by the geometrical vertices of the original box. This simplification is an imaginative mathematical abstraction, a concept, an idea. Real space and time have no meaning without matter and energy. [Crudely said, that is why they burst into existence simultaneously with the Big Bang.] Quantum Physics describes real space as filled with oscillating “fields” of possibility/probability which are sometimes described as “seething foams” of “virtual” particles coming into and out of existence and General Relativity describes how mass-energy bends space-time and how bent space-time effects the dynamics of matter-mass-energy. . The main point I am trying to drive home here in my own clumsy rambling style is that in order to understand something humans use analogies abstracted from our perceptions of reality. Given the success and power of this strategy we sometimes forget that the conceptual abstractions are not themselves the reality we are trying to understand and explain; they are just the only thing we have with which to do so. In conclusion: whatever “space-time” is, one of its properties is that it is bend by the presence of mass-energy; the mathematics of General Relativity describe exactly how much.
Nice topic, but I probably won't get around to it for a while. Here are some videos on it from channels I trust: ua-cam.com/video/_LpgBvEPozk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/_Y-XUAKTAkE/v-deo.html
We are forever trapped at speeds slower than light. Wrap drive would allow us to move "globally" without moving "locally," but that's a topic for another video.
rahul radha Well, if we used a future discovery about spacetime (that we currently can't even imagine, something that's not a warp drive) to break this speed limit, current theoretical speculation says that you would travel back in time. Relative time gets slower and slower as you get closer to *c*, and sits at a standstill for things that travel at *c*. Speculation says that if you move *faster*, time would turn around.
The Science Asylum: Forever is a strong word. There are tons of things for us to discover about the Universe. Considering the vastness of the Universe, even light is an intergalactic slowpoke 😀
He should explain that velocity is inversely proportional to the passage of time. Thats why even when traveling near light speed, relative to your speed, light still travels at light speed. Because you are moving slower through time
I think the asterisk points at 6:32 need a little closer treatment. If I observe an object traveling near the speed of light, and a photon, the photon will be only a little faster than the object. The object's experience of time will cause it to observe the light as traveling much faster than itself.
The 30 cm/ns actually made me realize how short a nano second is
Grace Hopper used to use that tidbit in her lectures... then you realize one reason all those little transistors have to be so close to each other!
And a ns correspond to one clock period of a GHz clock. In a 3GHz processor the signals move 10cm per clock (or actually some 7cm). Incredibly fast. It is really great engineering work in there. And cheap enough for most people to have, even more impressing.
@@handlebarfox2366 aAaÀAAÀ
light can only run 30cm in a nanosecond, that's super slow, like come on. 30cm is nothing, the GPU is 4cm away from the CPU, you already lost like 16 cycles of latency from the round-trip, for a machine running at 4GHz, 30cm/ns is kinda slow.
can you imagine if all electromagnetic waves traveled 6000Km in a nanosecond ? I could have the RAM of my computer in Germany and my CPU computer in the US and it would work without losing any performance.
or even better, I could make a CPU core the size of a 40 inch television, which would be amazingly powerful, or I could make a super big CPU that runs at 100Ghz without it literally being hotter than the Sun core, because instead of packing billions of transistors in 2sqcm, it can be bigger and less dense, and without having problems with clock propagation and synchronization, because electromagnetic fields travel faster now.
Well, theoretically I can already make a computer in "normal light speed", but then it needs to be an asynchronous digital device, which is hell to make, computers without clock are super hard to engineer, but can you even imagine having to consider relativistic effects when designing a CPU ? lol.
Is that factoring in that a CPU *cycles* at 3GHz? It's on, off, on, off. Meaning if your processor is on 50% of the time and off 50% of the time, you're really only getting 5cm to work with (though I suppose you could be killing the power while you're still waiting for the output...)
I wish all teachers said that last sentence (if you're traveling 670 mil mph, light is still traveling 671 mil FASTER). It cuts right to the chase, and immediately forces you think of relativity differently.
Because... c²=e/m?
i don't get it.
