Why Einstein didn't win Nobel prize for general relativity | Sean Carroll and Lex Fridman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 кві 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Sean Carroll: General ...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- HiddenLayer: hiddenlayer.com/lex
- Cloaked: cloaked.com/lex and use code LexPod to get 25% off
- Notion: notion.com/lex
- Shopify: shopify.com/lex to get $1 per month trial
- NetSuite: netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour
GUEST BIO:
Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Наука та технологія
Full podcast episode: ua-cam.com/video/tdv7r2JSokI/v-deo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: ua-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.
Nothing in this video about WHY Einstein didn’t win for general relativity.
He was a cousin humper. The committee didn't like that fact
Thanks for the warning.
I once read in Michio Kaku's book Einstein's Cosmos that Einstein was nominated eight times for his GR but the main problem always was that nobody in the Noble Prize Physics committee was able to understand the theory, which was really controversial at the time and most physicists rejected it, and that there was always the fear that the theory may turn out to be wrong.
Read Robert Marc Friedman's article, "The 100th Anniversary of Einstein's Nobel Prize: Facts and Fiction." In fact most physicists overwhelmingly accepted relativity as a tremendous achievement at the time. The committee, however, strongly opposed relativity for reasons that continue to be debated, and they cited various critics of relativity, who even at the time were clearly presenting poor arguments that better-qualified physicists had refuted.
Relativity is indeed wrong.
@@rajeev_kumar what a hot edgy take 😂 obviously you aren’t talking about the parts that are among the best falsified hypotheses, so you must be talking about some uncertain implications that are difficult to falsify. But then you wouldn’t know that they are wrong either unless you have some sort of falsification method we don’t
They didn't say WHY he didn't get more.
He was dead before the practical implications were found
How come Brian Keating doesn't win? Or maybe it doesn't matter if your ABS America's Bestest Smartestest - lol
There are incredible scientists and discoveries who never won a Noble prize just like how there are incredible actors who never win an Oscar/Emmy/GG.
Every person who wins a Nobel Prize is probably an incredible mind but just because someone doesn't have it doesn't mean they are worse.
Its not like the importance & magnitude of Theory of Relativity was only later understood. Nobel committee should forever be ashamed for not according the honor to Einstein for it. It is a blot on Nobel Prize that will never be erased.
yeah... but, it's Einstein
@@AlphaCentauri24 He did receive the Nobel Price for his work on the photoelectric effect though, which is an important piece in the development of quantum mechanics. The problem with SR and GR was that it at that time was far from a proven theory, and when he received the NP for his other work, they considered that enough as awarding two Nobel Prices to the same guy would be very much unusual.
@@AlphaCentauri24 it's easy to say that in hindsight
What is the relative velocity between 2 photons moving away from a light-source in opposite directions?
It is still speed of light (c) .
The speed of light doesn't depend on the frame of reference. It's the same in all frames
Space and time literally warp in such a way that the relative velocity stays as c, the speed of light.
He asked about the relative speed of two photons moving in opposite directions, according to any observer. What he's asking - I think - is "what is the increase in spatial coordinates per unit proper time according to an arbitrary observer's restframe?" The answer is 2c. @@larrends8297
here's the twist: when you have two photons flying away from each other like fireworks, saying their relative speed is exactly 2c is a bit tricky. Imagine trying to ride alongside one photon to see how fast the other one appears to be moving - that's not possible according to the laws of physics. Nothing, not even another photon, can travel alongside light in the same exact way.
So, the key point is this: if you're watching from the outside, the distance between those two photons will increase at a rate of 2c. That's what we can measure. This doesn't break the speed limit though, because it's not the speed of one photon relative to the other, but rather how fast they seem to be separating from each other. It's all about perspective!
@@NaushadAli-wc4gj
"if you're watching from the outside, the distance between those two photons will increase at a rate of 2c."
Exactly! Of course, there is no frame where the photon is at rest, so I figured OP was asking about the rate of change of distance between the photons according to an arbitrary inertial observer. All inertial observers will agree that the two photons move apart at 2c, in that sense.
But you are right about being careful with our words. The speed of one photon isn't relative to the other photon *according to the photon.* Arguably the relative speed between them would be infinite, but that is also a strange physical interpretation of a question that just doesn't make sense. As soon as the photon leaves, it arrives at its destination, using this naive and overextended interpretation of space contraction and time dilation. Meaning it moves infinitely fast. Meaning everything moves infinitely fast relative to it. Again, assuming that claim actually made physical sense.
He said Einstein deserved 4 Nobel Prizes: 1 for photoelectric effect, 2 for spec relativity, 3 for gen relativity, and 4 for?
Brownian Motion. He proved the motion of atoms and the fact they even exist
@@Nnda8731 nice!
@@Nnda8731 You are so clever.
Great Hair
5 Quantum Entanglement
damn i didn't know daniel kahneman passed away. i have read his book and adored him as a scientist. was hoping to meet him someday...
The video never answered the question in the title, and I still want to know.
