Are you sure about that? _Galilean_ and _special_ Relativity have very simple postulates regarding the laws of physics remaining invariant in inertial frames of reference. What are you claiming that we haven't observed?
@@RiteMoEquations We know Gallilean and special relativity are wrong somehow, because it can't explain everything, but we have theories on what could be correct instead; we're able to put constraints on which of those theories actually are true based on the fact it's taken us this long, and we still haven't found anything that directly conflicts with relativity as is. Thus we are able to refine models of physics based on what we haven't observed.
@@robhillen8007 That could be true. Prior to modern physics, there had been a race to make the most generally applicable theory with a compact mathematical formula that can be used to derived all the laws of physics. It will take another Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein to create a quantum spacetime, graviton, or a theory of everything because the math is an unorganized mess.
@@RiteMoEquations I remember watching on the History channel back in the 90's, of a guy that was able to move multiple ton hews rocks without using power machinery. He was also able to set up multiples of these rocks, and moved them miles so that the 8 ton rock that served as the door, would spin on its axis by being lightly touched with a pinky finger, like it did from where it was moved from. They asked him how he was able to do it, and all he would say was, and im paraphrasing: "The information is too dangerous, it would completely change the way the modern world works. All i'll say is there is a very basic and misunderstood aspect of physics that has gone overlooked for centuries." He refused to elaborate further.
One question I have is how can a photon have enough time to decay since they don't experience time? Any other you-tube channel I'd say they got it wrong. This one is almost certainly NOT wrong, so what did I miss?
It is correct that in the reference frame of the photon, "photon’s proper time flow" is not experienced. By speaking of decay time, it is meant that this time is measured in the reference frame of an observer who observes this decay, so "observer’s proper time flow". I hope that answered your question. 🪐
Doppler effect due to expanding universe causes shift towards red. The medium photon is travelling. Hydrogen gas debris in space. Once photon hits or interacts with another particle. Its is converted to energy. Note the speed change that is converted to energy is unnoticeable and very minuscule. Above reasons decay photons.
I'm glad you asked, because the answers of how still don't address the real question when captured by gravity wells imho. From a sufficiently large inner horizon, it seems a secondary horizon would exist for the photon's frame of reference vis a vis matter inside the black hole horizon and the singularity's. The answer is itself another black hole paradox lol
It would totally make sense that there could be dispersion in the speed of light for energies/frequencies where the wavelength is on the same scale as the polarizability of the vacuum. This presumably would be the length scale where you could get electron/positron pair production within the length/time-scales allowed by the uncertainty principle. So it should be possible to calculate what that wavelength/energy is and see if our data are even close to that.
Photons are collections of sub particles, that is how That is how they slide like liquid (you can check), also why when uncollapses, electrons created an interference pattern because they are also subparticle clouds that are entangled and collapse into particle formm as soon as they experience interaction, also why they sometimmes detangle and disappear or tunnel, the subparticles allow transfer through spaces in materials
We've known for a while now that light shows no difference in speed with wavelength, so this whole idea doesn't work. But you've got the answer right in front of you... hbar is in units of angular momentum. What we need to "complete special relativity" is an equivalence principle for angular momentum, just as we have one for linear momentum (which brought einstein to GR). Corotating frames exhibit a behaviour which makes all objects seem to move away from each other (due to, for example, the centrifugal force). This is fundamentally indistinguishable from anti-gravity. There are interesting ways to complete GR, like einstein-cartan theory, which add to the connection a torsion tensor, which accounts for the angular momentum of fermions. In these frameworks the torsion has intrinsic negative energy, which brings about a repulsive effect.
Gonna call BS on corotating frames being indistinguishable from anti-gravity. Rotating frames have a center and a preferred axis, anti-gravity is isotropic
@FunkyDexter, •, 3 hr ago (edited), "We've known for a while now that light shows no difference in speed with wavelength" for the wavelengths / frequencies we've been able to measure
Curious why DSR wouldn't explain the Hubble Tension between SN methods and the CMB. The CMB is really low energy radiation, whilst super nova emissions involve high energy light.
@@oberonpanopticon I agree, but "hypercube" is a generic term for n-dimensional cubes, not just for n = 4. "Octachoroned" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, either! 🤣
Great to see videos more focused on testable theories. To counter that, a hypothesis: maybe haven't seen gamma rays with so high energy is because they spontaneously decay into electron+antielection while traveling to us. That would "confirm" the 2 theoretical predictions while requiring no evidence.
the problem is, we're confused about the source of the few extreme energy gamma rays we've seen even without accounting for pair production. So we don't even know where to look for something producing an even higher energy gamma ray that can exhibit this effect.
18:41 Slight hiccup on sale sale. 😅 Interesting this episode is so speculative, talking about a theory that may be a way forward but has no supporting evidence yet - I like it. 🎉
i dont understand how someone can get a physics degree in just 4 years (with like 2 of those being general ed), when I've been watching this show for years and every episode is like a physics lecture
Most of these topics are would be post graduate courses. Even if you get to that level and did physics research as a full time job, you would only really be specialised in one of the topics. Understanding in detail everything on this channel is like saying you are fluent in every human language and the linguistics underpinning them.
In one case. The thing about “dark matter” is that it’s not a solution to the problem, it’s a description of the problem, as in “it’s as if there’s some sort of dark matter influencing matter in these ways…”. Another description is “in a few ways it’s like the force of gravity changes with distance - somehow-no-idea-why-or-how”. The search is for something real that matches the problem description(s). If something is found, chances are it won’t explain everything.
Thanks Matt. Interseting concept :) > 1:32 I have developed serious reservations about this description of invariance. You can test this by turning the false bouncy light clock horizontal and you end up with pulsating variable speed of light or variable speed of time. 2:41 Yeah, this problem :) I don't think this issue was really solved tbh 13:25 And this variable speed of light issue pops up even here lol
E² = m²c⁴ + p²c² is missing a chiral component because General Relativity insists on pretending that E is a scalar quantity and the missing component doesn't measurably change the magnitude of energy measured along a normal to the underlying space. The Lorentz symmetries are, after all, built on emergent symmetries, not fundamental ones. IMHO, of course.
Would you prefer c^2 p^mu p_mu = m^2 c^4 , using the 4-momentum rather than splitting the energy and 3-momentum up and thereby treating energy as a scalar?
History of the Universe's videos are low quality compared to PBS SpaceTime, the creator does not have a degree in physics and therefore gets things wrong significantly more often.
Isnt the reason why the energy to "probe" a plank length is so high is because that would be the amount of dilation of spacetime necessary to *ensure* that you are observing single plank scales? Like, "feature, not bug."
Going through the Wiki on things related to Doubly Special Relativity, there's also De Sitter invariant special relativity? I would be interested in a video on what it is and the differences between it and normal(?) Doubly Special Relativity.
