Mindscape 211 | Solo: Secrets of Einstein's Equation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2022
- New book! The Biggest Ideas in the Universe: Space, Time, and Motion. www.preposterousuniverse.com/...
Patreon: / seanmcarroll
Blog post with audio player, show notes, and transcript: www.preposterousuniverse.com/...
My little pandemic-lockdown contribution to the world was a series of videos called The Biggest Ideas in the Universe. The idea was to explain physics in a pedagogical way, concentrating on established ideas rather than speculations, with the twist that I tried to include and explain any equations that seemed useful, even though no prior mathematical knowledge was presumed. I’m in the process of writing a series of three books inspired by those videos, and the first one is coming out now: The Biggest Ideas In The Universe: Space, Time, and Motion. For this solo episode I go through one of the highlights from the book: explaining the mathematical and physical basis of Einstein’s equation of general relativity, relating mass and energy to the curvature of spacetime. Hope it works!
Mindscape Podcast playlist: • Mindscape Podcast
Sean Carroll channel: / seancarroll
#podcast #ideas #science #philosophy #culture - Наука та технологія
I just pre-ordered your book. We'll be living on the road as nomads for at least the next year. This will be great reading while we're in the middle of nowhere with almost zero light pollution.
Take me with u
Those videos really were helpful as an escape during what ended up being a rough part of the pandemic for me...glad to see you're publishing it.
Same here , thank you sean.
Might I also recommend Michael Godier if u haven’t already subscribed. Good space content
Now this is perfect timing! Right as I am commuting home from work
Sean, as someone with some basic Lin algebra and calc experience, I thought I would never really understand what Einstein discovered. Tensors just seemed too complex for me to gain an intuitive feel, but you've given me the signposts I desperately wanted. Thank you so much. I'm a very happy armchair physicist and engineer.
A book series is a great idea. I loved the UA-cam series.
This is the first time I've heard these equations explained so clearly. You're a great communicator! I'm still not quite grasping all of it but every time I hear or see or read more, a little more of it falls into place. Thank you, and I look forward to the book.
Dr. Carroll, thank you for this amazing video. You are doing excellent work in expanding the minds of common folks like myself. I am still trying to absorb these mind-blowing ideas and will have to listen to this again at least another 3-4 times to better comprehend the notions here and their implications. But I have already gained a deeper understanding of, and appreciation of, the nature of space-time by listening to this just once! You boil the complex down into simple explanations to make the incomprehensible accessible to people like me who do not have backgrounds/degrees in math or science. Can't thank you enough, you should have millions of subs on your channel. ;)
I always enjoy the solo episodes
Can't wait for the new book to arrive tomorrow!
I have been meaning to do a deeper dive on this… thank you so much Professor Carroll!!
I loved your biggest ideas series. Can’t wait to read the book! 🎉
"Have you heard the tale of Darth Gμν=8πTμν the wise?"
Bought the book before I heard even one second of this podcast - thanks Sean!
I saw you on StarTalk came over here a few videos later I got your book that I'm reading now I love it. I especially love the fact they were based on video segments that I can go back and watch ( listen not watch lol i am driving i just set to 144p aka the youtube podcast mode) during my hour-long commute home I really appreciate that and it's a great reinforcement to the book. I look forward to the next two installments and I hope you continue with the videos and the Q&A to go along with it it was very addicting to watch the video after reading the chapter. Thank you very much.
Thanks Sean, I have been wanting to buy this book since you said you were writing it. I have watched the biggest ideas in the universe 3 times and it is excellent can't wait.
Great podcast as always Sean. Thanks.
Fantastic stuff Sean! Thank you!
I received your book in the mail today ✨ Looking forward to reading it! 287 pages! Very nice hardback edition! And smell's nice too when i flip the pages 😋 Thank you for bringing science to the general public.
Early this morning, I found in my Google Books library this book already purchase and starts to read it during my breakfast. I enjoy it! Thanks Sean.
This is brilliant Sean. Thank you
Professor Carroll is one of the few people on Earth that knows these subjects well enough to have the ability to explain them relatively simply.
I wouldn't have thought it was possible to go this deeply into a mathematical subject using audio only, but somehow it worked!
