Why velocities don't add up? (Relativistic velocity addition intuition)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2024
- Head to squarespace.com/floatheadphysics to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code FLOATHEADPHYSICS
Let's explore why relative velocities don't just add up as we learnt in Newtonian mechanics. We will use the ideas of time dilation, length contraction, and relativity of simultaneity to intuitively derive the relativistic velocity addition formula.
This video is sponsored by squarespace
Head to squarespace.com/floatheadphysics to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code FLOATHEADPHYSICS
The final equation at 16:20 is not the same as the one at the beginning. Denominator ought to be 1+uv/c², yes?
i have said this before and i will say it again. i am so glad that you are giving so much attention to relativity of simultaneity. It's like everyone just goes wild over time dilation and length contraction but everyone ignores relativity of simultaneity
Yes!!! It’s fuelled by my own frustrations of understanding relativity :)
y = mx + b
everyone talking about m, nobody want to b.
I totally agree. I saw a lot of videos about relativity and all of them just ignored relativity of simultaneity. And because of that their explanations was hard to wrap my mind around.
With that missing piece the whole concept looks so elegant now, thanks to this channel
@@Mahesh_Shenoyto understand relativity. you have to abandon belief . just use observable fact. time and space are connected. where space increases density of mass. time increases its density. to match.mass in motion dosent change its shape . it changes the relative density of spacetime around it.
I say this about QM. Most people are very capable of understanding the concepts in QM. What prevents them from learning is they don't like or accept those concepts as true.
You answered a question I've not understood for decades until now... in just a few minutes. Thank you.
Your enthusiasm is infectious and makes your videos an absolute joy. Keep it up!
Just when you thought this man was done expanding your understanding, he drops Wisdom at the end. You're cooler than the other side of the pillow, Cheers.
Thanks. Only for folks who stay till the end :D
i don't usually comment on socials but this time after a few months i'm watching your content i personally wanted to thank you for the quality of your videos and the energy you put into them
Wow, thanks a lot :)
Great content, but dissing of Newton was not necessary
Good way to start 11th grade, with this topic
Even though its not in there ig
Yeah right
Ig? What is this meaning?
@@nicolasoltonig = i guess
How come you are starting 11th now? Boards exams aren't even complete
@@chicka-waiiamv9202 yeah, I meant after the boards exam r complete, this video will be a good way to set up the intuition, and feel towards the kinematics of 11th
That ending though... it was just perfect. You don't just say something profound just for the sake of saying something profound, you explain for 17 minutes why it's profound without that even being the main goal of the video, and then you point that out as a side topic at the end. I feel like I completely understand what you mean by that at a core level. The quality of your videos is simply incredible. And I've never found videos that explain concepts like special relativity so intuitively, you're amazing and deserve far more subscribers.
Been watching you for a few weeks now, and I have to say, your level of enthusiasm is contagious and so refreshing. The intuitive explanations of what are often deeply difficult subjects only serve to enhance the experience. Much respect 😊
Thanks a lot :)
Dividing relativistic effects to the second velocity *v* into 3 distinct components makes it really intuitive, while also leaving *u* unchanged. As in, *u* is observed directly while *v* has to be corrected. Very good explanation :)
Yup, that's a great summary!
Hello sir , I am Deen from Bangladesh and I wanna say that you are the best fluent teacher I have ever seen
Great to hear that, Deen :)
This level of enthusiasm, this style and oratory is usually never found in such a scientific and mathematical content ! Amazing 👏
The reason why I am watching is because you make me think about things I wouldn't normally think about and that fascinates me... and of course the T-shirts :)
Always a pleasure to like and comment on your videos.
You know ..such comments make my day :) Feel great about the community :)
@Mahesh_Shenoy I was taught simplified methods (much less than c) growing up and find your explanations challenging yet oddly complimentary to my understanding.
Mahesh is a good example of why India will soon be a superpower.
What a clear explanation to this topic! I've seen dozens of videos trying to explain this, yet this video is simple and brilliant at the same time! (at least from my reference frame)
The fact I am searching for these videos and you always post them only a few days ago is blowing my mind. Like if I wanted an answer a bit earlier i wouldn’t have found anything
Hi, this video is amazing! You cover the things I've noticed a lot of other explanations miss!
