What is Relativity? | Sean Carroll on Einstein's View of Time and Space

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 17 тра 2024
  • Want to stream more content like this… and 1,000’s of courses, documentaries & more?
    👉 👉 Start Your Free Trial of Wondrium tinyurl.com/3af6pxny 👈 👈
    -------------------------------------------
    According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, there is no such thing as a moment in time spread throughout the universe. Instead, time is one of four dimensions in spacetime. Learn how this "relative" view of time is usefully diagramed with light cones, representing the past and future.
    From the series: Mysteries of Modern Physics: Time
    www.wondrium.com/youtube/myst...
    0:00 Understanding Cosmology, Gravity, and Relativity
    1:00 Taking a Four-Dimensional Viewpoint of Relativity
    2:15 Moving Into a Space-Time View of Reality
    3:40 Differences Between a Newtonian and Einsteinian View of the Universe
    4:45 The Notion of Simultaneity
    5:55 Einstein’s Clocks, Poincaré’s Maps by Peter Galison
    6:05 Recurrence Theorem
    8:00 Einstein's Clock Patents
    8:45 Constructing the Present Moment
    10:40 Why Space-Time Is Relative
    14:00 What is a Muon?
    15:00 Carl Anderson Discovers Muons
    15:50 Why Do the Muons Reach Us Before Decaying?
    18:30 Einstein's Notion of Time as Personal
    20:30 What Are Light Cones?
    24:20 Time Dilation and Length Contraction
    27:00 How Einstein Conceptualizes Space-Time
    28:00 Newtonian Rule for Time Travel
    28:45 Implications of Relativity
    -------------------------------------------
    The Great Courses is the global leader in lifelong learning and our video-on-demand service The Great Courses Plus gives you unlimited, uninterrupted access to a world of learning anytime and anywhere you want it. With courses on thousands of topics, you are sure to find something that will ignite your curiosity and invigorate your passion for learning.
    **Check us out for FREE by going to www.wondrium.com/youtube/lp/t... **
    In the meantime, enjoy free lectures, course trailers, professor interviews, video clips, and more by subscribing to our UA-cam channel. We add new videos all the time. You won’t want to miss a moment!
    -------------------------------------------
    And don't forget to SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHANNEL - new videos are being added all the time! ua-cam.com/users/subscription_...
    -------------------------------------------
    JOIN OUR COMMUNITY OF LIFELONG LEARNERS
    & BECOME A PART OF THE CONVERSATION:
    -UA-cam: / wondrium
    -Twitter: / wondrium
    -Facebook: / wondrium
    -Instagram: / wondrium
    -LinkedIn: / the-great-courses-by-t...
    -Blog: www.wondriumdaily.com/
    -------------------------------------------
    #physics #theoryofrelativity #Einstein

КОМЕНТАРІ • 481

  • @Chukwu1848
    @Chukwu1848 3 роки тому +96

    I like how Sean Carroll explains these complex ideas in a way that is well within reach of the minds of non-physicists. Well done sir.

    • @ManorexicPanda
      @ManorexicPanda 2 роки тому +7

      Him and brian Greene are the most understandable lecturers I’ve watched

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 Рік тому

      @@ManorexicPanda THE CLEAR, INTEGRATED, EXTENSIVE, LOGICAL, BALANCED, AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity:
      Consider what is E=MC2. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. The MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE AND the full distance in/of SPACE are CLEARLY linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE), AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE (ON BALANCE); AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY explains and proves TIME dilation AND what is the fourth dimension. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Notice what is the TRANSLUCENT blue sky ON BALANCE in relation to what is THE EYE. What are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE in order to VANISH as part of what is THE EARTH/ground (ON BALANCE). TIME dilation CLEARLY proves that what is E=MC2 is CLEARLY in FULL accordance with TIME AND the fact that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. (Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE). Notice what is the orange (AND SETTING) SUN in what constitutes direct comparison WITH what is the FULLY ILLUMINATED (AND SETTING WHITE) MOON. (They are the SAME SIZE as what is THE EYE, AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON then matches it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH what is E=MC2, TIME, AND what is THE EYE ON BALANCE.) Consider what is the man (AND THE EYE ON BALANCE) who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. LOOK directly overhead at what is the BLUE AND TRANSLUCENT sky. (Consider what is invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE.) NOW, lava is orange; AND it is even blood red. Excellent. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) pursuant to what are E=MC2 AND TIME. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; AND the cosmological redshift proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. (Consider TIME AND TIME dilation ON BALANCE, AS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity ON/IN BALANCE). INDEED, GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AND “mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AND gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH E=MC2 AND TIME. This CLEARLY explains and proves what is the fourth dimension. I have also CLEARLY explained (ON BALANCE) why THE PLANETS move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to WHAT IS THE SUN, AND I have CLEARLY explained ON BALANCE why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). (BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.) Excellent. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT AND description is improved in the truly superior mind. Again, consider what is the BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE (ON BALANCE) in accordance WITH WHAT IS E=MC2 AND TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE !!! Indeed, now consider what is THE EYE. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE. Magnificent !!!
      By Frank DiMeglio

    • @davidmudry5622
      @davidmudry5622 Рік тому

      Distance traveled = speed x time...light distance traveled for the light = speed of light x zero time = no distance traveled as far as the light itself is concerned...?

    • @gregbrown5020
      @gregbrown5020 5 місяців тому

      Well within reach, lol.

    • @roberthvistendahl8635
      @roberthvistendahl8635 3 місяці тому

      I second that! It's encouraged me to do more of the same, I'm gonna hit the like button.

  • @ahmedrafea8542
    @ahmedrafea8542 2 роки тому +17

    It is always a joy to watch and listen to professor Carroll. Complicated concepts are clearly explained and visualized. Thanks for this very informative lecture.

    • @kiabtoomlauj6249
      @kiabtoomlauj6249 2 роки тому +1

      I like him above all others, too, when it comes to explaining complex things. I like Carl Sagan the most, if we included past scientists as well when it comes to "who's better" at explaining complex science and scientific ideas to folks.
      Anyway, it always bothers me, though, when people like Sagan, Carroll et al fall into the same unscientific trap of saying "regardless how fast you're going, even if you're going at 200,000 miles per second ---- this is a SUBJUNCTIVE or IMPOSSIBLE situation ---- light is still traveling at 300,000 miles per second with respect to you." Okay, even that is true... and it likely is true.... it still doesn't mean the "speed of light is absolute to all other moving" things or particles. More accurately, photons speed is "absolute to all other moving OBJECTS;" but it is NOT absolute speed (by which we mean it always passes by all other moving particles at the speed of light, regardless how fast other particles travels.
      THAT is clearly mathematically and logically insupportable. Muons are not photons. Nor are electrons. Nor protons. They are moving close to the speed of photons/light or can be made to do so, by powerful apparatuses like giant magnets. It is not attainable to say even if "you" (a muon or one of the protons accelerated by the Large Hadron Collider) travel at, say, 99.9999991% the speed of light... that like would come passing you by at a speed of 300,000 meters per second.... like you, that muon or protons being accelerated at that large machine.
      If moving at 99.9999991% the speed of light is still ZERO relatively to like moving at a snail's pace, with respect to light, then there is no reason to do any experiment, to get some particle, other than photons, to move at 99.9999991% the speed of photons!
      But when you're moving at 99.9999991% at the speed of light, as a muon or accelerated proton ---- AND THIS IS REAL, NOT A SUBJUNCTIVE situation as noted above, in terms of a classical, large object being erroneously hypothesized as being able to move at 200,000 meters per second --- "you" ARE moving virtually as fast as light & "relativity" (or a certain natural or cosmic reality or property) starts to come into play, for "you" ... like it is for pure photons.... so to say regardless how fast "you" move, light moves at 300,000 meters per second with respect to "you" IS OBVIOUSLY not right....