Fantastic Video, I have been looking for this for a few years now.
'It' most certainly works... thankyou for the vid and good luck with the other two books... can't wait.
I agree Dr. Carroll. I like to see the equations. I dont understand all of it but it helps me to visualize the set up.
Im not a scientist, but the things you specialize in are so damn interesting. Thanks for all that you do, i love learning all kinds of things from you
Glad to hear there's a volume two coming and I haven't even read volume one yet.
New book! I'm so excited.
Excellent, but a bit much for a podcast without drawings.
You are so interesting and are a good teacher, thank you much
Reading the book rn and I'm loving it :D
When I watched your Biggest Ideas of the Universe video series, I posted a comment encouraging you to make it into a book. I'm sure I'm not the reason you did it, but I'm ecstatic to see you've done it! Instant buy from me.
You had me at 'new book'. Ordered!
What a wonderful lesson!
Even for a hardcore physics nerd these podcasts are fun. I've never understood people who study physics complaining about 'remedial' physics. From the point of view of history nothing was ever remedial. Every discovery along the way was once a frontier. That is exciting to me, that physics crashes through a bunch of new frontiers and here we are today, inheritors of centuries of aggregated human genius.
This is brilliant
Will buy the book.
Awaiting arrival of the book.
Bravo, Bravo!!
I will buy!
That book cover looks beautiful.
Time is an enemy, that encapsulates us, leaves us behind, and passes us by as it moves too quickly...
Me. That's for me precisely. Thanks
Wouldn’t this be better as a video?
It started as a video. Look up The Biggest Ideas in the Universe on UA-cam.
Excellent
Amazing
Nice book-cover. A spherical cow, the moon, planets, the cosmos? I shall to try to buy it because (as you say) analogy just doesn't cut it [I hate analogy!]
Hope it goes well!
Caliban is the best cat name ever, and i WILL steal it.
I'm all in.
Physicist Robert B. Laughlin wrote:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity.
This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..]
It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
Main articles: Pilot wave and De Broglie-Bohm theory
Louis de Broglie stated, "Any particle, ever isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous "energetic contact" with a hidden medium."
However, as de Broglie pointed out, this medium "could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory."
He's going solo, solo,
Sean, clip a piece of this and have it fade out in the beginning of this podcast. People will love it! Seriously.
I'm going to get your book.
Mmm, yeah, yeah
Yeah (JJJ-JR)
Yeah, yeah
I'm feeling like a star, you can't stop my shine
I'm lovin' cloud nine, my head's in the sky
I'm solo
I'm ridin' solo
I'm ridin' solo
I'm ridin solo, solo (yeah)
Yeah, I'm feelin' good tonight
Finally doing me and it feels so right, oh
Time to do the things I like
Going to the club, everything's alright, oh
No one to answer to
No one that's gon' argue, no
And since I got that hold off me
I'm livin' life now that I'm free, yeah
Told me get my - together
Now I got my - together (yeah)
Now I made it through the weather
Better days are gon' get better
I'm so sorry that it didn't work out
I'm movin' on
I'm so sorry but it's over now
The pain is gone
I'm puttin' on my shades to cover up my eyes
I'm jumpin' in my ride, I'm headin' out tonight
I'm solo
I'm ridin' solo
I'm ridin' solo
I'm ridin' solo, solo
I'm feelin' like a star, you can't stop my shine
I'm lovin' cloud nine, my head's in the sky
I'm solo
I'm ridin' solo
I'm ridin' solo
I'm ridin' solo, solo (yeah)
Now I'm feelin' how I should
Never knew single could feel this good, oh
Stop playin' misunderstood
Back in the game, who knew I would, oh
So fly, time to spread my wings
Loving myself makes me wanna sing, oh
Oh, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah (oh)
Told me get my - together
Now I got my - together (yeah)
Now I made it through the weather
Better days are gon' get better
I'm so sorry (sorry) that it didn't work out
I'm movin' on
I'm so sorry but it's over now
The pain is gone
I'm puttin' on my shades to cover up my eyes (my eyes)
I'm jumpin' in my ride, I'm headin' out tonight
I'm solo
I'm ridin' solo (solo)