You are my favorite physics channel, and I've been looking for this exact content. Thanks a million!
I did not knew that you are from Karnataka i am also from Karnataka specifically from uttara kannada.. i feel so great that your channel in one of the best in the world..
Dhanyawaadgalu :)
This explanation is quite exciting and intuitive. This suggests that when velocities add up, nothing happens to 'u'; the whole change happens to 'v' ( velocity w.r.t moving frame). The length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity; all conspires here to ensure that added up velocities won't exceed 'c'.
Haven't seen videos of this guy before, but I love his passion for the topic, plus I learned something I'd never expected, great video!
Incredible and succinct summary. Brilliant
Awesome video again Mahesh. Keep killing it my dude.
The most intuitive explanation i have ever heard ❤
I've always wondered how much length contraction and time dilation contributed but this really helped clear things up, thanks!
Your drawing and animation skill have improved a lot!
Thank you :)
Your ad reads are as good as your content. I didn’t see it coming. And I absolutely love the jokes you throw in. Yes, and the physics is mind blowing too. Awesome work!
Thanks for noticing. I try. Ryan Renolds is the ultimate inspiration though.
i knew it was something to do with time dilation and length contraction (coz they are always the reason) but i didn't know the exact derivation of that fresky looking formula. thank you soo much for explaining it in such a fun way!
I like your videos so much. Watched only from recommendations, but now I subscribed. Thank you for a lot of great intuitive explanations and energetic, interesting delivery of information!
Mahesh, many thanks for taking a subject that is so filled with accepted formula, and breaking that down into visualisations that make it “almost” understandable to us mortals. Your delivery and enthusiasm are engaging, your personality comes across as personable and friendly, and I am humbled by the effort you are taking to bring difficult science to the masses. Again, thank you.
If I could go back and not drop out of college I’m sure it would have been my calling to go into sciences like this, I go so deep learning and watching all these kinds of physics videos but it’s really because of your amazing, easy to follow teaching style and explanation. Would do life again if I could have had teachers that were as amazing as the videos you put out. Thank you.
I'm so glad that I had an insomnia and found your channel by accident in the middle of the night.
I love your level of enthusiastic and ability to explain topics in such a simple and energetic manner.
It's really amazing how you explaining/simplify these complicated concept, I really enjoyed watching this video
thanks a lot and keep going
Congrats on your growth, but most importantly on your contagious enthusiasm. It's a joy to watch your videos. Regards
I really apreciate this channel. Greetings from Brazil!!!
Thanks a lot! I'm getting closer to understand it in an intuitive way! 👍🏽👍🏽
Thanks for making physics more accessible!
To me you have the best science channel on the platform
This content is truly awesome!!!
Thank you so much for this in depth explanation. I'll be honest and admit I never thought of this possibility because I've always just blindly accepted the speed of light as a constant until just recently.
When I learned of the one way speed of c issue a few months ago, I started questioning a lot of things after that.
Mahesh,
Your ability to bestow upon folks an intuitive understanding of what Einstein observed is truly amazing. Naturally, we are drawn to the impossible next. What is reality if we can alter our course through time and contract like characters in a movie, with the projector being moved closer and farther from the wall?
If space and time are relative, then what exactly are the things we see around us? Time, Distance, and their resultant Speed do not conform to our intuition. I wonder if the reason lies in our intuitive concept of self.
We raise our seemingly rock-solid fists in defiance at the preposterousness of Einstein’s outrageous ideas. Yet, we don’t stop to think that our fists are not rock-solid at all. They are composed of tiny particles so far apart that they cannot touch. But they are not merely particles; they are waves with no width, but with volume that can expand or contract.
Mahesh, I trust you can correct any inaccuracies in what I have said, and I eagerly await your taking it to the next step. Please continue to challenge our understanding!
How could you explain it so easily? Loved it. You just earn a subscriber.
