I have a question, it’s known that the general theory of relativity doesn’t work with black holes. But here’s my idea on the topic, i cannot pull off the mathematics so. If the gravity is infinite, when a light crosses the event horizon, we don’t see the light, not because it’s been eaten, but because time dialitation has made this one second into infinite seconds. So for the light, it has moved for a second, but for us it’s been a infinite amount of time, My second idea is a warp hole, if a black hole has infinite density and gravity, does that mean it would have punctured basically a hole through space time May you answer this then?
@@someguy3300 Whatever happens beyond event horizon is unknown. So, let’s just guess together. (1) About infinite density; Infinity makes sense for math, as a paradox for philosophy. But the point of doing physics is to describe reality in quantitative measures. If the answer to a physics problem is infinity or a paradox, it means the solution is wrong or incomplete. (2) About time dilation inside a black hole Statement 1: ‘Gravity so strong that escape velocity exceeds the speed of light’ Statement 2: ‘Time dilation so large that it took forever to pass one second’ These two statements are basically two different ways to describe the same thing. Because both gravity and time dilation are our relative experiences of one phenomenon, spacetime curvature. (3) Your 2nd Idea is somewhat similar to mine. I keep saying that “Black hole do not exist in the universe. They are part of the universe that don’t exist.” But, there are problems with this idea. First, we need to know the geometry of spacetime curvature and how elastic or stretchy it is for holes form. Second, if they simply are holes of the spacetime, how can they have charges and spins? Spacetime, as we know it, doesn’t behave like that. Third, and more serious problem is - if black holes are not parts of the universe, where do all the matter falling into them go? Isn’t it against law of conservation of energy? No theory must be against physical laws of the universe. But, here, we are talking about events beyond event horizon. It doesn’t make sense in the first place 😄 If I have a better idea with no contradictions, that follows the laws of physics, you’ll see me in Sweden, giving the Nobel Prize acceptance speech 😅 Nice talking to someone curious like you. #StayCurious
Another error I made whilst typing that, is on the warpholes one, I referred to a 2d plane of space, which in ways can work, space doesn’t need a third dimension, but i should have been thinking of the third dimensional one.
Also, another error I made, a warp hole is not a punctured hole in space, but rather a opening, like a hole though a piece of paper, but the distance from the two holes have a glass wall
It is amazing how this channel can explain the basics of pressure, density, phase changes, and supercritical fluids in 12 minutes so well. Imagine if schools explained these concepts in such a clear way.
School has no interest in you really learning anything. Either you get it, or pretend to get it: by parroting back the info on a test or by memorization with no understanding. To truly learn, understand, and be able to apply= wisdom. They don't want wisdom, they want obedient drones from their diploma mill that can't think for themselves. True knowledge is power, it leads to wisdom. When you have wisdom on a subject you can think for yourself and the lies and manipulation has no effect on you. So keep up your quest to truly learn about things. The Bible says my people suffer from a lack of knowledge. True Knowledge leads to understanding which leads to wisdom. They don't want everyone wiser than them, just Smart enough to do as you are told. If you are smarter than them, they precive you as a threat and try to crush you. That is why people that have wisdom hide themselves and don't Bragg or Bost and are humble. Always look for who it quiet in the room of chaos that is watching everyone else. They are either very wise and godly and helpful loving people, or they are very evil despotic, Napoleon Hitler complex. These two types tend to be at war over helping or destroying mankind. Hitler and Napoleon were perfect examples of being good at the beginning, then destroying their country. Look up videos on psychopathic, sociopath, Narcissistic, borderline personality disorder, to learn about who you are really talking to. They hide themselves very well. Hope this helps you.
Man I'm so glad you've made a video about this topic. I've tried researching supercritical fluids myself but I've never really felt satisfied enough with what I had learned, always feeling as though I didn't quite completely understand the process. There's still more I want to learn about this even after watching this video, but it has provided me with a very comprehensive intuition for what the process of creating a supercritical fluid really entails, as well as the properties to be expected from one. Great job.
I never thought of Venuses atmosphere as being a supercritical fluid. No wonder it's so hard to land anything on it's surface. It's basically like landing on a solvent.
Actually, the Russians have landed several probes on Venus. The atmosphere is so dense at the surface that it doesn't need a parashute or thrusters to land.
You've heard of solids, liquids and gases. Then you heard about plasma and supercritical fluids. Now get ready for Ice II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X,
I've never seen such simple and clear explanation and also never heard of supercritical fluids. I'm really glad I found this and I'll surely watch every video Thank you so much for spreading science like this!
THIS IS LITERALLY THE BEST CHANNEL TO EXPLAIN DEEP TOPICS OF THE UNIVERSE!!!! Sooo much thanks for helping me. Either english doesn't have the words or my vocabulary is poor but i literally can't express my feelings and just a thank you can never satisfy me that i have appreciated you enough. I am an aspiring physicist and you literally explained the concept i think i could never have understood in that much clarity if i had not watched your videos...the voice, the animation, the content, everything is just my type of stuff that i would love. If someone asked me to select the best type of making of a UA-cam video, i would select your type. Edit: in case you read this, please answer my one doubt. In some videos you say an apple falls towards the earth because its future points downwards and it is in motion through time. In some others you say that it's speed in time is converted into speed in space. In some other videos you say the grid in spacetime is contracting which takes an apple which is stationary to the grid along with it towards the Earth. Please provide some clarity in this topic. I could have never thought an apple falling on the Earth can give me headaches for days...