I'm ridin' solo (solo)
I'm ridin' solo, solo
I'm feelin' like a star, you can't stop my shine
I'm lovin' cloud nine, my head's in the sky
I'm solo
I'm ridin' solo
I'm ridin' solo
I'm ridin' solo, solo (ridin' solo)
Solo, I'm ridin' solo, yeah (solo, solo, solo)
It's like S-O-L-O
S-O-L-O
S-O-L-O
I'm living my life, ain't got stress no mo'
I'm puttin' on my shades to cover up my eyes (oh)
I'm jumpin' in my ride, I'm headin' out tonight
I'm solo
I'm ridin' solo
I'm ridin' solo
I'm ridin' solo, solo
I'm feelin' like a star, you can't stop my shine (oh)
I'm lovin' cloud nine, my head's in the sky (oh)
I'm solo (yeah)
I'm ridin' solo
I'm ridin' solo (oh)
I'm ridin' solo, solo (yeah)
I'm ridin' solo, I'm ridin' solo, solo, woah
I'm ridin' solo, solo
I'm ridin' solo, solo
Here, I clipped the excerpt for you. We're gonna get your podcast bumpin'! ("bumpin' is. really good thing -truth-). If they send you a cease and desist tell the I said it was okay. Trust me, I'm authorized (you know why). :)
ua-cam.com/users/clipUgkx-Rfb8p87oeUHT3zMt9h2PIxMAkm7c3Pv
Does the value of "Pi" stays the same (3,1418...) in all geometries? Do those geometries keep the same numeric value for the ratio "circumference/diameter"?
Homerun
Very well done
I think your best episode
Here's a question,
Is Energy faster than the light?
If not where the heck does C^2 come from?
At 23:12 I would have loved if he broke character and went off on a tangent about how he doesn’t know and doesn’t care anymore, you would hear him yelling and cursing and breaking stuff, hear the cat meow in the background. It ends with him grabbing the microphone, breathing heavily, and says “F Science”😂
How about an episode on the future of anti ageing science with David Sinclair?
Check Dr. Brad Stanfield videos on him and the resveratrol controversy... Lost my interest in most of what he says because of that.
Doctor Carroll.
The fact that no one ever mentions or writes that the GR equations are not dynamic by themselves, and that Friedmann had to add expansion to the equations to make them dynamic, in my opinion, is the real secret of the GR equations. This is never described in the books, and most experts and popularizers never mention it, and many
They do not believe this to be the case. Please Can you
duplicate the mathematical operations to introduce
the escape velocity in the initial equations for
give it dynamic properties, just like Friedmann did it?
Only a theoretical physicist would characterize HUGE amounts of calculations (by hand) from acres of data, and deep thinking to conceptualize that work, as a 'guess'.
💚❤ Sean thank you for sharimg these amazing ideas I learnt so much.
I don't know if this is "the elephant in the room" but it appears that you stay away from string theory.
You don't mention the Star Fish like discovery M formula. Pertaining to 5/6 arms of string theory (singularity).
If you can I'd love to hear where you stand on string theory. If you see it as a unproven perturbative theory and don't wish to address it. I completely understand. ❤💚
In GR, it is said that Saturn goes around the Sun in elliptical orbit, because it is simply following the curved spacetime. Hmmm, I do not understand that. Does it mean that if we put any object at any point on Saturn's orbit it will follow same elliptical orbit? Most likely not, because the mass and velocity of Saturn is the reason for the specific orbit. What it means that the spacetime itself is not curved. Which contradicts the original statement. The specific orbit is a function of the orbiting object's momentum. Am I missing something?
I know that curved spacetime is an established theory but the above has always puzzled me.
Planets in orbit follow geodesics in ( 4 d) 'Spacetime', not in 3d 'space' as you're thinking..
General Relativity is about curved Spacetime, not just curved space.
@@michaelsommers2356 Is it velocity only or momentum (mass * velocity) that is important?
@@michaelsommers2356 I guess I was originally objecting to a point that seems to be made that the only factor that makes the orbit elliptical in space (only) because according to GR the spacetime is curved. But my thought was that the exact shape and size of the orbit also depends on the momentum (which includes mass * velocity). If either the mass was different or (tangetial) velocity was different the size of the orbit will change.