I love you sir, i am from Bangladesh ❤ I finished watching all your videos in 2 days. I really liked your style of explanation.❤❤
Awesome to hear that :) :)
The level of efforts ur putting in your videos are highly appreciable, thanks for making such intuitive videos for us. It really helps students like me to understand higher concepts of physics without going to coaching classes. Dhanyawad 🙏
Can't believe you made Einstein and Newton's spirits talk to each other for months just for a video. Make sure to release them now.
THANK YOUUUUUUUUUUU SOOOOOOOOO MUCH !!!!!!
it really increased my knowledge, 10/10
Another great video. Relativity of simultaneity to the rescue again!
You’re my discovery of the week!
Can you make a video about how gravity slows time?
How can we observe black holes merging if it takes an infinite amount of time for an object to fall in from a distant perspective?
yeah, that's kinda weird. It's more like 2 dynamic event horizons reaching out and grabbing each other. And once it's one event horizon: game over. ring down.
Gravity slowing down time is coming up soon.
@@DrDeuteron yup that's the picture. and we don't need to see the black holes to see their gravity waves.
Observation frame is everything. The photons of light emitted near the event horizon take a long time to arrive "to our observation frame". They also become red shifted below our ability to detect them. The event still happened, and took place at the time we can calculate and expect. But in our observation frame, we will never see it. All we see is a slow fade to red and freeze in place that fades away as fewer and ever redder photons arrive to our eyes/detectors.
I wasnt aware that all 3 factors can really be calculated separately. It felt to me thats is like several aspects for the same dilation/contraction Lorenz Factor.
Thank you further explaining this! 😎🇩🇪🙏
I thoroughly enjoy and benefit from your videos but I think saying Newton's addition was wrong is wrong! What he said was perfectly correct for classical velocity additions. In real life and everyday engineering we rarely reach even a tiny fraction of the speed of light. Ultimately Einstein's equations become Newton's equations at low speed and low gravity.
Thanks for your great videos 👍🏻
i think it is accurate to say newton's addition is wrong. the only reason we use it is because it is APPROXIMATELY correct at low speeds, so it being wrong is not significant enough at low speeds
This channel is so good. I strongly believe that people who regurgitate equations and present that as an explanation do not understand the material they're pretending to explain.
that is not true. people understand stuff in different ways. Some people understand through equations. equations are not some gobbledygook nonsense. They are just a way of representing some physical truth. It is when they regurgitate those equations to people who DONT understand through equations , that there is a communication and understanding gap.
when they regurgitate those equations to other people who understand equations, then there is no such issue. in that case, equations are able to succinctly communicate something that would have been much harder to communicate otherwise.
no, my video would be 5 seconds: velocities, v, don't add. Rapidities, w = arctanh(v/c), do. _Le Fin_ .
Doesn't mean I don't understand it.
@@silverrahulIf you can't translate equations into intuitive spoken language, or give demonstrative metaphors you do not understand the material. You understand high school algebra. Period.
@@joels7605 " _If you can't translate equations into intuitive spoken language, or give demonstrative metaphors you do not understand the material_ "
you are missing the point of an equation, if you are looking for a simple translation into spoken language. a picture is worth a thousand words. and an equation is worth a thousand pictures.
the whole point of an equation is to encapsulate all those words into a concise, short mathematical equation.
Like i said earlier, people understand stuff in different ways. One kind of people are not very comfortable with mathematical equations, so they understand it better in words and statements. whereas some people are more comfortable with equations and have a good understanding of the equation and the material behind it. But, they are not necessarily good at explaining it to the first kind of people in words and sentences or metaphors. that does not mean that they dont understand the material, just that they are not meant to be great teachers or communicators.
that is where teachers and communicators like mahesh come in. THey are good at explaining stuff. But thinking that those who are not good at explaining, do not understand it themselves is a huge fallacy.
" _You understand high school algebra_ "
that is what it looks like to you, because you look at those equations and only see gobbledygook algebra. others look at those equations and are able to intutively understand what is behind those equations.
Amazing video... truly
This video is amazing!
I really like how he is just as passionate about an average person understanding physics as he is with his passion of physics itself.
