Relativity: how people get time dilation wrong
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 05. 2024
- Einstein’s special theory of relativity is notorious for being easy to misuse, with the result that sometimes result in claims of paradoxes. When one digs more carefully into the theory, you find that no such paradoxes actually exist. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln describes a commonly claimed time dilation paradox and shows how to resolve it.
Related videos:
• Relativity's key conce...
• What is relativity all...
• Einstein's Clocks - Věda a technologie
As a sixty years old lady with no prior physic education, I mostly can understand your words, that is great to me, Thank you.
Yeah he's an amazing narrator
Even I understand it somewhat 😂
I'm a 3-months old infant and understood it on my first watch.
I'm a 9 y.o. panda and don't even understand the idea of human communication and articulation, I still was able to comprehend most of the things he talked about. Cheers!
ship
Ok boomer
I really enjoyed this video, as it cleared up some of the ambiguities I had about relative reference frames and relativity. However, I would make some suggestions on how it's presented. The constant use of Observer 1 and Observer 2 and quickly jumping back and forth between who sees was was almost impossible to follow, It quickly just becomes noise stew. I had to rewind and rewatch some sections several times to make sense of what you're saying.
E.g.: what you're saying at 9:32 - it's extremely hard to parse: "That means that the transformation of what Observer 2 sees compared to what Observer 1 sees depends on location. Observer 2 sees more time elapsed than Observer 1 sees at Observer 1's location, but sees less time elapsed than Observer 1 sees at Observer 2's location." That would be fine in written material but is very hard to follow when listening to a voice while also watching the animations and trying to read the text.
I would recommend you use actual names like Alice and Bob rather than numbered people. The viewer is already having to follow the equations, adding in numbered people and locations is too much numeric data to have to listen to all at once.
Here's a suggestion for an easier to parse phrasing:
"That means that the transformation of what the two observers see depends on location. Bob sees more time elapsed at Alice's location than she does. However, Bob sees less time elapsed than Alice does when looking at his location." Using the pronouns helps to avoid the rapid repetition of Observer1 and Observer 2 to the point they all just blend together.
Very helpful. Thanks
@@geoffb1418 THE ULTIMATE, TOP DOWN, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA:
The BALANCE of being AND experience is essential. Consider what is BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE. (SO, think about what is THE EYE.) The orange Sun is lava ON BALANCE !! THINK.
Think about what is THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Think about TIME. NOW, think about what is THE MAN who IS in what is outer "space". (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Think about what is THE SUN. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Carefully consider what now follows, as E=MC2 is CLEARLY and NECESSARILY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE.
Time dilation ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.
Great !!!! QUANTUM GRAVITY !!!! E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. What are THE EARTH/ground AND THE SUN are CLEARLY E=MC2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It does ALL CLEARLY make perfect sense. GOT IT !!!! THE SKY is BLUE, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE !!! Great !!! NOW, think about WHAT IS THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Perfect !!!!
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; as E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, objects (AND WHAT IS the falling MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); as E=MC2 IS CLEARLY F=MA ON BALANCE !!!!! It also makes perfect sense that the PLANETS move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) Great. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great !!!!!! Carefully consider what is THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Magnificent !!! E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE !!!
By Frank DiMeglio
TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This necessarily represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE !!! Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE !!!! Great !!!!
By Frank DiMeglio
Thanks for this
That was exactly the point in the video where my brain went into a loop trying to figure out the statements
Oh really?
So what did he prove in one sentence? You gonna tell me or not?
Everyone always told me I was smart, then i watched this video and found out that everyone was wrong :(
Or... perhaps... the explanation just wasn't that good (given your starting knowledge).
Exactly..
dude, its relative XD
@@potencjau6571 🤣
@pyropulse That's pretty cool man!
Me and my pal did a shot everytime he said T sub 1...
He is now dead!
F
ajajajajaja
Is that because you experienced time dilation and he didn't?
RIP your pal
I'm wondering how many times I'll have to watch this before it 'clicks'
Its relative, but the faster you watch it the more confused u will be.
y times if you run at the speed of light ... I've tried it
@Justa Fool 0/10000 troll, matey
jonskowitz
I thought the EXACT same thing!!!
I’d certainly require some upfront education before I’d even attempt it
A great deception in physics started with Lorentz, no doubt ... but it is the whiskery troll who's trolling physicians for 100 years now
A bold attempt but just as confusing.
It will always be confusing because relativity is bullshit.
@@dreamdiction why the fuck you even decided to open a video with "relativity" clearly written on the thumbnail and title .If you think it's bullshit then don't come here . Go and make "theories" with your flat earther buddies .
@@dreamdiction Thank you for having brain. Finally someone. Eight billion people on the planet and only a dozen of them have brain. Yes, relativity is bullshit. And I like to visit places that "explain" relativity and call it bullshit. Just to interfere with the propaganda. Science should equal to truth. But it has turned into propaganda. That's not real science.
@@cinegraphics "I'm too stupid to understand it therefore bullshit."
@@cinegraphics So when did this turning into propaganda happen? With theory of relativity being over 100 years old and you writing this on a computer or a phone thanks to science and all...
Wow, good thing I watched this.
I was GOING to be "cavalier" about using Relativity just this weekend, but the video was ample warning.
Thanks
Lol.
@Laceykat66
Yeah, when I was younger I went through a rebellious phase where a I did a lot of sloppy physics. It's not something I'm proud of.
@Laceykat66 But you were right, weren't you? This video doesn't prove anything.
Abolutely knew this comment would be here.
Haha
**observer 3**
“You wanna know what I think?”
lol
Ah, the triplet paradox raises its hand.
@deadringer-cultofdeathratt8813 😂😂😂 ❤
Einstein came up with this 105 years ago. 105 years later, with all the technology and education thats come with it, and I still can’t wrap my head around basic math, if only to enable me to understand that mans genius in its true entirely.
time dilatation can be observed when your wife says she needs 5 minutes to get dressed. On your watch it passed 45 minutes, but for her it's still 5 minutes.
wow she runs fast
So there's just wife jokes everywhere for this time thing huh.
