13 Subatomic Stories: Why general relativity is definitely right
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2024
- Of the known fundamental forces, gravity stands out. Rather than being caused by force-carrying particles jumping between matter particles, gravity can be explained as the bending of space and time. In episode 13 of Subatomic Stories, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln briefly sketches Einstein’s theory of general relativity (our current theory of gravity) and mentions some tests that prove that it’s right.
Can leptogenesis explain why there’s something instead of nothing?
• Can leptogenesis expla...
Relativity: How people get time dilation wrong.
• Relativity: how people...
Length contraction: The real explanation
• Length contraction: th...
Fermilab physics 101:
www.fnal.gov/pub/science/part...
Fermilab home page:
fnal.gov
Andromeda image: Adam Evans
Galileo constellation image: ESA - J. Huart - Věda a technologie
Watching these is like a blackhole. Time just disappears. Pop out the other side of a 15min video and feels like no time has passed. ANOTHER!
I would argue, the reason that time "disappears" when you encounter a black hole, is because space and time exist infinitely in perfect symmetry. Because light has an observed speed limit (i.e. finite experience of spacetime) in our reality, we cannot observe time and space existing infinitely in perfect balance, because our observations of reality are dependant upon light having a finite experience of space in terms of finite passage of time. So when spacetime is warped such that the escape velocity of a gravitational body exceeds the speed of light (300,00o km/sec), true spacetime reveals itself in the form of infinite symmetrical spacetime characterized by finite properties of observation. The boundary of the event horizon, represents a barrier against viewing a reality not beholden to our finite observational sense of time.
@@ericfarina9609 I've thought about what if a blackhole is not actually a thing that consumes a volume of space in space-time, but literally space-time itself. So we cannot think of what is "inside" of it because it literally does not have an inside. And it's not so much that it has a "surface" as viewing the space-time from different directions gives a different perspective of the same space-time.
@@BenjaminCronce it does have an "inside" but we can only contextualize what lies inside by our own finite properties of observation. I.e. finite rules of external observation characterize an infinity of relative states of infinity
@@BenjaminCronce Hey! I gave this a re-read and realized I only focused on the one part I didn't like. Most of what you said is 100% accurate from my perspective
Pizza was made to hold pineapple!!!
I just love it when Don uploads
Me too, he’s wicked cool!
Same same. I also love how he connects with his audience with the question round at the end every episode
Very down to Earth and humble guy.
I never miss a vid.
yeah, he makes me happy
Doc seems a little under the weather, hope he's ok, he' one of the good guys.
How so? He looks fine in the video
I love the ratio between the length of the explanation and Q&A portions of the video.
Dr Don Lincoln, I have a question out of the topic:
Let's assume we send a radio-wave of very long wavelength pointing at a small Black Hole.
What's the problem?
The wavelength of a radio-wave can be anywhere from shorter than a grain of rice to longer than the diameter of the Earth. At 30 Hz the corresponding wavelength is as big as 10,000 km.
On the other hand: average Stellar Black Hole (10x mass of the Sun) has a radius of ~30 km. That's three orders of magnitude smaller than the wavelength of our radio signal.
And here is an important info: if I make a hole in my microwave the size of my thumb, I can safely look threw it when it is working, and no damage to my eye would take place - the microwaves used in the oven have a wavelenght of ~14 cm, and my 2 cm hole is so small, microwaves don't even register the hole.
So...even though, light cannot escape a Black Holes, would also our sent radio signal (that is many times bigger then the Black Hole), pass threw the Black Hole as if it were not there?
On forums people say the radio-wave would be somehow split in half...
I would think the energy is simply absorbed like anything else. But it makes me wonder if black holes will really evaporate from Hawking Radiation when the incident radiation of the visible Universe could overwhelm any loss from Hawking Radiation. Everything in the Universe would have to go cold before a net loss is achieved.
The 'size of the black hole' that you mention refers to the size of its event horizon. But the path of the light will be affected well outside the event horizon, since the spacetime is still curved there. The event horizon is just a point of no return. The size of the black hole that the radio wave 'sees' is determined by how much and how far the spacetime is curved outside the event horizon. A hole on a microwave oven however, doesn't curve the spacetime around it. Therefore the size of the aperture is just the visible size of the hole.
@@ohanneskamerkoseyan3157 's answer inspires me. In ordinary situations, Ciekawostki o poranku would be right; a long wavelength wiggles around a small obstacle.