Hi! I try to read every comment and message I receive but it's difficult sometimes I miss some. Thank you very much for your kind message, I am very glad that you like my style of videos! I can try to clarify this yes : The important thing to not is that, when we study the motion of the apple, there are 2 different notions of "time" : - the "proper time" of the apple, which is the time measured and carried by the apple - and the time of the observer, carried by the person observing the apple These two times are different directions through spacetime : the observer's time is a "horizontal" direction that stays at a constant altitude on Earth, whereas the apple's proper time is a curved direction which follows the falling motion of the apple. Now, here are the three explanations I usually give, which are equivalent : - The future of the apple is bent towards the center of the Earth, because its "time" is curved, following the curvature of spacetime - The apple's temporal velocity, when measured on the observer's time axis, is gradually converted into a spatial velocity. It is still true that the future of the apple is curved downwards. Here the important thing to note is that when I talk about "temporal" and "spatial" velocities, I am talking about the axes of the observer. - The grid of spacetime gets contracted over time, pulling the apple with it : This explanation is almost the same as the first one. The "contraction of the grid" is one possible way to represent the curvature of spacetime. So basically I am saying that the apple's trajectory (and hence its future and time axis) is curved by the curvature of spacetime. I hope this cleared some of your doubts :)
@@ScienceClicEN really thanks for clearing my doubts, my one last question is, when talking about the second explanation in which the apple's motion is bent between time which takes it to future and space which takes it near earth, is the time x axis and space y axis, and the area of the graph represents the spacetime? All of this in the frame of the observer...in which we only perceive the motion in space as human beings... And, i dont really think the first and third explanations are nearly similar, as in the first we have a stationary spacetime which is just bent, but in the third the spacetime is literally contracting. Maybe the grid lines that contract just represent inertial frames as you said in your video. So spacetime is not contracting, the frames are. I dont know if this is true, but what do you think?
They're also used in dry cleaning, which I was surprised they didn't mention since it's the closest most people get to supercritical fluids in their daily lives.
If you ask me before today whether I knew anything or wanted to know anything about Supercritical fluids I would say "no" Oh, how wrong I would have been. Another great video 👍
I always learn something new when I watch a ScienceClic video, even if I've heard about the topic before. What's more, I also learn reasons why these things are the case in a very understandable manner through fantastic descriptions and illustrations. Thank you!
One other question: if we move in the direction of increasing temperature and pressure from the critical point, there is no phase transition between liquid and gas anymore, and we call the state of matter supercritical fluid. Is there a sharp boundary where supercritical fluid becomes liquid and where it becomes gas? You make it seem like the horizontal line of constant pressure is the boundary between supercritical and gas, and the vertical line of constant temperature is the boundary between supercritical and liquid, is this correct?
Yeah, it really is a horizontal line and a vertical line. Here's why: It might help to google the phase diagram of water or something for a visual aid. If you have a liquid above the critical pressure but below the critical temperature, all that's required to reach a supercritical fluid is increasing the temperature, which moves horizontally to the right on the diagram. Once you've reached the critical temperature, since you're already above the critical pressure, the liquid will become a supercritical fluid. Similarly, if you have a gas above the critical temperature but below the critical pressure, and you compress it, it moves vertically up on the diagram. Once you've reached the critical pressure, the gas will become a supercritical fluid.
You can draw those lines, but they aren't special like actual phase transition boundaries. Phase transition boundaries often take energy to cross and have some discontinuous property (e.g. density) at the phase boundary. There is no such meaningful phase boundary between liquid and supercritical fluid and between supercritical fluid and gas.
We classify fluids as liquid or gas, but in truth, there is not much difference between the two. We define anything to the left of that imaginary verticle line going up from the critical point as a liquid and anything below the horizontal as a gas, but the derivative of all of the properties like density remains well defined and smooth as you pass over the transition. It's like having a black and white border, and the supercritical region is various shades of grey such that it's a smooth gradient.
I would state it differently: There are no meaningful horizontal or vertical lines above the critical point, and the colour gradient should be smooth - only that this is impossible to draw if you to keep a clear distinction up to the critical point. So the problem is with the colouring and semantics that work different than the actual fluid: At the triple point itself there should be no contrast at all whereas a "micrometer" below there should be a clear distinction between gas and fluid. The gradient of colours does just not work topologically as a means of representation. But above the critical point there is no meaningful vertical line - it is really subjective when you want to call it gas or fluid in any given point - because you decide where you go next in your process. In a clock-wise loop around the critical point you can observe condensation after condensation without any evaporation - words and colours are just not good enough to label the state on this particular journey. Fluid and gas are relative concepts - or else you take arbitrary lines as the horizontal and the vertical to call it "supercritical" just to have a definite word that has no clear bounderies in reality.
@@neopalm2050 correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I found a nice way of putting what you said: The boundary line between fluid and gas has a variable energy cost, and that cost approaches 0 as you move towards the critical point. I like to think that line has a variable thickness (and no thickness beyond critical), but I'm pretty sure thats wrong (but helps my intuition)
I was just sniffing around for a new video and reviewing the last; amazing this posted during the quest! Thank you all so much for expounding on these concepts in a way that me and so many others can fully understand these subjects in a way like never before. Such careful thought into the visuals!
Outstanding channel. Just discovered it and finished up the black hole videos. You do a great job of explaining and visualizing things and anticipating questions for the scientifically curious. Great job, thanks and please keep it going!