@@alucard0712
If you were to travel say 99% of the speed of light thelight would still travel the speed of light faster than the speed you're currently going at
@@addajjalsonofallah6217 The thing is there is still no explanation of how that distortion works
@@Secret_Moon well of course not
The universe isn't going to reveal all its secrets to us just like that
Hi nick I’m not an educated person I’m 58 years of age love space docs I find your videos educational but l struggle on a lot of your topics on understanding if I had a teacher like you I would learn so much cos you keep me transfixed you have humour and something special that is so rare please don’t change or stop making these videos I can’t get enough of them I’ve watched them ALL OVER AND OVER and I would like to thank you so much sir , I doubt you will ever read this comment as you must be so busy preparing the next video and so on , and also so many comments already written so once again sir thank you very; very; much. John Uttley.
You're welcome. It's nice to hear my videos help :-)
The fact light is always SOL faster than you is hard to accept.
But once you can, you're relatively ready to go for more.
Harder to accept that SOL is constant in respect to you, no matter what your own speed is.
You are crazier than light. Awesome
@Surajit Sarkar 🤣🤣🤣💯
It doesn't matter. Even when we can travel light speed, kids will still ask, _"Are we there yet?"_
Brenda Rua well if traveled at the speed of light time wouldn't pass?
BTD it is not clear to me if time does not pass or if it passes infinitely fast. I've heard that from the perspective of the photon, it arrives at the moment it departs.
Brenda Rua ok
@@brendarua01in our frame we are always at rest. that's why in our perspective in the spaceship(for example) time runs normally like here on earth.
Quite down dammit. Lol
I would like if you went deeper into hyperbolic rotation. This was just an appetizer.
Dont think you are so special everyone knows you just checked on google for that
I don't think you can go any deeper without going to the messy mathematics. Check out minutephysics for the details.
@@williamnathanael412 *crazy mathematics.
It always amazes me how simply you explain complex topics 😀😁
Explain "simple"
@@marcuswebb9434 shut up
@@hadroncollider1155 ._.
You seriously deserve more recognition... I never miss a video from you.... for the love of physics: It's okay to be a little crazy
To answer the title before watching the video: Fast fast!
The best , most entertaining and educational science channel on UA-cam. Period! You sir are a true genius!
"Most people don't like trigonometry"....."Really?"....."Yesh, really!" Priceless bro. Thanks!
6:31 Oh my! I never knew this about the speed of light! I never thought about it this way! Thank you so much for clearing it up! You're the best! 👍
I have never heard this concept of always the speed of light faster before. . . and I'm really into this stuff! Thanks, man! #FASTFAST! ✌️
Another great educational video. I use these all the time teaching secondary (UK school system) science. Well done Nick, keep up the good work.
That's great! I've been doing pretty tough topics lately.
The Science Asylum It's like Beakman's World, but for a smarter generation of people.
Nick, I have a physics question not related to the video:
According to Newton's third law, when we are stood on the surface of the Earth, there is an equal and opposite reaction force coming from the centre of the Earth equal and opposite to our weight.
When we are in free fall or jumping into a swimming pool, are we still experiencing a reaction force from the centre of the Earth, if we are is it still equal and are the two forces balanced? Is it only a Newton's third law pair if we are stood on the surface?
Like if a book is on a shelf, it is experiencing it's weight on the shelf, and a reaction force from the shelf, and it's weight to the centre of the Earth? Where is the effect of the reaction force on the book from the Earth?
Or if anyone could answer that would be helpful.
Do they teach such a hard topic in secondary school?😶
Two things moving towards each other at 60% speed of light. To one observer it will appear the other is going faster than light which according to relativity he is.
Right?
Cheese and f'ing rice!! Your vids always fascinate me, but this one blew me away!
Most physics hobbiests know that light is measured the same from all reference frames, but I don't think they (me included!) ever extrapolate that out to what that implies realistically. This is phenomenal. Thank you!!
Glad you liked it! Yeah, I really had to drill it home at the end there.
0:13 I hate the imperial system.
0:19 That's more like it.
Has lots of practical use, much is more intuitive.
@@louf7178 Not really
@@xX_swagger_Xx Really, it is. E.g.: 1 degree C is wide for thermostats; pascals are way to small for pressure; grams are small; vehicle fuel economy is horrendously wordy. In imperial: 1 btu/hr works well with heating water (1 lb, 1 F); a foot can easily be walked off for distance estimate. On the other hand, watts work well with electric power, and millimeters work well with things such as tiny drill bits. Just being realistic.