But consider the bending of light around a mass, such as the 1919 verification of Enstein by observing a star at a position offset by the mass of the sun. The mass of a black hole is so large that it bends nearby light beams so they point right into the black hole, thus no "sneaking by unnoticed"
@@ohanneskamerkoseyan3157 also, won't there be blue shifting of the radio wave on approaching the black hole due to infinite bending of space time
Don, you cannot imagine how thankful I am for this series.
Hi Don,
I am a consultant by profession but what keeps me going is physics really.. Love your videos and this series on subatomic stories is amazing..
Love from India!
The strangest and most interesting thing you said about light: that to its perspective it is does not experience time, its everywhere at once, and (to it) the universe has zero thickness... I've heard this before, but for some reason it really sunk in this time... it's mind blowing to ponder💥
It blew my mind as well the first time I realized it. But when I think of time in terms of causality it makes sense that at C one does not experience time anymore.
I agree. This one fact leads to all sorts of different ways of thinking. Humans are so locked to our mass based space time, it is difficult to break out of that position and think of other ways the universe is built, i.e. not from a Human perspective.
The thought that staggers me is that a photon from our Sun takes 8 minutes to reach 'my eyes', however that is TOTALLY based on my perspective - not the photon's. Weird for sure. Nice point.
Edit: What the heck is a proton?
I always though rotation and time were going together.
"It certainly appears that massless particles experience no time and no distance." What is actually happening, is massless particles experience infinite time and infinite space in perfect balance. Light is massless in our reality precisely because it is what sets the parameters of our finite existence, by interacting with our finite reality in a relative expression if its infinite form.
@@ericfarina9609 IMO,,,rotation is locked with time despite mass.
*General Relativity presidcts:*
- Gravitational lensing, during an eclipse a beam of light from a distant star is deflected by the gravitational field of the sun. - Precise calculation of the precision in Mercury's orbit.
- Results of Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar experiment, the loss of energy found in two neutron stars orbiting each other, is in exact agreement with the predictions of general relativity.
- Detection of gravitational waves.
Yep, it's definietely right!
I mean, it seems pretty accuarate but the fact that we need dark matter and that it doesn't work in quantum scales should tells us that's not quite right. Also, I'm not entirely sure that if GR is a bit off and we found out what's really going on it wouldn't also explain dark energy
@Mike Doonsebury Failed to predict the existence of Mike Doonsebury. Obviously an incomplete theory.
@@impCaesarAvg Maybe _incomplete_ but not _incorrect_
Also don't forget the Event Horizon Telescopes image of the photon sphere of M87* or the measurments of stars close to Sag A* in our own Milky Way.
Also I have recently been looking into Wolfram's fundamental physics project and one of its computation based universe consequences is that the Feynman path integral behind Quantum Field Theory becomes equivalent to applying General relativity within a phase space of all possible outcomes referred to as Branchial space. In this context quantum weirdness is entirely dependent of Branchial reference frames and the curvature of Branchial space. Its too early to say whether it is right or not but if true General Relativity is more fundamental that Quantum mechanics though both do effectively become quantized in terms or relations between adjacent states.
Note the choice of wording are key as if I am interpreting the technical papers right it seems to be meaningless in this context to say states of "what" as they are simply information packets that can interact/exchange information with space being an emergent quantity based on their degree of interconnectedness and the time it takes to update. An implication of this is that time and space are separate after all which space being dependent on time relative to the connections in the system.
The point is if this hypothesis/model is true tit would imply GR was more right than Quantum mechanics in that the latter becomes the former acting within a phase space with a different causal interaction rate(analogous to a "speed of entanglement, which seems to be on the order of 5 solar masses per second). It is fascinating so far but it is clearly a work in progress making the validity hard to assess as there are areas of mathematics which haven't been developed yet needed to identifiable testable predictions. Apparently algebra extended to fractional dimensions doesn't exist yet but is needed for computations....
@Mike Doonsebury
- the Universe isn't perfectly homogenous and no one believes that.
- angular velocity depends on mass which is a free parameter in GR.
- see point 2.
- see point 2.
- see point 2.
Ditto.
Hey Don, I'm really enjoying this series of videos. As an enthusiastic amateur I've learnt a lot about math and physics from CZcams. However one gets to a point where even new content just seems to repeat stuff already covered. In your video's, though, I'm learning new points and insights that the other channels just gloss over. Keep'em coming, they're pitched just right.