Yall do such a good job with these videos. They really explain it on a level I can understand and it keeps my attention. I watch other videos in this vein and they are either too goofy or boring. Keep up the good work!
Super nice explanation. Two things I would really like to see covered: 1) It is common knowledge that the thermal capacity of water changes with pressure and temperature. This is especially interesting when you approaches the critical point in increasingly smaller steps, where you experience a singularity with the heat capacity of water rocketing into infinity. The uncommon knowledge is the practical result of this weird behavior. In my dreams I see water near its critical point used as an extremely high capacity heat buffer for energy storage, but I am aware that this might have unforeseen consequences. It would be interesting to know if anyone have been experimenting with this. 2) This video only covers three of the four common states of matter. Plasma is not mentioned. It would be interesting to hear if it has been possible to detect phase transitions as described in this video, but between the liquid, the gas and the plasmic state of matter. This might be interesting regarding fusion technology. Therefore I am sure someone has looked into it, but the conditions might be to extreme for anyone to have done practical experiments with it. Maybe some theoretical work though?
Water can't exist as a plasma. H2O is a neutral molecule. A plasma is a completely different state of matter composed of ions. You can think of it as a gas composed of electrons and ionized nuclei. At very high temperatures, the weakest-bound electrons in water have enough energy to overcome the force that binds them to the molecule. You get H2O+ and electrons. At higher energies, thermal energy overcomes the energy keeping oxygen and hydrogen bound to one another. You get oxygen and hydrogen ions, and depending on the conditions, some free electrons. If you have a planet with very high temperatures or pressures, H2O could exist in equilibrium with ionized water, or even hydrogen/oxygen ions.
Basically what the guy above me said. And plasma dosent count as one of the *four common states of matter*. There are only three *common* states of matter.
Man please don't stop making videos, they are just wonderful ❤️❤️. And can you make a video on Warner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Btw love you from India ❤️❤️😘
0:11: 🧪 Different states of matter can be explained by the microscopic configuration and temperature and pressure conditions. 4:25: 🌊 The phase diagram shows the different states of matter and their transitions, including the triple point and critical point. 8:17: 🔬 Observing the transformation of a supercritical fluid from liquid to gas and the phenomenon of critical opalescence. Recap by Tammy AI
Best explanation I've ever seen. 👍 Though seeing footage of CO² transitioning through a clear window would be a big plus. Also, the Venusian atmosphere is basically Dry Cleaning fluid.
Thank you for this video! I really enjoy your relativity videos as well. Though it is really nice to see a well-explained video on concepts from condensed/soft matter physics. As there isn’t a lot on those with good animation unfortunately. So I hope you could make some more! As it would really show more people how interesting those fields can be.
This is very well explained and animated, good job, and I was just wondering about the phase diagram and supercritical fluid; by the way, I have a question: whats the difference between vapor and gas?
For laypeople, there's no meaningful difference, but the technical distinction is actually the temperature. Vapor is below the critical temperature, and gas is above the critical temperature. This distinction means that if you raise the pressure of vapor, it will condense into a liquid, but if you raise the pressure of a gas, it will become supercritical.
@@Mutantcy1992 If I'm not mistaken the term "gas" is more general and doesn't require the temperature to be above critical, in the sense that it refers to the state of matter in which molecules are almost free. A vapor is also a gas, because it is in the gas state. But I'm not a specialist in this field so I might be wrong.
@@ScienceClicEN it's really just contextual. I'm a chemical engineer and the way we tend to use gas and vapor is as follows. A vapor is just a gas that is a liquid at room temp and 1 atm. A gas is any other gas. So, nitrogen is a gas, steam is water vapor. It's not a particularly important distinction at the end of the day because context tells you everything you need to know.
Marveling about so much beauty in Content Depth Graphics Presentation Honesty VERY WELL DONE AND KEEP IT UP - EXISTENCES LIKE YOU/YOUR TEAM ARE SUPERCRITICAL FLUIDS YOURSELF - EMINATING LIGHT ABOUT THE TRUTH OF SPACE AND TIME.
Great video. Very interesting (admittedly I've heard some of the information in this video before but it's nice to have it reinforced and see some new material; moreover I realize this material may be entirely new to some other people). I especially appreciate the reference to astronomy (in fact I was surprised you are also knowledgeable of astronomy) since I am interested in astronomy.
5:50 It is important to note that when you're on the boundary between liquid and gas, the water will be boiling, and the gas will be condensing, and the rates of boiling and condensation will be equal. And just after that, when showing the compression, the water will not change volume. It's an incompressible fluid!
@@cornoc Well, fair point. I guess I just felt that the animation was misleading since it looked like the vapor phase and liquid phase were decreasing in volume at equal rates
Thank you for the instructive videos that explain complicated things in a short and understandable way! In the context of water and its aggregate states, I would be interested in an explanation of the sub-forms of ice. Maybe this can be a suggestion for future content. :)
Very nice video. It would have been cool to find real life video of the state transitions, and especially the opalescence, but the graphics still did a great job.
Science Clic is a boon to humanity and I can’t wait for more people to find out about this channel! It’s 3brown1Blue for physics best visualization game on UA-cam.
This video is so nice! I can learnt a lot from it. The explanations are easy to understand!!! But I actually have a question. Why there is not a critical point for solid and liquid? A thing has properties of solid and liquid? Supercritical solid?😮
ScinceClic, big up for an amazing description of what a supercritical fluid is. If you have the time, please do the BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATE, if it's possible.