There's a special place in heaven for people who firmly believe that people are smarter than they believe themselves, and just need to be reminded from time to time.
Amazing video!
The Lorentz transformations do this so well it's absolutely beautiful.
One problem I gave my modern physics students is, a ball in the train is dropped, while another is thrown horizontally at the same height and same time. In the train frame, they hit the ground simultaneously, but not so in the frame watching the train go by.
Turns out, the horizontal component of its speed in the frame watching the train is precisely the relativistic velocity addition of the train's speed and the ball's thrown speed. Because it's moving faster, time dilation makes it fall slower than the ball that was dropped.
This is tricky, because you included gravity, which opens Pandora's GR box and gives you gravitation. In the train frame, there is a uniform gravitational field, E, from the mass (a flat planet, or infinite sheet of mass, idk), but the mass is moving relativistically and generates a graviomagnetic field, B, according to:
curl(B) = 4piG/c^2 J + (dE/dt)/c^2
so that the two balls feel different analog Lorentz forces:
F = m(E + 4v x B)
while I'm sure you're method works, there are some thought experiments where you need to consider this--I think the relativistic submarine doing an emergency blow is one of them, but I don't remember
@@DrDeuteron yeah I of course did this with the assumption of special relativity and Newtonian gravity only (bc these are undergrads and GR would be a nightmare at this level haha).
Really good video.
I feel like the only topics left in need for an intuitive explanation like this are length contraction and time dilation. Textbook derivations of the formulas are numerous but very few feel satisfying to me.
I remember reading in one textbook that length contraction is essentially the result of an outside observer measuring the moving object at different times from the pov of the moving observer and thus looks shorter (ie. they measured the front of the vehicle before the end). However when I try to derive length contraction from the relativity of simultaneity, I get that it contracts when moving towards you but it *lengthens* when moving away (which I understand isn't correct).
A satisfying and intuitive explanation of all these phenomena should be derivable purely from the relativity of sumultaneity in my opinion.
Excellent! Thank you 😊
Simply brilliant 👌
BTW, the parting thoughts are very ver deep 🙏
This video helped me to understand gravity better!!!
I used to work as an engineer on large particle accelerator drive systems.
We had to factor in relativistic effects into both beam velocity as well as the beam trajectory in bending magnets.
Relativity is dream for both physicists and philosophers; it stretches the mind’s concept of reality. Super fun.
Great Video!
❤️❤️❤️ Great job! ❤️❤️❤️
An even better way of adding velocities correctly is regarding them truely as rapidities (angular speed).
For small velocities (tiny angles) its very close to just adding the values, but c is at an asymptotic 90 degree that cant be reached
SCIENCE ASYLUM made a nice episode for this.
Worth to look at what is different between speed, velocity and rapidity
Excelent and nice teacher
thanks for sharing.
Thank you for Mahesh sir, Enistine, Maxwell for the videos, btw congratulations🎉 for 110k subscribers
Welcome, and thanks :)
😊
Hi Mahesh I want to thank you first for the content you create because it is so helpful and I am sure a lot of people are grateful to you. I had been studying electric fields and I came across uniform electric fields. I don't understand how two plates and a single battery can create a uniform electirc field can you make a video on that, I would be very thankful.
How did we get uv as the time delta from relativity of simultaneity?
You are the best I know in You Tube.
This is nearly the exact question I asked in one of your last videos. So thank you for, I assume, making a video just to answer me
Yes, thanks for the question :)
that sponsor transition was smooth
Great video 👍
You're vids are amazingly crazy multiplied by crazily amazing, because it's crazy how amazing they are. I'd like more vids into the very basics of movement and velocity, like, why objects have "inertia" or what does even mean that an object "moves" without any absolute reference frame. I mean, if theres infinite reference frames, then the object "moves" at infinite different velocities according to who is watching, which is a crazy thought. I would like to understand that better. If a moving object launches a photon, it's crazy to me to think that it causes time and length disturbances about the whole universe because every point in space is a reference frame. Or is it?
Awesome man!