"wife jokes" are another channel, bro...
@Martin willemse No one read that, if you truly understand it Then you can explain it shorter
@Martin willemse plz make shorter version
First time using the 0.75 speed setting - totally worth it
I took physics at university over 40 years ago and still had to watch this 4 times before I could grasp all of this lecture. Helps that I am still good at math. But as a senior it does take longer than it would at university. years ago.
Question...as it's being professed as REALITY...what examples are there of this effect in nature? In nature, the faster I travel through space...will always reduce my time of travel...theoretically, time dilation works, but realistically...it doesn't
@@LemarFrencheverywhere. astrophysics, gps, satellites etc all require time dilation to be taken into account every day and satellites adjusted otherwise none of them would work. within a day all gps would be out of sync and accuracy
anything travelling fast or over great distances usually anything in space man made or natural
Thanks for the video However, the use of the word "sub" constantly creates a lot of auditory noise detracting from the content at hand making it harder to concentrate. "t 1" conveys the same meaning as "t sub 1" without the noise.
ThoughtShaman I think a further communication problem is the lack of direction given in the tone of voice. Often the words and labels are less important than the intonation to help the listener follow the arguments.
But that's not the right way to say it. T sub 1 is the right way.
Ron Class There is no right and wrong way to say it. He makes a valid point. The word “sub” adds no helpful meaning to the explanation.
Zero-G it’s the proper way to say it.
@@melgross What is "proper" depends on your goal. If you goal is to be pedantic, then sure, but in the context of educational content such as this your goal should be to be as easy to follow as possible. Everyone can follow the formulas on screen without the excess use of the syllable "sub".
"begin by putting up the most basic and general equations of relativity"
*Head explodes*
actually in somewhere around half of film all become a bit clearer
pyropulse I’m willing to bet you came here to the comments section just to try to find someone like this guy who admitted to not understanding the concepts in the video so that you could leave a stuck up comment like that and feel good about yourself. Grow up man😂 it’s comments like yours that make youtube comment sections such a mind fuck to read.
What aGuy
For real, fuck pretentious assholes.
This was my first introduction into those basic lorentz tranformation equations. Honestly, this (literally just talking a bit about the math involved and explaining it unambiguously) was one of the most helpful introductions I think I could have found. Thanks!
This bloke has mastered the art of making simple concepts sound unbelievably complicated.
If you think that the subject of the right application of the concept of time dilation is simple, then you just don't undestand it.
@@control21 It may be detailed, but it isn't really complicated. You just need to keep your p's and q's straight.
What he explained ain't so simple dude concepts dude, he cleared s big misconception a lot of beginners encounter in theory of relativity
It's not that hard. You just have to be ultra mega extremely careful when doing the math :D
Watching Wikipedia's animation of the Lorenz transform helps too.
Yes, be mega mega careful and remember it's super subtle. He's easy to joke about, but he's pretty good too.
So, basically, everything is moving, even if it doesn’t seem so from our perspective. It’s all relative.
So this explained time dilations due to speed, but what about time dilations due to gravity? The closer you are to a massive object, the slower your clock moves, even if both locations appear stationary. The clock on GPS satellites runs faster than clocks on the ground, and must actually be adjusted to stay accurate. Even though they are in Asynchronous orbit, and stay stationary over the same spot on the ground.
Does that mean that time speeds up the further away from a massive object you are (earth for example), so does that mean you'd age faster the further away from a massive object?
@@nicolez581 Yes, but that's as seen by an observer on Earth. You would still age at your usual rate in your frame of reference. It's just that if you compared your age with people on Earth (who would also age at their usual rates in their reference frame) they would seem to age slower, when observed from your reference frame. Anyway the difference would be trivial in the case of the Earth (not enough mass).
This is beautiful. Thank you. I finally have some knowledge of these Lorentz transforms I've heard about. Pretty much everything in this video was new.
Hi Dr. Lincoln, wouldn't it be better to use spacetime diagrams? The way I understand this is: if you want to compare clocks at two different points in space, you need to specify a frame that will give you the orientation of the time axis in the spacetime diagram, and this axis is changed by a Lorentz boost. This way you can see the ambiguity in a very clear geometric way.
What you answered was totally different from what you asked!!
You questioned the reciprocality of time dilation, but ended up calculating twice from observer 1's perspective. "how observer 2 sees what observer 1 sees at observer 2's" is not the same as "what observer 2 sees of observer 1".
I mean it was clearly written on the slide, he just said it wrong but it should click ,his explanation was marvelous as it cleared a lot of misconceptions
Definitely need to rewatch. Thanks for posting this video. I've been confused about this.
I've always struggled with coordinate transformations. I think the use of the standard configuration (1 space dimension instead of 3) adds additional confusion for beginners. It isn't obvious to me how you would extent this back to the 4-D world. Can you just treat each velocity as the component velocities directed along the x, y and z directions? Does the time Lorentz equation depend on just the magnitude of the velocity? Or are the velocity components combined in a different way? Granted, I've never taken a course on Special Relativity, but I think most students are fed a dumbed-down version of special relativity, which actually makes it harder for people who really want to dig into the details to follow the math and understand what is going on.
Jess Stuart I'm pressed for time in real life, wanted to cover some tips, and don't want you to feel like my curt responses are condescending - just in a hurry over here.
Dumbed down? Maybe. But more like just getting the degenerative cases clear first. Courses I took always stressed the importance of that because as you add conditions, the gotchas come fast and strong unless the basics are crystal clear. Over the years I've had to return to the basics myself - it's amazing how quickly you can overlook something if you take for granted that you remember the basics.
I see at least three questions in your overall question about positioning (and fwiw, I think you are asking the right questions).
Let's concentrate on 3D motion in space (in 4D with time).