It's the questions that keep them fresh.
Your description of matter being a concentrated form of energy is probably making all of the physics post-docs who watch these videos roll their eyes in horror, but it definitely helped this humanities major better understand gravity's relationship to space-time. Thank you.
Physics postdocs know it's true.
czcams.com/video/x8grN3zP8cg/video.html
Great content as always! Can you please tell something about the new particle they discovered LHC?
Don I love your book. Understanding the universe from quarks to cosmos
that was a short discussion on GR even though I have seen it numerous times in other channels, it is just amazing.
Great explanation Dr. Lincoln - as always! Thank you for sharing your brilliant insight into and knowledge about things
Those were some great answers, pls keep asking questions. I like this program....
I like where this is going and look forward to the IOU episodes :)
yea is time discreet or not LULZ.
Great series! Keep it up!
Hey Don ! Here's another question, not related to physics tho;
I always loved particle physics and find it interesting. I wanted to know how you got the inspiration to become a particle physicist ?
Hello Dr. Lincoln...always enjoy your videos, not necessarily because of the content itself but knowing that what you talk about is mostly a modern standpoint. The one point that I was glad to see from a modern (working) scientist was at around 4:30. You don't say that 'time' slows in a gravitational field but that 'clocks' do and that's an important difference. I have experienced many times that people identify a 'clock' with 'time' and will say that 'time' slows in a gravitational field. As you will know, nowadays 'time' is subject of much discussion, 'is it an illusion', 'is it real' etc etc. But whatever the arguments what we actually observe is the slowing of clocks and that is the evidence. To me it means 'the rate at which change occurs'.
So little time, so much to learn. I'm considering moving into an extreme gravitational field. Thank you Don!
Clear, informative, awesome.
You are getting better and better at making videos, Keep it up
I love this series. So, riddle me this: does the universe have angular momentum?
4:28 omg i was assuming you will talk about a clock in space vs here, 1 foot omg
Hi Don! I was a bit late with the last episode, so if you don't mind, I'll put my question here about neutrinos.
They should've escaped far earlier than photons after the big bang right? So there should be a cosmic neutrino background too?
What would that look like, would we need a solarsystem-sized argontank to detect it?
Is it even feasible to detect them? and for bonus a stupid question: would it help? :)
Please never stop these videos!
What a fantastic episode! Thank you.
Hi Don! In case we find a way to discover them, can the axion and the graviton introduced by string theory actually be the same particle? and maybe also with the right-handed neutrino?
Hi Dr. Don:
Since GR modifies spacetime, is it useful to try to think about the laws of physics apart from the concept of "time"? Along these lines, is it proper to think of "mass" as "the ability and/or act of an object to change configuration"?
Thanks!
Science dad jokes?
The difference between a total solar eclipse and a partial solar eclipse is like night and day.
That's high grade humor right there.
The difference between a total lunar eclipse and a total solar eclipse is like night and day. :D
Recently I watched an excellent video by Fermilab that shows how particles are accelerated, including some awesome 3D animations. Is it possible to tell use more about how things work? For example, how do those clocks in Boulder, Colorado work? Don't even need to show us fancy 3D animations, simple diagrams would be fine.
Would love to get some of the t-shirts you wear. Are they available online?
Love your amazingly explained videos! Can you add me to the next vid?
Can you give us a tour of your bookshelf? Any recommendations?
Thanks for providing us good information
Perhaps one more question. What determines the speed of propagation of gravitational waves?
THANK YOU PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!
The question & answer part was a bit speedy !
If we are in loop hole space does we live or time again and again as space has been looped and so space and time is related?
Thank you sir, for clearing up my doubt on that, that was really kind of you. ☺
lovin' this stuff, good sir. thanks.
thank you for a well presented, relatable channel that allows me think that even though i cannot spell phd, i could probably get one.
and i agree, the worserer the joke the better.
and pineapple pizza people prove the many-worlds hypothesis, cuz they're all from some other universe where good taste disappeared early on in their universe like the anti-matter did in ours. so these pizza-pineapple people must be made of pure anti-matter and puons(the sub-atomic particle that accounts for 100% of their pizza on pineapple problem)
@Fermilab At 11:26 I suspect you mixed up linear density with volumetric density. I'm pretty sure neutron stars have a density that is at least 10^14 times as much as lead, or something like that. And wouldn't the scattering probability be proportional to the cross sectional area (area density), and not the linear density?
