Okay, considering how many comments about this I've gotten... YES, 1/0 is undefined, HOWEVER, in both cases in this video we're talking about 1/0 from the positive side, which is approaching infinity, that's why right here 06:13 I said "Kind of infinity", and right here 13:16, I've added an equation which specifies this even more.
I have a different way to identify mass : if it does not travel in a straight line and does not have the speed of light, then it is massive. I consider our atoms as made of particles constantly bouncing(=changing direction) which creates the illusion that atoms don't move, but the inside is still moving at the speed of light but not in a straight line anymore.
Whoever told you that is a liar. Please stick to the original truth and don't fall for their lies. 1/0 is unsigned infinity. It's evident in projective geometry and the Riemann Sphere. Anyone who tells you it's undefined probably thinks irrational numbers and imaginary numbers don't exist either.
@@samuelyigzaw what you're tripping over is that 1/0 is _defined_ as unsigned infinity _by_ projective geometry and the riemann sphere, therefore when using those models it is no longer undefined. this does not suddenly mean that 1/0 is _always_ unsigned infinity, however, because ... well, different types of math can define 1/0 to be something else, such as 0 in linear algebra or positive infinity when using the extended real positive number line, or they can just leave it undefined. which most do. so, from both the perspective of conventional majority and universal definition, 1/0 lacks any definitive definition. it could perhaps be more actually described as _variably_ defined, but a lack of definition is generally conceptualized as an empty space in which a definition can be inserted into, so the difference is p. miniscule anyhow ( plus, "variably defined" technically goes for _all_ numbers, so ) also, you seem to be under the impression that numbers cannot exist unless they exist universally, and thus things like irrational and imaginary numbers _must_ be included in every set of all numbers. but believing that would mean you are _denying_ their existence as proven by basic fields of math, which lack the ability to define 'em. and the thing is, there's nothing stopping more advanced fields from excising them, either, should they serve no purpose within them. hell, it would mean denying even the existence of _all_ conventional numbers, even _positive integers,_ as math is not beholden to working with them and can and _will_ define whatever nonsense it needs to to model the logic it seeks. that's why imaginary numbers exist in the first place, even y'shouldn't think of more advanced fields of mathematics as being more and more "correct" than their predecessors, as placing the fields on such a linear scale is as massive misrepresentation of how they exist among each other to begin with. rather, each field represents a different way of looking at and defining numbers and how they operate, with the more basic ones being just as valid as the most complex. after all, when you're just dealing with quantities of discrete objects, something that's part of _everyone's_ daily life? all the effort going into defining 1/0 as unsigned infinity is suddenly just cruft that might've just redefined numbers to something useless, because how does distributing an apple among nobody suddenly cause infinite apples?
1/0 is literally the opposite of 0, how is it undefined?! if 0 is no quantity then 1/0 is ALL quantity (then both are not defined numbers like how can the opposite of a number not be a number lol) ofc 0/0 is all quantitIES... there is no need to write a book about it if im wrong correct me
Negative mass is funny, because it is at negative temperature, and when meeting normal mass, it tries to reach equilibruim. But since the correct order of temp is [0 K, ..., +INF K = -INF K, -0 K], both objects will try to accelerate to infinity.
@@MAKiTHappen To be fair the large colliding object accelerating to chase the smaller one was pretty interesting. Maybe negative mass is more like, "Hey! You hit me! Cmeer you little shi...." as they go zooming off into the universe
@@MAKiTHappen it gets even better ! what happens when the negative mass object enters in contact with an object with exact opposite mass (I.e. a -1 mass objects encounter a +1 mass object) ? the mass cancels out ! and what happens to massless things in our universe when accelerated ? Bam ! It's instantly accelerated to the speed of light ^^
From our perspective time is frozen for photons but from the photon's perspective Lorentz contraction causes the universe to be flattened to 2D so they have to travel 0 distance to reach anything.
So Photons are flatlanders. And we always say flatlandersv can't imagine our world. Imagining the flat world of Photons and their speed is even harder.
@@9_1.1 The 2 dimensions the photons experience are perpendicular to their travel direction. If the universe were a stack of flat sheets, photons would perceive themselves travelling down all of the sheets of paper instantaneously and then getting annihalated.
Are you really sure about that. I have done some calculations on this with time dilation and length contraction over the last few months. I wanted to know if Einstein's light clock also worked laying down. That means if the light beam is going parallel to the traveling direction in stead of perpendicular to it. I found that it does work but only gave the same results if length contraction also was taken into consideration. That means that the traveling object get's shorter with speed and becomes 2D at the speed of light c. That should mean that the photons are 2D as they are the traveling ones and at speed c. It also means that time dilation and length contraction is real for any body traveling. It of cause also means that the time has stopped for the photon or moving vehicle as light will never move away from it's emitter. It will move away from it's emitting point at speed c but the emitter is moving with speed c in the same direction. Alternatively we have height extension. I think that would work mathematically too. I am of cause not sure about it but my calculations and thinking including making plotting points indicates that. Also if going reverse - that is looking at a stationary light clock setup from the moving vehicle's point of view but imagining to be stationary - then if making a plot on the inside of say the vehicle's window ( that is really moving) of the light movement on the really stationary light clock using the dilated time that one experiences, one would find that the stationary clock would go faster. From all this I find that things are really not relative and that there must be a zero speed. By using both time dilation and length contraction one could measure the speed of light measuring the time it takes light to travel from one end of a rod with a mirror at the end and back again in any direction and at any speed between zero and c. It would give the same speed c every where. I would like your thought's about this.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Light moves away at lightspeed even from an object traveling in the same direction at the same speed (the reason it doesn't seem to make sense is simply because an object can't travel at the speed of light). The amount of space between the light and the object increases because the space becomes more dense, which is practically equivalent to the light moving away. Edit: Also, "light beams" don't really exist, they're the propagation of electromagnetic waves, which can't travel sideways. Think of a crashing water wave and tell it to move sideways while crashing forward (also pretend you have god powers and that a wave could or would somehow listen to you). Instead of sliding across the ocean, it'll just turn around and face the direction it's going.
Travelling -i7 through time: Robert porifera "isosceles quadrilateral" trousers: Time taking on a negative imaginary value? William "Patrick Star" Fagerbakke: One questions if even god himself can withstand the horrors humanity has brought upon itsself. The day man can comprehend a second temporal dimension is the day the judgement will come for god cannot let his creation break. The fragile eggshell of reality and logic shall fall apart as the chick breaks through, only this time, there is no conceptual connection between the amniotic sac and the world outside of the egg. There are only unfathomable consequences.
Greg Egan wrote the Orthogonal (series) where the metric signature is (+,+,+,+) instead of (−, +, +, +) like our universe. This has PROFOUND implications on every area of physics. There is no upper limit on velocity and you can actually go back in time if you travel fast enough. Time dilation is reversed so that time travels FASTER for fast moving objects.
@@MAKiTHappen All 3 books are VERY interesting. The final book does a much better job with consistent time loops than TENET did. He also wrote Dichronauts where the metric signature is (-,-,+,+) and that is REALLY weird. For example you can't do complete rotations and there are directions light can't travel.
The point about gravitational potential energy going to infinity as you approach the center of mass being okay brings up an interesting point about black holes. As you said, for a normal object the infinity that pops out doesn't really matter, because as you go inside the object, the parts of the object that you pass through end up canceling out. But in a black hole, specifically a model black hole where the density inside the black hole is allowed to go to infinity (it can't in reality, of course, but we don't know exactly why yet because we can't exactly look), _all_ of the mass would be concentrated at the exact point of the center of mass. And so if you have two black holes colliding, then the energy of those two singularities coming together _would_ be infinite. Of course, we don't see anything close to that, because all of that mathematically infinite energy is trapped behind the event horizon and can never ever escape, and it's probably not how it really works anyway, but hey it _is_ potentially closer to reality than this video makes it seem. Still impossible though.
That's the problem with black holes and why there are so many theories about how they work. Having a point where all mass is concentrated leads to a lot of problems (infinite density, infinite gravity so on) and that's why we basically have no idea what happens inside of black holes
Also for external observers, the mass isn't concentrated at the centre (since it would take infinite time to get to the centre of a black hole). Rather spread over the event horizon, so we definitely shouldn't see infinite energy!
Photos that have a negative wavelength being the same would actually make sense. Since in Feynman diagrams, you can interpret it as either going back in time or forward in time and the photon just acts exactly the same.