One of the most basic things to remember is that cases such as the one in this video must not include acceleration for the observers, only constant velocity relative to each other. You can believe that you are (relatively) stationary even if you are at a constant, uniform velocity but if you are accelerating in any way, you can look down at the inertial navigation unit that I installed by your clock and then know that you are accelerating - the case shown here does not apply to you.
Next case - ok, you are not accelerating. From your point of view, you are not moving. If the one you are observing is moving in 3 space dimensions relative to you and is on a straight line - turn your head. You're a point, they're on a line, by definition you must both share a common plane so there can be no third spacial dimension to worry about. If they are accelerating along that line, the constant velocity form shown here does not apply. If you cannot fit yourself and their track of motion along a single plane, change in direction must be occurring. Change in direction means by definition that there's an acceleration involved. Either acceleration means that the case shown here does not apply.
Getting spacetime world lines right is a pain in the neck - three space dimensions become a single dimension describing change. I recommend the 3blue1brown math channel to really help with visualizing coordinate transformations. It creeps into a lot of his videos and you'll probably get hooked, watch them all, and not miss anything. Then you'll have a whole new set of questions lol.
The good Dr. here always tries to either point out or at least remind that he's working with simpler forms. Sometimes it can go by quickly, but it's there, and you are right, these cases are simplified so that only a few terms in more complex relativity math can be brought into focus. But that's OK because you gotta start with the basics and even the basics can get you into heavy lifting in no time.
Don't discount the possibility that I screwed something up in this long but hurried response. Hopefully someone will chime in quickly if I did - otherwise, I think I have you pointed in the right directions even though I probably didn't answer anything in detail. (And yes, the inertial navigation unit I installed is magical - it is convinced that it's stationary so long as there is no acceleration on any of the three axes and it's doing that without the gyros drifting or showing it to precession and it's immune to the local gravity because you're not on a planet - you're on a plane in Imagination Land so it's OK for the nav unit to be a little magical. Whether magical or not, real world or not - you can measure to determine if you are accelerating.)
I rewatched 3 times and planning to do another 10 times.
Jo Reven0]
Of course you're confused. It's not correct. It appears that observers have symmetric views on the other observer's clock... but they don't. Because when they meet up, one of them will have his clock really slower. So one of them was right. The other was wrong seeing the opposing clock slower. It's not symmetric. In reality, it's asymmetric.
This guy im so proud of. look how much better he has gotten since his early vids.
I thought Dons early videos were excellent.
I enjoyed this video. I was very refreshed
when I woke up. Hope my snoring didn't bother anyone.
I'm in yr 7 but me and my friend go to a yr 11 and sixth form tutor to talk about what u talk about and he teaches us new things too!
U just earned yourself a new sub!
Love the Isaac Newton / Iron Maiden T-Shirt
I wish I would have had someone like you as my physics instructor as a teen. I could see my life having taken a seriously different direction. I was a number crunching machine and had such an open imagination. 😊
May Physics always be one with you!
His job is to make the subjects of the video be as comprehensible as possible; a _"Teacher's"_ job is to make the simplest of concepts seem as incomprehensible as possible in order to make teaching it take weeks, rather then the hours it ought to take.
I cannot express the extent to which I agree with you.
Keep going.
Leave bad teachers behind.
They were not there to be followed.
Every teacher somehow hopes that his students will be better than he was.
That s why they teach in the first place.
At least that's why I was teacher for 11 years, until civil war in former Yugoslavia interrupted it.
I know what mistakes I made.
Your teachers also know their mistakes, and they wish they never made them.
But you are here to correct those mistakes on yourself.
Go your way and don't worry about some previous steps on that road long time ago.
no you're just smarter than the average and a teacher need to move at the speed of the majority.
Relativity double talk confusion at its best. Gets award for best obfuscation of science ever.
If you expect to watch a 10 minute video and understand relativity and time dilation which is one of the most tricky and complicated topics in physics, then you need to recalibrate your expectations
Conclusion of the video: "Further, they both agree that the remote person’s clock is slower." Isn't that the troubling paradox described at the beginning of the video? How can each see the other's clock as slower without creating separate timelines? (Enjoyed the video and math, but would love to know how the paradox is resolved!)
Reality is what you can perceive and measure...
If I hit you with a shrink-ray, I'd say that I remain unchanged and you shrunk to a small size. But you, with your tiny shrunken measuring sticks, would say the you were normal and that I (and the rest of the universe) had grown large.
We'd each see the universe in different, apparently contradictory ways ("I'm normal size and you are tiny," says I; "No, I'm normal and you are huge," says you). Yet, our interactions will all be consistent.
So it is with Special Relativity. A moving thing (whether it is a person or a rock) becomes time-slowed, shrunken in its direction of travel, and is moving relative to the space through which light travels at a constant speed.
That means that if I (who are stationary and normal) saw you moving past me all shrunken, time-slowed, etc then I'd know that the way you perceive and measure me and the universe would be distorted.
What would perceive (i) yourself, (ii) the speed of light, and (iii) me (and the universe) looking like through your distorted eyes and measuring devices?
It turns out (when you do the sums) that:
(i) You see/measure yourself as normal sized and normal timed ((no big surprise there, since the clocks you are carrying with you are time-slowed the same amount as you, and your measuring sticks are likewise shrunken)).
(ii) You see the speed of light as the same in all directions ((a little weirder, but if I do the sums using your slow clocks, short measuring sticks, etc that's what you get)) so you consider yourself as stationary.
(iii) You perceive me (and the rest of the universe) as coasting past you with the same velocity that I saw you going, but in the opposite direction, AND you measure me to be time-slowed, shrunken, etc.
To summarise: I know that I am normal and stationary, and that you are moving and distorted. But when I do the sums to work out how you see the universe through your distorted eyes and measuring devices, it turns out that YOU think your are normal and stationary instead, and that I am distorted!!!