My understanding of the MDR is that the higher the energy of the photon, the higher the odds of it being able to decay into a pair of particles. I’d love to play around with these in a simulation to see what sorts of energies/times we’re dealing with for different coefficients. If anyone has any recommendations for starting points, I’d love to hear them. Otherwise, I think I’ll start with the MDR paper and try to work backwards.
The main thing I don’t follow at the moment is how a photon decays independent of an interaction with a certain probability over time if it doesn’t experience time.
@@conor.brennan AIUI it "experiences" all parts of its path simultaneously, but there can still be a change or an end to that path when it interacts with something else (eg how else would reflections work). What we experience as sufficient travel time, when time is compressed to zero becomes sufficient travel distance. We can draw short lines or long lines on a page, and they all exist simultaneously with each other. In a sense, if you could experience that reference frame it would probably seem like everything was predestined. Some lines decay into others, while most don't.
So there might be a level of photonic light so energized that above gamma range a photon "could" decay into a ray capable of transmophing into a single electron, a higher energy than two gamma rays transforming into a electron positron pair. The potential kinetic energy cannot be a negative number or zero in three spatial dimensions & time-space; however the kinetic energy can be a negative number even zero in space-time having movement in three spatial dimensions. This episode really blew my mind thank you Spacetime PBS. Because science is a light in the dark. 👍🏼
the equation there is kinda expanded, i like: e^2=(MC^2)^2+(PC)^2 because this shows the relationship of rest mass and momentum as Pythagorean (C^2=A^2+b^2) putting E as being the hypotenuse of a right triangle with sides MC^2 and PC but this also kinda precludes any sense of adding a third term.
Seems like the possibility of different wavelengths of light traveling at different velocities might impact our understanding of what it actually means that we see red-shifted light coming at us from every direction...
I have a question. As things red shift and blue shift if you accepted that something could relatively travel faster than the speed of light towards or away from you...what would that look like? Things going so fast that they can't be observed sounds like a solution for the dark matter problem.
I wonder if this interacts with gravity waves. I believe I saw on another channel that the gravitational wave of some measure was 18ms before the observed photons. It's not a lot, but I think any differences in gravitational vs photon effects is significant. We need another lever in gigantic measurements, there's a lot of battles over sensitivities for inflation in telescopes vs the thermal background, deep space shifts and brightness, etc. Another anchor point would really be welcome.
As far as we know, gravitational waves have the same basic properties as light (massless, inverse-squared, velocity of c) so yes? But with the caveat that while photons are quantized, we haven't managed to quantize gravitational waves. So it's hard to know what prediction such a measurement would match with if any. It also depends on the type of event, as light gets stuck bouncing around inside matter while gravitational waves don't.
AFAIK photons slow when passing through a medium, gravitational waves don’t. Maybe even a few billion light years of tenuous gas are enough of a medium?
The Lorentz factor is better expressed as its inverse, and in more intuitive trigonometric terms. For 'v' expressed as speed in the direction of travel, relativistic effects will reduce length and the passing of time as: cos(sin^-1(v/c)) Also, 'c' isn't really the "speed of light", it's the conversion factor between the units of meters and seconds. One second is 299792458 meters long. All of special relativity's effects falls directly out of treating velocities as unit 4-vectors of spacetime, instead of 3-vectors for the spatial direction with magnitude for rate. And why not? 3-vectors are a poor description of motion - an object at relative rest has an undefined direction component. The mathematics of physics shouldn't break every time you catch and toss a ball.
I wonder if that could mean that Time does not equal zero for a photon; rather for all photons T must be a non-zero amount in the direction of travel even if that amount is smaller than a Planck Unit or even in between 1 and 2 plank units measured.
3:25 not to be confused with Maxell's electromagnetism, which posits that audio fidelity is inversely proportional to n, where n is the number of times the tape has been played.
That's only because quantum mechanics is a statistical theory, so as long as you're describing something in terms of a probability distribution, you're not really "describing" anything at all, but moreso predicting a future event that has yet to occur. When the event does occur in physical reality, then it is no longer a prediction anymore, so there is no need to express it in terms of probabilistic uncertainty anymore. Uncertainty is "smeared out" while certainty is discrete.
6:38 It doesn't have to shrink if the one or both of the other sides is lengthened by the energies of high velocity. It would also never reach Zero. They won't find a difference between high and low energy light because time space warps to accommodate light speed.
I hit like on this video because of the very open minded opinions about how we need more experimentation on speed of light and wavelength dependance of speed of light. That is science , everything need questioning and re-questioning, every theory will eventually evolve into a new theory.
Black Hole Friday…Woooooooo! Can I order one with an Einstein-Rosen bridge and an extra deep ergosphere..oh and enough Hawking Radiation to light my back garden at night, cos that’s useful.
I love this episode and how it taught me yet another layer of E=mc², but I really wish your team changed its title/thumbnail strategy just a bit. "When is E=mc² wrong?" would have been awesome, attention-grabbing title because it indicates that there ARE times when this Most Famous Equation is wrong, and it also says that this video will answer that when. While it falls into the same issue that the current setup does (the nerds who know E²=p²c² + m²c⁴), it also implies that the specifics will be explained, thereby drawing in all those nerds who just know that as A Fact but without any deeper understanding. Obviously, if The Data says I'm wrong then, I'm a scientist and can't argue-my own biases are present in my fairly wide understanding of physics concepts and a lack of understanding how other people (especially "young nerds", e.g. those in the 13-18 range who are Just Getting Into It) look at titles and thumnails. But just on a personal level, I dislike these open ended titles that suggest a vague "theory" answer rather than the concrete "testable" answer that Matt so often provides (not the exact answer, but the steps we would have to take to answer it).
I once saw the expanded Einstein equation used to demonstrate a right triangle for mass-energy equivalence, how it was impossible for matter to reach the speed of light accordingly.
The problem with corrections with planck units is that you're a specific type of object is the only thing that exists: with quantum corrections, it is thoughtlessly implied that "quantum things" are subject to those limits... This stems from the fact that, while the planck length seems fittingly miniscule, far beyond anything measurable, the planck energy is... very normal-sized. It's around 2 GJ so like, a lightning bolt - worse, it could be a 100 ton plane going at 200 m/s... exceedingly normal "but those examples arent fundamental at all! they are way too big!" - to which i ask: *WHERE* in the equation does it _require_ your physical model to be a certain size? To have a certain duration? Of course different laws apply to different scales, but which laws should _you_ use to make sense of a model is a *_choice_* - the beauty of the the eistein equation is that it is applicable to _any_ scale, and the only quantities that matter are the ones you actually input into the equation: not size, frequency, length of the experiment or time of day; mass can be anything from eV to solar masses and beyond - and *then* we *TEST* to see if the equation is accurate. That's what i mean by "thoughtlessly implied", because the math isnt what's dictating the boundaries, but human choice, _clearly_ something apart from the experiment.