The 3 times I feel good after watching 2 unskippable Ads. 1. Watching a makit video 2. kurzgesagt video 3. My favourite series murder drones. Great video BTW makit
@@29-vibhusingh74MURDER DRONES! YEEEAAAAAHHHH! Finale was PEAK, YOU CAN’T CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE! And yes, I honor things in my profile picture, and sometimes I honor things multiple times if it’s good enough… THREE HONORS OF MURDER DRONES IN MY PROFILE PICTURE MUAHAHAHA!
Can you do 'Breaking Philosophy using Geometry and Group Theory' next? I'd love to see how a concept such as 'Supraenergy' breaks logic when plugged into the 'Platonic Concept' '''function'''. Thanks.
I am trying to look it up, but I cannot find any mentions of "supraenergy" or "platonic concept function". Also, I wonder what you specifically entail when you say "Breaking philosophy using geometry and group theory". I kind of understand how group theory can be used for this purpose, but not geometry, at least not directly. Also I wonder about the discontinuity between you starting the comment with talking about breaking philosophy, and then jumping to more generally breaking logic itself. Are you able to provide sources for these concepts from reputable places? Also, can you clarify what you mean by these methods of breaking philosophy?
@@Ethan-lx1vv It is an old video, but basically, I typed "Platonic concept function" in UA-cam's Search Bar and found it. The video's tag past the equals sign is MsdlkUFQPM4
@@feynstein1004 Think of it this way, "all words are made up, but an apple is still an apple. It is not an orange, or a plum. The concept of an apple, and how it is described, is a convenience to understand the nature of fruit as a whole. The fruit does not suddenly change state because you wanted to vegitable an orange to the square root of plum." This video, granted admitted it was being unreasonable, is mathing incorrectly. Which you can do, as maths is ultimately conceptual. Physics simply is. It always is. You cant physics wrong because physics will say "No", no matter how wrong you want to math at it. Math is a language. Physics is.
18:23 The full formula is E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 btw, do not forget the impulse, which becomes more and more relevant approaching c (and the single factor for massless stuff).
Yeah, I oversimplified a lot of relativity in this video mainly because I wanted it to just be a video about two different approaches to calculations, but I will try to be as accurate as possible in the relativity video
On the abstraction chart, math is the only thing to the left of relativistic quantum mechanics. There may be something between the two, but nothing is beyond math. It isn't abstracted to. Everything is abstracted from it.
Ngl when you said -iY i was sent into a 5 minute laughing fit trying to wrap my head around what going backwards in time on a different number line would even mean like i was a character at the end of a lovecraft book
Man this is brilliant. Finally I can see some of my "what if"s
2 місяці тому+27
Our sum of scientific data is self-incoherent, that doesn't mean abstraction is intrinsically limiting, it means that our efficiency of abstraction is low enough to the point where you can't reconstruct a phenomenon from one field of science using the data from that of another field. The concrete distinctions between the myriad fields of science are each an abyss of incoherence as the result of every researcher in their respective field working with the non-concomitated data from their select field. In simpler terms, a pharmacist doesn't need to know electron orbitals in order to sell pills, an architect doesn't need to know engineering as well as an engineer does, and these requirement so on cause this incoherence. It's overspecialization.
2 місяці тому+5
If you come into a society where scientific principles are named after the people who discovered them, you can tell that the focus is on individual vanity rather than on efficiency.
2 місяці тому+7
Bernoulli's Principle? Right, let's make students take extra time to memorise this guy's name rather than naming that principle after an intuitive description. Small little details add up to become a big jarring experience that severely discourages your average joe from becoming a polymath.
2 місяці тому+7
For the record: I met a lady with a PhD. in Biomedical Sciences who thought hydrogen was a red solid at room temperature.
"rather than naming that principle after an intuitive description" But naming things is hard! "There's 3 hard things in computer science: naming things, cache invalidation, and off by one errors."
9:45 made me realize how the argument about how it is strange that we can not move in time as we chose, when we can move in space as we chose, is not correct. We can't move back in space, just like we can't move back in time.
8:40 "-iY" since i is a 90° rotation (changing axis of travel) and time is part of 4d space-time, I guess that it means you're moving backwards in space which implies a negative acceleration which implies a negative force. So at that speed all forces would look inverted? i.e. rocketship blasting exhaust backwards to move.. backwards, pretty wild
Correcthin for ~7:00: the photon experiences *no* time, actually, not infinite time. From its own perspective, it starts and stops existing simultaneously. The rest of the *universe* chugs ahead at infinite speed from its prespective, not the other way around.
With regard to the 'imaginary time', this can be interpreted as turning a time into a distance. Time itself can be thought of as an imaginary distance (this is useful for relativity stuff like the minkowsi metric), so multiplying time by -i turns it back into a distance. Therefore, a hypothetical tachyon would have to swap the roles of space and time, which is quite interesting as the tachyon now percieves 3 temporal dimensions and 1 spatial dimension! That wouldn't mean the tachyon experiences 3 separate forms of 'times' at once, but that any of our space dimensions can act as a direction of time (this can also be interpreted as it only traveling in paths outside the lightcone).
20:49 "Is math created or invented?" Both mean the same thing 😂 What you meant to ask was, "Is math discovered or invented?", with the former implying that it exists on its own outside of our minds and the latter implying that it doesn't exist on its own but simply inside our minds.
Well, if you assume quadvectors square as quaternions s = t+ix+iy+iz yields s² = t² - x² - y² - z² (signature + - - -). Being faster than light is be trapped in (or create) a Black Hole, where time becomes a destination and space goes only forward as is time, towards the central singularity.
7:31 (I’m a reality theorist and find this topic very intriguing) I like to think reality is 5 dimensional. 3 spatial dimensions, one for time, and one for alternate timelines. Using this, we can treat the 5th dimension as the imaginary axis, then proceed to say… “imaginary time is like shifting seamlessly through alternate universes/timelines, perpendicular to time itself” This would help describe the “unvisualizable” ideas you mentioned using this concept. If you decide to make a follow up video, it’d be cool to see what wild effects plugging in impossible values into these equations would bring up. To help visualize these, you could also exchange any of the spatial dimensions with time and/or the 5th (“imaginary time”) dimension, since I’ve also pondered that idea too.
how could another reality be adjacent to ours? By that I mean, if we moved one over, what one specific thing would be different? Would it be only one, or is our adjacent reality completely arbitrary? Maybe a function of time makes it instantly not-adjacent and now whoever went there can never come back. Maybe they're not exactly adjacent, but some amount where nothing exists between them, maybe they mesh between those spaces?
@@HJ28_398 the closer to our timeline, the closer it would match it. An adjacent reality would be ever so slightly different to our own, becoming increasingly similar as it gets arbitrarily closer to ours until it’s indistinguishable. Imagine this two dimensional time as a 90° triangle radiating out from the present time. These are all the possible timelines you can access from the present. All in the future. The past would have negative area, making it inaccessible, as its length is imaginary. All the timelines outside this triangle are so different from our universe, there’s no set of events from our present that would lead to that state of reality.
@@wernerviehhauser94 and I'm also aware that physicists can't prove their hypothesis or invent new hypothesis just to make little money, live on social security, and sleep in the back of their office :)
@AndromedaAlrescha like what? Particle accelerator? Done that. Camera operating at 1.7K? Done that. I'm a physicist and a tinkerer, and I know how engineers work - and I really don't think there is a lot to change about that. Their methods are crude, but they get stuff done and make it to work.
This is exactly how I always wanted to consume math and physics. So much more fun and interesting than “you don’t wanna see the equations/code” the hell i don’t
7:00 Wait wasn't it the other way? Like The photon percieves time as 0 and the observer sees it as 1?? Otherwise going faster would make you exactly as The flash since you would not see a change between the before and now, meaning that if you do get some kind of boots that let you reach speed of light velocity (and dont let you evaporize) you could basically be a god.
I am not an AI my fellow humans As a human myself I can say with confidence that this script was not AI genereted since it was written by a human, me (I am a human) Sincerely, human
@@MAKiTHappen i am currently experiencing emotions as happiness for i have been noticed by a person that creates content on this platform that i enjoy.
with imaginary values you just need to add another dimension, spacial or temporal depending on what kind of value is imaginary, so an imaginary 1d velocity would mean traveling perpendicular to the direction that real velocities send matter in
This is a fascinating deep dive into the insight of what physics and engineering does. They are using models to simplify and predict real world phenomena, the more complex the model the more accurate the results, but, the higher the computational cost. No model is perfect and it does break down when pushed, but real life, the models we have are more than good enough, and for our theoretical understanding of the universe, our understanding is as good as our models, which keep evolving.