@@corwin-7365 the problem is measurement itself. Humans agreeing on a standard of measurement doesn't make that standard truly objective. The example you give would play itself out much differently if you could isolate a human from inflation. The universe would expand around them & they would objectively stay the same size while the universe objectively expanded around them. So in that context the shrinking person would be objectively correct & the subjective perception of those expanding with the universe would be objectively false. 😊
The differently-moving observers have different ideas of what simultaneity is.
In everyday physics you are accustomed to different observers disagreeing on where two events at different times happened in the same place. If I'm on a moving train traveling rapidly north and tap on the north edge of the window then the south edge, I think the second tap is south of the first tap. An observer outside will measure the tapping position relative to the ground and because the second tap was a few seconds later the second tap actually 100m *north* of the first tap. We disagree on which event happened north of the other because we are moving at different speeds and the events were at different times.
Relativity keeps that but also does the same thing with time and space swapped: observers can disagree on which event happened before another because they are moving at different speeds and the events were at different places. (Incidentally, if no-one is exceeding the speed of light, then if any observer sees the events happening at the same place then all observers will agree in which order they happened in time, and if any observer sees the events happening at the same time then they'll all agree which order the events are positioned in space.)
I recommend you look at Wikipedia's animation of the Lorenz transform too.
@@SimonClarkstone We wouldn't disagree though, because to determine which was north and south, even in the train you'd have to first plot your position on a map, relative to when you tapped each time. Otherwise train-you is making things up without any frame of reference. Thus, we would agree which was north of the other.
This seemed like a needlessly complicated description to me. The average person can get a feel for why this isn't a paradox without getting into any math equations with the simple analogy to a more familiar phenomenon: I could propose the law that "leaning things are shorter" which is obviously true, but if we both lean different directions, I see you as shorter than me, and you see me as shorter than you. This is exactly the same situation as seems paradoxical with time (except we each see the other's seconds as longer instead of shorter because of an odd kind of geometry), yet anyone can intuitively see that there is no paradox in this. With a little more articulation of the reason there's no paradox in the leaning case, you can then translate that articulation to the time dilation case. Ultimately the issue comes down to the fact that events that are simultaneous in one frame are not necessarily simultaneous in the other frame, much as points that are at the same height to one of us are not necessarily at the same height to the other. This is the truly revolutionary concept of special relativity.
The mere requirement that no frame of reference is "privileged" very strongly restricts the possible nature of the reference frame transformations. The assumption that further restricts it to Galilean transformations is the assumption that time is independent of space, or to put it another way, that the time component of the transformed time+position is independent of the original position. This is the intuitive assumption that special relativity breaks, which is why I call it the revolutionary concept of special relativity. Also, assuming you don't allow for the idea that accelerating enough would eventually make you stopped again (a pretty strange concept), then Lorentz transformations are the only other way to satisfy the first requirement I mentioned.
so to the point. Thank you.
Yes, but you've missed the point. Clocks actually 'LOSE' time, They don't just 'appear' to go slower then make the time up again. This is analogous to your 'leaning things' actually becoming permanently shorter.
What do you mean - "we each see the other's seconds as longer instead of shorter because of an odd kind of geometry" ? There's nothing "odd"? A second is longer, i.e. it takes more than a second to elapse
No, I want to see the math. I think the math is clearly explained in these videos. It makes me want to grab a pencil and play.
People need to see the math on videos like this to start making the connections between those squiggly lines and how they relate to reality. It might not make sence the first time you see it, but with repeated exposure, things start to click. Just a portion of an idea here then another. That's how neuroplasticity works. "Dumbing" these videos down by eliminating the equations serves no one. There are plenty of other videos on the same topic on youtube that do just that. Sure, you can grasp the consept, but without the math, you don't understand.
The math here is simple and to the point without being a full blown lecture on the subject. It fills a gap that youtube needs.
Dr Lincoln, you are a great teacher, thank you
I appreciate you disaggregating the information on the subject into smaller easy to digest topics
I want this background so I can say anything technical and people will believe me.
There are two good ways to resolve the paradox that "Both observers see that their own clock is running faster than the other observer"
The first is that there is no notion of simultaneous with two reference frames of different velocity. What one frame considers to be "now" is in the future of another reference frame.
The second only helps in getting over the mental hurdle. There is a third frame of reference where both observers are moving away from each other with equal speeds. At this frame of reference both would have clocks that seemed to be ticking at the same rate.
Or the twin brothers paradox is not a paradox if you consider that all your internal functions are also altered by gravity and velocity so one can age way slowly than others depending on those factors.
This actually helps a great deal, Joseph. Thank you.
@@chrismcgraw2112 czcams.com/video/svwWKi9sSAA/video.html
So you're saying its relative? MINDBLOWN
@DolphinsWIthIgloos Thanks, it makes sense to me that in the twin scenario, the reason that the traveler ends up younger has to be related to the change in his situation (acceleration, force, kinetic energy, or whatever). Otherwise you could just say that they each traveled away from each other and then back together, from their respective points of view. But this video didn't really explain that, right? Or did I just not follow it (which is likely).
The main problem with this video for me is that how to interpret the following statement:
"How observer 2 sees what observer 1 sees at observer 2's location."
Same problem here
@@manthansingh8036 and analyzing some Observers SUBJECTIVE view point of some remote event is NOT doing Physics. Physics is OBJECTIVE, not experiential, and subjective.
Two real Physicists doing any experiment MUST always make sure that BOTH observers use the same standards, same have pre agreed origins and synchronized timing etc.
All this talk about who is moving should never enter into any actual experiment in Physics.
@@xiaoxiao-kg5np Does the word "relativity" ring a bell? Observations will always depend of your frame of reference .
@@JohannBaritono Subjective Observations might depend on your physical conditions, but the actual motions of physical objects do not depend on who is watching from what location and what HIS own motion may be.
"Frames of Reference" are 100% imaginary, and play NO PART at all in the actions of physical systems.