This video really blew my mind. However, I'd like to point out the difference that while the invariance of c emerges organically from Maxwell's equations, the Planck length doesn't emerge organically from...well, anything and is rather some random thing we artificially put together. So while it might have mathematical significance in the same way that π does, it might not correspond to anything physical. Just saying. SR isn't just some theory. It's the logical result of the universe being 4D, in the same way that a 2D plane must have triangles that sum to 180 degrees. The fact that QM doesn't contradict SR means that even at quantum scales, the universe is still 4D. That was Dirac's great insight. Thus, SR being violated at Planck scales means that at those scales, the universe isn't 4D for some reason. Which might be true but I'm greatly skeptical of that. It then further raises the question: at what scale does the universe transition from being 4D to whatever dimensionality it has at the Planck scale? And then, if it's possible to have different dimensionality at those scales, why be limited to only 4 at quantum scales and higher?
11:20 this seems like a reasonable possibility to me, because that’s exactly radioactive elements do. High energy atoms decay into multiple smaller products. And there’s enough similarity and analogous relationships in Nature that if atoms do it, then smaller particles could do it too.
Almost as if you'd say that an atom is a group of oscillations that are stable in that frequency, but destabilize at lower frequences, causing the oscillations to disperse into more stable forms.
I don't hear a lot of modern physics that gives the proper deference to Einstein's process of reasoning in addition to his findings. This does, and that alone makes it promising. He had deep insights that preceded our ability to prove him right again and again by many, many decades. It is a fool who does not take seriously the breadth of his wisdom. God does not play dice, and we shall learn His game if we follow this path.
6:30 At the fundamental level the universe is flatland. In this flatland everyone can be anywhere and everywhere so distances across flatland are irrelevant. The only direction is upward. Most of the beings in flatland are ignorant of 'up'. Those who discover the secret word 'up' can use it to shape reality and achieve godlike power.
Cool concept! Seems to be having trouble with validation by observation though. I kind of like the idea, but I'm dubious it's correct. There appear to be some useful aspects to observer (and direction) dependent Planck lengths when trying to resolve the paradoxes around singularities. Being able to compress 3D space into 2D planes in a directional manner is very handy there.
Matter/Energy move through space, and do not drag the space they move through with them. The length of space is never contracted; matter/energy in the space may appear contracted or expanded.... as you're passing something and it goes behind you, the light aberration stretches that back out, making it APPEAR longer; it's still whatever contraction the frame it's involved with is moving. Plank length applies to space, and since it doesn't contract (that much) it doesn't matter very much... if you had a intense enough gravitational wave though - maybe it might? for the time the wave is passing that spot anyway. a lot to do about nothing. The lorentz transformation only shows how things behave, their time/length contraction/dilation, but it doesn't give you anything about how a thing actually appears. A clock that is moving away from or towards you appears to run at a different speed, even though at it's specific velocity it has a particular contraction.... If everything is relative, then if I have 8 rockets all going 0.1c faster than the previous, and the first going 0.1c faster than the earth - what is the time dilation you expect to see from each rocket to the next, and how much from the earth to rocket 1 or rocket 8 ? (or all of the above) If each is going 0.1c faster than the previous then the time contraction is sqrt( 1-0.1/1 ) or 0.995. Or each clock runs 0.005 ticks per second slower than the next... so 8* 0.005 = 0.040 should be the time dilation for the last - but if you actually compute sqrt( 1-0.8/1) (sqrt(0.2)=0.44...) which means actually from earth to the last is 0.44 not 0.040 total time dilation. They are going 0.1c faster than each other according to the frame of earth so 0.1 0.2 0.3 etc, not relative to each other... so maybe if you reverse work out the relativistic velocity addition into a subtraction you can find the correct value? I don't think so but you could give it a short ( left as an exercise for the reader).
Is it possible for a pair production decay to be “partial” and be why photons experience red shift? This may be where “missing” energy goes when photons go down in energy due to the red shift.
Perhaps something like this could deal with a planet in one frame of reference would collapse to black hole in a frame of reference that zipps by it fast enough that it becomes sufficiently massive and small. This is still an unsolved paradox, right?
It is basically light self interaction in a sense right, because of annihilation and the kinetic energy with which a pair is produced, if the kinetic energy is low, the dipole is weak because of small separation and it goes away quickly, if it is large then the dipole is larger and goes away more slowly, wouldn't that necessarily depend on frames?
I never formally studied GR (made it through QM II in college), so please correct me if I'm speaking out of my butt. But it seems like this approach would not be likely to work as a modification of special relativity. It holds 2 out of 3 constants as constant. And it may work when some things are constant, but not everything. I would think you'd need to hold 3 constants as invariant. That could be thought of as the plank length, time, and energy or as c, G, and h. But 2 out of 3 doesn't seem like enough to be sure you're getting predictions right. I believe that G and c are both held constant in general relativity, which works regardless of energy and time, but not length. If we also hold h (or the plank length) constant and rederive the equations of GR with that in mind, maybe that would yield some better predictions that can be tested. It might be that this would explain how the approach explained here leads to some correct predictions but not others because G is not invariant in this modified SR and so at times when G matters, it fails. Is that a viable approach? Has it been done?
I can't deny conservation of energy for conventional purposes that give results butt, what I can't stand is given the origins of energy issue the universe might as well not be ever conserved in the first place. That's the part that's driving me crazy. If the fact that the universe energy indeed came from none thing then it should be possible to create it from none thing yet, people keep claiming that it doesn't.
This is a misconception. The Big Bang singularity was not nothing, it was _everything_ . All the energy of the universe now was contained in it; it just expanded and changed state. There is no creation _ex nihilo_ claimed anywhere in standard cosmology or physics. But even if there was, the conditions that existed before the Big Bang (if "before" can even be considered a thing, since time as we know it also began then), were not the conditions that exist now. All observations and experiments ever done have been in line with the laws of thermodynamics, and are consistent with the notion that energy cannot be created or destroyed _within our current state of existence_ .
at massive energies where gravity would in play, would it be losing speed due to gravity somehow? I would think that would change the energy of the photon not the velocity, and if it is changing velocity then it would in theory radiate gravitational waves, like jeez this can get complicated quick.