Hi Don. I'm loving this series and I've learned so much so far! I have a question about antimatter. As you mentioned in Episode 7: Antimatter, the only difference between say an electron and positron is that they have opposite charge, all other properties are equal, then why do they annihilate when they come into contact? What is the actual process of these two equal particles with opposite charge converting into energy when colliding?
You should google "Dirac Sea"
You have your own books behind you! I didn't know you were an author, I mean of books for the general populace. Nice.
Yep. Several.
In a philosophy class I was asked to think of a response to Zeno's Dichotomy paradox. My response was that it was self-contradictory because it assumes space is quantized while time is not, and spacetime cannot be quantized and not quantized.
Ive heard some physicists say "GR is incomplete, is an approximation and will have to one day be replaced with a deeper underlying theory"
That can be said about any theory in physics. It's how science works.
Who are you?
Physics student: I'm a bunch of atoms and some other things.
Chemistry student: I'm a complex of carbohydrates, proteins, enzymes, fats, lipids, etc.
Biology student (Me): I'm a Sapiens sapiens homo hominini homininae hominidae simiiformes haplorhini primate mammalian amniotic tetrapodal sarcopterygiian osteichthyen gnathostomal vertebrate cranial chordate animal. That's it!
(Would like to hear from Dr. Don for a more appropriate answer from a Physics perspective :))
Does gravity's distortion of space(time) enlarge it? I.e., If I take an empty lightyear cube, and a second one where I place a massive star or black hole into it, and compare them: does the second one have a larger volume?
While I understand the four fundamental forces are similar in that they affect matter, why do we think gravity is "a force like the others"? Why would we expect a gravity particle, or that it can be unified with the known quantum forces?
Yes it moves at c like the other forces, but it appears to have such a vastly different manifestation - bending spacetime vs moving/interacting with particles - that I can't figure out why it's always spoken about in the same way as the other three.
i was building a universe in my head (for fun) and imagined a void of energy with a collapsing 0 vaccum into a 2d space, the 2d void creating G and T and t (twister field) in the collapse. the rest of the void energy rushing inward begins to form the rest of the fields of space and the rebound in our universe arises.
bit of a mind game probably nonsense, but looking at it like that G and T are more fundamental than the forces that would follow.
could be bs BUT since G and T and S are fundamental in ways the other forces and fields are not.
Thank you for this great series. I have a question. Why does concentration of energy curves the space time? What is the property of energy which causes events to tick slower?
What is the property of spacetime that causes it to be bent by the presence of energy? Physics doesn't really answer "why?", it answers "how, and by how much, exactly?" We say "If space is like this, and energy is like that, then they should interact thus", why things are the way they are is a matter for philosophy or religion.
GR doesn't answer this, unfortunately. It only says "how much", but not "why" or "by what means". Maybe the answer will come from quantum mechanics when we get to a good theory of quantum gravity.
@@thedeemon "Why" is a bit of a tautology. "Why" do charged particles emit virtual photons? Basically, because charges and fields behave in such-and-such a manner, that can be quantified mathematically.
Why do they behave thus? Because.
You briefly mentioned around 3:13 that not everyone believes in GR. Do they have compelling alternatives?
No
Hi Don, why does the time dimension have a direction (since you can't go back in time), while the other 3 (spatial) dimensions don't? Love your videos!
You should read Sean Carroll's book on the subject.
Dr Lincoln, been following you since the first series... My doubt being off topic, is about how our solar system, galaxies have nevertheless come to a single plane, though the primordial gas cloud had matter was swirling in different planes, and was chaotic.
Conservation of angular momentum. The gas cloud had some eddy in it. That eddy defined the rotation axis of the solar system. Gravity could pull the gas down into the rotational plane, but angular momentum resisted contraction within the plane.
@@drdon5205 Thank you sir. How would there just be a single axis of rotation? Also won't particles collide with each other internally, making it still more chaotic...
Hi Don.. if energy is mass how come u can increase the energy (with an accelerator) lets say of a neutrino but it still keeps its (low) mass?
Dr Lincoln I love you
Is ozone layer is also rotate and revolve along with earth
You never answer the question proposed, but these videos are always educational somehow.