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 Рік тому

      ​@@kiabtoomlauj6249 WHY AND HOW GRAVITY AND TWO DIMENSIONAL SPACE ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS E=MC2:
      E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! The TRANSLUCENT blue sky is manifest as (or consistent with/as) what is BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the TRANSLUCENT blue sky is true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY !!!! THINK !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Importantly, what is GRAVITY is an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded (or blocked) ON BALANCE. Great. You didn't forget to consider what is the orange (AND setting) Sun ON BALANCE, did you !!!!? Magnificent. I have FUNDAMENTALLY and truly revolutionized physics. (Lava is orange, AND it is even blood red.) GREAT !!!! Obviously, carefully and CLEARLY consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE, as it ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE !!! (BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.). Fantastic !!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. What is E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent !!! The density of what is THE SUN is then necessarily about ONE QUARTER of that of what is THE EARTH !!! INDEED, notice what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE !!!! What is E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent !!!! Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! CLEAR water comes from what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!! Excellent. Think.
      By Frank Martin DiMeglio

  • @nicholasgarcia6402
    @nicholasgarcia6402 2 роки тому +30

    I always thought Sean Carroll was one of the best science communicators. Great to see him in his element like this

  • @Luca-xr7bs
    @Luca-xr7bs 3 роки тому +5

    prof. Carroll is phenomenal

  • @poolbeasttv9664
    @poolbeasttv9664 3 роки тому +15

    Amazing lecture
    This man has a wonderful voice

  • @unknownPLfan
    @unknownPLfan 3 роки тому +44

    I don't really care for Great Courses. Just clicked for our boi younger Sean Carroll

    • @martinds4895
      @martinds4895 3 роки тому +1

      Yeah me too

    • @orsozapata
      @orsozapata 3 роки тому +1

      Well said mate

    • @unknownPLfan
      @unknownPLfan 3 роки тому +1

      @@thishandleistacken and @X95 23 A few things - I think the obvious thing that many people will agree with me that something like Great Courses provides less benefit for the cost considering how many university level courses are uploaded for free these days - or even that Sean Carroll himself on his own time uploaded an excellent key ideas series on his own channel that covers a lot of the same topics.
      Next, the aesthetics are ugly. I'm just gonna say it, I hate the interior design of the room, Sean's stereotypical professor look in this, and the graphics used in the video. Just using a blackboard or screen-sharing a tablet I think is more effective and looks better (I know you we didn't have mass market tablets when this was filmed).
      Finally, and this is less obvious, if I'm paying for physics content at the high prices offered by great courses, my expectation is that it should be technical - with worked examples of calculations or proofs - and the benefit for course-length series with this format is pretty marginal imo and I have to admit having been in the category of people much earlier in my life sort of duped into thinking they know science because they read the popular books and the high prices of Great Courses would've add to this effect. It's not that this sort of content has no place, but great-courses style content seems like something from another era when we literally only had university courses and science channel documentaries - where the only benefit to it in 2021 is at least I can trust that it's curated. Where I give Sean Carroll credit for is his ability to do an incredible job of mapping ideas you generally learn from the math onto the English language - and these days he does it for free on UA-cam and his podcast - and I'm glad that a big chunk of his career has been turned towards inspiring people to study physics.

    • @angelaparaski
      @angelaparaski 3 роки тому

      Kkkkk.... He is an intelligent scientist,peoples!

    • @Wondrium
      @Wondrium  3 роки тому +2

      Thank you for your feedback. We will share this with our team.

  • @sujitkumardash5650
    @sujitkumardash5650 3 роки тому +7

    That was really a great lecture to watch. I got my own CONE out of intuition. LOL. Joke aside, To grasp such an idea of spacetime isn't easy as you might think ,but Mr. Carroll nailed it. Thank you sir.

  • @funkiskunki
    @funkiskunki Рік тому +3

    I now know that as much as science interests and amazes me especially astrophysics...astronomy...I will never fully grasp it, if I still mostly struggle even listening to Sean...still enjoyable..thanks for trying Sean Carrol...does anyone know anything that someone, who struggles like myself, could watch and maybe find easier to understand.

  • @yoyo54314
    @yoyo54314 2 роки тому +4

    Simply wonderful.

  • @Nah_Bohdi
    @Nah_Bohdi 3 роки тому +13

    He's one of the few people I disagree with in fundamental physics but still listen to for general discussion.

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 3 роки тому +2

      WHY E=MC2 AS F=MA NECESSARILY AND FUNDAMENTALLY IS A SURFACE (AND SPACE) THAT IS ESSENTIALLY TWO DIMENSIONAL AS WELL (ON BALANCE):
      E=mc2 IS F=ma. Is a two dimensional surface or SPACE VISIBLE or invisible ? The answer is that it is BOTH (IN BALANCE) AS invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE. I have now explained why the electron AND the photon are NECESSARILY structureless IN BALANCE in accordance with the fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The EARTH is ALSO BLUE, AND the sky is blue. NOW, THE DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE SPACE. (Notice the flat AND black space of what is THE EYE.) Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. Great. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Hence, WHAT IS the Earth is the linked AND BALANCED opposite in relation to WHAT IS the Sun ON BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GREAT. I have CLEARLY explained c4 from Einstein's field equations, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AND I have mathematically unified physics. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
      TIME DILATION ultimately proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. GREAT. Accordingly, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=MA. GREAT !!!
      GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It is all CLEARLY proven !!!!!!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!!!!!!! BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It is all CLEARLY and truly proven !!!!!!!! Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. E=mc2 IS F=ma.
      By Frank DiMeglio

    • @ericleung232
      @ericleung232 2 роки тому +4

      Sure. Would like to hear your disagreements. If you happen to be a physicist, is there anywhere I can look up to read your publications or viewpoints against Sean’s?

    • @JoshuaWillis89
      @JoshuaWillis89 2 роки тому +6

      @@frankdimeglio8216 why are you screaming physics at a guy who didn’t even propose a specific concept for you to explain or debunk? Calm down, bro.