The “point” of the Nobel price was to make Alfred Nobel’s name not forever *only* be associated with dynamite. Very rich guy move if you ask me.
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
10
An American or European swallow?
African or European swallow?
What do you mean? An African or a European swallow? 😉
African or European?
I’ve read that he didn’t win the Nobel Prize for General Relativity because nobody (except maybe Eddington) understood it.
May be at the time, but Einstein passed away in the early 1970s (1972, if my memory doesn't fail me). Obviously, thousands of people understood it later in his lifetime
@aramsarkisyan8061 1955. Are you thinking of Russell?
Einstein died in 1955..
@raphaelreichmannrolim25 oh yea, I mixed up. But still 1950s understood relativity well
You could argue Von Neumann should have won multiple Nobel prizes. At least for Game Theory in Economics
Economics is not a Nobel prize
@daniel37665 you are right, it was not one of the original but it is also given out in the name of Nobel
Also still no evidence to dispute that UAPs are a product of Von Neumann probes; if that turns out to be true it’ll trump all his previous work.
But the prize brings attention to consciousness itself. That's where the good stuff is
Sean Carroll has a great mind.
sean is great
thanks
Cause it can’t be proven, but it can’t be disputed.
So it’s like, we can’t prove Einstein is right, but we can’t prove him wrong either.
It’s always been only those with the “right side, with connection” win Nobel prize. But now it’s getting better…. Hopefully 😂
5 - for entanglement
So why did Einstein didn't get the Nobel price?
Because he isn't nobel
He did just not for relativity, because it was too unorthodox. It was so revolutionary, it had a potential to fail.
@@budihamzahX3 I think the point was that the title is misleading. They never answered that "why" question
لأنها ليست معادلة كاملة ليست المعادلة كالتأثير الكهروضوئي
It is complete equation
Didn’t Einstein win the Nobel for the photoelectric effect?!
Yes, he is saying that was very deserved, but so was his other works, which he did not receive Nobel prizes for
Because nobel prize is not fair enough.
He got snubbed because his theory had yet to be proven and he wasn't a rock star. When he got famous they gave him a "Lifetime Achievement" award by crediting him with the photoelectric effect. You can't give the Nobel prize to some unknown schlub, after all.
Nonsense.
Who cares if he did or didn't win a NP??? What is this obsession with winning an arbitrary trinket?? Come on...
❤ Where is the scientific interest and curiosity for new experiences? BIG ERROR in measuring the Universe, black holes, dark energy,... Let me judge all this by the result of a direct experiment, gentlemen of physics
Let's do the Michelson-Morley experiment on a school bus and determine the speed in a straight line - this is exactly the experiment Einstein dreamed of. Perhaps we will see the postulates: “Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and Dominant gravitational fields control the speed of light in a vacuum.”
There is a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core”, where - the light in each arm passes along 16,000 meters, without exceeding the parameters of 0.4/0.4/0.4 meters and mass - 4 kg.
FNP.
Gandhi didn't get for peace.
Tesla didn't get for physics.
In last ten years fuck Oscars too.
It's about propaganda
So obama has a nobel peace prize yeah right😂
He has. Whether he deserved it or not doesn't change history.
Professor Francis Yu - "Einstein’s relativity is against the laws of nature' ua-cam.com/video/Sk7ZEg68V-o/v-deo.html
Ok?
Can't help myself. Qep=TC^2; X=π/E. Where E is fsv^2. Law of Conservation of Energy comes first. EMR makes mass. He can't defeat my universal mechanism for the law of conservation of energy but his multi-worlds I can.
you're out of your depth.
What's T supposed to be? Is C velocity? Explain your variables? Make sure your units are right. T has to be mass if it is multiplied by C² if Qep is energy. What's X? Pi divided by Energy? What is EMR, and how does it create mass?
I am very clear with my physics. I extend Einstein to E=TC^2. For a proton that means the quantum energy contained within its quantum triangle potential is Qep=TC^2. The relationship between mass and energy needs to be clarified. EMR in the three tau structure of my proton (Smith-Borden model) creates mass. My theory comports with the Law of Conservation of Energy and explains why the universe is a perpetual mechanism. Time is quantum locked in my proton model. Welcome to my Smith-Borden physics. No 10 dimensions; just two in black hole and three in normalized space. Time is quantum entropy that expresses itself in normalized space of 1.673x10^-4rad•S.U.^2. No. I can start from the beginning of time created by a local clock. You can't beat my theory of everything
@@ilevitatecs2 The Schrödinger can be expressed in quantum energy rather than a matter wave. My proton three tau structure quantum locks time; thus each T can be interpreted as a standing, non-time dependent wave-function Wpot. The Wkin is only expressed when the quantum locked T is projected into 3D normalized space through fusion, neutron decay etc. In my theory a neutron decays into a proton by releasing captured energy by the T structure into normalized space. Feynman would give a photon and neutrino. I'm saying they are EMR emanations from 2D quantum field into normalized space that appears massive but isn't. Again this is a clarification of the relationship between mass and energy.