I love watching videos from PBS Spacetime, History of the Universe, as well as Closer to Truth. I don't understand much of the content, but I keep watching. 🤷♂️
I had to do some history diving, of what a dimension is, its a TERM of MEASURE along a AXIS. So we are matter, and we measure matter by 2 dimensions for area, and 3 dimensions for volume of what space that it takes up. That said there is much more type of detailed analysis but this is simply volume of space calculated to a repeating numerical system we often replicate in some sensible way. 4rth dimension to which I have argued about in conversations but not in a long time with anyone is time is simply a cyclic based measurement of a created scale in comparison, IE solar system the galaxy the universe to which we use solar time with our star, so our time is non dimensional movement int eh statement of matter, but in which is related to matter movement of relation to another object. We can often define this as a velocity, but a velocity cannot be achieved in a direction without an acceleration. Acceleration changes the velocity of how much distance is covered of space in a time frame, that time frame being a Electromagnetism relation (matter essentially anything measurable). Elements can have their state changed when acceleration of causes compression or tensil destruction separation. IE: human accelerating to fast will be be stripped apart atom by atom, and if a human has a suddenly stop or impact, would cease to exist as their matter is compressed losing cohesion. So time is a different measure in the classical set, and all elements already have a motion like the earth and the stars already have a motion relative their locality. in a particle acceleration I think its a leap that we state a time dilation happens. If elements can go up and down in their relation fo speed, and also we havea control variable problem with gravity of earth and its affect acceleration object, IE gyroscopic and atom spin forces become more relevant at higher speeds to a relation of another object as the center of its gravity or mass is in a peculiar state. Anyways, in a sense removing the concept of time in the holly wood sense lets ask waht is happening to the amtter particle accerlation to the how it is observed in space objectively.. not as time its a relation. We can slow Light down... and technically you can speed light up, simply by getting up and walking to the next room, We are in a containment field of energy to have coherence of structure, we are light, energy, al llight is relative, as like measure of velocity between objects IE their distances apart can be faster than light but never faster than light as relative yourself you are always going speed of light, and everythign else is a slow or fast relation to light of other origins. Light has no accelration its a constant, which makes everywhere... at once,, sort of like a cavity, but meh... If I were to draw a representation of Time, it its more over motion in relation to matter of accerlation, So we createa ZYX axis, put it in the side grid, then draw a spphere line inside and touching the top axis, jsut ot represent motion within a spacial field. Since time is a relation of the diemnesions of space we measure, thus can measure and reflect on movement to matter relative to its origin and that it changes when that origin of momentum changes. So like center of gravity constantly moves with dimensions of matter in space depedning on teh relations, as does the momentum of a charge relation (no word for it yet) in space changes. This is following the wisdom of as it is below so is it above. I am not int omaking words, but its how time is acting (measure of motion of matter in cyclic sense) where as 3dimensiosn is simply measure of matter in a volume, quaitifiable space sense. Slowly workign this out logically. I would draw a picture to repsent it as simply the axis' and the na curved line repsenting the motion in space, and kain it much like teh relation of the center of gravity of an object can change the relation of matter changes to its self relative in space to the speed its going. >.> I think thats it.. lol Does that make sense critic me if yo uwant.
What does “the energy needed to probe the plank length” actually mean? We need lasers this powerful to receive feedback enough to detect? Or via high energy collisions in particle accelerators?
Here's another contradiction... Velocity has been proven to time dilate with temperature, That was Garrett Lisi's first ever experimental observation when he was 12. The temperature based dilated velocity can be calculated with ... c/(Temp/5)^2:c BUT ... The LHC and other colliders have masses with temperatures over 300,000,000 degrees Celsius, and they ping around inside the collision chamber at the speed of light. This is why we talk about holes in the HIGGS Field actually being matter, because space itself can always move at the speed of light. The temperature source is just plasma goop, the MASS/PARTICLE HOLE points "down" too. **EINSTEIN**
Temperature divided by 5 what? Just 5? I don’t think the units seem to work out for what you said? Though I might also be misreading it, because I don’t know what the “:c” part is for.
@@drdca8263 +5º Celsius, which is Electron weight, e=mc^2 returns a result in photon density dividing by five normalizes it for electron weight, which finds stability (i.e. de-inoizes) after one second. c=The Speed of light is meters.
light is a wave, but we measure it's speed based on the linear average distance it travels. So based on a different perspective doesn't light have different speed based on wave length?
What I want to ask is if this MSD's photon decay could help explain the matter-antimatter imbalance. After all, if we need a high-energy event to witness the effects of the theory, what could be of a higher energy than the Big Bang?
Its unfortunate that even good creators like PBS do not acknowledge the majority creators of Relativity like Lorentz and Poincare while discussing the subject...
I always find it funny how we can determine properties of theoretical models of physics based on the fact that we haven't observed evidence of it.
Are you sure about that? _Galilean_ and _special_ Relativity have very simple postulates regarding the laws of physics remaining invariant in inertial frames of reference. What are you claiming that we haven't observed?
@@RiteMoEquations We know Gallilean and special relativity are wrong somehow, because it can't explain everything, but we have theories on what could be correct instead; we're able to put constraints on which of those theories actually are true based on the fact it's taken us this long, and we still haven't found anything that directly conflicts with relativity as is. Thus we are able to refine models of physics based on what we haven't observed.
@@robhillen8007 That could be true. Prior to modern physics, there had been a race to make the most generally applicable theory with a compact mathematical formula that can be used to derived all the laws of physics.
It will take another Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein to create a quantum spacetime, graviton, or a theory of everything because the math is an unorganized mess.
@@RiteMoEquations I remember watching on the History channel back in the 90's, of a guy that was able to move multiple ton hews rocks without using power machinery. He was also able to set up multiples of these rocks, and moved them miles so that the 8 ton rock that served as the door, would spin on its axis by being lightly touched with a pinky finger, like it did from where it was moved from.
They asked him how he was able to do it, and all he would say was, and im paraphrasing:
"The information is too dangerous, it would completely change the way the modern world works. All i'll say is there is a very basic and misunderstood aspect of physics that has gone overlooked for centuries."
He refused to elaborate further.
Yet
One question I have is how can a photon have enough time to decay since they don't experience time? Any other you-tube channel I'd say they got it wrong. This one is almost certainly NOT wrong, so what did I miss?
It is correct that in the reference frame of the photon, "photon’s proper time flow" is not experienced. By speaking of decay time, it is meant that this time is measured in the reference frame of an observer who observes this decay, so "observer’s proper time flow". I hope that answered your question. 🪐
@@der_cringe_physikerThe video says it decays when it interacts with something else, like another photon.
@@der_cringe_physiker Just when I thought I understood this video...
Doppler effect due to expanding universe causes shift towards red. The medium photon is travelling. Hydrogen gas debris in space.
Once photon hits or interacts with another particle. Its is converted to energy. Note the speed change that is converted to energy is unnoticeable and very minuscule.
Above reasons decay photons.
I'm glad you asked, because the answers of how still don't address the real question when captured by gravity wells imho. From a sufficiently large inner horizon, it seems a secondary horizon would exist for the photon's frame of reference vis a vis matter inside the black hole horizon and the singularity's. The answer is itself another black hole paradox lol
It would totally make sense that there could be dispersion in the speed of light for energies/frequencies where the wavelength is on the same scale as the polarizability of the vacuum. This presumably would be the length scale where you could get electron/positron pair production within the length/time-scales allowed by the uncertainty principle. So it should be possible to calculate what that wavelength/energy is and see if our data are even close to that.
How would photons decay if they do not experience time?