Lou Fazio I don’t see how in what context 1 degree Celsius would be wide but you can just use decimals if that’s the case. The metric is more mathematically rigourous in both the sense that every unit increases by a factor of 10 and is very easy when converting between other measurements. For example if you think a gram or pascal is too small then use kilograms or kilopascals
@@xX_swagger_Xx Celsius: the context is its larger increment.
Kilo-: Yes, I know. They're wordy. kilogram - 3 parts to its pronunciation; kilopascal - 4 parts.
I'm just an average schmoe who came across this video at random. This melted my brain. Love it
The most under-rated channel I have ever came across ! Like seriously , you deserve more. Maybe a bit of promotion and advertising would help ?
I always wondered how you make your clones
The clone door
It's the "he" clone door. So there must also be a "she" clone door somewhere.
Interdimentional portal... duhh
He uses shadow clones jutsu.
Kage-bushino-jitsu!
I like trig. You should do a series on it. Your teaching style would make anyone interested. Most people don't realize how clever and cool it really is. It's technically the study of triangles, but really, it STARTS with right triangles, expands to all triangles via the unit circle, then expands to curves via the graphs of the trig functions (sine and cosine especially, but most of not all of them graph as some sort of curve). Even when you are using trig to figure something out that requires using the trig functions directly on a right triangle (these are easiest trig problems that you get at the beginning of a trig course), there isn't usually a physical triangle. Rather, you imagine a triangle.
In short, trig sounds like it's not very useful or interesting because it's just about triangles and functions, but that's really only the beginning -- It goes way beyond that and can be very useful in a variety of circumstances.
If you've got no idea what I've been talking about, don't worry. This post is aimed at people who already have a basic understanding of trig, but don't realize how cool it can be. If you want a good introduction to trig, I recommend betterexplained.com, mathisfun.com, and Khan academy.
The most mind blowing thing about light...is how big it makes you realize how big the universe is. Even the speed of light is slow when to comes to galactic distances.
Indeed!
The behavior of light is one of those things I have to accept but will probably never truly grok.
It's key to mention the time dilation here, as that's what really makes the 100% speed of light always the same speed for every observer.
Relativity explains all those observations, but people often forget that it doesn't really say the the third person observer and two "relatively stationary" points observer reference isn't valid. And because such third person observer can describe what makes sense from outside the scope of the moving observers (of course, still the whole scope can be moving, but it changes nothing) it gives you a sensible connection to classic physics. And that is, that light going 100% SOL from the pov of the "stationary" source and target is going only a tiny bit faster than an object going 99,999%, to be precise it will only be 0,001% faster than that object, and the time of them reaching the target will correspond to that (time measured let's say at the middle of the experiment, synced with source and target time.
So it's only the internal scope of the object going 99,999% where the light appears to go 100% SOL faster than it is going, and the reason for this is that time dilation on objects with mass at that speed will slow down it's clock by 99,999something%, causing that 0,001% SOL speed difference (from the outside observer pov), appear to be 100% SOL from the fast moving object pov.
Of course, as far as relativity goes, all of us could be moving 99,9999% SOL right now and in theory we would not be able to notice that, so in that sense a "stationary" observer makes no sense, but an outside, third person observer, makes perfect sense still.
No matter your velocity, light remains constant as it blows right by you. This is what makes relativity and frames of reference so interesting.
you should share it on fb, insta everywhere... you deserve more subs..
Shared!
It also is our job :)
I just recommend this video insteed of explaining things myself.
Not because I'm lazy but because you're simply the best in explaining. :-)
I wished that your channel was much larger, UA-cam's algoritm needs to wake up!
But seeing you still react to questions in the comment section is amazing.
That would not be possible if this channel had been as large as it should have been.
No matter how big the channel gets, I will keep reading and responding to comments. I might not be able to respond to _everyone,_ but I'll always do my best.
@@ScienceAsylum In that case...
...Take your vacations serious.
Another excellent short film. Pls keep them coming.
From my point of view light is normal and I'm crazy!
Thanks for slowing down your pace. As always, your work both entertains and educates. You are a legend!
Well done, great way of explaining.
This is explained many times the "wrong" way.