9:45 negative 𝘝𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 is moving backward. Negative 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 is the confusing bit. You got it right, probably just a slip of the tongue but I feel like it could lead some people to confusion, idk
Negative velocity is not impossible. As velocity HAS direction. Negative distance is quite odd… since distance cannot be negative. You can’t move -5cm to the north. It’s just odd.
It's easy to break physics with math. You only need to do a perfect sphere with maths and search in the universe if you can find a perfect sphere like in the math world.
So my favorite use of math describing something real comes from an interesting discussion I had with my professor over a certain problem. The problem uses an equation that describes the probability of an event ending at each step, rising until step n where it is 100%, that is, guaranteed. The interesting bit is that putting step n+1 into the equation yields a divide by zero. Here is the question: what is the probability of the event ending at step n+1? Looking at the equation holds no clues as even infinite probability is undefined since it can't be greater than 1. Considering that there is no way for step n+1 to be reached, one may conclude that 0% is reasonable - but asking the question assumes that step n+1 has already been reached and we are simply making a decision regardless of what happened before, in which case a human would end the event with 100% certainty. I think this example shows how there are many reasonable answers to the question "what is division by 0?" because it depends on what you want to happen. On the flip side, the equation ran into a divide by zero in the first place because the domain of the problem ended at step n, so using the equation outside of that domain doesn't necessarily reflect reality. It is only when the math we use carry nuances about reality that we don't expect which results in surprising results. If we did expect those nuances to carry over, the results would not be surprising. Inversely, when the results are surprising, there may be nuances in the math that do describe reality to an extra degree.
Normal change in time: constant=dt^2-dx^2 Imaginary time: constant=dx^2-dt^2 Where dx is the unit of space aligned to the direction of your velocity. So imaginary time is just rescaled space and vise versa. What this would mean from perception view point is: The speed of light miraculously is still the speed of light. But how you perceive it may be different. Analogous to how time always seemed to be moving in normal time, space is instead always moving in imaginary. It's just a fact of reality. Analogous to space in normal time, in imaginary time your default movements through time is unmoving. The universe is frozen around you. Your default velocity is infinite. And actually doesn't hold much meaning. Instead of dx/dt, we focus on dt/dx. Change in time over change in space. We can call it belocity. Similar to velocity, there is space dilation when you increase in belocity. As your belocity increases, so does your movement through space. You would never be able to reach 1/c. If all objects were faster than the speed of light. The universe from your perspective wouldn't look to different from our current universe. A mixture of the two, would lead to weird entropic gradients, though.
There's a neat explaination of what it'd be like to travel faster than like in special relativity and it has all to do with it's description of space time as a pseudo euclidean space. It's kinda hard to explain it in a short comment and I'd suggest to any interested to search for it themselves, but essentially the problem is that one could be in multiple places at the same time thus breaking causality Also, for reasons akin to why it's impossible to reach the speed of light, it's impossible to decelerate to a speed lower than light if you were going faster so there's that too
i see our channel is earning the fame it so rightfully deserve. im proud to be one of the kids who watched this grow from ground up. thankyou makit, you are a superhuman.
To figure out imaginary time, one has to distinguish between scalar time and coordinate time first. Imaginary scalar time doesn't really make sense, imaginary scalar doesn't even exist in math. Imaginary coordinate time is interesting one, it is how the time fabric itself warps. That sounds like imaginary time could just be space, but I mean, that won't explain time travel... or would prohibit time travel. Also, time travel is impossible, when looking into what "faster than light" really means in information theory. For quantum information being exchanged with photon interaction, if the source is moving faster than light, it means the source would appear to observer before the consequences (like tachyon), this happens because photon can't reach observer before source, and that looks like time travel. But, if the observer is moving faster than light, then, the observer can experience consequences from source quicker, and nothing breaks. But, because these 2 circumstances don't aligned, it breaks relativity. If we added overseer as outside observer, both of the observer and source would look like they're in 2 places at the same time. And that might as well be called an entanglement.
very much like these kind of ideas! in my comic i have a light based character with time powers. landing heavy punches he end's up getting faster. logic being, he goes so fast causality acts up shifting impacts into the past which makes an effect similar to stealing kinect energy. like he's borrowing energy from the past to propel him forward.
it's less of a cone and more of a pareto front there might be things higher levels of abstraction can explain that lower ones cant - or would be impractical to describe with lower levels (try doing relativistic QM simulation of a whole brain to derive psychology!)
That's the function of the reduction in complexity. When the complexity becomes absurdly overwhelming it kills accessibility to higher level patterns. Abstract out to a reduced complexity and diminished accuracy, and gain access to a fuzzy vision of higher patterns.
Next video, we should try to break maths by using physics. Im thinking we push a few statisticians off a cliff. Or we use a physics textbook propped against a fixed axel and mathematian's femur.
relativity makes a hell of a lot more sense when you think of it as how much time it takes for one thing to recieve the info of the other. acceleration changes time because it "squishes" or "stretches" the instances of information sending
8:22 Imaginary time could be perpendicular to regular time. The axis you'd need to traverse to move to parallel timelines. Like how the i-axis is perpendicular to the normal number line on the complex plane. Negative just indicates which direction you are moving to along that axis.
Ontological "telescope", a way to make sense of a thing by viewing how it interacts with things we know and understand, "the shape of the hole in your mind" in short, so.. this telescope is limited and can't perceive things that don't interact with our reality, but won't matter here since we are using a familiar concept that of "dimension", though to actually answer negative existence, we maybe have to dig deeper to understand the nature of existence itself, but meh: I see pseudo-dimension i suppose, the way imaginary numbers act is like an additional variable that has to be processed differently, By moving in imaginary time, you will observe reality where anything that interacts with reality has an imaginary variable in it, plain and simple, although will need a simulation to captivate it hahaha Negative total distance also interacts as such by "being at" a pseudo-dimension, by being negative to all things, it will constantly looks like it being always a distance apart to everything, it would look really weird basically, either a local omnipresence with negative space eminating from it, or a wormhole like view of the object, because everything needs to reach more distance to such object including light, it actually will kinda look normal in small amounts of negative distance, you just can't touch it within arms lenght, it'll probably feel like reaching in a wormhole, Afterall distance is just an emergent variable from space itself, For imaginary distance, well the thing couldn't interact with us anyway, it basically didn't exist at all, and it is like an pseudo 4th dimension anyway, if it emit any photons with complex amount of movement... First it will drag all matter into the imaginary axis with it's momentum and gravitational influence thereby "destroying" the universe by making it unavailable to normal "real" 3d beings because it seperates the interaction in an imaginary curve... or propel a mass pseudo4D adaptation of the universe as normal matter is suddenly capable of emiting in a new axis in an ever expanding bubble with the speed of light, or let's say the normal 3D things can't be moved into imaginary, then... the "real" part of the photon will interact with your eyes and the imaginary part will be passed, it will appear more transparent if you approach it, (appearing to not exist if your eyes are up against the seemingly normal object), as the imaginary component is becoming more dominant the more perpendicular you are to it, and perpendicular imaginary light just not interact with you, the object itself will look normal, you cannot touch it, but it will look like it exist according to it's real position component, infact this is the same intuition as 4d shadows, but weirder, And thats the thing, we as consciousness don't "care" as long as it is observable, it doesn't have to make "sense", you can make 1+1=2, and you can kinda perceive that, as a reality where objects or feelings duplicate and dissapear randomly, as long as our organs can perceive it, it remains normal no matter how weird it is to our universe, our brain is a memetic filter lol to actually make things insane, is to input directly to a consciousness, but meh this is outside the scope of the discussion, Have a fulfilling day wonderful other consciousness,
There is a concept of a spacetime. Spacetime is a 4-dimensional vector (A 4-vector) that describes time as being a component of the same abstract "space" of points of the same unit as the regular space. So, how do we make time make sense as a length? The light travels at the speed of light regardless of reference point. So, wherever you are, however you fast, for one seconds light travels that fixed amount of meters. That's how we define second: "The time it takes the light to travel X meters". Ok, now we can describe length though time (aka lightsecond, lightyear) and time through length (lightmeter - is a measure of time). By the properties of spacetime, you're traveling trough spacetime at the speed of light, always. The length of velocity vector (so the change of that vector) is always the speed of light, you travel through space -> you travel less trough time. The same way as if you're going diagonally, you're going "less" up. The time is still a special boi. The distance between two points isn't really the same distance that we use in regular space it is defined like that: ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - (c*dt)^2 Somewhere, somehow in quadratics, there's a minus... strange, usually complex numbers behave that way. One dude, Minkowski, thought the same, and unified complex numbers with relativity and spacetime, he proposed an invariant: x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + (i * c * t)^2 = const. Here a time is clearly an imaginary component of a 4-vector, a variant of supercomplex number if you will... So we can think of time as of imaginary complex component of a space. So, say, if you're somehow momentarily accelerate past speed of light, the t itself become complex, with the invariant, i*i gives a -1. And the overall complex component of the spacetime invariant becomes 0 And so, if you'll somehow travel past the speed, you'll basically stop the time and will be able to move through space without moving though time, your time will become your space. Granted, you'll instantly be in a borderless void, so dark, there isn't a place in the whole universe so dark. Because if you don't move through time, the EM field isn't oscillating and there are no "photons" per se, and no concept of frequency, you won't see anything, ever. And if you stop, you'll probably create a new Big Bang, because you'll have to decelerate through the point of infinite energy. So... like jojo, but worse. EDIT: fixed some misspells
before watching anything more than the imaginary time, physics does have that I believe it's called complex minkowski spacetime, but I'm dumb as hell so I can't tell you what it's about exactly (it's more like events in time and the imaginary unit is kinda eh)
Negative velocity (which is a vector with a magnitude and direction) is totally reasonable and means moving in the negative direction. Negative speed (just the magnitude of velocity) is not reasonable
Your videos are extremely high quality. 3D graphics animation explaining physics? C'mon, that has got to be more popular. So, here are some advice to attract more people so that they'll stay: 1. Try to speak with a consistent volume. Sometimes you alter your volume to emphasise points and emotions. Use something else like timing and speed. E.g.: Speak slower for important points. My professor also do this. 2. Background music. It doesn't have to be loud, but it has to be there. Most if not all science channels have them. They provide a more immersive experience. You'll be surprised at how high-quality royalty free music can be. You don't even need a lot of them; check Morphocular, they have like 3 background music in total, and this provides a comfy atmosphere already. Of course, I am not professional, and the advice I gave are only my opinions. I hope you find them helpful. Wish you videos would be more popular, my dude.