This was literally my question 😢. Hopefully someone has an answer
Reminds me of muon decay - how they are able to reach much further into our atmosphere than they 'should' because of time dilation
Photons are collections of sub particles, that is how That is how they slide like liquid (you can check), also why when uncollapses, electrons created an interference pattern because they are also subparticle clouds that are entangled and collapse into particle formm as soon as they experience interaction, also why they sometimmes detangle and disappear or tunnel, the subparticles allow transfer through spaces in materials
I like this thread, nice and complex 😊
its not really considered decay, its just a photon smashing into somthing and changing into an electron and positron.
We've known for a while now that light shows no difference in speed with wavelength, so this whole idea doesn't work.
But you've got the answer right in front of you... hbar is in units of angular momentum. What we need to "complete special relativity" is an equivalence principle for angular momentum, just as we have one for linear momentum (which brought einstein to GR).
Corotating frames exhibit a behaviour which makes all objects seem to move away from each other (due to, for example, the centrifugal force). This is fundamentally indistinguishable from anti-gravity.
There are interesting ways to complete GR, like einstein-cartan theory, which add to the connection a torsion tensor, which accounts for the angular momentum of fermions. In these frameworks the torsion has intrinsic negative energy, which brings about a repulsive effect.
An intrinsic negative energy that causes a repulsive effect... sounds like dark energy to me
@@samuelthecamel Webb is starting to say their evidence suggests dark matter is a false theory
Gonna call BS on corotating frames being indistinguishable from anti-gravity. Rotating frames have a center and a preferred axis, anti-gravity is isotropic
@@samuelthecameldark energy is just a placeholder term
@FunkyDexter, •, 3 hr ago (edited), "We've known for a while now that light shows no difference in speed with wavelength" for the wavelengths / frequencies we've been able to measure
This is the best SpaceTime episode in two years.
I'm just glad they don't show this guy on a motorcycle
Curious why DSR wouldn't explain the Hubble Tension between SN methods and the CMB. The CMB is really low energy radiation, whilst super nova emissions involve high energy light.
Two types of animals in the jungle like sloth and cheetah were not the only observable slowest or fastest beings at all?
If something is to the power of 4 it should be called “tesseracted”.
Hypercubed has a better ring to it
@@oberonpanopticon I agree, but "hypercube" is a generic term for n-dimensional cubes, not just for n = 4. "Octachoroned" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, either! 🤣
@@robkb4559 4-hypercubed just doesn't work.
@@robkb4559 it's like if when you took something to the third power you say it's "hexahedroned".
I've said the SAME thing!
Great to see videos more focused on testable theories.
To counter that, a hypothesis: maybe haven't seen gamma rays with so high energy is because they spontaneously decay into electron+antielection while traveling to us. That would "confirm" the 2 theoretical predictions while requiring no evidence.
the problem is, we're confused about the source of the few extreme energy gamma rays we've seen even without accounting for pair production. So we don't even know where to look for something producing an even higher energy gamma ray that can exhibit this effect.
Confirm the predictions without requiring evidence? What are you, a string theorist?
18:41 Slight hiccup on sale sale. 😅 Interesting this episode is so speculative, talking about a theory that may be a way forward but has no supporting evidence yet - I like it. 🎉
Linkedin suggested E=MC^2 + AI
Damnit I wanted to comment this!
@@lukefreeman828 lmao same
Ahhh general relativity meets artificial general intelligence
beat me to it
This comment caused me physical pain
i dont understand how someone can get a physics degree in just 4 years (with like 2 of those being general ed), when I've been watching this show for years and every episode is like a physics lecture
Most of these topics are would be post graduate courses. Even if you get to that level and did physics research as a full time job, you would only really be specialised in one of the topics. Understanding in detail everything on this channel is like saying you are fluent in every human language and the linguistics underpinning them.
Please react to Sabine's new video that the JWST data shows MOND wins over dark matter.
In one case.
The thing about “dark matter” is that it’s not a solution to the problem, it’s a description of the problem, as in “it’s as if there’s some sort of dark matter influencing matter in these ways…”. Another description is “in a few ways it’s like the force of gravity changes with distance - somehow-no-idea-why-or-how”.
The search is for something real that matches the problem description(s). If something is found, chances are it won’t explain everything.
Thanks Matt. Interseting concept :)
>
1:32 I have developed serious reservations about this description of invariance. You can test this by turning the false bouncy light clock horizontal and you end up with pulsating variable speed of light or variable speed of time.
2:41 Yeah, this problem :) I don't think this issue was really solved tbh
13:25 And this variable speed of light issue pops up even here lol
E² = m²c⁴ + p²c² is missing a chiral component because General Relativity insists on pretending that E is a scalar quantity and the missing component doesn't measurably change the magnitude of energy measured along a normal to the underlying space. The Lorentz symmetries are, after all, built on emergent symmetries, not fundamental ones.
IMHO, of course.
Would you prefer c^2 p^mu p_mu = m^2 c^4 , using the 4-momentum rather than splitting the energy and 3-momentum up and thereby treating energy as a scalar?
*me patiently waiting for "triply-special relativity" to come out in 2025*
New drop
11:12 my wife's abs have a lot of plank energy.
I love this channel so much
History of the Universe comes out with a video and then right after PBS Space Time?! Feels like Christmas ❤
Ice Spice also dropped a mix tape
See also Dr. Becky's! ^^
thanks for that info, on my way there now.
I just published my book too! What a time to be alive!
History of the Universe's videos are low quality compared to PBS SpaceTime, the creator does not have a degree in physics and therefore gets things wrong significantly more often.
Whenever I hear that equation, I just wanna play drum & bass.
We need jungle I'm afraid
Isnt the reason why the energy to "probe" a plank length is so high is because that would be the amount of dilation of spacetime necessary to *ensure* that you are observing single plank scales? Like, "feature, not bug."
Going through the Wiki on things related to Doubly Special Relativity, there's also De Sitter invariant special relativity?
I would be interested in a video on what it is and the differences between it and normal(?) Doubly Special Relativity.
My understanding of the MDR is that the higher the energy of the photon, the higher the odds of it being able to decay into a pair of particles. I’d love to play around with these in a simulation to see what sorts of energies/times we’re dealing with for different coefficients.
If anyone has any recommendations for starting points, I’d love to hear them. Otherwise, I think I’ll start with the MDR paper and try to work backwards.
The main thing I don’t follow at the moment is how a photon decays independent of an interaction with a certain probability over time if it doesn’t experience time.
@@conor.brennan AIUI it "experiences" all parts of its path simultaneously, but there can still be a change or an end to that path when it interacts with something else (eg how else would reflections work). What we experience as sufficient travel time, when time is compressed to zero becomes sufficient travel distance.
We can draw short lines or long lines on a page, and they all exist simultaneously with each other. In a sense, if you could experience that reference frame it would probably seem like everything was predestined. Some lines decay into others, while most don't.