Dr. Lincoln I have a question about neutrinos. The fact that each type is a mix (superposition?) of masses and vice versa is the same phenomenon as a qubit measured in the computational base (|0>,|1>) being in a superposition in the diagonal base (|+>,|->) and vice versa?
The identity of massive don't change over distance. Before the breaking of electroweak symmetry could it be possible that those oscillates as well?
Love your work
I'm curious about an idea.
Science considers mass to be the origin/cause of gravity (warped space)
My idea is that gravity causes the phenomena we refer to as mass.
That is, movement of fields of energy (relative to one another) create areas of space that are smaller and more "permanent".
So the fields are moving into that small, fast moving area, resulting in what appears to be mass.
The reason we "observe" particles is to do with our movement relative to the movement of the field.
That is, we can only observe that part of the field whose movement corresponds to ours.
As the velocity of the field increases, the energy reaches a point where the field shrinks even further, and the particle appears in a different valence shell.
This is the reason the "particles" appear quantized.
This idea, extrapolated, unifies the fundamental forces and explains dark matter/energy.
Put the idea into equations, make a quantified prediction, do an experiment, and then you are doing science. Until then, you are not.
Hi Dr Don, have a basic question on relativity.can you please explain the below questions
1. If I drop something why does it fall in a straight line considering space-time is curved
2. Can you please explain why objects move between 2 points in a curved path .
Is there any relation between the wave function of a photon and the interpretation of that photon as an electromagnetic wave?
I believe they're pretty much the same thing, or if not one is the square of the other. (Caveat: I'm not a physicist, I'm just decent at math and watch a lot of Fermilab, PBS Space Time, and Kurzgesagt.)
think if anyone can sort this duality and test it then you would be famous.
there any number of theories out there though.
Yes. The higher the energy, the shorter the wavelength. Photon wave packets of a given momentum do not fall apart and spread out like those of things with mass.
On electrovolts and mass: shouldn't you use an equation with m^2c^4 and p^2 instead of the one with mc^2? A charged particle as you've shown it will be moving, right?
@roblox hedgehog p^2 will be very small, unless the accelerated particle is moving at relativistic speeds. Also, it should be (pc)^2
Why do the clocks become slower with increasing gravity independent of their internal clocking mechanism? For example, a simple wall clock has mechanical movement producing the clockwork, while the atomic clocks that you mentioned in the lecture located at Colorado probably work on the basis of some spontaneous transition of electron from one quantum state to another, right.
Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a.
My Current TOE:
THE SETUP:
1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism.
2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.).
3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them.
4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them.
5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them.
FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO:
6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field.
7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field.
8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality.
9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons.
10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary.
11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks.
12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do.
THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA:
13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc.
14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe.
15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe.
16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate.
17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure.
18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons).
THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY:
19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up.
20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency.
21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies.
NOTES:
22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well.
25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true.
26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught?
DISCLAIMER:
27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.
Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way.
a. Imagine a 12 hour clock.
b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions.
c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions.
(The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.)
d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields.
e. Do this with the em fields on and off.
(The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.)
f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects.
(Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.)
(And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.)
(An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.)
'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done.
'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
And note: If numbers themselves do not exist in this universe by this or some similar way for math to do what math does in this universe, then how exactly would numbers exist in this universe for math to do what math does in this universe?
'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows:
Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction;
Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction;
Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction.
Then:
1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe.
(And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have).
Hi Don, I was looking Higgs field, Higgs boson. A question came to my mind if interaction with Higgs field is the reason particle have mass, so where does quantum excited of Higgs field i.e. Higgs boson gets its mass?
p.s. I am in 12 grade and I was thinking of a career as a physicist because of you ,Dr. Sheldon Cooper and of course Richard Feynman
With gravity just being a curvature of spacetime, it feels easier to imagine black holes, but... How is it responsible for fusion in stars or the states of neutron stars?
Kurzgesagt did a great vid on Neutron Stars that helped me understand ( czcams.com/video/udFxKZRyQt4/video.html ), but the TLDW is that heavier elements fall towards the centre of the star, perpetuating a cycle of energy until it dies or becomes too compactified by the extreme gravity and forms a black hole.
.....I think :P
Gravity isn't directly responsible for fusion or for neutron stars, it just creates the conditions, namely insanely high densities, that those things require.