Came to see an explanation of something I knew I didn't completely understand, stayed to learn a few more things I didn't even know I didn't know about! ^_^ Ain't science great?!
No chance you see this comment but I'll try anyway: Are you French ? Are you bilingual from birth ? I'm starting a channel and I had initially planned to use text to speech, because as a French speaker, I struggle like hell to prononce English correctly, or even merely in an understandable manner. Your flawless accent (From my point of view that is, but I guess it is so for native English speaker as well; close enough at least) makes me want to throw my TTS model I fine tuned to copy my voice and spend a few months working on my English. (If anyone reads this, is a native English speaker, and wants trading courses, I'd gladly exchange them against the time spent talking to you in English, and some constructive criticism, both on my grammar and my prononciation; I like to believe my written English is indistinguishable from that of a native, but it probably isn't. Even though I'm probably not that far off, take my word on it, my oral English is barely understandable). By the way, your channel is way too awesome too only have 350k subscribers, I wish you the millions your content so obviously deserves. *EDIT* : I'm just really curious, can an English speaker tell me if he has an accent ? (obviously he does, that's pretty much how talking works, I mean from a non-English country)
Great video, love it! One thing: at 9:20 you say that the density fluctuations scatter light in the same way that the atmosphere scatters sunlight. But isn't this wrong? I always thought that the sunlight scatters off of individual molecules in the atmosphere, while here the scattering is caused by the density fluctuations. Or do you mean that in the high density areas, more light is scattered off of molecules than in the low density areas?
@@Mutantcy1992 As far as I know, light scatters off of actual molecules in the atmosphere. But H2O, O2, and N2 are all similar in size, so there is no significant difference between these three as far as scattering light is concerned. Only the wavelength of the light matters, which is why we see the sky as blue: smaller wavelength photons scatter more easily
The scattering power is maximum when the size of the particules that scatter have a size similar to the wavelength of the light. N2 and O2 molecules are very small (0.1 nm) compared to the wavelength of visible light (500 nm). Therefore the atmosphere scatters very weakly the sun light, and only the small wavelengths (blue, purple). However, when the size of the particules is increased for example the water droplets in the clouds, or in our case the "droplets" of supercritical fluid (size ~100 nm) the scattering effect is much more efficient, so the light is fully scattered at all wavelength and it appears white.
Hey, i have a doubt from your physics videos. If an object converts its temporal speed into spatial speed in the observer's frame, does it mean it also falls in only the observer's frame whenever it is near a huge object like earth? Btw I'm your huge fan and you are a real legend!
I'm so grateful that this channel exists, it's just one of the best things
I know. Great Free content
I agree!!
Absolutely right!!
I've just found it,great channel and very informative 👍
More videos please
As a physics teacher, I can learn a lot from this channel.
Especially how to explain different topics in a simple and effective way.
Thank you.
I have a question, it’s known that the general theory of relativity doesn’t work with black holes. But here’s my idea on the topic, i cannot pull off the mathematics so. If the gravity is infinite, when a light crosses the event horizon, we don’t see the light, not because it’s been eaten, but because time dialitation has made this one second into infinite seconds. So for the light, it has moved for a second, but for us it’s been a infinite amount of time, My second idea is a warp hole, if a black hole has infinite density and gravity, does that mean it would have punctured basically a hole through space time
May you answer this then?
@@someguy3300 Whatever happens beyond event horizon is unknown.
So, let’s just guess together.
(1) About infinite density;
Infinity makes sense for math, as a paradox for philosophy.
But the point of doing physics is to describe reality in quantitative measures.
If the answer to a physics problem is infinity or a paradox, it means the solution is wrong or incomplete.
(2) About time dilation inside a black hole
Statement 1: ‘Gravity so strong that escape velocity exceeds the speed of light’
Statement 2: ‘Time dilation so large that it took forever to pass one second’
These two statements are basically two different ways to describe the same thing.
Because both gravity and time dilation are our relative experiences of one phenomenon, spacetime curvature.
(3) Your 2nd Idea is somewhat similar to mine.
I keep saying that “Black hole do not exist in the universe. They are part of the universe that don’t exist.”
But, there are problems with this idea.
First, we need to know the geometry of spacetime curvature and how elastic or stretchy it is for holes form.
Second, if they simply are holes of the spacetime, how can they have charges and spins?
Spacetime, as we know it, doesn’t behave like that.
Third, and more serious problem is - if black holes are not parts of the universe, where do all the matter falling into them go? Isn’t it against law of conservation of energy?
No theory must be against physical laws of the universe.
But, here, we are talking about events beyond event horizon. It doesn’t make sense in the first place 😄
If I have a better idea with no contradictions, that follows the laws of physics,
you’ll see me in Sweden, giving the Nobel Prize acceptance speech 😅
Nice talking to someone curious like you.
#StayCurious
Thanks, I have other topics I may talk about in a few days, I’m 12 so I cannot really do the mathematics.
Another error I made whilst typing that, is on the warpholes one, I referred to a 2d plane of space, which in ways can work, space doesn’t need a third dimension, but i should have been thinking of the third dimensional one.
Also, another error I made, a warp hole is not a punctured hole in space, but rather a opening, like a hole though a piece of paper, but the distance from the two holes have a glass wall
It is amazing how this channel can explain the basics of pressure, density, phase changes, and supercritical fluids in 12 minutes so well. Imagine if schools explained these concepts in such a clear way.