0:34 Matt ending a sentence with "Space time", without it being the last line of the episode?? WHAT UNIVERSE IS THIS??? 🤯😵💫
So there might be a level of photonic light so energized that above gamma range a photon "could" decay into a ray capable of transmophing into a single electron, a higher energy than two gamma rays transforming into a electron positron pair.
The potential kinetic energy cannot be a negative number or zero in three spatial dimensions & time-space; however the kinetic energy can be a negative number even zero in space-time having movement in three spatial dimensions. This episode really blew my mind thank you Spacetime PBS. Because science is a light in the dark. 👍🏼
the equation there is kinda expanded, i like:
e^2=(MC^2)^2+(PC)^2 because this shows the relationship of rest mass and momentum as Pythagorean (C^2=A^2+b^2) putting E as being the hypotenuse of a right triangle with sides MC^2 and PC
but this also kinda precludes any sense of adding a third term.
Seems like the possibility of different wavelengths of light traveling at different velocities might impact our understanding of what it actually means that we see red-shifted light coming at us from every direction...
Combined with the fact the gravitational lensing means that light is taking a complete spaghetti path to get to us
It means we aren't evolved enough to completely fulfill the purpose of conscious existence. Camus wins again. Bless his heart.
I'm quivering in my Anton Petrov t-shirt right now! Sorry, the spacetime nerdmerch is in the laundry!
I have a question. As things red shift and blue shift if you accepted that something could relatively travel faster than the speed of light towards or away from you...what would that look like? Things going so fast that they can't be observed sounds like a solution for the dark matter problem.
I think people forget just how incredible Galleleo was
± 3dB
"NERDMERCH" is an excellent word, Writers! Bravo
E=mc^2
m=E/c^2
Subatomic electromagnetic energy
Intellect
Spirit
Are not physical- we are CONSCIOUSNESS
I Think therefore I AM
I wonder if this interacts with gravity waves. I believe I saw on another channel that the gravitational wave of some measure was 18ms before the observed photons. It's not a lot, but I think any differences in gravitational vs photon effects is significant. We need another lever in gigantic measurements, there's a lot of battles over sensitivities for inflation in telescopes vs the thermal background, deep space shifts and brightness, etc. Another anchor point would really be welcome.
As far as we know, gravitational waves have the same basic properties as light (massless, inverse-squared, velocity of c) so yes? But with the caveat that while photons are quantized, we haven't managed to quantize gravitational waves. So it's hard to know what prediction such a measurement would match with if any. It also depends on the type of event, as light gets stuck bouncing around inside matter while gravitational waves don't.
AFAIK photons slow when passing through a medium, gravitational waves don’t. Maybe even a few billion light years of tenuous gas are enough of a medium?
The Lorentz factor is better expressed as its inverse, and in more intuitive trigonometric terms. For 'v' expressed as speed in the direction of travel, relativistic effects will reduce length and the passing of time as: cos(sin^-1(v/c)) Also, 'c' isn't really the "speed of light", it's the conversion factor between the units of meters and seconds. One second is 299792458 meters long. All of special relativity's effects falls directly out of treating velocities as unit 4-vectors of spacetime, instead of 3-vectors for the spatial direction with magnitude for rate. And why not? 3-vectors are a poor description of motion - an object at relative rest has an undefined direction component. The mathematics of physics shouldn't break every time you catch and toss a ball.
I wonder if that could mean that Time does not equal zero for a photon; rather for all photons T must be a non-zero amount in the direction of travel even if that amount is smaller than a Planck Unit or even in between 1 and 2 plank units measured.
Feeling cute, might be from Galilei.
3:25 not to be confused with Maxell's electromagnetism, which posits that audio fidelity is inversely proportional to n, where n is the number of times the tape has been played.
I'm glad I scrolled to the bottom for this stellar pun.
Episode idea: Freeman Dyson's declaration that "everything in the past is a particle, everything in the future is a wave".
That's just another way of stating wave function collapse
That's only because quantum mechanics is a statistical theory, so as long as you're describing something in terms of a probability distribution, you're not really "describing" anything at all, but moreso predicting a future event that has yet to occur. When the event does occur in physical reality, then it is no longer a prediction anymore, so there is no need to express it in terms of probabilistic uncertainty anymore. Uncertainty is "smeared out" while certainty is discrete.
Wow, did he really say that?
Pretty much. It is where quantum (wave) turns into classical reality (point)
Laplace's demon be like: "everything in the past and future is a particle"
Taking us back to the beginning of the universe, how one pin points energy!
6:38 It doesn't have to shrink if the one or both of the other sides is lengthened by the energies of high velocity. It would also never reach Zero.
They won't find a difference between high and low energy light because time space warps to accommodate light speed.
0:33 so far this is playing out like PhysChem 1. At least we aren’t going to have to memorize a dozen gas constants during the episode.
I hit like on this video because of the very open minded opinions about how we need more experimentation on speed of light and wavelength dependance of speed of light. That is science , everything need questioning and re-questioning, every theory will eventually evolve into a new theory.
Black Hole Friday…Woooooooo! Can I order one with an Einstein-Rosen bridge and an extra deep ergosphere..oh and enough Hawking Radiation to light my back garden at night, cos that’s useful.
e=mc^2+AI. My new formula for the 21st century, and beyond.
I love this episode and how it taught me yet another layer of E=mc², but I really wish your team changed its title/thumbnail strategy just a bit. "When is E=mc² wrong?" would have been awesome, attention-grabbing title because it indicates that there ARE times when this Most Famous Equation is wrong, and it also says that this video will answer that when. While it falls into the same issue that the current setup does (the nerds who know E²=p²c² + m²c⁴), it also implies that the specifics will be explained, thereby drawing in all those nerds who just know that as A Fact but without any deeper understanding.
Obviously, if The Data says I'm wrong then, I'm a scientist and can't argue-my own biases are present in my fairly wide understanding of physics concepts and a lack of understanding how other people (especially "young nerds", e.g. those in the 13-18 range who are Just Getting Into It) look at titles and thumnails. But just on a personal level, I dislike these open ended titles that suggest a vague "theory" answer rather than the concrete "testable" answer that Matt so often provides (not the exact answer, but the steps we would have to take to answer it).
The breakdown of Lorentz Symmetry at the Plank scale is not possible to measure
I once saw the expanded Einstein equation used to demonstrate a right triangle for mass-energy equivalence, how it was impossible for matter to reach the speed of light accordingly.
The implications could be that I am more powerful than you could ever imagine and that I'm growing more powerful by the day.
angela collier made an excellent video about this a few months ago, definitely worth a watch!
The problem with corrections with planck units is that you're a specific type of object is the only thing that exists: with quantum corrections, it is thoughtlessly implied that "quantum things" are subject to those limits...
This stems from the fact that, while the planck length seems fittingly miniscule, far beyond anything measurable, the planck energy is... very normal-sized. It's around 2 GJ so like, a lightning bolt - worse, it could be a 100 ton plane going at 200 m/s... exceedingly normal
"but those examples arent fundamental at all! they are way too big!" - to which i ask: *WHERE* in the equation does it _require_ your physical model to be a certain size? To have a certain duration?