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 2 роки тому +1

      @@JoshuaWillis89 Modern “physics” is political. It is basically an affair of maximum money making agenda “physics”. Einstein was a low level genius who definitely was not open and honest. He was lazy. There is a glaring lack of top down thinking and common sense in physics today. The truth is simple, and it involves very hard work. TRUTH, reality, AND nature/natural experience go hand in hand. We never got the full truth out of Einstein, and we never will.
      ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE. Here is the proof. Hundreds of scientists and physicists are already in agreement with this over the course of many years. (Also, I have plenty more proof.) One step at a time. Let's focus on this for now. This is super important work. It's all CLEARLY proven.
      Einstein never nearly understood F=MA, E=mc2, philosophy, mathematics, physics/physical experience, and TIME. He was a known weasel who was extremely selfish. FACTS. IMPORTANT. Can WHAT IS the Sun be shielded or blocked ? No. Can what is the Earth be shielded or blocked ? No. The truth is simple. Common sense is very lacking in physics today. Keep it simple. Keep it real. Gravity is fundamental. Top down thinking is very lacking in physics today. The truth is simple. We need physics that makes sense, as BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
      Gravity is fundamental, as it cannot be shielded (or blocked). ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE. It is obvious. In fact, the truth is clearly IRRESISTIBLE. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.
      The tides are ELECTROMAGNETIC/gravitational in a balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE fashion/relation, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE. This is consistent with F=ma AND E=mc2. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution !! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY, as this balances gravity AND inertia; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE. This is consistent with F=ma AND E=mc2 AS WELL. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy on balance, as gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites ON BALANCE. Carefully consider, in direct comparison, the fully illuminated (and setting) Moon AND what is the ORANGE (and setting) Sun !! They are both the same size as the eye. Now, the sky is blue; and THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. (WHAT IS the Moon is also blue !!) ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE. (Gravity is CLEARLY AND necessarily proven to be ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE.)
      TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE. (This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, as gravity is, CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY, proven to be ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE.) Indeed, TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE. Great !!! (Gravity is, CLEARLY AND necessarily, proven to be ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE.)
      By Frank DiMeglio

    • @ManorexicPanda
      @ManorexicPanda 2 роки тому +1

      @@frankdimeglio8216 you make no sense. Your comments are just a bunch of jumbled Minho jumbo. Cite experiments and scientific articles that have proven what you said to be true. Calling Einstein a low level genius is truly laughable. You think you’re smarter than Einstein? Where’s your contributions to civilization??

  • @sagarg4287
    @sagarg4287 Рік тому +2

    Awesome explanation! And the way speaks is so clear! Thoroghly enjoyed this lecture

  • @jmanj3917
    @jmanj3917 2 роки тому +4

    Great job explaining complicated material!
    I find it interesting that our modern model of (space-) time, with its forward and backward looking light cones, looks so similar to one of our oldest timekeeping devices, an hourglass

  • @karlwashere123
    @karlwashere123 3 роки тому +3

    Sean always crushes a good lecture

  • @binuvarghese5545
    @binuvarghese5545 3 роки тому +6

    Really very helpful to understand time... his explanation is very precise and even a layman can also understand the concept and importance of relativity and time

    • @josefnavratil646
      @josefnavratil646 10 місяців тому

      Please understand that time does not move...but the other way around. Understand that TIME is a quantity, an artifact of Being that also has 3 dimensions. But I'm not going to argue for the next 20 years whether or not it has 3 dimensions. One dimension is enough to understand. Only when an object moves on that dimension (e.g. the Earth around the Sun), then that object (Ferrari on the autodrome, Millano, Italy) cuts the intervals! ! ! Dimensions stand, but intervals "run". Only those intervals on a dimension (dimension of time or length, it is indifferent) present a flow, a run, a shift, a countdown of selected sections, intervals (e.g. in one direction, as the Earth does when we sail through space, "floats through time", sails "on the time dimension"... and that is the flow - the passage of time. The dimension stands still, time stands still, but we move along time, along the time dimension and thus "we produce time".

  • @clydedurden1555
    @clydedurden1555 Рік тому +1

    i’ve been on this rabbit hole for months now.. this is the best explanation i’ve ever heard!! seems like others almost try to make it more confusing than it needs to be ? idk

  • @AlexanderKoryagin
    @AlexanderKoryagin 3 роки тому +6

    Excellent lecture, thank you!

  • @kylesmonstermadness1770
    @kylesmonstermadness1770 2 роки тому +1

    Man it’s amazing listening to you guys

  • @davidfinley4050
    @davidfinley4050 Рік тому +2

    Well explained sean

  • @josephcollins6033
    @josephcollins6033 2 роки тому +2

    I wish I had words to express how much I want to understand all of this. Why can't it be explained? You are the very best I have seen. I like the way you present (OMG, can I say that now?) and pace what you say. I am rather intelligent in everything else! WTF? Help!!!

  • @STaSHZILLA420
    @STaSHZILLA420 3 роки тому +28

    Me: "Hey Sean, What time is it?"
    Sean: " *Yes* ."

  • @el_meza9154
    @el_meza9154 Рік тому +2

    I would’ve never had the brains or knowledge to study any sort of physics but I’ve been really intrigued and really really REALLY inspired by Mr Sean Carrol In quantum physics i feel like I’m closer and closer to finding the perfect combination in spirituality physics science and geometry and symmetry and etc etc👌👍🙌

  • @AbdulHafeez-cq6oo
    @AbdulHafeez-cq6oo Рік тому +1

    Great description of time and space

  • @liveinfra6820
    @liveinfra6820 3 роки тому +18

    Absolutely wonderful lecture , thankyou great courses plus for bringing these insightful sessions available to everyone 🙏 .

  • @mareksamsel3123
    @mareksamsel3123 2 роки тому +1

    So many of these kind of. Vids yet this one, actually explains things in the most wonderful
    way, I'm impressed and grateful

    • @Wondrium
      @Wondrium  2 роки тому

      Thank you, Marek, we are happy to hear your feedback.

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 2 роки тому

      @@Wondrium WHY E=MC2 AS F=MA NECESSARILY AND FUNDAMENTALLY IS A SURFACE (AND SPACE) THAT IS ESSENTIALLY TWO DIMENSIONAL AS WELL (ON BALANCE):
      E=mc2 IS F=ma. Is a two dimensional surface or SPACE VISIBLE or invisible ? The answer is that it is BOTH (IN BALANCE) AS invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE. I have now explained why the electron AND the photon are NECESSARILY structureless IN BALANCE in accordance with the fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The EARTH is ALSO BLUE, AND the sky is blue. NOW, THE DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE SPACE. (Notice the flat AND black space of what is THE EYE.) Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. Great. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Hence, WHAT IS the Earth is the linked AND BALANCED opposite in relation to WHAT IS the Sun ON BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GREAT. I have CLEARLY explained c4 from Einstein's field equations, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AND I have mathematically unified physics. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
      TIME DILATION ultimately proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. GREAT. Accordingly, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=MA. GREAT !!!
      GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It is all CLEARLY proven !!!!!!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!!!!!!! BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It is all CLEARLY and truly proven !!!!!!!! Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. E=mc2 IS F=ma.
      By Frank DiMeglio

    • @educatedguest1510
      @educatedguest1510 2 місяці тому

      Einstein's GR was recently expressed classically through elementary potential, read: Einstein’s General Relativity Becomes Elementary in 2024

  • @ryuseiiijima7562
    @ryuseiiijima7562 2 роки тому

    this video or channel this is my first watch,this is a fantastic and brilliant video thankyou for great lecture sire

  • @dennisgalvin2521
    @dennisgalvin2521 2 роки тому +6

    "There's no such thing as one moment spread through out the universe that everyone can agree on" [Sean Carrol] Interestingly the word moment despite being defined as "..a brief period of time" is in fact a brief period of an event because moment comes from momentum which is tantamount to events. Meaning that periods \ duration are of events not time. So events have duration that are measured by time as space has distance that's measured by the metric system or imperial units.
    What we perceive as the passing of time is just the passing of events.