School has no interest in you really learning anything. Either you get it, or pretend to get it: by parroting back the info on a test or by memorization with no understanding.
To truly learn, understand, and be able to apply= wisdom. They don't want wisdom, they want obedient drones from their diploma mill that can't think for themselves.
True knowledge is power, it leads to wisdom. When you have wisdom on a subject you can think for yourself and the lies and manipulation has no effect on you.
So keep up your quest to truly learn about things. The Bible says my people suffer from a lack of knowledge. True Knowledge leads to understanding which leads to wisdom.
They don't want everyone wiser than them, just Smart enough to do as you are told.
If you are smarter than them, they precive you as a threat and try to crush you.
That is why people that have wisdom hide themselves and don't Bragg or Bost and are humble. Always look for who it quiet in the room of chaos that is watching everyone else.
They are either very wise and godly and helpful loving people, or they are very evil despotic, Napoleon Hitler complex. These two types tend to be at war over helping or destroying mankind.
Hitler and Napoleon were perfect examples of being good at the beginning, then destroying their country.
Look up videos on psychopathic, sociopath, Narcissistic, borderline personality disorder, to learn about who you are really talking to. They hide themselves very well.
Hope this helps you.
seriously some of the best youtube videos
Totally! ^.^
Couldn't agree more. Their explanation on relativity is one of the best out there! That's what made me love this channel so so much!
Man I'm so glad you've made a video about this topic. I've tried researching supercritical fluids myself but I've never really felt satisfied enough with what I had learned, always feeling as though I didn't quite completely understand the process. There's still more I want to learn about this even after watching this video, but it has provided me with a very comprehensive intuition for what the process of creating a supercritical fluid really entails, as well as the properties to be expected from one. Great job.
Very glad the video helped you!
I never thought of Venuses atmosphere as being a supercritical fluid. No wonder it's so hard to land anything on it's surface. It's basically like landing on a solvent.
Actually, the Russians have landed several probes on Venus. The atmosphere is so dense at the surface that it doesn't need a parashute or thrusters to land.
You've heard of solids, liquids and gases. Then you heard about plasma and supercritical fluids. Now get ready for Ice II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X,
Nooo😭😭😭 not Ice V!!!
@@fullfungo That's ice eight. You mean ice IV.
fr
Ice I to Ice XVIII
There are more than 17 “forms” of ice.
Don’t worry too much it’s still H2O
This is by far the best explanation of superfluids which I've ever seen. Great work
Thank you! Beware however these are supercritical fluids. Superfluids are yet another (fascinating) topic
I've never seen such simple and clear explanation and also never heard of supercritical fluids. I'm really glad I found this and I'll surely watch every video Thank you so much for spreading science like this!
I have seen this explanation so many times from expensive professors, but none were so clear as this free video
Another nice video. This channel is the reason I understand physics that well, and the quality is astonishing!
THIS IS LITERALLY THE BEST CHANNEL TO EXPLAIN DEEP TOPICS OF THE UNIVERSE!!!! Sooo much thanks for helping me. Either english doesn't have the words or my vocabulary is poor but i literally can't express my feelings and just a thank you can never satisfy me that i have appreciated you enough. I am an aspiring physicist and you literally explained the concept i think i could never have understood in that much clarity if i had not watched your videos...the voice, the animation, the content, everything is just my type of stuff that i would love. If someone asked me to select the best type of making of a UA-cam video, i would select your type.
Edit: in case you read this, please answer my one doubt. In some videos you say an apple falls towards the earth because its future points downwards and it is in motion through time. In some others you say that it's speed in time is converted into speed in space. In some other videos you say the grid in spacetime is contracting which takes an apple which is stationary to the grid along with it towards the Earth. Please provide some clarity in this topic. I could have never thought an apple falling on the Earth can give me headaches for days...
Hi! I try to read every comment and message I receive but it's difficult sometimes I miss some. Thank you very much for your kind message, I am very glad that you like my style of videos! I can try to clarify this yes :
The important thing to not is that, when we study the motion of the apple, there are 2 different notions of "time" :
- the "proper time" of the apple, which is the time measured and carried by the apple
- and the time of the observer, carried by the person observing the apple
These two times are different directions through spacetime : the observer's time is a "horizontal" direction that stays at a constant altitude on Earth, whereas the apple's proper time is a curved direction which follows the falling motion of the apple.
Now, here are the three explanations I usually give, which are equivalent :
- The future of the apple is bent towards the center of the Earth, because its "time" is curved, following the curvature of spacetime
- The apple's temporal velocity, when measured on the observer's time axis, is gradually converted into a spatial velocity. It is still true that the future of the apple is curved downwards. Here the important thing to note is that when I talk about "temporal" and "spatial" velocities, I am talking about the axes of the observer.
- The grid of spacetime gets contracted over time, pulling the apple with it : This explanation is almost the same as the first one. The "contraction of the grid" is one possible way to represent the curvature of spacetime. So basically I am saying that the apple's trajectory (and hence its future and time axis) is curved by the curvature of spacetime.
I hope this cleared some of your doubts :)
@@ScienceClicEN really thanks for clearing my doubts, my one last question is, when talking about the second explanation in which the apple's motion is bent between time which takes it to future and space which takes it near earth, is the time x axis and space y axis, and the area of the graph represents the spacetime? All of this in the frame of the observer...in which we only perceive the motion in space as human beings...