We can compute the kinetic energy as mv²/2 . So, this formula can give a negative number not only from negative mass, but (pure)imaginary velocity. This kind of velocity may exist in 2-dimensional time.
In math, if something is impossible, you just change the rules and do it anyway. In physics, we don't make the rules, and we can't change them, but it's not unusual for people to mistake math for physics.
Yea, because math has specific logical axioms (stuff that we decided that were so obviously true and basic that it wouldn't require proof). For example, for anything in existence (numbers, objects, thoughts, statements), x = x. You can't prove it, but it's so basic and obvious that all things are the same as themselves that you don't ask for proof. There are actually many different systems of math, that have different axioms, so they disagree on if certain mathematical statements are true or not. For example, is there a set with a cardinality bigger than the naturaul numbers, but smaller than the real numbers? There's a mathematical system that says yes, and another one that says no, because they have different axioms. In theory, these axioms can be whatever the hell you want. But your mathematical system, might not be consistent (free from contradictions) or complete (every true statement can be proven)
@@saadhorsepower8908 It is not only possible for math to be incomplete, it is unavoidable. I believe the same applies to physics. At some point we will reach the end of provability. We can still conjecture, and we might even guess correctly, but we will never be able to prove it.
@@crawkn Yeah, it's one of the things that just pisses me off from time to time. Godel proved that either we accept that there are unprovable truths or all of logic is inconsistent and it's all a big contradiction. But maybe the only unprovable truths that exist are the self referential specifically formulated not really useful statements that Godel discovered could not be proven but had to be true or else logic is all just a huge contradiction.
@@saadhorsepower8908 It doesn't really annoy me, because I don't feel a compulsion to know everything, it's an absurd proposition. The smallest computer that can simulate a thing precisely is the thing itself. So only the universe "knows" itself, but it would need additional processing power to have consciousness of itself. I think learning is a fulfilling process, and if I knew everything I would get bored.
Finally Math is the accrobacy of creating everythings unreal, Math is decieved by abstraction and reductionism , it is a big dreamer in an imaginagry world without bread, water and air . Math is a walking-dead being who usually but not always do right works which sometimes useful to controle the balance of realism 😊😊😊
I think there is a mathematical way to disprove a tachyon. If we take the Taylor series, rest mass is singled out. If mass is imaginary, it contradicts energy being a real number
I think you inverted the velocity of time for the moving cube and photon. Time passes slower for the moving object instead of faster. Photons dont evolve with time because time dont pass for them.
Okay, considering how many comments about this I've gotten... YES, 1/0 is undefined, HOWEVER, in both cases in this video we're talking about 1/0 from the positive side, which is approaching infinity, that's why right here 06:13 I said "Kind of infinity", and right here 13:16, I've added an equation which specifies this even more.
1/0 = +-inf
I have a different way to identify mass : if it does not travel in a straight line and does not have the speed of light, then it is massive. I consider our atoms as made of particles constantly bouncing(=changing direction) which creates the illusion that atoms don't move, but the inside is still moving at the speed of light but not in a straight line anymore.
Whoever told you that is a liar. Please stick to the original truth and don't fall for their lies. 1/0 is unsigned infinity. It's evident in projective geometry and the Riemann Sphere. Anyone who tells you it's undefined probably thinks irrational numbers and imaginary numbers don't exist either.
@@samuelyigzaw what you're tripping over is that 1/0 is _defined_ as unsigned infinity _by_ projective geometry and the riemann sphere, therefore when using those models it is no longer undefined. this does not suddenly mean that 1/0 is _always_ unsigned infinity, however, because ... well, different types of math can define 1/0 to be something else, such as 0 in linear algebra or positive infinity when using the extended real positive number line, or they can just leave it undefined. which most do. so, from both the perspective of conventional majority and universal definition, 1/0 lacks any definitive definition. it could perhaps be more actually described as _variably_ defined, but a lack of definition is generally conceptualized as an empty space in which a definition can be inserted into, so the difference is p. miniscule anyhow ( plus, "variably defined" technically goes for _all_ numbers, so )
also, you seem to be under the impression that numbers cannot exist unless they exist universally, and thus things like irrational and imaginary numbers _must_ be included in every set of all numbers. but believing that would mean you are _denying_ their existence as proven by basic fields of math, which lack the ability to define 'em. and the thing is, there's nothing stopping more advanced fields from excising them, either, should they serve no purpose within them. hell, it would mean denying even the existence of _all_ conventional numbers, even _positive integers,_ as math is not beholden to working with them and can and _will_ define whatever nonsense it needs to to model the logic it seeks. that's why imaginary numbers exist in the first place, even
y'shouldn't think of more advanced fields of mathematics as being more and more "correct" than their predecessors, as placing the fields on such a linear scale is as massive misrepresentation of how they exist among each other to begin with. rather, each field represents a different way of looking at and defining numbers and how they operate, with the more basic ones being just as valid as the most complex. after all, when you're just dealing with quantities of discrete objects, something that's part of _everyone's_ daily life? all the effort going into defining 1/0 as unsigned infinity is suddenly just cruft that might've just redefined numbers to something useless, because how does distributing an apple among nobody suddenly cause infinite apples?
1/0 is literally the opposite of 0, how is it undefined?!
if 0 is no quantity then 1/0 is ALL quantity (then both are not defined numbers like how can the opposite of a number not be a number lol) ofc 0/0 is all quantitIES...
there is no need to write a book about it
if im wrong correct me
"We're not here to be *reasonable*, we're here to do **MATH**" FINALLY SOMEONE GETS ME
same lol
kinda(()*())
Amazing philosophy
I went here to write the same thing xD
Plugging extreme values in physics equations feels the same as making impossible scenarios in chess
But having 3 queens, 7 knights and 5 bishops really does create fun checkmates
fairy chess
The top comment will dictate the next equation, legal or not
@@tiranus5861 9/90/78(204*3209)/65456/0
bishop to p24
Negative mass is funny, because it is at negative temperature, and when meeting normal mass, it tries to reach equilibruim. But since the correct order of temp is [0 K, ..., +INF K = -INF K, -0 K], both objects will try to accelerate to infinity.
I wish I thought of that when making the video because this is way more interesting than collision
@@MAKiTHappen To be fair the large colliding object accelerating to chase the smaller one was pretty interesting. Maybe negative mass is more like, "Hey! You hit me! Cmeer you little shi...." as they go zooming off into the universe
Heck, there's even a proposal of simple space drive using negative mass if it exist.