@@xiaoxiao-kg5np Just as seeing a 6 or a 9 depends on your position, the same is true for physical phenomena.
One easy example: The strength of a magnetic field will depend on your distance (or the distance of your frame of reference) with respect to the field.
Seeing an object in motion or at rest, will totally depend on your movement with respect to the object.
And to make it even more complicated, if we use quantum mechanics, the existence or not of an entity or phenomenon, will totally depend on the observer, not the entity itself.
Glad my back button works - one proof of the idea are the adjustments made to GPS satellites, without regular corrections, GPS measurements would be in error.
Definitely conveys the idea of the theory without actually having to understand equations awesome!
What is that line from Big Bang Theory that Penny says to Sheldon. Something like "I know you think you are explaining things Sheldon but your really not".
@pyropulse it's not, it just was made unfunny by the amount of laugh track used in later seasons. Also you sound like an insecure pedantic asshole
I really like your videos and I watch them regularly.. You make most videos understandable to most people (it is, of course, expected that viewers have some "basic" knowledge about the thematics) .. But this video really left me with scratching my head.. When i expected you to explain how the 2 clocks may both seem to run faster/slower the video pretty much ended.. A confusing video, or maybe I'm just to sleepy right now to "digest" it :) .. Keep up the good work!
The problem is that the explanation given doesn't really work as a regular person's explanation of what exactly is going on. It just says "this is why the math says it isn't a paradox," which can even have the undesired effect of making it all look even more esoteric and confusing. In that regard, it is pretty lacking in comparison to some other relativity videos, including some other Fermilab videos.
+Dejan A. Well, it is a matter of PERSPECTIVES. Both observers observe that their times are different as an intrinsic effect of their "displacement" in space.
I do think that it is important to keep in mind that although SR makes sense mathematically, it become more understandable empirically ONLY in the light of GR. It's not that their clocks tick at slower/different rates, its more that they are traveling on different world lines in space-time.
Let me illustrate what I said in another comment about how relativity of simultaneity is the crucial feature that is ignored in this paradox. The moving clocks at 6:26, synchronous for the moving observer, are out of sync for the resting observer, which looks like this at t=0s (every number represents position and reading of clocks viewed by the resting observer, clocks at the position of the observers are in parentheses, negatives are black):
➅ ➂ 🄞 ❸ ❻
Ⓞ Ⓞ 🄞 Ⓞ Ⓞ
At t=2s (1s for the moving observer):
➆ ➃ ⑴ ➋ ❺
➁ ➁ ⑵ ➁ ➁
Now you can check that time dilation is mutual. It is obvious for the resting observer looking at the moving clocks. To see that the resting clocks are ticking more slowly for the moving observer, simply notice that ➃ (moving) coincides with ⑵ (resting), so the moving observer sees the resting clocks ticking at half-rate.
This is a depiction of the math from the video that solves the paradox and can be understood without manipulating the formulas of the Lorentz transformation.
I found this lecture indigestible, sorry to say. Remembered how Feynman once said in one of his lectures, and it gave me some comfort. Sometimes it's not the student that does not understand, it's just that the professor does not understand it either.
Yet this Lorentz formulas seem to understand the twin paradox. Professor says the formulas solve the paradox. Well I still don't get it. It's confusing how one state the way about explaining the paradox. Because in this twin paradox, first it's the twin who travels around accelerating about all over, that's youthful. Then professor just throws the formulas on the table. That explains it. So now I'm looking at the formulas wondering why it's not the other twin that's youthful. I'm not very good at physics. Couldn't the professor point out certain factor in the formulas that solves this twin paradox. The youthfulness side of the equation, please.
Kasius Klej - that goes to show you didn't understand it and you have an inflated ego.
Some things need effort on YOUR side to understand.
And this video explained it correctly: both observers see time flow slower for the other party. That is what is happening. The flow of time is not a universal thing - it depends on the reference frame - hence the name relativity.
I was troubled by this question for the last 2 days. Thanks for this video, it explains it really well and accurately I believe.
How does this explain it really well? He doesn't explain why he uses a different equation to represent each observer from their own perspective. Each observer should see themself starting with the same equation.
Congratulations on the initiative of the videos and, of course, the choice of T-shirts in many of the videos! :)
I find that knowing exactly what is occurring, and thus excluding any math assistance, makes it a heck of a lot easier to understand. Once understood, you can derive all of the SR mathematical equations, along with the Lorentz Transformation equations, and do so even if you have never ever seen them before.
@@RIPxBlackHawk
It has nothing to do with you seeing something in the literal sense.
The two postualtes are simply put that
a) all refrence frames are equal
and
b) speed of light is the same in all refernce frames
Given just some very minor assumtions you can conclude the Lorentz transforms because of Maxwells euations for electromagnetism.
Once you have the Lorentz transform time dilation is a necessity.
The thing about how you see clocks came either from somone who didnt really understand relativity, a bad phrasing, or somone who wanted to explain it in a more easy to digest as an analogy.
Actually I think that you dont need Maxwells equations once you have postulated that speed of light is absolute. The absoluteness of c that comes from electromagnetism is a key point in relativity.
@@RandomPerson-yq1qk Generally relativity is political in accordance with maximum money making agenda “physics”. Galaxies disprove Einstein. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Here is the proof.
WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEPARATE inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, gravity, AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS clearly F=MA IN BALANCE:
Gravity is not fully and accurately described or accounted for by the idea of “curved” “space”. Consider the man who IS actually in what is outer “space”. Think about TIME. Consider what is THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE, as gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; as gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) what is inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. “Mass”/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, as E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Carefully consider what is THE SUN. Think about TIME. Consider what is the speed of light (c). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE.