    • @Igorbujhm
      @Igorbujhm 2 роки тому

      Wibbly wobbly, timey wimey

    • @SP-pf4er
      @SP-pf4er Рік тому +1

      You are so right, my friend. And here's a clock that shows what you've just explained: ua-cam.com/video/9-L_D2cB1ks/v-deo.html Kudos and love 🖖

  • @gotatochigs314
    @gotatochigs314 3 роки тому +6

    It's interesting to think from the muon's perspective, where the earth is moving towards it at close to the speed of light. The earth still reaches it before it decays though, since the earth experienced less than 2 microseconds of time along the way.

  • @karlosjeffers4791
    @karlosjeffers4791 3 роки тому +10

    Can I go back in time and learn this fascinating science in school....when I should’ve been learning it?

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 3 роки тому +3

      paradoxically, yes. close your eyes and go back, back, back....

    • @adrian72300
      @adrian72300 2 роки тому +1

      @@HarryNicNicholas Exactly! with your current way of thinking, you can close your eyes and go back and kick the bullies butt or get the girl you always wanted, you can alter past events with your thoughts

    • @nvraman
      @nvraman Рік тому +1

      Yes, and actually you are doing the same now. I have lived many of infantile thoughts again, and i am not interested in the present, i lose touch with what happens around me, and when i see a child playing, i get excited.

  • @albertods611
    @albertods611 3 роки тому

    Terrific explanation

  • @jjourz612
    @jjourz612 Рік тому +1

    Simply brilliant, they way he explains it all

  • @tourdeforce2881
    @tourdeforce2881 Рік тому +2

    Very clear and entertaining....thank you!

    • @Wondrium
      @Wondrium  Рік тому +1

      Thank YOU for watching!

  • @new-knowledge8040
    @new-knowledge8040 3 роки тому +25

    How did he do it ? He looks so much younger. We, the people, believe he knows of, and has practised, time travel. Either that, or this one really old video.

    • @kcinkg
      @kcinkg 2 роки тому +5

      The suit would indicate the latter 😂

    • @whirledpeas3477
      @whirledpeas3477 2 роки тому

      Makeup

    • @Quantum_GirlE
      @Quantum_GirlE 2 роки тому

      @@kcinkg 🤣 that's great

    • @josephhall5681
      @josephhall5681 2 роки тому

      NEWKNOWLEDGE = NOKNOWLEDGE

    • @new-knowledge8040
      @new-knowledge8040 2 роки тому

      @@josephhall5681 True, I don't know much. But I did manage to derive the SR mathematical equations, even though I had no physics education at all.

  • @naturemc2
    @naturemc2 3 роки тому +15

    Thanks. I appreciate the time and effort to put all these information.

    • @matydrum
      @matydrum 3 роки тому +4

      Should have said "space-time and effort"!😉😁

  • @yashkrgupta2122012
    @yashkrgupta2122012 3 роки тому

    Best courses

  • @dr.jiradeachkalayaruan
    @dr.jiradeachkalayaruan 2 роки тому

    Thank you Teacher.

  • @Ozgipsy
    @Ozgipsy Рік тому

    He summarises this very well.

  • @tresajessygeorge210
    @tresajessygeorge210 2 роки тому

    THANK YOU DR.CARROLL...!!!

  • @tonyhill2318
    @tonyhill2318 2 роки тому +1

    You lost me at lightcones. But blew my mind with the muon thing.

  • @ericpham8205
    @ericpham8205 3 роки тому +3

    In multi body problems each axis has it's own time function depending on its acceleration therefore spacetime are bending and changing in multi body problem is mind boggling. Meaning our time is not known by another outside of our body and so are the other bodies. Just like the same harddrive memory could be used by many clients on same physical drive but the time of CPU and access time are different could get different data because of accessing method just like existence is different

  • @danbreeden1801
    @danbreeden1801 3 роки тому +4

    I'm very thankful for his teaching he presents his information very clearly

  • @dmreturns6485
    @dmreturns6485 3 роки тому +1

    Why is it easier when Sean explains it?

  • @StaticBlaster
    @StaticBlaster 2 роки тому

    Great courses changed their name to Wondrium.

  • @philoso377
    @philoso377 4 місяці тому

    Nice video and presentation.
    Siddhartha Gautama conceived the principle of wisdom from meditation.
    Einstein conceived the principle of relativity from thought experiment. They both adored and worship by their disciples around the world.

  • @williamgregory3786
    @williamgregory3786 3 роки тому

    Thank you for a better nomenclature.

  • @leooz8071
    @leooz8071 Рік тому

    I never move from my couch while in my trousers. I guess time flies by so fast in my experience.

  • @iplaypocketfjords
    @iplaypocketfjords 3 роки тому +2

    saw this so long ago. big up Sean. Level of stripes!

  • @snjsilvan
    @snjsilvan Рік тому

    At the end Dr. Carroll refers to General Relativity. Does he have another lecture specifically about GR?

  • @patriciablue2739
    @patriciablue2739 2 роки тому

    Excellent

  • @zack_120
    @zack_120 3 роки тому +2

    12:37 - they came back with 'different reading' of time is because they were affected by different forces by each going through different path/speed/trajectory, while the TIME remains the same everywhere which is an abstract thing that nothing can change it, i.e. it is absolute. So the Newtonian theory seems to make sense.

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 3 роки тому

      Two clocks moving relative to each other say otherwise.

    • @SP-pf4er
      @SP-pf4er Рік тому

      The problem is our paradigm about time. We think that time is passing in the first place. Take a look at this clock and you'll see that objects are actually moving through time and time stands still: ua-cam.com/video/9-L_D2cB1ks/v-deo.html

    • @princesizwe2952
      @princesizwe2952 Рік тому

      It will turn out, Scientists where to quickly to dismiss Newton😁

  • @eswarag
    @eswarag 4 місяці тому

    Exactly constant varies in space but event is real.

  • @mmccrownus2406
    @mmccrownus2406 Рік тому

    Good explanation of incongruous blather

  • @teppC
    @teppC 2 роки тому

    Very very good

  • @ashmoore9945
    @ashmoore9945 Рік тому +1

    You may b able to move your "light cones" around. but you can not change the origin of your light cone. If your light cone cone starts on Earth, it is always based on Earth, relative to your change of position in the solar system or galactic plane. Your space-time come from your relative place in the universal plane. Remember it's all relative to where you are.