Of course different laws apply to different scales, but which laws should _you_ use to make sense of a model is a *_choice_* - the beauty of the the eistein equation is that it is applicable to _any_ scale, and the only quantities that matter are the ones you actually input into the equation: not size, frequency, length of the experiment or time of day; mass can be anything from eV to solar masses and beyond - and *then* we *TEST* to see if the equation is accurate.
That's what i mean by "thoughtlessly implied", because the math isnt what's dictating the boundaries, but human choice, _clearly_ something apart from the experiment.
This video really blew my mind. However, I'd like to point out the difference that while the invariance of c emerges organically from Maxwell's equations, the Planck length doesn't emerge organically from...well, anything and is rather some random thing we artificially put together. So while it might have mathematical significance in the same way that π does, it might not correspond to anything physical. Just saying.
SR isn't just some theory. It's the logical result of the universe being 4D, in the same way that a 2D plane must have triangles that sum to 180 degrees. The fact that QM doesn't contradict SR means that even at quantum scales, the universe is still 4D. That was Dirac's great insight. Thus, SR being violated at Planck scales means that at those scales, the universe isn't 4D for some reason. Which might be true but I'm greatly skeptical of that.
It then further raises the question: at what scale does the universe transition from being 4D to whatever dimensionality it has at the Planck scale? And then, if it's possible to have different dimensionality at those scales, why be limited to only 4 at quantum scales and higher?
Clearly existence goes from "0 D" all the way to "Infite D" through "plank-like" lengths, and we just so happen to be at the fourth tier : p
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p 😅
I'm finally seeing something that makes sense to me.
11:20 this seems like a reasonable possibility to me, because that’s exactly radioactive elements do. High energy atoms decay into multiple smaller products. And there’s enough similarity and analogous relationships in Nature that if atoms do it, then smaller particles could do it too.
Almost as if you'd say that an atom is a group of oscillations that are stable in that frequency, but destabilize at lower frequences, causing the oscillations to disperse into more stable forms.
I don't hear a lot of modern physics that gives the proper deference to Einstein's process of reasoning in addition to his findings.
This does, and that alone makes it promising. He had deep insights that preceded our ability to prove him right again and again by many, many decades.
It is a fool who does not take seriously the breadth of his wisdom. God does not play dice, and we shall learn His game if we follow this path.
Loving the shirt.
I've waited a long time for someone to make this video.
6:30 At the fundamental level the universe is flatland. In this flatland everyone can be anywhere and everywhere so distances across flatland are irrelevant.
The only direction is upward. Most of the beings in flatland are ignorant of 'up'. Those who discover the secret word 'up' can use it to shape reality and achieve godlike power.
I don’t think you’ve read flatland
Cool concept! Seems to be having trouble with validation by observation though. I kind of like the idea, but I'm dubious it's correct. There appear to be some useful aspects to observer (and direction) dependent Planck lengths when trying to resolve the paradoxes around singularities. Being able to compress 3D space into 2D planes in a directional manner is very handy there.
what if space itself has different densities and the faster you travel through it the more pressure there is (the greater the pressure = slower time)?
I don't have an answer to this, but I have contemplated a number of similar questions.
What do you mean by densities?
Matter/Energy move through space, and do not drag the space they move through with them. The length of space is never contracted; matter/energy in the space may appear contracted or expanded.... as you're passing something and it goes behind you, the light aberration stretches that back out, making it APPEAR longer; it's still whatever contraction the frame it's involved with is moving. Plank length applies to space, and since it doesn't contract (that much) it doesn't matter very much... if you had a intense enough gravitational wave though - maybe it might? for the time the wave is passing that spot anyway.
a lot to do about nothing.
The lorentz transformation only shows how things behave, their time/length contraction/dilation, but it doesn't give you anything about how a thing actually appears. A clock that is moving away from or towards you appears to run at a different speed, even though at it's specific velocity it has a particular contraction....
If everything is relative, then if I have 8 rockets all going 0.1c faster than the previous, and the first going 0.1c faster than the earth - what is the time dilation you expect to see from each rocket to the next, and how much from the earth to rocket 1 or rocket 8 ? (or all of the above) If each is going 0.1c faster than the previous then the time contraction is sqrt( 1-0.1/1 ) or 0.995. Or each clock runs 0.005 ticks per second slower than the next... so 8* 0.005 = 0.040 should be the time dilation for the last - but if you actually compute sqrt( 1-0.8/1) (sqrt(0.2)=0.44...) which means actually from earth to the last is 0.44 not 0.040 total time dilation.
They are going 0.1c faster than each other according to the frame of earth so 0.1 0.2 0.3 etc, not relative to each other... so maybe if you reverse work out the relativistic velocity addition into a subtraction you can find the correct value? I don't think so but you could give it a short ( left as an exercise for the reader).
I was gonna say, isn't this the big stumbling block that LQG faced, and then you got to the GRB and was like, ah yep.
I read an article the other day about a team who worked out the shape of a photon - please do a video on that ❤
I like the word "nerdom".
Repping the 11th doctor with that sonic.
I originally heard "Noether's theorem" as "Nerdist theorem", which, sure.
Is it possible for a pair production decay to be “partial” and be why photons experience red shift? This may be where “missing” energy goes when photons go down in energy due to the red shift.
"Lightspeed" is THE preferred frame...
That’s not a frame?
Perhaps something like this could deal with a planet in one frame of reference would collapse to black hole in a frame of reference that zipps by it fast enough that it becomes sufficiently massive and small. This is still an unsolved paradox, right?
turtles all the way down and the unstoppable quest for truth.
All the interesting stuff is going on near or below the Planck length.
Thank you!
Wow, I am a great nerd... but you know what they say, with great nerdness came great suffering...
It is basically light self interaction in a sense right, because of annihilation and the kinetic energy with which a pair is produced, if the kinetic energy is low, the dipole is weak because of small separation and it goes away quickly, if it is large then the dipole is larger and goes away more slowly, wouldn't that necessarily depend on frames?
I'm honestly pretty skeptical about this solution.
sounds a lot like this idea would be connected with Mond somehow as well.
I was thinking that the shirt looked really sharp in the video. The sale announcement felt almost like an invitation.
10^11 GeV is the equivalent of 16J or a small supercapacitor. holycrap
I got the first few seconds and then it was like magic lol
I never formally studied GR (made it through QM II in college), so please correct me if I'm speaking out of my butt. But it seems like this approach would not be likely to work as a modification of special relativity. It holds 2 out of 3 constants as constant. And it may work when some things are constant, but not everything. I would think you'd need to hold 3 constants as invariant. That could be thought of as the plank length, time, and energy or as c, G, and h. But 2 out of 3 doesn't seem like enough to be sure you're getting predictions right.