@@MAKiTHappen it gets even better ! what happens when the negative mass object enters in contact with an object with exact opposite mass (I.e. a -1 mass objects encounter a +1 mass object) ? the mass cancels out ! and what happens to massless things in our universe when accelerated ? Bam ! It's instantly accelerated to the speed of light ^^
From our perspective time is frozen for photons but from the photon's perspective Lorentz contraction causes the universe to be flattened to 2D so they have to travel 0 distance to reach anything.
So Photons are flatlanders. And we always say flatlandersv can't imagine our world. Imagining the flat world of Photons and their speed is even harder.
@@9_1.1 The 2 dimensions the photons experience are perpendicular to their travel direction. If the universe were a stack of flat sheets, photons would perceive themselves travelling down all of the sheets of paper instantaneously and then getting annihalated.
Are you really sure about that. I have done some calculations on this with time dilation and length contraction over the last few months. I wanted to know if Einstein's light clock also worked laying down. That means if the light beam is going parallel to the traveling direction in stead of perpendicular to it. I found that it does work but only gave the same results if length contraction also was taken into consideration. That means that the traveling object get's shorter with speed and becomes 2D at the speed of light c. That should mean that the photons are 2D as they are the traveling ones and at speed c.
It also means that time dilation and length contraction is real for any body traveling.
It of cause also means that the time has stopped for the photon or moving vehicle as light will never move away from it's emitter. It will move away from it's emitting point at speed c but the emitter is moving with speed c in the same direction.
Alternatively we have height extension. I think that would work mathematically too.
I am of cause not sure about it but my calculations and thinking including making plotting points indicates that.
Also if going reverse - that is looking at a stationary light clock setup from the moving vehicle's point of view but imagining to be stationary - then if making a plot on the inside of say the vehicle's window ( that is really moving) of the light movement on the really stationary light clock using the dilated time that one experiences, one would find that the stationary clock would go faster.
From all this I find that things are really not relative and that there must be a zero speed.
By using both time dilation and length contraction one could measure the speed of light measuring the time it takes light to travel from one end of a rod with a mirror at the end and back again in any direction and at any speed between zero and c. It would give the same speed c every where.
I would like your thought's about this.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093
Light moves away at lightspeed even from an object traveling in the same direction at the same speed (the reason it doesn't seem to make sense is simply because an object can't travel at the speed of light).
The amount of space between the light and the object increases because the space becomes more dense, which is practically equivalent to the light moving away.
Edit: Also, "light beams" don't really exist, they're the propagation of electromagnetic waves, which can't travel sideways.
Think of a crashing water wave and tell it to move sideways while crashing forward (also pretend you have god powers and that a wave could or would somehow listen to you). Instead of sliding across the ocean, it'll just turn around and face the direction it's going.
@@HJ28_398 I disagree. Things like red/blue shift proves my point and so does speed radar etc. Light has a set universal speed in vacuum.
_i_ dollar foot long:
Robbert Sponge: Sandwiches at an imaginary value?
Patrick: Cities will burn.
Travelling -i7 through time:
Robert porifera "isosceles quadrilateral" trousers: Time taking on a negative imaginary value?
William "Patrick Star" Fagerbakke: One questions if even god himself can withstand the horrors humanity has brought upon itsself. The day man can comprehend a second temporal dimension is the day the judgement will come for god cannot let his creation break. The fragile eggshell of reality and logic shall fall apart as the chick breaks through, only this time, there is no conceptual connection between the amniotic sac and the world outside of the egg. There are only unfathomable consequences.
@@raynfall77_69 "Robert Porifera" xD
Math has fallen, billions must calculate
@@Flesh_Wizard Based and logicpilled. You will always be a gemerald
Oh, Travel in time in the Imaginary dimensions could be going to alternative timelines, nice
19:49 "But this is a video for another time"
**Proceeds to publish the next video in the past**
I think you can. Schedule a video for upload at a certain date, set it as private, and make it public after that date. 👀
Not only did math break physics, it broke my brain as well
Good thing physics isn't real (it's just a model of reality that progressively gets more accurate)
8:28 time would move sideways
would the youtube player have to have two axis
For me I think it as moving through many timelines, which yeah it's weird
4d world?
That’s how I interpret it; you go back in time but travel to another alternate universe
@@devrim-oguz 5d chess with multiverse time travel referenced
Monday I will drive with -100 km/h to my work
Gain some imaginary mass and you'll be able to go there on a tuesday
no vector? Sir, I think your car is broken
@@MAKiTHappen finally, a way to sleep till 10AM and arrive at work at 7AM.
@@MAKiTHappenman once I went Superluminal when I first got my car when I was 4000 years old. And then my Mother got angry at me for speeding :/
Dont forget to expand your fuel tank to prevent it from overflowing.
Greg Egan wrote the Orthogonal (series) where the metric signature is (+,+,+,+) instead of (−, +, +, +) like our universe. This has PROFOUND implications on every area of physics. There is no upper limit on velocity and you can actually go back in time if you travel fast enough. Time dilation is reversed so that time travels FASTER for fast moving objects.
I'll have to look into that because that sounds really interesting
@@MAKiTHappen All 3 books are VERY interesting. The final book does a much better job with consistent time loops than TENET did. He also wrote Dichronauts where the metric signature is (-,-,+,+) and that is REALLY weird. For example you can't do complete rotations and there are directions light can't travel.
Integer overflowing time
What is a metric signature?
@@MAKiTHappen Greg Egan has a website where he explain the equations (in where he modified something) of each of their novels
The point about gravitational potential energy going to infinity as you approach the center of mass being okay brings up an interesting point about black holes. As you said, for a normal object the infinity that pops out doesn't really matter, because as you go inside the object, the parts of the object that you pass through end up canceling out. But in a black hole, specifically a model black hole where the density inside the black hole is allowed to go to infinity (it can't in reality, of course, but we don't know exactly why yet because we can't exactly look), _all_ of the mass would be concentrated at the exact point of the center of mass. And so if you have two black holes colliding, then the energy of those two singularities coming together _would_ be infinite. Of course, we don't see anything close to that, because all of that mathematically infinite energy is trapped behind the event horizon and can never ever escape, and it's probably not how it really works anyway, but hey it _is_ potentially closer to reality than this video makes it seem. Still impossible though.
That's the problem with black holes and why there are so many theories about how they work. Having a point where all mass is concentrated leads to a lot of problems (infinite density, infinite gravity so on) and that's why we basically have no idea what happens inside of black holes
Also for external observers, the mass isn't concentrated at the centre (since it would take infinite time to get to the centre of a black hole). Rather spread over the event horizon, so we definitely shouldn't see infinite energy!
all of that energy is getting sent into the future and when the Black Hole Era begins we'll all understand
Photos that have a negative wavelength being the same would actually make sense. Since in Feynman diagrams, you can interpret it as either going back in time or forward in time and the photon just acts exactly the same.
And matter with a negative wavelength is antimatter, for most purposes (Dirac sea argument, CPT symmetry, etc.)
“Imaginary mass”
the jjk brainrot… i can feel it…
I hate monkeys and i'm not even a sorcerer and i've never been to the zoo
It's in my head
Domain expansion, permanent brain damage
The 3 times I feel good after watching 2 unskippable Ads.
1. Watching a makit video
2. kurzgesagt video
3. My favourite series murder drones.
Great video BTW makit
UA-cam gods really gods me when I was trying to watch murder drones yesterday. There was a lot of ads.
@@M_1024 you also a fan I am too my man. I love md and the finale was great
😮😮
@@29-vibhusingh74MURDER DRONES! YEEEAAAAAHHHH! Finale was PEAK, YOU CAN’T CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE! And yes, I honor things in my profile picture, and sometimes I honor things multiple times if it’s good enough… THREE HONORS OF MURDER DRONES IN MY PROFILE PICTURE MUAHAHAHA!
@@JuicyBurger29 yooooo so cool
Can you do 'Breaking Philosophy using Geometry and Group Theory' next? I'd love to see how a concept such as 'Supraenergy' breaks logic when plugged into the 'Platonic Concept' '''function'''. Thanks.