And, i dont really think the first and third explanations are nearly similar, as in the first we have a stationary spacetime which is just bent, but in the third the spacetime is literally contracting. Maybe the grid lines that contract just represent inertial frames as you said in your video. So spacetime is not contracting, the frames are. I dont know if this is true, but what do you think?
How can it be that this channel only is so little known? Great videos keep it up!!
Awesome video. While I knew about supercritical fluids, this is the first time I hear about their useful applications.
They're also used in dry cleaning, which I was surprised they didn't mention since it's the closest most people get to supercritical fluids in their daily lives.
This is one of the best channels of its kind on UA-cam
Its always a joy when science clic uploads
If you ask me before today whether I knew anything or wanted to know anything about Supercritical fluids I would say "no" Oh, how wrong I would have been. Another great video 👍
I like how ScienceClic covers topics not only related to Relativity and QFT, while covering them in the same level of quality,
Isn’t this Thermodynamics?
@@thomashan4963 It is statistical mechanics.
Physical chemistry
I had not understood this in my classes. I came here, and yea, it's a part of thermal properties (which is basically thermodynamics) here
I wish they covered more chemistry topics
this channel is so good i watched all of its videos on one sitting
Where have you been..i missed you alot..I love this channel..the best channel even.the bacground beat is lit
I always learn something new when I watch a ScienceClic video, even if I've heard about the topic before. What's more, I also learn reasons why these things are the case in a very understandable manner through fantastic descriptions and illustrations. Thank you!
One other question: if we move in the direction of increasing temperature and pressure from the critical point, there is no phase transition between liquid and gas anymore, and we call the state of matter supercritical fluid. Is there a sharp boundary where supercritical fluid becomes liquid and where it becomes gas? You make it seem like the horizontal line of constant pressure is the boundary between supercritical and gas, and the vertical line of constant temperature is the boundary between supercritical and liquid, is this correct?
Yeah, it really is a horizontal line and a vertical line. Here's why:
It might help to google the phase diagram of water or something for a visual aid. If you have a liquid above the critical pressure but below the critical temperature, all that's required to reach a supercritical fluid is increasing the temperature, which moves horizontally to the right on the diagram. Once you've reached the critical temperature, since you're already above the critical pressure, the liquid will become a supercritical fluid.
Similarly, if you have a gas above the critical temperature but below the critical pressure, and you compress it, it moves vertically up on the diagram. Once you've reached the critical pressure, the gas will become a supercritical fluid.
You can draw those lines, but they aren't special like actual phase transition boundaries. Phase transition boundaries often take energy to cross and have some discontinuous property (e.g. density) at the phase boundary. There is no such meaningful phase boundary between liquid and supercritical fluid and between supercritical fluid and gas.
We classify fluids as liquid or gas, but in truth, there is not much difference between the two. We define anything to the left of that imaginary verticle line going up from the critical point as a liquid and anything below the horizontal as a gas, but the derivative of all of the properties like density remains well defined and smooth as you pass over the transition.
It's like having a black and white border, and the supercritical region is various shades of grey such that it's a smooth gradient.
I would state it differently: There are no meaningful horizontal or vertical lines above the critical point, and the colour gradient should be smooth - only that this is impossible to draw if you to keep a clear distinction up to the critical point.
So the problem is with the colouring and semantics that work different than the actual fluid: At the triple point itself there should be no contrast at all whereas a "micrometer" below there should be a clear distinction between gas and fluid. The gradient of colours does just not work topologically as a means of representation. But above the critical point there is no meaningful vertical line - it is really subjective when you want to call it gas or fluid in any given point - because you decide where you go next in your process.
In a clock-wise loop around the critical point you can observe condensation after condensation without any evaporation - words and colours are just not good enough to label the state on this particular journey.
Fluid and gas are relative concepts - or else you take arbitrary lines as the horizontal and the vertical to call it "supercritical" just to have a definite word that has no clear bounderies in reality.
@@neopalm2050 correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I found a nice way of putting what you said: The boundary line between fluid and gas has a variable energy cost, and that cost approaches 0 as you move towards the critical point. I like to think that line has a variable thickness (and no thickness beyond critical), but I'm pretty sure thats wrong (but helps my intuition)
I was just sniffing around for a new video and reviewing the last; amazing this posted during the quest! Thank you all so much for expounding on these concepts in a way that me and so many others can fully understand these subjects in a way like never before. Such careful thought into the visuals!
This was an amazing video, extremely simple to understand thanks to your mix of visuals and coherent explanations! Thank you very much :)
Outstanding channel. Just discovered it and finished up the black hole videos. You do a great job of explaining and visualizing things and anticipating questions for the scientifically curious. Great job, thanks and please keep it going!
Yall do such a good job with these videos. They really explain it on a level I can understand and it keeps my attention. I watch other videos in this vein and they are either too goofy or boring. Keep up the good work!
Yet another French gem. Thank you guys.
I really like your channel. You go deeper than kurzgesagt in many ways (which tend to stay more on the general level), which makes me learn more.
man, you always leave me wanting more, i love your style
man those videos are insane we need more humans like you on this planet
Super nice explanation.
Two things I would really like to see covered:
1) It is common knowledge that the thermal capacity of water changes with pressure and temperature. This is especially interesting when you approaches the critical point in increasingly smaller steps, where you experience a singularity with the heat capacity of water rocketing into infinity. The uncommon knowledge is the practical result of this weird behavior. In my dreams I see water near its critical point used as an extremely high capacity heat buffer for energy storage, but I am aware that this might have unforeseen consequences. It would be interesting to know if anyone have been experimenting with this.