@@michaelsommers2356 If mass does not matter, does it mean that the tangential velocity of each planet from innermost to outermost is increasingly high? Or the size of orbits also depend on the masses of the planets?
@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 True but the elliptical shape and size is a space only shape right?
Sorry Sean. The Nobel Prize Committee doesn't award Prizes for theoretical work. Einstein's prize was for the "law of the photoelectric effect" which was experimentally confirmed. (Of course, the Committee wanted to give him the prize but also had to obey the rules.)
So no, Einstein could not have won multiple prizes for "theories".
Marie Curie (née Sklodowska) was awarded two prizes (Physics and Chemistry) for "discoveries" including elements radium and polonium, which is well within the rules.
Wow
wowwowo
There is no singularity.
Sean: could you supply us the Einstein equation in the above "more" notes. it would be helpful to have it written out here.
Electro-magnetic
Space-time
Gravity- ??
49:40 SC: _“[The traveling twin] turns around and comes back, so their path as a whole is bent ... and they experience less time.”_ Professor Carroll, I sincerely apologize, but this explanation of how relativistic time dilation works is factually incorrect. If you replace empty space with Einstein’s original relativistic train moving on an exceptionally long rest-frame track, you can see why: The passengers on the train show slower aging _at every stop along the track._ If the traveling twin stops at the most distant station and stays there, their clock displays a total time dilation that equals half that expected for a round trip. Turning around does not affect this one-way aging and thus cannot be used to explain why the twins age asymmetrically.
This issue is not an abstraction for GPS systems. If such systems fail to track continuous time dilation relative to the Earth, they risk telling cars to drive off cliffs.
Of the many UA-cam explanations I’ve encountered for the twin thought experiment, only two got it right: Neil deGrasse Tyson in a short video [1] where he focused solely on the issue of who got accelerated, and Amber Stuver [2], who - somewhat accidentally, I gather - abandoned the treacherous Lorentzian method and switched to the full-trip relativistic Doppler method. She used annual pulses instead of light frequencies, but a frequency is a frequency, so her math ended up identical to the relativistic Dopplerian method despite her never explicitly saying “Doppler” or referencing the math.
Most UA-cam channels make the turnaround error, including minutephysics, Sabine Hossenfelder, and others. The prevalence of this error is not surprising since it began a century ago with Minkowski’s remarkable spacetime [3] talk in which he managed to obscure the issue as a proper-time integration. Sometimes, too much reverence for smart people distracts from the fact that they, too, are human and make mistakes. It’s just that mistakes by founders tend to be more impactful and harder to fix.
What fascinates me is not this but how the complicated and decidedly non-intuitive Stuver method and efficient Tyson method give the _same_ correct result.
I had already gone through the four relativistic Doppler segments in gruesome detail [4] well before I realized Stuver was using an exactly equivalent method, and there’s nothing intuitive about why the disproportionate proportions of the red-blue shifts seen by _both_ twins end up mathematically identical to Tyson’s far simpler “acceleration slows time” method. I’ve suggested that this case of such wildly divergent methods giving the same correct result is worth investigating in its own right [5] (which, not too surprisingly, I’m doing now).
----------
Now, on to the far more challenging problem of how to add standard paper references to a UA-cam discussion without getting auto-deleted within seconds.
Strangely, I try hard to use references only to non-commercialized reference-only websites - the Wikipedia and arXiv model - with mostly or entirely CC BY 4.0 web contents. Two of my sites very much fit that description since both use simple, hand-coded, human-readable HTML code, have zero advertising and zero tracking on my part (I assume the provider does some), are Webroot-verified contents, and contain only CC BY 4.0 contents that. I think encouraging the use of such references - instead of trying to make a point by yelling in all caps - would be a good thing for UA-cam to encourage.
What may be happening instead - and this is only a worry - is the default UA-cam treatment of small, reference-only sites is to treat them as suspicious by default since, you know… _everyone_ is on the web _only_ to make money, _right?_ This, at least for me, has been the new “vibe” UA-cam is sending out, even if inadvertently, and perhaps by not paying enough attention: You _must_ join the club and monetize your reference data before UA-cam allows any reference to its existence.