By Frank DiMeglio
ABSOLUTE MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS clearly F=MA ON BALANCE:
The balance of being and experience is essential. THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. GREAT !!! Think. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, as gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as E=mc2 is F=ma. Accordingly, the rotation of what is the Moon matches it's revolution. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, as gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; as E=mc2 is F=ma ON BALANCE. Carefully consider what is the speed of light (c). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the PLANETS will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is the Sun. THE EARTH/ground AND what is the Sun are CLEARLY linked AND BALANCED opposites, as E=mc2 is F=ma !!! “Mass”/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE EARTH is blue, AND the sky is ALSO BLUE ON BALANCE. Gravity is CLEARLY proven to be ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy on balance. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course). Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 is F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. INDEED, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; as E=mc2 is F=ma ON BALANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AND BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. GREAT !!!
By Frank DiMeglio
@@RandomPerson-yq1qk Q
I GOT REALLY CONFUSED about the position! I rerun the video many times. And I do understand the concept of relativity. This have me go crazy. Please explain to us in a deeper conceptual video about what the x is doing there
If you need it to be more simple think of it like this. Physically draw a S (Swiggle) on a piece of paper and then draw an I (Straight line). "S" is the shape of the route that the first beam takes. "I" is the shape of the route of the second beam. The start of S is equal to the start of I just as the end of S is equal to the end of I. They are both moving at the same speed, the letter (which I used as a picture to illustrate the path or route of the beam) is an optical illusion because the distance per second covered is the same.
I watch Dr Lincolns videos over and over
I encountered this "paradox" on my own when I was 17 and couldn't figure out the solution by myself. When I eventually met a physics professor he told me it was due to acceleration being applied only on 1 object. That totally didn't make sense to me. There is no acceleration to speak of. In the end, this fatal moment made me decide to study actuarial science instead of physics after school. It's a decision I kind of regret and I still wonder what would have happened if I got a satisfactory answer from that professor.
His professor was wrong and didn't comprehend the question, also he clearly knows about twin paradox already.
To bad the professor didn't make clear the distinction between special and general relativity. General relativity includes acceleration, special relativity is an inertial (constant velocity) frame of reference, no acceleration. The (non) paradox in this video is SR, no acceleration.
You got it right, the guy in this video knows there is a problem but again explains it wrong. The professor you talked to also explained it wrong. Did the same at about the same age and got from the professor at the unif in Hasselt a reference to a book that I should read. He to did not grasp time paradox not being possible.
The simple truth is that when the rocket RETURNS relative time goes faster and that when the rocket goes AWAY relative time goes slower. It is the same thing as the sound frequency of a passing train with EXACTLY the same formula, Though everybody thinks it must be something different.
That is exactly how I resolve the twin paradox ; as electrical engineer, think about the Dopler shift of back/forth radio transmission. All the slow time when the rocket was flying away from earth is catching up when the rocket makes the U turn and the two twin meet again with not age difference... except the cell damage from drinking your own piss filtered with something.
@@moiquiregardevideo You misunderstand the physics. Take Don's advice and apply the Lorentz equation. One twin really does experience more years than the other, and truly is years older - his diary has more days in it - when his brother returns.
Your model isn't all wrong, though. It's almost right for how the two twins SEE each other. But it's not right for how local time passes for each. What you're missing is the space dilation that goes along with time dilation. The fast twin sees himself travel a shorter distance than his stationary brother sees him travel. (That effects everything.)
And they're both correct. And a third twin (triplets now) moving at a third speed would disagree with both his brothers, and he would be right too.
Not just velocity, but also position. Stationary brothers at different places will measure everything their relative way (non-simulataneity), and no one is ever wrong.
Absolutely no intuitive understanding can be gained from this video, whatsover he literally just regurgitated the equations and said "there is no paradox because lorentz transformations equations say there aren't". Makes me think the narrator doesn't really understand anything outside of the maths, in which case he shouldn't be trying to teach physics. I've seen far more elegant explanations than this that don't just dive straight into equations that only people with an advanced maths education are going to properly understand.
Kudos for the spirits. I haven't studied relativity in university so I don't know the people that get time dilation wrong in this way. The scope of this video was much smaller than I expected. The twin paradox was only mentioned and not resolved. I also found the description much more confusing than it has to be.
Thanks Don for causing more confusion and adding complexity. Why not simply state that anyone who travels near the speed of light for a significant time period will return to an earth that has clearly aged faster than the person who traveled near the speed of light?
"lets make this simple"
Shows masters levels physics for 5 minutes
"So now you see how simple that is. But we're not done yet"
Dont mean to bash your jokes but Im here cause Im a first year physics student and we are rambling through these things right now :D
@@jezz439 advanced math? Honestly i always felt there was a disconnect with the simple math. Understanding the theory without the math is profound in itself. Understanding the math seems to trivialize what you're mathemetizing
I cannot get enough of these videos. Keep them coming. Also, I like the Iron Maiden style shirt.
I wonder is Isaac Newton would have appreciated Hallowed Be Thy Name...
A very informative series. Thank you. A modest suggestion - perhaps a short video on Simultaneous events would complement the Time Dilation & Length Contraction videos. It is not really intuitive - to me at least :)
"Something more to it" ... the all-engulfing statement of the universe as she continues revealing herself to us!
"Maybe!!!" he sez. Maybe, I'll have to run the video over again... MAYBE!!!
He sez... LOL
I wondered about the paradox for 40 years. I tried to ask my Physics professor about it, but never got an answer that I was satisfied with.
I still don't understand it.
u are not alone. Actually this guy has played a trick only. And actually what has he proved is that if a clock is moving opposite direction as the observer 2' clock (which is moving to the left w.r. to observer 1)) is seen faster rather been dilated. Anvd it's a weird conclusion this prof seems to have reached at. : - D. Einstein was clever to avoid such paradoxes,
@@IndicDarshan The key is: if your clock in your hand compares with clocks that are ticking in front of you, then it seems that the clocks in front of you are going faster. but if with synchronized clocks you see a particular clock that moves and goes from one clock to the next etc, then that clock goes slower.