  • @weegeepee
    @weegeepee 2 роки тому +2

    He explains very well, but I just don't understand. I am relatively dumb. :(

  • @stevea.b.9282
    @stevea.b.9282 Рік тому +1

    One of the best teachers I've seen. Absolutely brilliant explanation for someone (like myself) who is just starting to explore relativity. Many thanks

  • @dmitryn9090
    @dmitryn9090 3 роки тому +7

    Thanks for the great explanation! And for the undeniable proof that the past exists - the tie :)

    • @SP-pf4er
      @SP-pf4er Рік тому

      And yet, here is a clock that shows that the past does not exist: ua-cam.com/video/9-L_D2cB1ks/v-deo.html 😱😎

  • @yyy.y_copyright
    @yyy.y_copyright 3 роки тому

    Bravo....

  • @marthareal8398
    @marthareal8398 Рік тому +2

    This particular “chapter” was extremely bright for me. It explains space and time relative to my life, past, present and future. Thank you very much, I fear less the more and better I understand. My brain is racing in an exciting way, with thoughts and analysis. Thank you Professor Carroll!

    • @Wondrium
      @Wondrium  Рік тому +2

      We love your feedback, Martha!

  • @dougporter2356
    @dougporter2356 2 роки тому

    Excellent video...

    • @Wondrium
      @Wondrium  2 роки тому

      Thank you, Doug, we are glad you enjoyed it.

  • @hirdeshgiri3482
    @hirdeshgiri3482 6 днів тому

    I love all physicists because they are the real heros I love space and time

  • @michaelccopelandsr7120
    @michaelccopelandsr7120 7 місяців тому

    Time is fascinating. I worked the subway stations for nearly 10 years. From one end of the city to the other. Every so often I would notice the city would be saying that, "Today just flew by" or "The day was just dragging along." How can an entire city, with no interaction with each other until they used the subway, complain about the same time paradox unless it was effected by it? Maybe a time distorted bubble the earth passes through in its revolution around the sun. Maybe random waves of time distortion hitting the earth? Maybe they're given off by the sun. Maybe they're from outside our Terran system and reach us in intervals. ???? 🎶"Ti-i-i-ime, is on my side. Yes, it is!"🎶
    If you can think of a better way to do a blind survey of an entire city, in the small window of opportunity, I'm all in. Until then, I invite you to spend a couple years in the subways, between 2pm-10pm and you'll see for yourself. Just listen as an entire city gets off of work and gets out of school. You'll see it's more than a, "coincidence of circumstances" ;-P

  • @mickmccrory8534
    @mickmccrory8534 Рік тому

    "If it's Dec. 7th, 1941 here in Casablanca, what time is it in New York,?"
    "I don't know, boss. My watch stopped."

  • @riraldi
    @riraldi Рік тому

    Can we define an absolute equal time for all reference system using Lorent's equations?
    A definition of absolute time can be given
    in accordance with the Lorentz equations
    Time dilation is not a good interpretation. see this demo
    The traveling clock is characterized by its position x=vt and the time observed from the stationary system dt' = dt/g. g is the relativistic factor
    we will write
    (dx, cdt')= (v, c/g) dt. c= light velocity
    (dx, cdt') = C dt

    C is a vector of magnitude c. after a time T all frames of reference have a timeline length equal to T.
    C is the transport vector towards the future, but the future has different directions (those of C) but the same magnitude, time dilation has no basis.
    Seeing the evolution at an angle, you can see a component that is used to give speed to the moving system and a component in the direction of the future of the stationary system t'. ua-cam.com/video/LrVrYbimj3I/v-deo.html

  • @neillibertine3044
    @neillibertine3044 2 роки тому +1

    So how would length of an object is measure. By placing it against standard scale, its one end is marked on scale then other end. The difference in value of two ends is length. One thing is assumed here that an object is at rest with scale which is also called as coordinate or frame. Now if an object have some speed against the scale or frame then does its length could be measured accurately. No, because it's not possible to mark both ends at same time and if object and scale have relative speed then one of end either contract or expand the measured length of object. This is relative measurement and when object is at rest with scale is proper or absolute measurement.
    Now relativists says that both measurement are correct and more than that if either object or scale is moving then relative measurement is giving actual description of object's physical quantity. So whether length contract or expand that relative measurement define physical state of object as by relativists.
    Further than that, in most conditions there is no frame moving with light speed and some events happening in it. Observation of planet is not relative because observer with scale like clock and angular scale is on earth. In case of far objects it's not possible to directly measure object so light is used. But relativists says that speed of light is constant whether source or observer have relative speed or not. First thing, general science laws doesnt allow it, second it require that light should have special quality which it has not so. In classical relativity that replaced by theory of relativity which we know now, has no problem with measurement of distant objects because its absolute and relative measurements are same so no problem. All problems start with insistence of relativists that speed of light is constant so they change fundamental quantities like length, time, mass.
    Suppose some children are playing in ground which is stationary. Now if an observer moving with quarter of light speed measure length of ground as per theory of relativity, found that length of ground is small as compared to what is told. Another observer with half light speed measure length of ground and found that length is contracted and also differ from first observer, then who is right, observer at rest with ground or moving observers. Does measurement of moving observers that differ from rest one, in any way affect or give actual representation, no. Same thing is with time, moving observers says children are slow. Does clock of moving observer change the movement of children on ground, no.
    Question is why they are doing so inspite of evidences against their theories. Reason is that constancy of speed of light is required for their model of universe, if that is changed then their model collapse.

  • @NiSR0011
    @NiSR0011 3 роки тому

    when ti,e becomes personal / where does the space go to contain the observer

  • @momentirott
    @momentirott 2 роки тому +1

    Inside an atomic clock an oscillator emits about 4GHz photon that reaches a Cesium atom, which absorbs and emits about 4G photon times per second. If I place a second atomic clock near a mass the Cesium atom emits 4G - a small value of photons per second. The mass influences what? The frequency of the photon of the oscillator? The oscillation frequency of Cesium? How ? By lengthening the space between the oscillator and the atom?

  • @colbynye5995
    @colbynye5995 3 роки тому +3

    Fantastic lecture!

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 3 роки тому

      WHY E=MC2 AS F=MA NECESSARILY AND FUNDAMENTALLY IS A SURFACE (AND SPACE) THAT IS ESSENTIALLY TWO DIMENSIONAL AS WELL (ON BALANCE):
      E=mc2 IS F=ma. Is a two dimensional surface or SPACE VISIBLE or invisible ? The answer is that it is BOTH (IN BALANCE) AS invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE. I have now explained why the electron AND the photon are NECESSARILY structureless IN BALANCE in accordance with the fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The EARTH is ALSO BLUE, AND the sky is blue. NOW, THE DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE SPACE. (Notice the flat AND black space of what is THE EYE.) Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. Great. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Hence, WHAT IS the Earth is the linked AND BALANCED opposite in relation to WHAT IS the Sun ON BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GREAT. I have CLEARLY explained c4 from Einstein's field equations, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AND I have mathematically unified physics. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
      TIME DILATION ultimately proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. GREAT. Accordingly, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=MA. GREAT !!!
      GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It is all CLEARLY proven !!!!!!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!!!!!!! BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It is all CLEARLY and truly proven !!!!!!!! Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. E=mc2 IS F=ma.
      By Frank DiMeglio

  • @eighthgate1420
    @eighthgate1420 3 роки тому +1

    Light and the speed of it play the most important part of time!