@@Anaesify I watch Kurzgesagt too
@@michaelsommers2356 Temperature, density, confinement. Fun fact the sun has similar avg density than your body (and actually less avg energy density) not in the core though where the fusion happens.
@@CraftyF0X The average density of VY Canis Majoris is lower than the air outside the ISS.
Does light undergo spegatification when heading towards black hole? And we can observe? And dose it still within theory of relativit
Al device's that measure time are based on movement. Whether it is movement bij a spring and pendulum, vibration of a crystal or atoms.
How do we know we really measure time, when all we do is measure movement?
We assume that progressing of time equals the movement.
But is this true ? And how do we know this ?
By Carlo Rovelli's perspective space and time are both quantized. The volume of the space derivates from loops, nodes (and spin nets) in the gravitational Faraday's lines of force. Space-time itself would be designated as a spin foam. Do you subscribe this perspective?
This series is one of the best things coming out of this pandemic, love it. Also, on a side note, the new comment layout is mind bending
What did the clock do while it was rising during its acceleration and deceleration to a stop?
Dear Don Lincoln, could the 2nd or 3rd generations quarks and leptons form new pattern of "exotic atoms", and consequenly, new patterns of "exotic periodic tables" in regions of high gravity, such as Black holes or neutron/quark stars?
Does this mean we are going to get an episode titled "Why General Relativity is Definitely Wrong" detailing the places where quantum seems to not play nice with GR?
Hi Don. Love this series. Just one question : if mass is just concentrated energy (E=mc^2). Is energy-impulsion just concentrated space-time ? (G_{\mu,
u}=8 \pi T_{\mu,
u})
And the word of the day is "geometrodynamical exciton."
i am confused with watch example at 4:30 timeline... Does watch represent time? or its mechanical movements were equivalent to time? if so what slows the time or its mechanical movements?.. sir i am not contradicting you or try to be disrespectful... can you please explain?
Sir ....one question...
I understand that in CERN LHC the best vacuum ever possible is achieved but as it is not Absolute vacuum there are still about 2million atoms are present...so does the high spped proton collide with them before reaching set target?
Presumably, such collisions do occur, but there are lots and lots of protons in the beam.
What Michael Sommers said. Some protons do collide.
Thank Dr Lincoln
The massless particle question left me wondering how the good doctor sees some of Penrose's more outlandish ideas like CCC
Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Yeah, its a weird one. Food for though, but I doubt its "true". Penrose is a bit of an oddball, but he does push the envelope.
@@ozzymandius666 it was specifically the wording related to "light not experiencing time" that reminded me of some very similar wording by Penrose in one of his videos trying to explain it . I'm certainly no judge of truthiness, but I have found trying to at least get my head around that envelope pushing interesting.
I wondered if the Don saw any merits or even had any negative view of it / Penrose's approach!
@@williamprior7831 More than one "truth" has been discovered as a result of a "mathematical oddity", like antimatter and quarks.
What is the basic differences between Majarona and Wyel in terms of Neutrino
Dr Don you're the man. When you have the time could you please explain the Dirac equation as I'm attempting to extract sunlight out of cucumbers and it may just help !! Your vidios give me a reason to live. Yiiiipppppeeeeee 😁
“Let me talk only about...” so rare to hear someone use the word Only correctly in such a scenario
So true! This is such a struggle for me. I start talking about one thing and before you know it I am trying to tie up a dozen conversational tangents into one cohesive conclusion 😂😂
@4:32 you said the one clock that was raised a single foot moved faster but you did not say by how much. I calculated 3.326e-17 seconds faster per second than the clock that was a foot lower. But I didn't use relativity to do that calculation.
Then what did you use??
Hey Don, I was wondering if you ever thought about writing a book explaining why many of the misconceptions/ outdated conceptions about quantum mechanics so often circulated in the public are incorrect? I hear a lot of them mentioned frequently, and I do what I can (not being an expert) to clarify the science, but it sure would be great if there were a book dedicated to the subject I could simply point to. There is so much about the subject that is truly amazing, it’s a shame that the real facts worthy of wonder are obfuscated by fringe conjecture and philosophical blunders.
No, I meant misunderstandings about (for example) Schrödinger’s paradox.
Is the bending of the spacetime by mass similar to the bending of field lines by charges?