I wish I had met your channel 20 years ago, it would have saved me years of brain-gymnastics.
Space...extremely mind boggling. I found this video very informative and interesting to say the least. You are an excellent teacher Sir!
Glad you enjoyed it!
So light speed is like arguing with a girl, no matter how close to being right you are, you're still wrong.
Maximum wisdom! LOL
That's how guys are like when i talk to them they always gotta be right even though they're wrong
Nick! That’s all you had to say. I knew I knew what I knew and you explained something I didn’t know how to ask. Thanks man!
If I’m travelling at 630 million mph, light will still be travelling at 631 million mph from my point of view.
Does not... make... intuitive... sense!
Yes, yes, I know. The universe isn’t obligated to make sense to me 🙄
Exactly my point! It breaks our brains :-)
It is not „intuitive“ 😳 if one forgets that both the measurement of distance 📏and time ⏱are diminished for an observer who (as you have done) chooses to consider himself in motion 🚀as compared to a designated „stationary“ 🛌 reference frame. If one remembers that velocity is a ratio ⚖️ of measured distance over measured time 📏/⏱ then the smaller distance over the smaller time will be the same as for an observer in the „stationary“ frame- the „dilation“ 🎛 factor for both distance and time is the same and cancels out of the ratio- that is why both observers, „stationary“ and „moving“, will measure light speed to be the same; just as 4/6 equals 2/3. Velocity is a “comparison” 🍎🍎🍎 vs 🍊🍊🍊🍊between two measurements: a distance measurement and a time measurement- it is a derived concept from more fundamental principles.
What is not intuitive is that the measurement of distance and time for observers who are moving relative to each other would be different; one just doesn’t experience these differences in their usual day to day interactions 🏄🏽♂️🤸🏼♀️🎳 unless perhaps one works at a particle accelerator! 👩🏼🏭💫
Newton (reasonably) assumed that measurements of time and distance would be absolute for any and all observers and it is this unquestioned assumption that stiffled the thinking of scientists for centuries until Maxwell’s successful electrodynamics contradicted Newton’s mechanics by predicting a universal speed for his electromagnetic wave〰️. It was Einstein’s “Special Relativity” that resolved that conflict but at the expense of the false assumption that measurements of space and time are absolute and universal. Relativity is demanded if the “Laws of Physics” 🏛📜 are to be the same for observers 👀 in all moving frames of reference.🚲🚂🎡🛩🛸
Maxwell’s electrodynamics would itself be soon be challenged as scientists attempted to make sense of the behavior of light and matter 🌈💡and began to develop atomic theory🤹🏻♂️; it is of course Quantum Theory 🎲🎲 that resolved the conflict between the implications of Maxwell’s electrodynamics and physical reality- atoms don’t collapse on themselves 🌀 and the universe continues to exist. 🦋 Ironically it was the great Einstein’s own stubborn adherance to the false assumption that reality is deterministic and that the properties of particles are preexisting that stifled the latter half of his scientific career. Once again, my apologies for the long response: I’ve got to stop drinking so much coffee in the morning! ☕️☕️☕️☕️
ZettaiBaka yes. It still passes you at the speed of light..
Reminds me of the Kawasaki H2. No matter how quick I'm going that dang bike still blasts past me like I'm stopped..
@ZettaiBaka
"The universe isn’t obligated to make sense to me"
Of course it is. Logic is logic . There's no magic.
I entered this video comfortable with my understanding of light and space time, but you skewed that over harder than fiction depicts blackholes with your hyperbolic tangents and observing angles, *you mad man*
You're welcome?
@@ScienceAsylum up meant to say entered lol
I clicked the vid faster than the speed of light
Then the universe should have collapsed in on its self due to the more than infinite energy you'd need to do so.
Yes but im from the far future and we have INFINITE POWER and somehow i travelled back in time and ended up here.
I said you need MORE THAN INFINITE POWER.
Someone Silence Also why didn't the universe turn into a black hole.
Someone Silence what about grandpa paradox😉😉😉
5:30 "Some crazy distortion."
(Me: 🤔 "got that right..." )
0:28 I was just waiting for this through out the entire first 28 seconds of the video XD
I feel like the Wolf 359 joke is not adequately appreciated by your audience 🤨
But I love it ❤
Live long and prosper 🖖
I am watching this video even though I have annual exam tomorrow and its 10:00 pm with a ton to do.