I am trying to look it up, but I cannot find any mentions of "supraenergy" or "platonic concept function". Also, I wonder what you specifically entail when you say "Breaking philosophy using geometry and group theory". I kind of understand how group theory can be used for this purpose, but not geometry, at least not directly. Also I wonder about the discontinuity between you starting the comment with talking about breaking philosophy, and then jumping to more generally breaking logic itself. Are you able to provide sources for these concepts from reputable places? Also, can you clarify what you mean by these methods of breaking philosophy?
@@Ethan-lx1vv It is an old video, but basically, I typed "Platonic concept function" in UA-cam's Search Bar and found it. The video's tag past the equals sign is MsdlkUFQPM4
breaking physics with one of the things it's made of which is math is like breaking a cookie using cookie dough.
“I used the stones to destroy the stones”
Welcome to half of modern science mate...Russells Paradox? Ring any bell?
Could be a subjective point about what "Physics" is, but it feels like breaking a cookie with a spatula
7:23 Just as punishement for going at c, you get frozen in time. Bro laking :))
"we're not here to be reasonable, we're here to do math" your so right and you should say that more
13:13 Yep, the gravitational force _under_ the surface of the sphere (due to Gauss law) linearly approaches 0 at the center.
Physics exists independently of humans, we merely use math to describe it.
Math exists independently of humans, we merely use symbols to describe it 😉
Yep
@@feynstein1004 We kinda of invented math to describe things, it isn't a thing, more like an idiom. We just use it as a tool
@@Gabriel-rg7cy What makes you say that? And in that vein, some more questions: does language exist? Do thoughts exist?
@@feynstein1004 Think of it this way, "all words are made up, but an apple is still an apple. It is not an orange, or a plum. The concept of an apple, and how it is described, is a convenience to understand the nature of fruit as a whole. The fruit does not suddenly change state because you wanted to vegitable an orange to the square root of plum."
This video, granted admitted it was being unreasonable, is mathing incorrectly. Which you can do, as maths is ultimately conceptual. Physics simply is. It always is. You cant physics wrong because physics will say "No", no matter how wrong you want to math at it.
Math is a language. Physics is.
Another way to break physics is with meth
Methematics
Did you come up with the elevator analogy for relativity? I’ve never heard that before but that’s a phenomenal way of explaining it!
I don't think I'm the first one to get this idea, but right as I thought of it I just knew I had to put that in the video
Math breaks physics the same way the alphabet breaks logic. One is used to describe the other, but can also describe total nonsense.
18:23 The full formula is E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 btw, do not forget the impulse, which becomes more and more relevant approaching c (and the single factor for massless stuff).
Yeah, I oversimplified a lot of relativity in this video mainly because I wanted it to just be a video about two different approaches to calculations, but I will try to be as accurate as possible in the relativity video
On the abstraction chart, math is the only thing to the left of relativistic quantum mechanics.
There may be something between the two, but nothing is beyond math. It isn't abstracted to. Everything is abstracted from it.
Ngl when you said -iY i was sent into a 5 minute laughing fit trying to wrap my head around what going backwards in time on a different number line would even mean like i was a character at the end of a lovecraft book
move into another plane of existence literally. we should definitely get an infinite amount of energy and try it out
Man this is brilliant. Finally I can see some of my "what if"s
Our sum of scientific data is self-incoherent, that doesn't mean abstraction is intrinsically limiting, it means that our efficiency of abstraction is low enough to the point where you can't reconstruct a phenomenon from one field of science using the data from that of another field. The concrete distinctions between the myriad fields of science are each an abyss of incoherence as the result of every researcher in their respective field working with the non-concomitated data from their select field. In simpler terms, a pharmacist doesn't need to know electron orbitals in order to sell pills, an architect doesn't need to know engineering as well as an engineer does, and these requirement so on cause this incoherence. It's overspecialization.
If you come into a society where scientific principles are named after the people who discovered them, you can tell that the focus is on individual vanity rather than on efficiency.
Bernoulli's Principle? Right, let's make students take extra time to memorise this guy's name rather than naming that principle after an intuitive description.
Small little details add up to become a big jarring experience that severely discourages your average joe from becoming a polymath.
For the record: I met a lady with a PhD. in Biomedical Sciences who thought hydrogen was a red solid at room temperature.
Can't agree more
"rather than naming that principle after an intuitive description"
But naming things is hard!
"There's 3 hard things in computer science: naming things, cache invalidation, and off by one errors."
9:45 made me realize how the argument about how it is strange that we can not move in time as we chose, when we can move in space as we chose, is not correct.
We can't move back in space, just like we can't move back in time.
you can always walk backward
@@wren_. walking backwards doesn't stop the Universe from moving.
The place you were is for ever gone, no matter what direction you walk.
8:40 "-iY" since i is a 90° rotation (changing axis of travel) and time is part of 4d space-time, I guess that it means you're moving backwards in space which implies a negative acceleration which implies a negative force.
So at that speed all forces would look inverted? i.e. rocketship blasting exhaust backwards to move.. backwards, pretty wild
Correcthin for ~7:00: the photon experiences *no* time, actually, not infinite time. From its own perspective, it starts and stops existing simultaneously. The rest of the *universe* chugs ahead at infinite speed from its prespective, not the other way around.
With regard to the 'imaginary time', this can be interpreted as turning a time into a distance. Time itself can be thought of as an imaginary distance (this is useful for relativity stuff like the minkowsi metric), so multiplying time by -i turns it back into a distance. Therefore, a hypothetical tachyon would have to swap the roles of space and time, which is quite interesting as the tachyon now percieves 3 temporal dimensions and 1 spatial dimension! That wouldn't mean the tachyon experiences 3 separate forms of 'times' at once, but that any of our space dimensions can act as a direction of time (this can also be interpreted as it only traveling in paths outside the lightcone).
20:49 "Is math created or invented?" Both mean the same thing 😂
What you meant to ask was, "Is math discovered or invented?", with the former implying that it exists on its own outside of our minds and the latter implying that it doesn't exist on its own but simply inside our minds.
Well, if you assume quadvectors square as quaternions s = t+ix+iy+iz yields s² = t² - x² - y² - z² (signature + - - -). Being faster than light is be trapped in (or create) a Black Hole, where time becomes a destination and space goes only forward as is time, towards the central singularity.
Forgot a square there
@@wernerviehhauser94 thanks. I edited the comment.
0:50 hated it when Kaufmo got turned into a number :(
7:31 (I’m a reality theorist and find this topic very intriguing)
I like to think reality is 5 dimensional. 3 spatial dimensions, one for time, and one for alternate timelines.
Using this, we can treat the 5th dimension as the imaginary axis, then proceed to say…
“imaginary time is like shifting seamlessly through alternate universes/timelines, perpendicular to time itself”
This would help describe the “unvisualizable” ideas you mentioned using this concept. If you decide to make a follow up video, it’d be cool to see what wild effects plugging in impossible values into these equations would bring up.
To help visualize these, you could also exchange any of the spatial dimensions with time and/or the 5th (“imaginary time”) dimension, since I’ve also pondered that idea too.
how could another reality be adjacent to ours? By that I mean, if we moved one over, what one specific thing would be different?
Would it be only one, or is our adjacent reality completely arbitrary?
Maybe a function of time makes it instantly not-adjacent and now whoever went there can never come back. Maybe they're not exactly adjacent, but some amount where nothing exists between them, maybe they mesh between those spaces?
@@HJ28_398 the closer to our timeline, the closer it would match it. An adjacent reality would be ever so slightly different to our own, becoming increasingly similar as it gets arbitrarily closer to ours until it’s indistinguishable.
Imagine this two dimensional time as a 90° triangle radiating out from the present time. These are all the possible timelines you can access from the present. All in the future. The past would have negative area, making it inaccessible, as its length is imaginary.
All the timelines outside this triangle are so different from our universe, there’s no set of events from our present that would lead to that state of reality.
22:08 as an engineer, I feel offended 🤣
As a physicist, I am aware that engineers build great stuff with outdated tools and are saved by mandatory safety factors :-)
@@wernerviehhauser94 and I'm also aware that physicists can't prove their hypothesis or invent new hypothesis just to make little money, live on social security, and sleep in the back of their office :)
@AndromedaAlrescha like what? Particle accelerator? Done that. Camera operating at 1.7K? Done that. I'm a physicist and a tinkerer, and I know how engineers work - and I really don't think there is a lot to change about that. Their methods are crude, but they get stuff done and make it to work.
This is exactly how I always wanted to consume math and physics. So much more fun and interesting than “you don’t wanna see the equations/code” the hell i don’t
MAKiT You've nailed another banger bro
7:00 Wait wasn't it the other way? Like The photon percieves time as 0 and the observer sees it as 1?? Otherwise going faster would make you exactly as The flash since you would not see a change between the before and now, meaning that if you do get some kind of boots that let you reach speed of light velocity (and dont let you evaporize) you could basically be a god.