(in both cases, they tend to follow the curves that they, themselves, created)
Wouldn't a right hand neutrino going backwards in time appear (as seen by a time-forward observer) as a left handed neutrino? Is that what we're *really* seeing? Also explains why it's so hard to interact. Maybe, Neutrinos interact with time, rather than the weak force....
If a neutrino is moving at the speed of light, it essentially is a function of infinite time manifesting in our finite contextual existence. If it is moving slightly slower than the speed of light, it will appear to be right-handed only if the observer is moving at the speed of light. That is my understanding. Neutrinos tend not to interact with our reality very much precisely because they move at or approaching the speed of light, and thus experience time very differently (if moving slightly slower than lightspeed) or experiences time and space infinitely in a perfectly symmetrical state (if moving at lightspeed). This is based on my own personal idea about the nature of space and time, which posits that the fundamental principle on which all modern physics rests is space and time existing infinitely in perfect symmetry, in an infinity of relative configurations contextualized by finite rules of observation.
Is there any correlation between:
- Light, which is pure energy, has no mass but can produce pairs with mass, experiences no time, and by its own viewpoint exists at all points in its path simulaneously and...
- The big bang, which all known mass springs forth from, marks the beginning of time as we know it, and encompassed all points of the universe?
It seems like there's some overlap in the relationship between space, mass, and time in these two concepts.
Is there any chance that the speed of light is actually a speed slightly less than some higher limit on the speed of an object?
When we derive the equation for the potential energy of an electron in an electric field (integrating the field strength over distance and multiplying by the charge of the electron), we get that an electron can, and perhaps must always have negative electrostatic potential energy. My question is whether this counts as ‘negative energy’ in the relativistic sense, and by extension, if an electron in a strong enough field (I think it falls in the mega volt range) that it’s potential energy cancels out its mass energy, can we achieve negative energy density within a region , and by extension, negative space-time curvature?
Setting the zero point of potential energy is entirely arbitrary, because the only thing that is physically significant is potential differences. For example, when dealing with gravitational potential energy near the surface of the Earth, you usually pick the ground as the zero point, but if you are dealing with planetary orbits, you pick infinity as the zero point. You could say that the potential at the Earth's surface was a zillion and thirty-seven, but in practice you pick the zero point to make the math easier.
Could the small-scale/large-scale difference with gravity be due to gravitons having a very long wavelength? Similar to the "quantum push" for plates that are placed extremely close together, where only the waves that can fit between them manage to get in - maybe particles need to be at least one graviton-wavelength apart to be effected by gravity?
Edit: Clarified wording.
Question: what is the connection between inertial mass and gravity mass? Is there a scientific explanation of why they're the same?
Yes, that is the exact thing that general relativity (GR) explains. The main point of GR is that gravity is a virtual force. There is no force real between two massive objects - they just follow their inertial path. It's just that, the inertial paths lead through spacetime that isn't flat, due to the presence of energy.
What are the units of G(μν). When the equation is solved what is might G look like - is it simply 1,0, or -1?
A question, when we say space is flat, so how many flat layers are there one above the other or is it only one ?
No others that we know of. Just one
'Flat' in this context means zero curvature, not two-dimensional.
This is a theory on how the universe started, I would appreciate it if you gave your feedback on it. How the universe started?
Blank space with complex equations before Big Bang
Complex equations could be mathematical rules that particles have to follow, spin, charge etc.
The “Fabric of space” is just the dimension that the particles interact with
“The fabric of Space” or in quantum field theory, a field that particles oscillate in. String theory says that these oscillations are just vibrating strings, quantum field theory says this is energy.
With this in mind the only two things that are “reality” and can interact with “reality” are energy/movement/vibrations in strings/however you define the packets of energy that make up the fundamental particles.
The other is space or the field that the particles can interact with.
The field must contain information on how the particles interact with it; “complex equations” which are rules for how the particles interact with the field.
The particles/energy in the field have the values (Eg. charge spin mass) that determine how the field acts on the particles or how the particles act on the field.
With that in mind before the Big Bang the only thing that existed was space, which is just a field that gives rules on how particles act within it.
The BigBang was a massive infinitely compressed ball of energy, the energy interacted with the field and “created” particles releasing more energy.
The explosion was the rapid formations of particles producing energy. The bigbang was “energy” being added to space.