Hafiz muhammad Ibrahim jaffar: Well time is relative, your testscore on the other hand... not so much I'm afraid.
Good luck buddy 👍👍👍
I have (specal functions) exam 😂
Best underrated channel ever bro
TRUE LOVE FO YO CHANNEL THO
They say Photophobia is irrational, but so is light.That's why I stay in the dark, light scares me. 🧛🦇
well think about it dark is even faster than light . the light might get 8 minutes from the sun to reach earth .. the moment the light is gone the dark is already there :D
_I_ love trigonometry! And although the hyperbolic trig functions don't usually get as much love -- I still love you, tanh!
I feel en-light-ened! Insane how all of this made as much sense to me as it does to eat a bowl of Cheerios.
To answer your last question, light is super crazy. But as you’ve taught me, it’s okay to be a little crazy.
I had some data the other week where I wanted to take a fast fourier transform of said data and the first thing I thought of was "FAST FAST fourier transform"
*sigh* I guess I'm going crazy.
HAHA awesome!
Great video, the acting and editing is just too good to illustrate the subject :)
What's really amazing is just fast light is compared to any speed we can even imagine (the fastest manmade object is some kind of rocket that goes something like 0.034% the speed of light) and yet, if you consider just how vast even the *observerable* universe is, it's actually pretty slow -- heck the nearest galaxy to us is *25,000* lightyears away. That means that, even if we could travel at lightspeed -- which is physically impossible, unless there's something seriously wrong with our understanding of physics -- it would still take *25,000* years just to get to the *nearest* galaxy! 🤯🤯🤯
Yeah, we are not likely to ever leave our galaxy even if we manage speeds that allow us to leave our solar system. Hell, just achieving that feat would be astounding. getting back to our solar system would be an even bigger feat. navigating a spiral galaxy is a computational nightmare. everything is spiraling around the galactic core. once a spaceship left the gravitational influence of our solar system the solar system would be moving along its orbit without the space craft being tethered to it's gravity (like it is just going between planets). this means the return trip would have to calculate the trajectory of our solar system and you'd have to aim the ship where the solar system will be when you get there not where it was when you left or when you started heading back. leaving the galaxy itself and getting back... wooo well consider this: galaxy's move much faster than solar systems orbit a core of a galaxy.
@@DenverStarkey A spaceship is for "space travel". We need to think beyond the concept of space, if we are to transcend the natural constraints of space, as a magnitude. Think of it like this: We bypass roads with expressways, and cities with highways, and states with airways. One day we will bypass space with "Intergalactic Trans-Spaceways". All we need to get there is to "Think outside the spaceship...
> Came here to get my mind blown.
> admire some quality content
> Nick gives a shoutout to Ilya Yasin
> Ilya is a prominent young politician from MOSCOW, who running a mayoral campaign. IN MOSCOW.
> MIND BLOWN
Is there a such thing as "Light Privilege"?
It should be 😂
f. g Yes, lose some weight and you'll see.
There is at least 1 person who actually thinks this for real. Seriously (check paragraph 3).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray#Criticism
Even the poorest, most disadvantaged light has light privilege because of... its color, but it's hyperbole...and that's crazy.
Learned alot thanx love this guy
Fun fact... SOL is Speed of Light, and Sol in Portuguese is sun
The Sun is also "Sol" in Latin. It's why we call it the "SOLar system" in astronomy.
It's also the name they gave to a day on Mars to distinguish it from Earth day: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timekeeping_on_Mars#Sols
This video was hell fun, love the way you make funny cuts between explainations like the clone making, very creative.
I clicked the like button faster than light!
So... you went back in time and clicked the like button before the video uploaded?
The Science Asylum That's a good theory!
Light is some dope stuff.
Nice video as always!
I have a problem.
The path of light can be changed gravitationaly, how this remains consistent with light's point of view(to be present at every point along the direction of velocity)?
The speed of light is still measured the same by all observers in general relativity... it's just more difficult to draw the spacetime diagrams.