20:20 the classic chatGPT answer
I am not an AI my fellow humans
As a human myself I can say with confidence that this script was not AI genereted since it was written by a human, me (I am a human)
Sincerely, human
@@MAKiTHappen i think they meant it as a joke, and that clip was the punchline (i think)
@@Kevoc_Studio I'm glad you don't doubt my humanity my fellow human
I will now go to continue with my human activities I've been performing as a human
@@MAKiTHappen i am currently experiencing emotions as happiness for i have been noticed by a person that creates content on this platform that i enjoy.
with imaginary values you just need to add another dimension, spacial or temporal depending on what kind of value is imaginary, so an imaginary 1d velocity would mean traveling perpendicular to the direction that real velocities send matter in
8:53 Great project for babies
This is a fascinating deep dive into the insight of what physics and engineering does. They are using models to simplify and predict real world phenomena, the more complex the model the more accurate the results, but, the higher the computational cost. No model is perfect and it does break down when pushed, but real life, the models we have are more than good enough, and for our theoretical understanding of the universe, our understanding is as good as our models, which keep evolving.
9:45 negative 𝘝𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 is moving backward. Negative 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 is the confusing bit. You got it right, probably just a slip of the tongue but I feel like it could lead some people to confusion, idk
Negative velocity is not impossible. As velocity HAS direction.
Negative distance is quite odd… since distance cannot be negative. You can’t move -5cm to the north. It’s just odd.
Second hour repeating the video, still understanding nothing but cool animated cubes and balls
Hey, I've made the video understanding nothing... I'm just here to make cool cubes and balls
It's easy to break physics with math. You only need to do a perfect sphere with maths and search in the universe if you can find a perfect sphere like in the math world.
This video is great. Never paid much attention to imaginary mass as you did. BTW, Breaking Math with Math would make some interesting video too.
absolutely wonderful video on abstraction, and how physics/maths are a model for the universe!
So my favorite use of math describing something real comes from an interesting discussion I had with my professor over a certain problem. The problem uses an equation that describes the probability of an event ending at each step, rising until step n where it is 100%, that is, guaranteed. The interesting bit is that putting step n+1 into the equation yields a divide by zero.
Here is the question: what is the probability of the event ending at step n+1? Looking at the equation holds no clues as even infinite probability is undefined since it can't be greater than 1. Considering that there is no way for step n+1 to be reached, one may conclude that 0% is reasonable - but asking the question assumes that step n+1 has already been reached and we are simply making a decision regardless of what happened before, in which case a human would end the event with 100% certainty.
I think this example shows how there are many reasonable answers to the question "what is division by 0?" because it depends on what you want to happen. On the flip side, the equation ran into a divide by zero in the first place because the domain of the problem ended at step n, so using the equation outside of that domain doesn't necessarily reflect reality.
It is only when the math we use carry nuances about reality that we don't expect which results in surprising results. If we did expect those nuances to carry over, the results would not be surprising. Inversely, when the results are surprising, there may be nuances in the math that do describe reality to an extra degree.
Normal change in time:
constant=dt^2-dx^2
Imaginary time:
constant=dx^2-dt^2
Where dx is the unit of space aligned to the direction of your velocity.
So imaginary time is just rescaled space and vise versa. What this would mean from perception view point is:
The speed of light miraculously is still the speed of light. But how you perceive it may be different.
Analogous to how time always seemed to be moving in normal time, space is instead always moving in imaginary. It's just a fact of reality.
Analogous to space in normal time, in imaginary time your default movements through time is unmoving. The universe is frozen around you.
Your default velocity is infinite. And actually doesn't hold much meaning. Instead of dx/dt, we focus on dt/dx.
Change in time over change in space. We can call it belocity.
Similar to velocity, there is space dilation when you increase in belocity. As your belocity increases, so does your movement through space. You would never be able to reach 1/c.
If all objects were faster than the speed of light. The universe from your perspective wouldn't look to different from our current universe.
A mixture of the two, would lead to weird entropic gradients, though.
"Dig a hole, drop a ball" is my new favorite quote 😂
20:03 No time-travel, just space-like intervals. GR does not permit FTL.
There's a neat explaination of what it'd be like to travel faster than like in special relativity and it has all to do with it's description of space time as a pseudo euclidean space.
It's kinda hard to explain it in a short comment and I'd suggest to any interested to search for it themselves, but essentially the problem is that one could be in multiple places at the same time thus breaking causality
Also, for reasons akin to why it's impossible to reach the speed of light, it's impossible to decelerate to a speed lower than light if you were going faster so there's that too
bro your animations skills looks really good, i don’t really know if it is in fact, but at least it looks like that
Literally a few hours ago I realised that photons don't travel trough time and I was talking about it with someone.
14:14 drop a ball onto a rotating naked singularity in such a way that you don’t touch the toroidal event horizon
Nice video dude hope you get more recognition
i see our channel is earning the fame it so rightfully deserve. im proud to be one of the kids who watched this grow from ground up. thankyou makit, you are a superhuman.
This the best video about physics shenanigans I’ve ever watched.
To figure out imaginary time, one has to distinguish between scalar time and coordinate time first. Imaginary scalar time doesn't really make sense, imaginary scalar doesn't even exist in math. Imaginary coordinate time is interesting one, it is how the time fabric itself warps. That sounds like imaginary time could just be space, but I mean, that won't explain time travel... or would prohibit time travel.
Also, time travel is impossible, when looking into what "faster than light" really means in information theory. For quantum information being exchanged with photon interaction, if the source is moving faster than light, it means the source would appear to observer before the consequences (like tachyon), this happens because photon can't reach observer before source, and that looks like time travel. But, if the observer is moving faster than light, then, the observer can experience consequences from source quicker, and nothing breaks. But, because these 2 circumstances don't aligned, it breaks relativity. If we added overseer as outside observer, both of the observer and source would look like they're in 2 places at the same time. And that might as well be called an entanglement.
great video as always physics major i’ve been wanting to plug in these values
very much like these kind of ideas!
in my comic i have a light based character with time powers. landing heavy punches he end's up getting faster. logic being, he goes so fast causality acts up shifting impacts into the past which makes an effect similar to stealing kinect energy. like he's borrowing energy from the past to propel him forward.
tachyons are so cool i love tachyons
This channel is so underrated damn
17:07
Imaginary technique: Hollow Purple
it's less of a cone and more of a pareto front
there might be things higher levels of abstraction can explain that lower ones cant - or would be impractical to describe with lower levels (try doing relativistic QM simulation of a whole brain to derive psychology!)
That's the function of the reduction in complexity. When the complexity becomes absurdly overwhelming it kills accessibility to higher level patterns. Abstract out to a reduced complexity and diminished accuracy, and gain access to a fuzzy vision of higher patterns.
13:22 this is actually the case in KSP where the gravitational acceleration increases up until a singularity at 0 to the planet's core.
Next video, we should try to break maths by using physics. Im thinking we push a few statisticians off a cliff. Or we use a physics textbook propped against a fixed axel and mathematian's femur.
I watched the video in reverse so I could see how we can break math using physics.
No, you don't break the physics, meerely the model and that's a good thing because that leads to new models.
That's... the point of this video
relativity makes a hell of a lot more sense when you think of it as how much time it takes for one thing to recieve the info of the other.
acceleration changes time because it "squishes" or "stretches" the instances of information sending
So close to mentioning SH thank god was gonna break my edging streak
SH?
spherical harmonics expansion of gravity/gravitational potential
What if my brain cells were imaginary? GREAT video MAKiT btw. Never give up on these videos…
8:22 Imaginary time could be perpendicular to regular time. The axis you'd need to traverse to move to parallel timelines. Like how the i-axis is perpendicular to the normal number line on the complex plane.
Negative just indicates which direction you are moving to along that axis.