@@riraldi It is interesting you brought up the phrase 'seems to be' or 'appears to be' making SR some kind of illusion, However, one of the guys in motion w.r.t each other has to age actually slower or faster or equally w.r.to the other. As this Prof in video does not bring any history of acceleration then it's a symmetric problem. Whatever one guys sees for other's clock the other guy must see the same for the first one's clock. For example if one sees the oner's clock going slower then the other must see the same for the clock of the first one unless one uses the direction of motion top resolve or distinguish the two cases or break the symmetry because both guys can not age slower or faster w.r.to each other IR in other words both clocks can not go slower or faster w.r.to each other unless it's an illusion or time is illusory. My blame here is this prof is using the direction of motion of the clocks or of the two observer to break this fundamental symmetry (and hence the paradox) of SR. Most of the professors use history of acceleration to resolve this paradox but this prof is trying to do the same without invoking any acceleration.
Now coming to your explanation is also just avoiding the paradox by bringing in one more scenarios of what seems to appear with individual clock in front and the series of clocks synched in the other frame. Does it resolve the fundamental symmetry or the paradox? Nope because whatever the one of the observer seems to see about the other's clocks (both with clock in front of and w.r. to the series of synched clocks in the other frame) has to be symmetrically true vice versa for other observer about the clocks of the first one. Unless either you invoke the history acceleration or the direction of motion.
@@riraldi SO, as the prof in video resorted to the direction of motion to resolve this symmetric case of SR without or in absence of invoking the history of acceleration, You with your explanation will also need the same if at you seem to have broken the symmetry, like indeed only one guy will age faster than the other. If you do not claim to have resolved this symmetry i.e whatever one observer sees fo the clocks of one frame the other observer will also sees for the clocks of the first frame then we both are on the same page w.r.to breaking the symmetry. Provide that you are unnecessarily doing two type of comparison for each observer : one with the clock in front and the other withe series of clocks encountered. I have no objection with bringing two types assessment for each observer. My objection is that the same has to seen or seems to have been seen by other observer w.r.to the earlier one.
3:16 thanks a lot! i have been wondering about this from the day I started thinking about the postulates of special relativity seriously.
Now we’re gonna look at how observer 1 sees the clocks
***Does a bunch of math but doesn’t show what the clocks read for observer 1***
I don't think this is going to convince many people without explaining how "the Lorentz Transformation equations" comes to be.
Roc Ren
Exactly
Pulled it out of their ass! Thats how they happened!
I hate these types of videos that try to popularize complexe concepts by using math. The ONE THIING I dont find intuitive in life is math. PLEASE use different exemples. Like you have to start where everyone can understand. You have to describe relativity but making comparisons to Newtonian physics because that is more what our intuition is like. It's a slow process. Its not gonna "click" like eureka!
@@Dislob Then it will be easy to understand, but wrong. There's no way to understand it without maths.
I appreciate your very nice presentation. I would also like to believe that with even more effort, the concept(s) could be conveyed with even less math, and ultimately with no math.
It can.
AMEN!
The maths behind the basic idea is actually simple.
The simplicity is beautiful. A beauty that can only be expressed in one language. Math.
Using words and analogies turns something beautifully simple into a complicated, confusing mess.
Thanks Dr Don for an excellent series of videos. I'm surprised that you went to so much effort to show dozens of clocks in observer one's reference field and made an effort to say the position of the clocks matter, but then never use any other clocks in observer one's reference field. What does observer two see happen to a clock two meters to the left of observer one? What does observer two see happen to a clock two light years to the left of observer one? I think I'd understand better why it was important to bring in the position if changing the position changed the outcome. Thanks!
That's a paradox created by solving the first paradox, which is then solved by removing the extra clocks and leaving us again with the first paradox.
@@entrepreneursfinest it's truly a paradox with a pair of clocks
Fermilab is like Wikipedia, forks too many times to much more interesting videos than the one getting discussed.
7:14 Why does he always skip the part where positions are relative?
After watching this attempt at 'explanation' going back to Einstein was a relief.
It was a good explanation you’re just a stupid kid
This is my new favourite science channel
Thank you! This apparent contradiction has always bothered me, but I couldn't figure out how to address that question.
I hoped that that big row of clocks would be seen from the other observer's point of view, showing them squashed and *desynchronized*.
Have you come across any explanation video on youtube where *desynchronization* of clocks in moving frame of reference is discussed ?
If not, I think this is a treasure of knowledge hidden in plain sight.
the reason there's a paradox is due to our limited understanding of linear time confined to our dimensional perspective. IF we stop thinking of time as a universal constant, we stop having this problem.
now that you understand linear time can you answer questions in this clip? //czcams.com/video/XPj14Zz1p7Y/video.html
Lol, but time doesn't even exist - how the hell can it dilate?
I like that your mustache will accommodate a proper SCBA seal. Never know when you're going to need a self contained air unit.
Thank you very much Dr. Don for such a brilliant explanation.
could you answer me a question? please. Suppose that one or two of the persons do something, in such a way that the two persons meet and from there they are together and at the same speed. then a) the difference between the two clocks, from the meeting, will be the same, regardless of how the people moved b) The difference in the clocks will be different, depending on what kind of movements each person made and how long person 1 was at a constant speed. c) other .....
Thank you very much in advance for your time and for your valuable response.
If this guy were my teacher in high school, I would have been a genius!
No. You would have been more stupid than a child.
Great video, I will re-watch several times, I think to nail home the concepts for myself. I love relativity, and my physics degree helps, but, as you say, there are subtleties!
The reason one clock has a different tick speed than the other is because we measure time wrong, we still use some form of swinging object or particle depending on the clock which is a problem because swinging parts or bouncing particles become inaccurate when in motion such as being in orbit or traveling in space offsetting the tick speed. Until we can come up with a better solution to avoid time dilation which is only due to how we measure time the best thing to do would be to send a constant live feed to a ship or station of the exact time and date on earth with the lowest latency possible.
the clocks becoming "innaccurate" is because of time dilation.