  • @michaelccopelandsr7120
    @michaelccopelandsr7120 7 місяців тому

    I need help with my new years resolution. I've figured out how to change the stars.
    My idea for changing the stars includes Orion and Pleiades (Subaru). I figure it's time to put something up there that's relevant to us, don't you think? Take Orion's belt and Betelgeuse becomes the head with a baseball hat. Below the belt are two legs bending at the knee. The feet aligning perfectly under the bent knees. The 3 stars of Orion's belt align perfectly as the 3 fat belt loops on a baseball uniform. The spear pointing at "Subaru" is the bat being swung and "Pleiades" is the baseball flying away after being hit. Put it all together and you get, "THE ALL-STAR." In my case, I see a left-handed batter and I imagine a "7" on the jersey. Which makes him, "Mickey." (As it should be ;-) But you can put any number you want, making, "THE ALL-STAR," any player you want. It'd be wrong of me to not, at least, try. This is me, trying. Pass it on, please and thank you. Don't worry, where I come from, crazy is a compliment! ;-P

  • @vorador4365
    @vorador4365 3 роки тому +8

    1st! Let’s go Sean!!

  • @ericpham8205
    @ericpham8205 3 роки тому

    We can send the different kind of time function and not the counting time so it can change it's time by applied new formula of time function each time it receive and calibrate two system one mechanical time and one on atomic clock

  • @PaulHigginbothamSr
    @PaulHigginbothamSr 3 роки тому +1

    I don't know who Ponkray is but I have studied Poincare. An exceptional mind.

  • @videosbymathew
    @videosbymathew 3 роки тому +3

    The 'clocks on spaceships' reference as a test idea, but then it was sad that relativity shows us that you can't measure time throughout the universe as one single moment that everyone agrees on. Key words here are "everyone agrees on" I feel. We should also hold to the importance of the idea that we can still identify a single 'moment in time', at least in principle. Say you freeze all of spacetime and look at it as a whole from a god's eye point of view. That's your single moment in time. Sure, the clocks of those spaceships and their viewpoints with each other will be different from their starting location, but that's just their rate of cause and effect (their time) changing. You can still justifiably state that picture as "a single moment in time", which if everyone could also look back and view, could all then agree upon that picture as well. Please correct me if I'm somehow wrong on this idea.

    • @videosbymathew
      @videosbymathew 3 роки тому

      I should add that the "observers disagreeing" is entirely beside the point. Agreeing on personal "at the moment" observations doesn't change the nature of a frozen slice of time, that's simply an information problem.
      I think some viewers may get hung up no the idea that "we have our own times" when really we inhabit slices of the same moment of time "at varying rates of cause and effect".
      If you view time (and spacetime of course) as a cause and effect machine, I think this whole view of the universe becomes much simpler and more clear.

    • @4pharaoh
      @4pharaoh 3 роки тому

      If God put a “time stamp” on every point and particle in the universe it would be off almost immediately since the rate at which _time progresses_ is different from point to point, so the date and time from the “Devine time stamp” would drift at different rates from particle to particle.
      The absolute value of _”what time is it now”_ can have no real meaning, but what is important _”how fast is your second progressing compared to mine.”

    • @videosbymathew
      @videosbymathew 3 роки тому

      ​@@4pharaoh Yes, I agree, but that's not what we're talking about here. All I'm saying is, yes, we can in fact in principle view time in a single instance across all of space from a god's eye view and see one 'slice'. That's it. You're overcomplicating the simplicity of what I'm expressing.

    • @4pharaoh
      @4pharaoh 3 роки тому

      @@videosbymathew I get ya...
      We are discussing different definitions of Time: The video discussed the first three, you mention the forth.
      1. The rate at which Time progresses (“ticks”) at different locations and velocities.
      2. The comparisons of perceptions of those “ticks” from different frames of reference.
      3. How observers in those different frames of reference perceive their “now” and duration between events.
      4. A time out side of time. Affecting all space and “Time” faster than light, as if stopped everywhere.

    • @aurelienyonrac
      @aurelienyonrac 3 роки тому

      For starters, god is not in time. All of the universe is happening within his consciousness. All of it is happening at the same moment called "now".
      See for yourself. Have you ever seen anything outside of now?
      You remember now
      You imaging now
      But before you do any of that,
      "Now" is already here.
      😘

  • @davez4285
    @davez4285 Рік тому

    What’s time? There are two times here. One is universal, the other is relative, t and t’ , which have the relationship t’=r(t-Kxv).
    At speed of light, or at black hole, r=0, so t’ stops. But t goes as usual.
    t’ is the time you observed through light. it is different from an object’s objective time t. Because c is considered as constant at any reference frame, so t’ and t are not synchronized.
    space-time. It is really just a Lorentz transformation of t.
    Just remember that when people talk time stops at black hole, or moving at c, that time is t’. A moving object, it’s time running faster or slower, that’s t’. Spacetime is curved, that also is t’. We really should not think only t’ is so called time. (Actually t is the base time, because v and c are calculated by t, not by t’).
    t and t’ have the relationship t’=r(t-Kxv). So, both t’ and t can not go back. People forget the conditions of Lorentz transformation and special relativity: point to point, inertia reference frame. What that means? It means that v in the above relationship, in Lorentz T , is constant, no acceleration. The object observed cannot have acceleration. If an object has acceleration, the Lorentz T and SR are NOT DEFINED.
    What clock measures is the synchronized events. Atomic clock measures atom vibration events, electronic watch measures quartz frequency, watch measures mechanical vibration events, the earth spins a turn as a day, moves a turn around sun as a year. We humans use different synchronized events to express different time.
    t’ and t, both are man-made.

  • @neillibertine3044
    @neillibertine3044 2 роки тому

    There is no pyhtagorean for spherical or cylindrical coordinates. Then how should they use tensor as generalized coordinates, and how should minkowski space is correct. Differential geometry cant replace euclidean geometry which is generalized case and shapes are special. There is no great circle through points on constant latitude. So there is no geodesic for all points on sphere.

  • @wplg
    @wplg Рік тому

    Question :
    If the universe is expanding with more entropy.
    Is time speeding up, which we cannot measure?

  • @mrchrisrail
    @mrchrisrail 2 роки тому +1

    The sky isn't the limit, your light cone is! Lol!

  • @KillianTwew
    @KillianTwew 12 днів тому

    Maybe space becomes a point in time inside of a blackhole because it's so compressed that there is no vacuum for the quantum field to propogate inside what we call, "time".

  • @venkatbabu1722
    @venkatbabu1722 3 роки тому +1

    Relativity is the time differential of light to create mass. Everything moves at the speed of light except when slowed down.