The physics talks, I don't quite see the problem. Light still propagates in straight paths, and in some sense is "present along every point", but the spacetime is curved, so those straight paths look curved on any rectangular map, they are geodesic lines. It's like you can sail from Pakistan to East Russia by moving straight, not turning left or right. This seems crazy on any 2D map but if you take a globe and watch straight paths on it, you can see how it's possible.
I love how nerd clone had to correct you on people's love of trig
You make an awesome videos.
Your every video is mind blowing
Make a video on tensors.
I'm going to make a generalized statement C is part of the cause and effect chain, entropy is what has happened during the amount of time it took for an effect to reach the cause. People can not "change" the effect, but they can learn from it (free will) and do something next time that causes a better outcome. The outcome is the solution to a cause and effect and is not final until that information has "reached" the "actor" or in physics which work but not in any decision making way is where the possibilities of the outcome come from. :)
If you're interested in knowing more about entropy:
ua-cam.com/video/qQhv3YhiJ98/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/or8Rktj_HA4/v-deo.html
Also, PBS Space Time did a good video on this:
ua-cam.com/video/kfffy12uQ7g/v-deo.html
Entropy more classically defined as the distortion an object experiences as it exchanges virtual photons while moving through time. In this explanation you can visualize what happens as space-time conserves a "still" body" more than a moving one because the virtual photons *must* be able to interact, as one approaches C space-time will not be able to conserve the mass yes, but it is the |information|. This is obviously just a small portion of Thermodynamics.
Can you tell us more about black holes and white dwarfs !!..??
WARNING: Contains information on the end of our Universe.
Black Holes (Part 1):
ua-cam.com/video/e-P5IFTqB98/v-deo.html
Black Holes (Part 2):
ua-cam.com/video/yWO-cvGETRQ/v-deo.html
Two Part-er:
Red Dwarfs (recommended video) This is Part 1 of said Two Part-er; please watch this one before the one on White Dwarfs & Black Dwarfs:
ua-cam.com/video/LS-VPyLaJFM/v-deo.html
White Dwarfs & Black Dwarfs (Part 2):
ua-cam.com/video/qsN1LglrX9s/v-deo.html
There you go. :)
Oh, and by the way, Kurzgesagt (the channel which made these videos) has other videos on these topics, and other topics.
How fast is light?
Nick: "Fast fast! Thanks for liking and sharing this video, and don't forget to subscribe if you'd like to keep up with us!"
Light only seems fast when you look at it in terms on small distances. When you consider it takes over a day to communicate with the voyager probes light does not seem so fast then.
Space is BIG BIG.
Mind blown.
SPOILER ALERT: Really Fast.
Fast fast
HAHA
Please LIKE SO HE CAN SEE.
Next video can you talk about space-time ? The are so many questions that science channels dont talk about.
What is made of ? How it came to exist ?? Can be fabricated someway? How space-time can move faster tham light ? And how can the universe keep making more space-time in the expansion ?
Thx a lot! Love your videos! This channel is a hidden gem.
I saw this. That is a lot of questions.
1) Space-time isn't _made_ of anything. It just is.
2) Space is not fabricated. It just gets bigger over time.
3) Space expansion doesn't travel faster than light. People need to stop saying that. Technically speaking, velocity (speed) is poorly-defined on those scales.
The Science Asylum thank you for clarifying! =)
I just dont get how something that is "nothing" can bend/stretch/be afected by gravity.
Glauco S : Hi, Your puzzlement is also something that bothered me for years as I, as a layman, attempted to understand what I was reading in popular writings about curved space-time. I would like to share here some insights that helped me resolve the puzzle:
Space-Time isn’t “nothing” in the sense that it exists. Together with matter it can be thought of as two legs of the “holy trinity” of Physics: Matter-Space-Time that defines all of physical reality. Space as an aspect of fundamental reality has an identity and a specific nature and particular properties. Our naive conception of “space” being “nothing” comes from the idea of so called “empty space”: a void containing no matter or energy and this does not actually exist! The idea of space being “nothing” also comes from the mathematical abstraction by the same name. Concepts of area and volume are useful and meaningful but they are abstractions of reality and not replacements for reality.