2) This video only covers three of the four common states of matter. Plasma is not mentioned. It would be interesting to hear if it has been possible to detect phase transitions as described in this video, but between the liquid, the gas and the plasmic state of matter. This might be interesting regarding fusion technology. Therefore I am sure someone has looked into it, but the conditions might be to extreme for anyone to have done practical experiments with it. Maybe some theoretical work though?
Isn’t Plasma more about free floating electrons than temp and pressure?
Water can't exist as a plasma. H2O is a neutral molecule. A plasma is a completely different state of matter composed of ions. You can think of it as a gas composed of electrons and ionized nuclei.
At very high temperatures, the weakest-bound electrons in water have enough energy to overcome the force that binds them to the molecule. You get H2O+ and electrons. At higher energies, thermal energy overcomes the energy keeping oxygen and hydrogen bound to one another. You get oxygen and hydrogen ions, and depending on the conditions, some free electrons.
If you have a planet with very high temperatures or pressures, H2O could exist in equilibrium with ionized water, or even hydrogen/oxygen ions.
Basically what the guy above me said.
And plasma dosent count as one of the *four common states of matter*. There are only three *common* states of matter.
This is the best video lecture on this topic, Thanks a ton!
Very interesting, never knew this before! Also thank you for drawing the Sun (09:28) its true color (not yellow like it's always depicted)
Mind blown with every video. Keep going! I'm piecing everything together.
Man please don't stop making videos, they are just wonderful ❤️❤️.
And can you make a video on Warner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Btw love you from India ❤️❤️😘
0:11: 🧪 Different states of matter can be explained by the microscopic configuration and temperature and pressure conditions.
4:25: 🌊 The phase diagram shows the different states of matter and their transitions, including the triple point and critical point.
8:17: 🔬 Observing the transformation of a supercritical fluid from liquid to gas and the phenomenon of critical opalescence.
Recap by Tammy AI
Thanks a lot for this video! I've seen this diagram before but I've never understood it until now.
Welcome to the best science voice ever ❤️
Thank you for the amazing content !
Best explanation I've ever seen. 👍
Though seeing footage of CO² transitioning through a clear window would be a big plus.
Also, the Venusian atmosphere is basically Dry Cleaning fluid.
Wow your videos are mind blowing bro 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
Me :- That is why every science lover like and love your videos 🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
Very very well explained. Incredible!
best physics chanel
Thank you for this video! I really enjoy your relativity videos as well. Though it is really nice to see a well-explained video on concepts from condensed/soft matter physics. As there isn’t a lot on those with good animation unfortunately. So I hope you could make some more! As it would really show more people how interesting those fields can be.
This is very well explained and animated, good job, and I was just wondering about the phase diagram and supercritical fluid; by the way, I have a question: whats the difference between vapor and gas?
For laypeople, there's no meaningful difference, but the technical distinction is actually the temperature. Vapor is below the critical temperature, and gas is above the critical temperature.
This distinction means that if you raise the pressure of vapor, it will condense into a liquid, but if you raise the pressure of a gas, it will become supercritical.
@@Mutantcy1992 If I'm not mistaken the term "gas" is more general and doesn't require the temperature to be above critical, in the sense that it refers to the state of matter in which molecules are almost free. A vapor is also a gas, because it is in the gas state. But I'm not a specialist in this field so I might be wrong.
@@ScienceClicEN it's really just contextual. I'm a chemical engineer and the way we tend to use gas and vapor is as follows. A vapor is just a gas that is a liquid at room temp and 1 atm. A gas is any other gas. So, nitrogen is a gas, steam is water vapor.
It's not a particularly important distinction at the end of the day because context tells you everything you need to know.
it would be amazing if you guys did a video on the uncertainty principle
Marveling about so much beauty in
Content
Depth
Graphics
Presentation
Honesty
VERY WELL DONE AND KEEP IT UP - EXISTENCES LIKE YOU/YOUR TEAM ARE SUPERCRITICAL FLUIDS YOURSELF - EMINATING LIGHT ABOUT THE TRUTH OF SPACE AND TIME.
Amazing content as usual, thank you so much. I love this channel
Hands down the best Nerd channel in the Observable UA-cam
Thank you so much for the superb content!
thank you for your video, I finally understood the topic :) very good job, clearly explained with nice animations :)
Kudos for mentioning critical opalescence. So many of my students are not aware of this because it is not mentioned in the thermodynamics texts.
THIS BLEW MY MIND...
AWESOME, LOVE your movies, excellent work!!!
Thank you🙏
Absolutely amazing video and timing, as I was just getting interested about this topic last week.
Excellent explaination 👍
Great explanation! I've heard the term but had no idea what it was.
Great video. Very interesting (admittedly I've heard some of the information in this video before but it's nice to have it reinforced and see some new material; moreover I realize this material may be entirely new to some other people). I especially appreciate the reference to astronomy (in fact I was surprised you are also knowledgeable of astronomy) since I am interested in astronomy.
Awesome video as always!
Superb info!!
This video is 3 Years old but still very good
Beautifully explained
Excellent as always
5:50 It is important to note that when you're on the boundary between liquid and gas, the water will be boiling, and the gas will be condensing, and the rates of boiling and condensation will be equal.
And just after that, when showing the compression, the water will not change volume. It's an incompressible fluid!
it's not 100% incompressible though. its density is higher under pressure.