  • @davez4285
    @davez4285 2 роки тому

    In Galileo system, x=vt, if only if dx/dt is constant. Lorentz transformation goal is distances (x, x’) x=f(v,t)and x’=g(c, t’) are mathematically equal in both systems with symmetry. So c is not Galileo or classic velocity, and t’ is not classic time. In Galileo, v varies, t is uniform at any point in space; whilst in Lorentz, t’ varies, c is constant in space. c =eu , is really the property of the space, or medium, or Ether. It is not velocity in Galileo.( v, C),(t,t’), they are (Apple, Orange), (Peach,Grape) in two math systems. People are still thinking they are same things. That causes confusion. Saying 1) if an object moves at speed of light, time stops. Moving object slows clock, etc. That’s wrong. It should be said t’ in Lorentz stops, or equal to 0. In Galileo, t is uniform, it doesn’t stop or slow. 2). Speed of light C is constant from any observer at different speeds. That is wrong. c in Galileo changes from observers, C in Lorentz as the property of space is constant. Then there is no ambiguity, confusing, both accurate in their own system for/from measurements. Time dilution, space-time curvature, etc. are all bogus by mixing concepts in two systems. If you use Fourier series to express a signal S, it is not the signal in time domain, it’s amplitude A in frequency domain. Nobody treats A-S as “signal dancing”. But sigma of all these series by frequency goes back to the value of signal in time domain. They are just mathematically equivalent, not necessarily physically same. There are many ways to do it mathematically, too.
    Relativity is just another way of measuring of the nature using electric magnetic wave in Lorentz system. It has advantages over Galileo system in Astronomy, because Maxwells equations describe electromagnetic wave in vacuum with eu as constant, which is the space property and its value equals to speed of light in Galileo.
    In Algol events, it can prove that light speed varies with observer’s speed( visit Algol website)

  • @michaelccopelandsr7120
    @michaelccopelandsr7120 7 місяців тому

    My idea so I get to name it! What I mean is, no one has claimed it so I'm officially calling, "Dibs." Voyager 1 is now in the, "Milky Way's interstellar time" or "Mikey's Time."
    "V-ger's" message has sped up now that it's outside our Sun's, "Time Bubble," or, "Terran Time." It will be faster, still, when "V-ger" sends a message from beyond the Milky Way's time bubble. Then there's Outside the Local Group time bubble. So on and so on until we get outside any influence and into the, "True Interstellar Time Standard." Or, "T.I..." ;-P
    Now that "V-ger" is outside our Sun's reach, in interstellar space, it's now in the Milky Way's faster moving, Interstellar Time or "Mikey's Time." This can be proven by turning off everything except its clock and transmitter. Have "V-ger" read time for as long as possible. They WILL show the flow of time speeds up the further away you get from any celestial bodies. Until you reach the Milky Way's time standard or "Mikey's Time."
    •Our sun's time bubble: "Terran Time" we know and have measured. In a lifetime, our head is one second younger than our feet.
    •Milky Way's time bubble or "Mikey's Time." The rate/flow of TIME outside any influence but within the Milky Way: We just got there and are still figuring what the difference is. Wild guess I'd say time will increase in speed, now and until V-ger is outside the Ort cloud.
    •Local Group's time bubble or the rate/flow of time outside of any influence but within the Local Group: Name still open and unknown. Wild guess .08 P-22% to a couple seconds faster, maybe. Used just for reference.
    •Outside any influence in the, "True Interstellar Time Standard." (or T.I...) ;-P This name is NOT up for grabs. The rate/flow of time is fastest here. (Time flows fastest here so it's best to use a motor boat and hold tight. Always applies when you're in T.I....) ;-P
    A minute is a minute in all. It's the rate/flow I'm talking about. Heck, rivers of time flowing differently might explain dark energy and dark matter.
    The Milky Way's Interstellar Time Standard will be known as, "Mikey's Time."
    Pass it on, please and thank you!

  • @Danny_6Handford
    @Danny_6Handford Місяць тому

    It appears that the universe started as something tiny and started to expand to what we can observe and detect today. It also appears that anything we can observe or detect is made from extremely tiny particles which interact and combine with each other based on some fundamental predetermined rules. We have identified quit a few of these extremely tiny particles and have identified quit a few of the rules these particles follow to interact and combine. Perhaps most of the particles and most of the rules but there probably are more.
    We also discovered that anything that we can observe or detect is made from the same basic stuff and we call this stuff energy. We know this because we have figured out how to calculate a value or quantity of energy for anything that we can observe or detect. I think we can say the fabric of the universe is space time but we can also say that the fabric of the universe is energy time because we now know that space is not empty and is also some type of energy and we can calculate or at least estimate how much energy is in a given volume of space.
    It also appears that after the universe started to expand, no more energy was added or removed as it continued to expand. We do not know what the rules were that determined the amount of energy in the universe nor what caused the energy in the universe to start expanding. The rules for how energy expands, transforms, interacts and combines cause energy to cycle from concentrated to diluted states. Although the cycles can be repeated almost an infinite number of times, there will be a time when they stop because as the cycles keep repeating, the total amount of energy in the universe keeps becoming more and more diluted. We call this rule entropy.
    At some point in time, all the energy will become so diluted that it will not be able to cycle back into more concentrated states and we think this is when the universe ends. We still do not know the rules before the universe started to expand and we still do not know the rules after the universe ends and there are probably still many rules that we do not know about what causes the energy in the universe to cycle back and forth from concentrated to diluted states as it continues to expand and dilute.

  • @tichaonamachiya3204
    @tichaonamachiya3204 Рік тому

    I think what Einstein did was an observation. He interpreted the results well. We however lack similar observation and interpretation

  • @peterjol
    @peterjol 9 місяців тому

    I think the trouble is you need clocks that can be absolutely and completely isolated from gravity if you could send those clocks flying around around the universe then I bet they would remain in sync ..Unfortunately I think total isolation from gravity ..no matter how weak a force it might be is impossible. Even the loneliest part of space furthest away from any mass will still have gravitational effects on the speed of a clock and therefore the measurement of time,

  • @yashkrgupta2122012
    @yashkrgupta2122012 3 роки тому

    Best people

  • @cpasa798
    @cpasa798 Рік тому

    Using the same robots experiment we could send diferents robots with sincronize clock to different directions and follow the path where time moves slower and faster. That would be the true arrow of time

  • @snz0901
    @snz0901 2 роки тому

    Thanks!
    I'm going to utilize this more.
    We would have time.
    ...
    Yeah,
    We are choosing the best choice for all of us.
    (Sorry for a unexpected message.)

  • @tedwalford7615
    @tedwalford7615 Рік тому

    Okay, so rate of time is affected by rate of speed, acceleration. And we think muons have enough time to reach us, despite their rate of decay, because time for them has slowed due to their acceleration. But what acceleration is that? From the moment a muon comes into being, as a pion decay product, is it accelerated and by such a value that would meaningfully slow time for it?

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 Рік тому

      No, it isn't. The local rate of time is exactly the same everywhere. It's only the relative differences between clocks that are affected by the relative motion.

  • @dibaldgyfm9933
    @dibaldgyfm9933 2 роки тому

    at 08:47 -- Suddenly I think that Simultaneity is impossible. Every lightray in the eye has wandered through space, and space is only possible because of individual time. ... or ...

  • @amitgurung8739
    @amitgurung8739 Рік тому +1

    Respected sir, can we collapse time and space through our imagination? Through our imagination we change the reality with out taking any action.

  • @gyro5d
    @gyro5d 3 роки тому

    Time started when Dielectric energy decayed from the Inertial Plane/Counterspace. Inflation.
    Dielectric energy decays into Dielectric Voidance Field/Magnetism. The Grand Expand.
    Gravity is centripetal acceleration into the Inertial Plane. Gravity is Magnetism/Dielectric Voidance Field returning to Dielectric energy, then the Inertial Plane/Counterspace.