The concept of “empty” can be used to describe common things in our experience such as perhaps an empty box 📦 that had previously contained breakfast cereal. We use such analogies to attempt to grasp the concept of space itself setting aside for a moment the fact that the quite material cardboard sides define the limits of a volume of space within the box. The box is said to be “empty” of cereal. One can then carry the analogy further and imagine the box empty of air (a vacuum) and the walls becoming ever less material until the box itself is imagined as just the eight points defined by the geometrical vertices of the original box. This simplification is an imaginative mathematical abstraction, a concept, an idea.
Real space and time have no meaning without matter and energy. [Crudely said, that is why they burst into existence simultaneously with the Big Bang.] Quantum Physics describes real space as filled with oscillating “fields” of possibility/probability which are sometimes described as “seething foams” of “virtual” particles coming into and out of existence and General Relativity describes how mass-energy bends space-time and how bent space-time effects the dynamics of matter-mass-energy. . The main point I am trying to drive home here in my own clumsy rambling style is that in order to understand something humans use analogies abstracted from our perceptions of reality. Given the success and power of this strategy we sometimes forget that the conceptual abstractions are not themselves the reality we are trying to understand and explain; they are just the only thing we have with which to do so. In conclusion: whatever “space-time” is, one of its properties is that it is bend by the presence of mass-energy; the mathematics of General Relativity describe exactly how much.
Chris Lieding thx! Thats very helpful !
I should comment fast fast!
This is absolutely crazy!
Video on how the water got to be on Earth? 😉
Nice topic, but I probably won't get around to it for a while. Here are some videos on it from channels I trust:
ua-cam.com/video/_LpgBvEPozk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/_Y-XUAKTAkE/v-deo.html
Love the humor. This is the only science videos I watch that make me laugh out loud.
How fast? Fast fast. Hahahaha
Light is really out there being **that** one kid on the playground
😆
So you are saying is....😵😵😵😵😵😵
Great video! Thanks!
Fast. Fast.
Those lightning bolt SFX reminded me to like the video. Classy.
50th
If you ever have to choose between trig and geometry, take trig. It isn't easier per say, but isn't as complicated.
What if we travelled faster than speed of light?
We are forever trapped at speeds slower than light. Wrap drive would allow us to move "globally" without moving "locally," but that's a topic for another video.
The Science Asylum Great! When is your next video?
rahul radha Well, if we used a future discovery about spacetime (that we currently can't even imagine, something that's not a warp drive) to break this speed limit, current theoretical speculation says that you would travel back in time. Relative time gets slower and slower as you get closer to *c*, and sits at a standstill for things that travel at *c*. Speculation says that if you move *faster*, time would turn around.
The Science Asylum: Forever is a strong word. There are tons of things for us to discover about the Universe. Considering the vastness of the Universe, even light is an intergalactic slowpoke 😀
you would be pulled over by the physics police and receive one hell of a speeding ticket.
Beautiful explained
*Video title:* How fast is light?
*Me:* Nowhere near fast enough for us to ever get off of this doomed space rock...
A very great channel , indeed! Very funny , and gives a lot of information! It also explains things deeply! Keep up the good work!
I love the clone bits that you do
Thanks! 🙂
Awesome, on a staggering scale!
Thank you for shedding some light on this subject. Now I can see the light, I just can't catch up with it.
He should explain that velocity is inversely proportional to the passage of time.
Thats why even when traveling near light speed, relative to your speed, light still travels at light speed.
Because you are moving slower through time
Whats the music at the part when rockets were accelerating? I really like the music.
This is a pretty good one
Because time will slow down for you compared to before, light will still go at SOL for you right.
Great video as always.
Yes.
you've got talent!
entertaining and educational all at once.
Excelent video.
I would be eternally grateful if you did a video like this on parallax... I'm a skeptic once off earth
Finally a whole video with no mention of quantum!!! 😎
😂😂 They do exist!
Hyperbolics and time cones aside, I still contend with...
Mwow.
Another great job, sir
I think the asterisk points at 6:32 need a little closer treatment. If I observe an object traveling near the speed of light, and a photon, the photon will be only a little faster than the object. The object's experience of time will cause it to observe the light as traveling much faster than itself.
I'm laughing and learning at the same time. Thanks!
When I seen the title and clicked the video, I expected that you say 'fast fast' after the intro and end the video there.
Absolutely love it...and what is more; totally understand :)