@@cornoc Well, fair point. I guess I just felt that the animation was misleading since it looked like the vapor phase and liquid phase were decreasing in volume at equal rates
@@Mutantcy1992 Got what you meant, great observation.
@@Mutantcy1992 fair enough
Thank you for the instructive videos that explain complicated things in a short and understandable way!
In the context of water and its aggregate states, I would be interested in an explanation of the sub-forms of ice.
Maybe this can be a suggestion for future content. :)
This was brilliant and so well explained thank you
Very nice video. It would have been cool to find real life video of the state transitions, and especially the opalescence, but the graphics still did a great job.
best channel
Science Clic is a boon to humanity and I can’t wait for more people to find out about this channel! It’s 3brown1Blue for physics best visualization game on UA-cam.
Yes!
I'm supercritical about 3brown1Blue. If Science Clic did a video on e.g. the heat equation it'd be 10 times clearer than 3brown1Blue's video was.
Wow that's amazing!
This video is so nice! I can learnt a lot from it. The explanations are easy to understand!!! But I actually have a question. Why there is not a critical point for solid and liquid? A thing has properties of solid and liquid? Supercritical solid?😮
The top 3 channels on youtube: ScienceClic, Mathologer, and 3Blue1Brown
I really love your videos. You explain everything perfectly! Keep it up I cant wait to see what you’ve got for us in the future.
woah, well explained,
well animation.
A beautiful and helpful video.
Thanks for the video. It was very interesting
ScinceClic, big up for an amazing description of what a supercritical fluid is. If you have the time, please do the BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATE, if it's possible.
Thank you 🙏
Came to see an explanation of something I knew I didn't completely understand, stayed to learn a few more things I didn't even know I didn't know about! ^_^ Ain't science great?!
Excellent video!
Never heard before, amazing 🤖🤖 incredible 💣💥 thanx
What a fantastic video, thanks!
I love when that bg audio change happens. every time.
Science is simply a description of magic.
Or...
Magic is simply, science that hasn't been understood yet.
@@selvasurya049 very well said
Great explanation.
ScienceClic Thank you for covering more specific topics like this! Do you mind doing one on Einstein solids and where that model fails prediction?
Are there such critical points for plasmas or other states of aggregation?
Es increible como puedes condensar, valga la redundancia, 10 cursos de fisica clasica en menos de 15 minutos.
Nice vidoe, thank you for making great content
It would be fantastic if you continue on the topic of Super Fluid but focus more on the Quantum Mechanical aspect of it.
Awesome videos guys! Do you think you could cover M-Theory or Photonic Molecules sometime?
No chance you see this comment but I'll try anyway: Are you French ? Are you bilingual from birth ? I'm starting a channel and I had initially planned to use text to speech, because as a French speaker, I struggle like hell to prononce English correctly, or even merely in an understandable manner. Your flawless accent (From my point of view that is, but I guess it is so for native English speaker as well; close enough at least) makes me want to throw my TTS model I fine tuned to copy my voice and spend a few months working on my English.
(If anyone reads this, is a native English speaker, and wants trading courses, I'd gladly exchange them against the time spent talking to you in English, and some constructive criticism, both on my grammar and my prononciation; I like to believe my written English is indistinguishable from that of a native, but it probably isn't. Even though I'm probably not that far off, take my word on it, my oral English is barely understandable).
By the way, your channel is way too awesome too only have 350k subscribers, I wish you the millions your content so obviously deserves.
*EDIT* : I'm just really curious, can an English speaker tell me if he has an accent ? (obviously he does, that's pretty much how talking works, I mean from a non-English country)
Great video, love it! One thing: at 9:20 you say that the density fluctuations scatter light in the same way that the atmosphere scatters sunlight. But isn't this wrong? I always thought that the sunlight scatters off of individual molecules in the atmosphere, while here the scattering is caused by the density fluctuations. Or do you mean that in the high density areas, more light is scattered off of molecules than in the low density areas?
I was under the impression that it scattered off of tiny particles of liquid water in the atmosphere
@@Mutantcy1992 As far as I know, light scatters off of actual molecules in the atmosphere. But H2O, O2, and N2 are all similar in size, so there is no significant difference between these three as far as scattering light is concerned. Only the wavelength of the light matters, which is why we see the sky as blue: smaller wavelength photons scatter more easily
The scattering power is maximum when the size of the particules that scatter have a size similar to the wavelength of the light. N2 and O2 molecules are very small (0.1 nm) compared to the wavelength of visible light (500 nm). Therefore the atmosphere scatters very weakly the sun light, and only the small wavelengths (blue, purple).
However, when the size of the particules is increased for example the water droplets in the clouds, or in our case the "droplets" of supercritical fluid (size ~100 nm) the scattering effect is much more efficient, so the light is fully scattered at all wavelength and it appears white.
Now I understand why Venus is super deadly!
Thank you for your great work again!
Very nice explanation keep it up❤❤
And what happens in the boundaries between solid and gas? any astonish behavior under the neath? Excellent video btw.
What happens at the boundary between solid and gas is called "sublimation"
Level outstanding explanation sir outstanding
Hey, i have a doubt from your physics videos. If an object converts its temporal speed into spatial speed in the observer's frame, does it mean it also falls in only the observer's frame whenever it is near a huge object like earth? Btw I'm your huge fan and you are a real legend!
Excelente ... 👍🏽 procedo a compartir. Gracias.
I love your videos, keep it up