Sir I have a question. rocket A started from a point 20crores km away from a goal with a velocity of 2 lakh km/second another rocket B started from middle point at the same time with velocity of 1 lakh km/second in linear direction.What will be the relative speed of A&B as per special theory of relativity? Will they reach at the goal simultaneously or not?
@1:28 beyond dimensional analysis, light can draw from all dimensions because of its wave properties. That is why c2. Does that mean a c3 particle will appear? Can a c3 transformation be repressed? Why can they seemingly disappear?
thanks! I understand!
can you explain about warp drives?
Make a video on potential difference
The CERN Large Hadron Collider is able to accelerate particles in opposite directions to within about three m/s of the speed of light in a vacuum. If two sets of particles are approaching each other in opposite directions, each traveling at about 299,792,455 m/s, what is their relative velocity at the instant of impact?
Can you also do a video on mass variation. There is a much confusion about it. Lately physicist are avoiding that thing. What about transverse and longitudinal mass variation?
Great Work! ^.^
Can you content about quantum physics??
Love your channel❤
Sir please add caption it will help me a lot to understand better as my mother tongue is not English, please sir polite and humble request
Length contractions as measured by what perspective?
I would call you the physics 3blue1brown guy, thanks for your quality content!
Can you make a video on general theory of relativity
Why wasn't the velocity of the train at 0.87c also divided by the 3 factors that contribute to velocity addition? It's also moving in our frame of reference.
I love your work, it would be great to have them translated into Spanish so we can make it reach more people.
I love the word *INTUITIVELY*
First!
Ok fine maybe I was a bit late but amazing content Mahesh!
Haha 🤣! Thanks, Pranav :)
can we have some kind of collab between you guys , please ?
@@silverrahulit will happen sooner than later! We discussed it recently.
It may or may not involve degeneracy pressure 🤐
@@Mahesh_Shenoy wow. heard that phrase for the first time. cant wait.
But if you have two photons 3 lightseconds from each other and they are moving excactly toward each other on the same line, after one second, they will be separated by 1 light second, no?
PLEASE Make Video on " The Kardshev Scale - Human Civilization Types ".😊
15:00 isn't the ball traveling a bit faster than ->u? Since the person is stationary and the ball is thrown? My point is, isn't the ball traveling with a different speed than the person, so the relativistic simultaneity formula should be kinda different?
Does this relativity of simultaneity run up against any “the future already exists” problems? If the clock at the back reads anything more than 1 when the ball reaches 1 from the outside rest frame, but they appear simultaneous from the moving frame, won’t the person at the back react at 1 and the remainder afterward that the ball had already reached 1 even though in our frame it hasn’t?
Do they know the future? Or is the sum total of their perspective somehow in our past, and therefore doesn’t break causality?
I think you had another video about something like this at more astronomical scales, but I didn’t finish watching it because I felt like I’d figured out the paradox early on: the jogger sees further into Andromeda’s “future” compared to the person on the bench because of her motion, but it’s not really “the future” because any signal either one sees from Andromeda is so deep in that galaxy’s past owing to the vast distances involved. Does the same principle apply here?
Or have I not really reached the paradox yet, because the jogger could communicate back to the person on the bench much more quickly than the number of days he’s have to wait to see the same thing? And that presumably breaks the speed of light, because how can he possibly know so soon?
I still feel like it’s not a problem, because it seems analogous to someone intercepting a sound wave and then communicating back to someone else via radio (light speed) that a sound wave was coming, like thunder. But then this case is kind of the inverse because the same light is reaching them at vastly different times, and they communicate back with a much slower medium (sound) about something the other person can’t see yet at the speed of light for days?
I guess I should watch the video…
" _But then this case is kind of the inverse because the same light is reaching them at vastly different times,_ "
no, the same light reaches them simultaneously because they are at the same place
@@silverrahul Yep, went back and watched it, and the only discrepancy is how long ago they calculate the light must have left.
The general point I was driving at was there’s no breaking causality because the totality of observed events happened in the past in both scenarios.
This is great
How do you get from the proper distance x to a velocity v in the train?? 🤔 v should not stand for a distance