Ontological "telescope", a way to make sense of a thing by viewing how it interacts with things we know and understand, "the shape of the hole in your mind" in short, so.. this telescope is limited and can't perceive things that don't interact with our reality, but won't matter here since we are using a familiar concept that of "dimension",
though to actually answer negative existence, we maybe have to dig deeper to understand the nature of existence itself, but meh:
I see pseudo-dimension i suppose, the way imaginary numbers act is like an additional variable that has to be processed differently,
By moving in imaginary time, you will observe reality where anything that interacts with reality has an imaginary variable in it, plain and simple, although will need a simulation to captivate it hahaha
Negative total distance also interacts as such by "being at" a pseudo-dimension, by being negative to all things, it will constantly looks like it being always a distance apart to everything, it would look really weird basically, either a local omnipresence with negative space eminating from it, or a wormhole like view of the object, because everything needs to reach more distance to such object including light, it actually will kinda look normal in small amounts of negative distance, you just can't touch it within arms lenght, it'll probably feel like reaching in a wormhole,
Afterall distance is just an emergent variable from space itself,
For imaginary distance, well the thing couldn't interact with us anyway, it basically didn't exist at all, and it is like an pseudo 4th dimension anyway, if it emit any photons with complex amount of movement... First it will drag all matter into the imaginary axis with it's momentum and gravitational influence thereby "destroying" the universe by making it unavailable to normal "real" 3d beings because it seperates the interaction in an imaginary curve... or propel a mass pseudo4D adaptation of the universe as normal matter is suddenly capable of emiting in a new axis in an ever expanding bubble with the speed of light, or let's say the normal 3D things can't be moved into imaginary, then... the "real" part of the photon will interact with your eyes and the imaginary part will be passed, it will appear more transparent if you approach it, (appearing to not exist if your eyes are up against the seemingly normal object), as the imaginary component is becoming more dominant the more perpendicular you are to it, and perpendicular imaginary light just not interact with you, the object itself will look normal, you cannot touch it, but it will look like it exist according to it's real position component, infact this is the same intuition as 4d shadows, but weirder,
And thats the thing, we as consciousness don't "care" as long as it is observable, it doesn't have to make "sense", you can make 1+1=2, and you can kinda perceive that, as a reality where objects or feelings duplicate and dissapear randomly, as long as our organs can perceive it, it remains normal no matter how weird it is to our universe, our brain is a memetic filter lol
to actually make things insane, is to input directly to a consciousness, but meh this is outside the scope of the discussion,
Have a fulfilling day wonderful other consciousness,
I was wondering why my walls were negative in length
1:30 Reality i might say it is the bounderies of math. Normalising abstracted stuff.
There is a concept of a spacetime.
Spacetime is a 4-dimensional vector (A 4-vector) that describes time as being a component of the same abstract "space" of points of the same unit as the regular space.
So, how do we make time make sense as a length?
The light travels at the speed of light regardless of reference point. So, wherever you are, however you fast, for one seconds light travels that fixed amount of meters.
That's how we define second: "The time it takes the light to travel X meters".
Ok, now we can describe length though time (aka lightsecond, lightyear) and time through length (lightmeter - is a measure of time).
By the properties of spacetime, you're traveling trough spacetime at the speed of light, always.
The length of velocity vector (so the change of that vector) is always the speed of light, you travel through space -> you travel less trough time.
The same way as if you're going diagonally, you're going "less" up.
The time is still a special boi.
The distance between two points isn't really the same distance that we use in regular space
it is defined like that:
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - (c*dt)^2
Somewhere, somehow in quadratics, there's a minus... strange, usually complex numbers behave that way.
One dude, Minkowski, thought the same, and unified complex numbers with relativity and spacetime, he proposed an invariant:
x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + (i * c * t)^2 = const.
Here a time is clearly an imaginary component of a 4-vector, a variant of supercomplex number if you will...
So we can think of time as of imaginary complex component of a space.
So, say, if you're somehow momentarily accelerate past speed of light, the t itself become complex, with the invariant, i*i gives a -1.
And the overall complex component of the spacetime invariant becomes 0
And so, if you'll somehow travel past the speed, you'll basically stop the time and will be able to move through space without moving though time, your time will become your space.
Granted, you'll instantly be in a borderless void, so dark, there isn't a place in the whole universe so dark. Because if you don't move through time, the EM field isn't oscillating and there are no "photons" per se, and no concept of frequency, you won't see anything, ever. And if you stop, you'll probably create a new Big Bang, because you'll have to decelerate through the point of infinite energy.
So... like jojo, but worse.
EDIT: fixed some misspells
"But it seems I was simply rotated into an orthogonal time that runs at right angles to this one" Futurama 😅
Absolutely amazing, instant subscribe!!! Keep it up!!
8:02 When your physics equations tell you that doing something turns you into fiction, you need to stop.
before watching anything more than the imaginary time, physics does have that I believe it's called complex minkowski spacetime, but I'm dumb as hell so I can't tell you what it's about exactly (it's more like events in time and the imaginary unit is kinda eh)
Mathematics actually pays respect to physics. Never can anything be negative unless it’s an amount in which it means a loss or an opposite.
This actually reminds me of a really cool series on negative mass by Science Meets Fiction. Gread Vid!
Negative velocity (which is a vector with a magnitude and direction) is totally reasonable and means moving in the negative direction. Negative speed (just the magnitude of velocity) is not reasonable
Ngl, this feels more like meth rather then math
Your videos are extremely high quality. 3D graphics animation explaining physics? C'mon, that has got to be more popular. So, here are some advice to attract more people so that they'll stay:
1. Try to speak with a consistent volume. Sometimes you alter your volume to emphasise points and emotions. Use something else like timing and speed. E.g.: Speak slower for important points. My professor also do this.
2. Background music. It doesn't have to be loud, but it has to be there. Most if not all science channels have them. They provide a more immersive experience. You'll be surprised at how high-quality royalty free music can be. You don't even need a lot of them; check Morphocular, they have like 3 background music in total, and this provides a comfy atmosphere already.
Of course, I am not professional, and the advice I gave are only my opinions. I hope you find them helpful. Wish you videos would be more popular, my dude.
3:11 bro, you said you'll start with something easy!! You betrayed me bro 😅
Amazing. Absolutely amazing. You've gained yourself a subscriber. 🎉
We can compute the kinetic energy as mv²/2 . So, this formula can give a negative number not only from negative mass, but (pure)imaginary velocity.
This kind of velocity may exist in 2-dimensional time.
I've always thought of time as imaginary space and space as imaginary time because of how the metric tensor works
10:28 for energy to be negative, time doesn't have to be
In math, if something is impossible, you just change the rules and do it anyway. In physics, we don't make the rules, and we can't change them, but it's not unusual for people to mistake math for physics.
Yea, because math has specific logical axioms (stuff that we decided that were so obviously true and basic that it wouldn't require proof). For example, for anything in existence (numbers, objects, thoughts, statements), x = x. You can't prove it, but it's so basic and obvious that all things are the same as themselves that you don't ask for proof.
There are actually many different systems of math, that have different axioms, so they disagree on if certain mathematical statements are true or not. For example, is there a set with a cardinality bigger than the naturaul numbers, but smaller than the real numbers? There's a mathematical system that says yes, and another one that says no, because they have different axioms.
In theory, these axioms can be whatever the hell you want. But your mathematical system, might not be consistent (free from contradictions) or complete (every true statement can be proven)
@@saadhorsepower8908 It is not only possible for math to be incomplete, it is unavoidable. I believe the same applies to physics. At some point we will reach the end of provability. We can still conjecture, and we might even guess correctly, but we will never be able to prove it.
@@crawkn Yeah, it's one of the things that just pisses me off from time to time. Godel proved that either we accept that there are unprovable truths or all of logic is inconsistent and it's all a big contradiction. But maybe the only unprovable truths that exist are the self referential specifically formulated not really useful statements that Godel discovered could not be proven but had to be true or else logic is all just a huge contradiction.
@@saadhorsepower8908 It doesn't really annoy me, because I don't feel a compulsion to know everything, it's an absurd proposition. The smallest computer that can simulate a thing precisely is the thing itself. So only the universe "knows" itself, but it would need additional processing power to have consciousness of itself. I think learning is a fulfilling process, and if I knew everything I would get bored.
Breaking physics using math, breaks math instead.
Finally Math is the accrobacy of creating everythings unreal, Math is decieved by abstraction and reductionism , it is a big dreamer in an imaginagry world without bread, water and air . Math is a walking-dead being who usually but not always do right works which sometimes useful to controle the balance of realism 😊😊😊
I think there is a mathematical way to disprove a tachyon. If we take the Taylor series, rest mass is singled out. If mass is imaginary, it contradicts energy being a real number
Finally a video from my favorite channel 🎉
I think you inverted the velocity of time for the moving cube and photon. Time passes slower for the moving object instead of faster. Photons dont evolve with time because time dont pass for them.
"Were not here to do physics were here to do math" best quote ever