If so… wow. Why do I keep thinking of the 1960 Twilight Zone episode “The Eye of the Beholder”?
Here’s my attempt. If it fails, I’ll try posting this again and replacing my references with an ALL-CAPS SCREAM to gently persuade you, dear reader, of the validity of my expertise… :)
----------
[1] N. d. Tyson, _The Twin Paradox | Time Dilation,_ KNOWLEDGE 101 (UA-cam) (2022).
[2] A. Stuver, _Einstein’s Twin Paradox Explained,_ TED-Ed (UA-cam) (2019).
[3] H. Minkowski, _Space and Time,_ 80ᵗʰ Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians (1908).
[4] T. Bollinger, _The Four Observable Time Ratios for A Launched to B at Velocity V,_ Apabistia Notes *2023,* 01212102 (2023).
[5] T. Bollinger, _The Stuver-Tyson Reconciliation Paradox,_ Apabistia Notes *2023,* 07271535 (2023).
I thought capital G meant gangsta as in 50 Cent's: "G-G-G-G G-Unit! "
:until he is blue in the face..." :)
"Gravity is a feature" okay, no, that's enough. I've heard this argument before. It's not a feature, it's a bug. It needs to be fixed and properly quantized. Stop being lazy, Einstein.
Lazy Einstein? Hmm, ok. :D
That's an idiotic comment, I hope you can do better. Einstein spent years trying to quantise gravity, and was convinced that a quantum gravity theory was needed to replace General Relativity. He was never lazy. If he had been able to use a modern computer he would have had a better chance of success, but sadly he didn't live long enough.
🤣
🙈🙉🙊👍
What! No mention of Jesus?
Jheeeezzzuuuusssssss....
Obviously, it sounds like you are joking and it's a funny joke too ;) On a more serious note, just observing that there is no inconsistency in the existence of God and a Universe that follows natural law. God may even have created a Universe that normally follows regular patterns of nature and at the same time, and at various points, intervening in that Universe through miracles. In other words, Hume was incorrect in hypothesizing that miracles are a 'violation' of the Laws of Nature because the Laws of Nature just describe what occurs when there is no intervention by God.
@@bakedalaska6875 This is a fallacy. You start with the presumption a) that any god exists, and b) a specific "God" exists. Both of these propositions are supported by precisely zero evidence. Sean deals in facts and logic, not imaginary friends and fantasies.
@@ami2evil McCheesus
.
F=ma WITH CATS!!!
.
For those that want to skip the intro and go into the podcast, (the intro is useful tho), go to 8:30
666 Like Satan in the details! :D
Universe ? What universe? Last I check 99.9999% of us haven't left the solar system yet or even Earth's atmosphere. The only real accomplishment we have done so far was sending out Pioneer x2 and Voyager 1 & 2, absolutely nothing else is worth mentioning.
Real physics doesn't use equations.
@@michaelsommers2356 Ok. But I didn't say real physics doesn't use math. I said real physics doesn't use equations. Equations are an arbitrary set of symbols that humans invented. They aren't real physics or real math.
Irrelevant comment.
@@michaelsommers2356 Equations are just one model type that humans use that fall under the large topic of math. Most human models in math do not use equations. And physics (reality itself) can't be described by equations, but can be described by non-equation math.
@@michaelsommers2356 You're starting to get it. Have you explored mathematics much, beyond numbers and formulae with Greek symbols?
@@michaelsommers2356 Yes, the physics models you were taught in school are indeed very likely to be those arbitrary Greek symbols and mainstream numbers of arithmetic, algebra, calculus, trigonometry and other formula/equation based texts. But I hope you realize that those are just arbitrary models made up by humans, and not reality itself (real physics). And I hope you realize that there are infinite other forms of modeling reality, many, if not most, of which don't involve Greek symbols and mainstream numbers. I'm saying that those other models are far more useful for understanding reality (real physics). This is why most folks in most schools (teaching or studying) struggle so much with working with life, the universe, and everything, because the mainstream stories (models) are not very effective, clear, or meaningful to most humans. As a teacher I have to work really hard to make up for those confusing models. Or start early, with kids who haven't been taught the confusing models.