  • @neillibertine3044
    @neillibertine3044 2 роки тому

    Q. What is gravity.
    A. Gravity is phenomenon of objects falling down to ground with force and it seems that intensity of force or energy decreases with square of distance. This is observed on earth only that objects are pulled down but by inference we generalized it to whole planetary system and universe also.
    Q. What is cause or mechanism of gravity.
    A. Thermal energy emitted from sun generating pressure in space causing vacuum and thus creating thermal gradient for pressure wind. This pressure expand space by lowering matter concentration and further cause of motion of planets orbitting. Torsion by planetary motion concentrate matter to planets like cables. Yes this is possible explanation on basis of forces and matter in action. Gravity is equivalent to buyoant force in fluids.
    Q. What happen if star extinguishes or pressure cease. Does matter and large bodies lumps at centre and space is shrinked, like concept of black hole.
    A. Black hole is conceptual thing for purposed model to work. There is no observational evidence of any kind to prove its existence. No, large masses not fused at centre. First the vacuum created by pressure is filled with space matter that was removed and space becomes homogeneous of space matter. Speed of planets, which is same for given planetary system, continually slower down as resistance by matter increases. This arise two situation either radius of orbit shrink to keep speed intact and eventually planets merge at centre. This happens when star dies slowly, but if it dies abruptly which is more probable because power is constant, then angular speed of planets decreasing and finally planets comes to rest.

  • @haroldfloyd5518
    @haroldfloyd5518 2 роки тому +3

    Did Newton really have all that hair? I am skeptical. Love the “running back” analogy…the profound insight of relativity for me (that took me years to comprehend) is that C is the only constant, it’s space and time that are mutable, light speed never varies ever.

    • @dibaldgyfm9933
      @dibaldgyfm9933 2 роки тому

      They used wigs at that time, like the judges in UK still do (as far as I know). In effect it does the same as a hat, changing how we perceive the person. There is a painting of Georg Friedrich Handel (around the year 1740) without a wig, showing a "little ugly man" but on the other hand that painting is an honest picture of a great mind.

  • @arshidwani5062
    @arshidwani5062 2 роки тому

    Herefrom I don't have any doubt about spacetime idea

  • @neillibertine3044
    @neillibertine3044 2 роки тому

    What people generally think of pressure as force per unit area, where area is 2 dimensional having no thickness. This is given by tyre pressure in unit of pounds per square inch, psi. The force exerted on inside surface of tyre by air contained in it.
    But this is half truth, in reality there can be no pressure on surface without having some thickness. What it means, that unit of pressure is given in 2d but it not applies on surface or area having no thickness. Imagine one having thin sheet of metal, now pressure is applied against thickness of sheet in form of hammering or weight. The metal sheet spreads out and become more thin. But if sheet have no thickness then no deformation.
    So how space-time given in 2d deformed by anything. It is other thing that mass is not equivalent to force unless it have some speed so having energy or under influence of some pull due to force or density. Similarly energy cant exert force unless it is contained in form of kinetic energy.
    If mass exert force then it is similar to Newton's law of gravitation, so what difference theory of relativity made. According to which black holes dont exists, they are against nature of force which is evident in big-bang model. Big-bang is expansion of matter and black hole is contraction of matter under same law.
    Differential geometry doesnt account for general model as they are for shapes and shapes are specific. Thus differential geometry of tensor not make equations independent of coordinates but opposite of it. It is also evident from model of universe as expansion. Universe expansion is transformation into planar space or euclidean space. While their model is flawed because expansion of a singularity is in first place having euclidean space.
    So their relation of mass-energy tensor to curvature of space-time is invalid because first tensor is operator and without specifying function it means nothing but numbers. Second thing mass and energy in itself no force so there could be no deformation. Third 2d surface cant have deformation whatever. Fourth there is assumption of surface prior to observation, it is assumed the shape of universe.
    This model of universe came is biblic in nature, everything comes from nothing. If one look at big-bang, it is culmination of their theory about universe, then how spreading of matter consitutes closed surface as spherical geometry required. Spherical geometry means closed body, having two opposite poles or sources, so no net source. This implies origin of universe from nothing. But two opposite source cancel each other to make region source free and if separated by distance cause directional movement result of gradient. Thus make work done possible. But their model ultimately ended in single point source of one kind when tracing backward in time.

  • @quannga99
    @quannga99 2 роки тому

    Time as we think we know it is only a concept of the human mind. Time neither starts nor ends. Relativity effects of time appear only when we try to make measurements.

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 Рік тому

      Time is that which the clocks show. We try to teach that to our five year old children... but very few are intelligent enough to remember it. ;-)

  • @mountfamily
    @mountfamily 2 роки тому +1

    I never knew there was a thing called "time".. so HUGE TY for telling me about it!!

  • @mklik4
    @mklik4 2 роки тому +6

    If only people would watch this instead of tiktok

    • @joshualogan7345
      @joshualogan7345 12 днів тому

      Why? They are not explanations. They are just descriptions.
      🤷🏻‍♂️

  • @greaper123
    @greaper123 Рік тому

    OR, does a muon traveling through space naturally decay at a slower rate (one, for which, we don't yet understand, perhaps?)? Gravity's effect is obviously affected by mass and velocity, so IS IT POSSIBLE that the decay of the muon is changed NOT by time, but rather, gravitational (or other?) forces? Could there be thermodynamics impact here? Could the collision with other quantum particles be influencing the timing of muon decay? Einstein was a genius, and I'm just an idiot out here on the internet, but I lean towards Newton's beliefs. Wish I were "more smarter", but I am not 100% sold on Einstein's relativity theories .. there's still something missing, IMHO...

  • @neillibertine3044
    @neillibertine3044 2 роки тому

    What relativists thought of that by adding three variable of space and one variable of time, the space-time curvature equation became 4 dimensional tensor of rank 2, that is not case.
    To explain it, does surface of any shape for instance sphere is 3 dimensional or 2 dimensional in 3 variables. So metric tensor is 2d, 4 variable, rank of tensor represent dimension and root of elements of matrix is variables.
    They can think of that they have 4d equation so have volume and thus contain matter is incorrect. This is other thing that there is no physicallity of space-time unless they admit that space is not empty or vacuum, so again bring back aether in a sense. Also deformation is not possible in 2d surface.
    Also equation is written in reverse order, it is stress-energy tensor causing space-time curvature not otherwise. By measuring effect, one can measure cause, so by measuring curvature they can amount mass or energy but how space-time curvature could neasure is questionable. We are not discussing here how mass in space cause stress and how energy could be contained in no volume. This shows that big-bang model was prepared before because energy spread if it starts from point.
    Also we are not discussing that consequence of geometrical explanation doesnt meet observation, like time period of all planets should be equal, time is dilated in gravity but farther orbits are theoretically due to high speed and observed as time contracted in far orbits, opposite of time dilation.
    Yes, this model of gravity is not different from older model but attempt to give account for stable orbits. The multiplication of gravitational constant, G is for equating mass to force or weight. But instead of giving stable model of universe it leads to unstable model.