I believe that G and c are both held constant in general relativity, which works regardless of energy and time, but not length. If we also hold h (or the plank length) constant and rederive the equations of GR with that in mind, maybe that would yield some better predictions that can be tested.
It might be that this would explain how the approach explained here leads to some correct predictions but not others because G is not invariant in this modified SR and so at times when G matters, it fails.
Is that a viable approach? Has it been done?
I understood all the of individual words but I might have to watch it again. lol
I can't deny conservation of energy for conventional purposes that give results butt, what I can't stand is given the origins of energy issue the universe might as well not be ever conserved in the first place. That's the part that's driving me crazy. If the fact that the universe energy indeed came from none thing then it should be possible to create it from none thing yet, people keep claiming that it doesn't.
This is a misconception. The Big Bang singularity was not nothing, it was _everything_ . All the energy of the universe now was contained in it; it just expanded and changed state. There is no creation _ex nihilo_ claimed anywhere in standard cosmology or physics.
But even if there was, the conditions that existed before the Big Bang (if "before" can even be considered a thing, since time as we know it also began then), were not the conditions that exist now. All observations and experiments ever done have been in line with the laws of thermodynamics, and are consistent with the notion that energy cannot be created or destroyed _within our current state of existence_ .
at massive energies where gravity would in play, would it be losing speed due to gravity somehow? I would think that would change the energy of the photon not the velocity, and if it is changing velocity then it would in theory radiate gravitational waves, like jeez this can get complicated quick.
I love watching videos from PBS Spacetime, History of the Universe, as well as Closer to Truth. I don't understand much of the content, but I keep watching. 🤷♂️
He should have called it Double Secret Relativity.
I had to do some history diving, of what a dimension is, its a TERM of MEASURE along a AXIS. So we are matter, and we measure matter by 2 dimensions for area, and 3 dimensions for volume of what space that it takes up. That said there is much more type of detailed analysis but this is simply volume of space calculated to a repeating numerical system we often replicate in some sensible way.
4rth dimension to which I have argued about in conversations but not in a long time with anyone is time is simply a cyclic based measurement of a created scale in comparison, IE solar system the galaxy the universe to which we use solar time with our star, so our time is non dimensional movement int eh statement of matter, but in which is related to matter movement of relation to another object. We can often define this as a velocity, but a velocity cannot be achieved in a direction without an acceleration. Acceleration changes the velocity of how much distance is covered of space in a time frame, that time frame being a Electromagnetism relation (matter essentially anything measurable). Elements can have their state changed when acceleration of causes compression or tensil destruction separation. IE: human accelerating to fast will be be stripped apart atom by atom, and if a human has a suddenly stop or impact, would cease to exist as their matter is compressed losing cohesion. So time is a different measure in the classical set, and all elements already have a motion like the earth and the stars already have a motion relative their locality. in a particle acceleration I think its a leap that we state a time dilation happens. If elements can go up and down in their relation fo speed, and also we havea control variable problem with gravity of earth and its affect acceleration object, IE gyroscopic and atom spin forces become more relevant at higher speeds to a relation of another object as the center of its gravity or mass is in a peculiar state. Anyways, in a sense removing the concept of time in the holly wood sense lets ask waht is happening to the amtter particle accerlation to the how it is observed in space objectively.. not as time its a relation. We can slow Light down... and technically you can speed light up, simply by getting up and walking to the next room, We are in a containment field of energy to have coherence of structure, we are light, energy, al llight is relative, as like measure of velocity between objects IE their distances apart can be faster than light but never faster than light as relative yourself you are always going speed of light, and everythign else is a slow or fast relation to light of other origins. Light has no accelration its a constant, which makes everywhere... at once,, sort of like a cavity, but meh...
If I were to draw a representation of Time, it its more over motion in relation to matter of accerlation, So we createa ZYX axis, put it in the side grid, then draw a spphere line inside and touching the top axis, jsut ot represent motion within a spacial field. Since time is a relation of the diemnesions of space we measure, thus can measure and reflect on movement to matter relative to its origin and that it changes when that origin of momentum changes. So like center of gravity constantly moves with dimensions of matter in space depedning on teh relations, as does the momentum of a charge relation (no word for it yet) in space changes. This is following the wisdom of as it is below so is it above. I am not int omaking words, but its how time is acting (measure of motion of matter in cyclic sense) where as 3dimensiosn is simply measure of matter in a volume, quaitifiable space sense. Slowly workign this out logically. I would draw a picture to repsent it as simply the axis' and the na curved line repsenting the motion in space, and kain it much like teh relation of the center of gravity of an object can change the relation of matter changes to its self relative in space to the speed its going. >.> I think thats it.. lol Does that make sense critic me if yo uwant.
What does “the energy needed to probe the plank length” actually mean? We need lasers this powerful to receive feedback enough to detect? Or via high energy collisions in particle accelerators?
Vertical important episode
Interesting video, but it's way more than my brain can process.
DAMNIT PBS SpaceTime!! Why is there no subtitles in plain english?!
In the 13:05 Doubly Special Relativity animation the violet light should be faster than all the other colors, right?
Here's another contradiction...
Velocity has been proven to time dilate with temperature, That was Garrett Lisi's first ever experimental observation when he was 12.
The temperature based dilated velocity can be calculated with ... c/(Temp/5)^2:c
BUT ...
The LHC and other colliders have masses with temperatures over 300,000,000 degrees Celsius, and they ping around inside the collision chamber at the speed of light.
This is why we talk about holes in the HIGGS Field actually being matter, because space itself can always move at the speed of light.
The temperature source is just plasma goop, the MASS/PARTICLE HOLE points "down" too.
**EINSTEIN**
Temperature divided by 5 what?
Just 5?
I don’t think the units seem to work out for what you said?
Though I might also be misreading it, because I don’t know what the “:c” part is for.
@@drdca8263 +5º Celsius, which is Electron weight, e=mc^2 returns a result in photon density dividing by five normalizes it for electron weight, which finds stability (i.e. de-inoizes) after one second.
c=The Speed of light is meters.
14:56 lol'd
Bro your gesticulation game is *on*
Doubly Special Relativity? Wait until you get a load of Double Secret Special Relativity.
Matt: you left the audience confused af. better read the comments and launch a remedial video
light is a wave, but we measure it's speed based on the linear average distance it travels. So based on a different perspective doesn't light have different speed based on wave length?
I’ve always known it’s incorrect. And I’ve also known the correct expression for a long time now
I know you don't do 'reaction videos' but I'd be interested in your take on Sabine's recent video about MOND.
What I want to ask is if this MSD's photon decay could help explain the matter-antimatter imbalance. After all, if we need a high-energy event to witness the effects of the theory, what could be of a higher energy than the Big Bang?
Its unfortunate that even good creators like PBS do not acknowledge the majority creators of Relativity like Lorentz and Poincare while discussing the subject...