This would mean that the point beyond space, the border where the universe has not expanded to, is just a field with no energy in it (no virtual particles either)
This theory only has one field instead of the QFDs 9 fields, a particle is a packet of “energy”, different amounts of energy determine the particle. You do not need 9 fields to explain something that requires one.
Dark energy causes the expansion of space that particles can travel within
Dark energy may be a different kind of energy that interacts with the “energy field” (space). Although it is possible it occupies its on type of field, I believe the same could be true with Dark Matter.
spaghettarius a The idea of the universe being a materialized projection is just a theory it has not been proven
spaghettarius a I’m interested, can you explain it
spaghettarius a interesting theory, I agree with the part about black holes having some other property and possibly containing extra dimensions at its core. The only thing I have to wonder is how you theorized that matter is a part of space time and vice versa. The Roche lobe overflow doesn’t prove that matter is a part of space time. Also light can be bent by gravity including the earth and other stellar bodies.
spaghettarius a Some of what you explained was General Relatively and special relatively, but what general relativity says is that Gravity WARPS space time it is not the same as space and time. And like I said before light can be warped by gravity other than black holes. Also what do you mean by “Time is Ahead”, a moment in time is just a certain arrangement of particles if that is the case (which it is) how can time be “ahead before you like light is”?
spaghettarius a Yes this is General and Special Relatively I’m not debating you on that, what I’m wondering is how you got the idea that Matter is the same thing as space time
Replace
Gab = 8pi(G/c^4)Tab. Einstein 1916
By
Gab = 8pi(G/c^4)PHITab
PHI is controllable classical scalar field (zero rank tensor field) dependent on the electromagnetic "Frohlich pump" driving field stress-energy tensor Tuv.
Remember before 1903 ? Heavier than air flying machines were supposed to be impossible !
You just need the right materials !
Re: light has no mass.
Consider this thought experiment: Suppose we have a star, surrounded by ideally reflective mirror sphere (not even neutrinos get out). The star goes supernova, releasing some percent of its mass as electromagnetic radiation, but all radiation is enclosed inside the sphere. Will the observer outside the sphere register any change in the mass? Suppose all energy of emitted radiation is absorbed to the supernova remnant, heating it by converting EM energy to kinetic energy of atoms. Do relativistic atoms have higher gravitational mass? In the end the question is, does energy corresponds to measurable gravitational mass?
Hi doctor Don! Thanks for the video! I guess I have a quite good intuition on how matter bend the space, but I cant seen to have an intuition on how it bend time... Can you please help me?
It is never space and time, but just spacetime. Assume(Imagine) 3 dimensions of space as 1 or 2 dimensions and time being another dimension running perpendicular to space.
Time bending just means at different points in space time ticks at different rates. Bending of space and time is encoded in the metric tensor, you need to learn how metric tensor works in order to grok the topic, all visual analogies are somewhat misleading.
@@Magma_Meteor thanks for the reply! It really helped a lot just imagining one dimension of space! =)
@@thedeemon thanks a lot for the reply! I'll look up about the tensors! Also, the insights about the clock ticking really helped!
Dr. Lincoln, could not the constant creation and destruction of particles in the vacuum of space account for the mass needed to explain dark matter? ..A carpenter who is fascinated with physics.
How do you explain the Biological changes in the body when the clocks slow down?
There are no such changes. In your own reference frame, your clocks always tick at the same rate.
My only problem with relativity is that we only describe the Lorentz Transformation from a orthonagal frame of reference (90 degrees) of something moving at relativistic speeds. My question is how does a object transform from a diagonal frame of reference at 45, 20 or even 10 degrees to the path of a object traveling at relativistic speeds. Yes, the orthonagal view is correct, the other angles will become critical when considering how to unify Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.
I wonder how things that experience no time can even exist in the universe that is guided by time. Something that does not experience time should not even exist. Everything flows through time because in the end, it takes *time* to get from point A to point B which is what light does.
How can we say that, when we don't understand what time, fundamentally, is?
Lakrinir
Eggsactly!
11:30 I'm confused about the density of neutron stars. A density of 10^9 kg/m3 seems very low, and numbers I could find range between 3 and 6x10^17 kg/m3. With this density the mass of the sun would be compressed into a sphere with a diameter of some 20km, which sound reasonable.
@chi-wei shen I was looking for this comment. I noticed the same mistake.
@Dr Deuteron I thought he was mixing up linear density with volumetric density.