Interesting. The relationship between mass and energy is beautifully clarified in Einstein’s equations They are one and the same thing. Also wouldn’t get too bent out of shape regards black holes. They are not special and don’t need another dimension. The math still checks out.
Before I watch😅:At least 4 but I'll say 5 Nobel prizes. My explanation is he didn't because he is Jewish and at that time Jews (actually throughout history) were not liked very much. That why by the time they gave in and finally gave him one for the photo electrical effect Einstein ditched them and didn't even show up 😂. Good for him
He didn't get the Nobel Prize because the General and Special Theories are wrong.
These theories aren’t useful because they’re fundamentally correct, they’re useful because they make reliable predictions. We know General Relativity is more predictive than Newtonian mechanics, but Newtonian mechanics was still enough to get us to the moon.
@@Rio-zh2wb Both the General Theory and the Special Theory are based on the idea that the speed of light is not only invariant WRT the observer, but also a constant in the vacuum of space.
GPs signal data shows that light travels faster between GPS satellites from west to east vs east to west, in contradiction of the SRT.
The Equivalence Principle is contradicted by GPS clock and data regarding Planck's Constant (GRT) and the invariance postulate.
The Clock data regarding Planck's Constant shows that light does not blueshift into a gravity well, showing that the Equivalence Principle is wrong and there is no curvature of space, just a density gradient that causes clock speed to change and the electron transition energy to vary with altitude in regard to the emission spectrum of the GPS clock.
In regard to GRT, the data shows that since the electron transition energy is the only thing verified to change with altitude, that the speed of light most like also changes with altitude, a density function, barring a more accurate way to measure the speed of light at different altitudes.
In short, GPS and other experiments show that relativity has evidence to support it, AKA Lorentz or Maxwell. Einstein's version of relativity (which came after Lorentz, Maxwell, or Poincare) is in fact wrong.
@@Rio-zh2wb GPS clock and signal data show that both the Special Theory and the General Theory are in fact wrong.
There is evidence to support the previous versions of relativity from Maxwell, Poincare, or Lorentz, (which require the speed of light to be invariant WRT a medium and not the observer,) but there is no evidence to support Einstein's version.
It is true that Einstein's math is somewhat predictable in some cases, but when the mathematical errors of Einstein are removed, the corrected equations produce much better results. Things like time dilation and the Equivalence Principle are in fact artifacts of the mathematical errors of the Einstein version. There are other density functions (such as magnetic flux density) which account for things like clock speed and refractive index instead of 'curvature of space.'
NASA laser experiments show that light only bends in an atmosphere near cosmological bodies as a refractive index, but not in the vacuum near the bodies due to gravity. The Earth's atmosphere, in fact, has a larger refractive index than the Sun's. The Sun's atmosphere, where light refracts, is verified to be extremely rarefied. The Earth bends light over 1000 times that of the Sun. There is no 'curvature of space' nor of space-time.
It is the math errors in the Einstein model which mimic effects which can be accounted for by other physical things.
It does take a true genius though to make the Einstein model look coherent amidst all of the paradoxes it creates.
AKA Einstein makes substitutions in his time dilation equations which render them invalid when two bodies move or accelerate WRT each other.
And yet no one has been able to improve it in over a century
@@frankjohnson123 Actually there is no evidence to support Einstein's version vs the previous versions of relativity. It is the previous versions that are proven more predictive by experiment.
Both the General Theory and the Special Theory, AKA the Equivalence Principle and Invariance Postulate, are contradicted by GPS clock and signal data in that regard.
There are plenty of experiments which contradict Einstein but do support the previous versions of Lorentz, Poincare, or Maxwell.
And actually, there are algorithms and derivations which do improve upon it.
ONE would be the fact that the algorithms in GPS use a Lorentz relativity algorithm and a Sagnac Correction. The previous GPS algorithms were only accurate to about 30 feet under an Einstein assumption. Today GPS is accurate to sub centimeter using the previous Lorentz or Maxwell assumptions.
TWO would be Stephen B. Bryant who has corrected the Einstein derivations with much better results.
Try 'Reexamining Special Relativity: Revealing and correcting
SR’s mathematical inconsistency' -
Steven B. Bryant
Also check out his YT channel and video, 'Relativity Fails to explain a Key Experiment.'
Poincare invented relativity, that's why. Einstein just wrote the paper describing Poincare's ideas.
Lmao, no
Actually, Galileo first postulated it.
@@jimbob8992 Galileo postulated classical relativity. Big difference
I'm glad we've got a genius armchair physicist to explain that to the rest of the world. Pure Dunning-Kruger.
Working with Lorentz's aether theory, Henri Poincaré, having earlier proposed the "relativity principle" as a general law of nature (including electrodynamics and gravitation), used this principle in 1905 to correct Lorentz's preliminary transformation formulas, resulting in an exact set of equations that are now called the Lorentz transformations. A little later in the same year Albert Einstein published his original paper on special relativity in which, again based on the relativity principle, he independently derived