Mixing labels is very confusing. T_moving is the time of the stationary guy whilst T_stationary is the time of the Moving guy (this is why when someone reads your equation T_moving is greater than T_stationary, it goes against what we usually read). At 2:43 when you refer to "time of someone moving" it is in fact not T_moving at all, but T_stationary you refer to (which can only be noticed by people who are not targeted by the video). This is even more confusing knowing you can apply the reasoning in reverse (that's the point of relativity). You can FEEL smarter by making others feel dumber, or you can BE smarter by making others feel smarter. That's also relativity.
Even though I love these videos, I hate when people use equations to "explain" things. Equations are a DESCRIPTION and not an EXPLANATION.
Right, because the Lorentz transforms really just make the equations result in what we see (i.e. approaching light speed but not reaching it). Not that I'm saying they're *wrong* they just don't explain it.
Thank you for this comment.
But for people who are good with math it can be satisfying as the explanations
But for people who are good with math it can be satisfying as the explanations
I’m the opposite. The equations help me “see” things more clearly than using imprecise words. Math is an exact language for the most part and helps remove ambiguity.
I think I got older watching this relative to someone who didn't watch it.
Basic tenets of natural philosophy are;
1. Law of entropy is fundamental law and it is unification of gravotational force, electric force, black-body radiation law, divergence law, law of motion, structure of fundamental elements.
2. General theory of relativity and Quantum mechanics are description of phenomenon without entropy or no loss or perpetual motion. They are same and there is no need of reconcilation of these theories.
3. Phenomenon are in classical domain, general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are ideal case and thus not observable. Theory of relativity needs many assumptions which are contradictory or unprovable thus false theory.
4. There are no two types of charge like two types of matter which arises when one solve Laplace's equation, field without source but that lacks time component. In nature only force without energy loss is magnetic force. There is electric force but it like thermodynamic pressure eventually die out.
5. Entropy is decaying of force or ceasing motion. Only way to counter entropy is cyclic or periodic motion that negate volume expansion and restore system but introduce temporal component, frequency. More the frequency more the entropy.
6. Without force there is no continue motion, mechanical force is due to heat and electric due to charge. Conservation of energy is not correct but equality of power as it is product of force applied and rate. Both force and rate can increase entropy but in cyclic only rate.
It will never cease to amaze me that time, this thing we cannot touch or see, is affected by gravity and velocity. The fact that warping spacetime changes the relativistic passage of time makes me wonder how “dark matter” might be connected to time and spacetime.
You are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.
They do that to intimidate and seem superior. All of science is much simpler than these guys make it.
@@starrmusiclive Yeah that's why you have PhDs in mathematics and physics.
Daniel Starr it is actually a lot harder, this is an introduction for ignoramuses
@@olasek7972 The concepts are hard. But the way he's explaining things in this video is more convoluted than it needs to be (mostly because of notation choices, not physics). Basically there are 2 concepts in special relativity. Time dilation, and relativity of simultaneity. It "seems" paradoxical that each observer sees the other observer's clock ticking more slowly when you look at time dilation alone. But the paradox disappears when you understand that two events that are simultaneous in one frame, aren't simultaneous in the other frame.
Fermi lab: Relativity
Me:Man I can't wait to see the comment section
This bothered me for years. Thanks for explaining this topic. I did not yet understand your explanation. It's worth fetching pen n paper.
It was just relativity doubletalk not science.
Great video... on a quest to make relativity work with quantum physics. I have a working theory that connects relativity with string theory, quantum field theory, loop fields, lattice fields, and a few others, and even 2 experiments that are easy to do that should show I'm on to something. Just have to brush up on my math and learn differentials and vector calculus, and maybe I can start trying to figure out this great paradox...
God dang it, I do not understand a single thing about this video, but I loved it
The most interesting about this video is that it actually never explained the paradoxical outcome of the simple twin age scenario by using the twin age scenario :D 3:45
You obviously still have the problem with different ages of the twins when they both observe exactly the same thing happening.
He explained the twin paradox in another video.
@@octavohombre2 I have checked. Its not explained.
This video was supposed to clear up a paradox, but it concludes with saying they both see each other's clock slow down. It failed to clarify or resolve the paradox.
Also, both observers can be considered as moving faster relative to each other. Is either one of them actually going closer to the speed of light, or is the speed of light always relative?
I would probably be mistaken, but I think that the equation on 7'19'' should be X(2) = -V(1) . T(1), as we are measuring Observer's 2 position from the perspective of number one.
So, we're having teas at 1. I'll be a bit late (in your reference frame)
Noted: Early will be late.
@@RichardWilkin Of course! It would be redundant if Tim Early arrived early.
I actually understood this already but I found the presentation very difficult to follow. As far as I'm concerned the key points are that from symmetry, each relatively moving inertial observer "deduces classically" that the other has a slow clock and a short ruler. And the solution to how this can be is that they can never compare clock or ruler directly because they can only be at the same place at the same time once. To meet again, one of them must go non-inertial, and that breaks the symmetry.
I also like the childish analogy that two distant observers each think the other looks very tiny.
Very cool, energy expenditure and amount of etchings seem important for this theory.
😂😂😂😂 Your T-Shirt gives a lot of clues and answers for the conundrums, to make associations between different theories and scenarios while applying them on possible future concepts .... thanks for the tip and please keep sharing ✌🏼🙏
Edit : By the way, I sort of figured it out longtime back, on how to go faster than light, it’s really though but there are possibilities, for instance humans would have never believed we could actually go to space 100 years ago but here we are making progress today.
Just needed a acknowledgement from an expert.
Cheers
while I very much appreciate what you do and your passion, your communication could definitely be improved. I recommend having your script reviewed by someone who has more background in verbal communication principles. Here are some things I could think of: (1) avoid saying things you don't need to say like "sub" (like "t substationary") (2) use more differentiating visuals and verbal references. E.g. use male and female names instead of "something 1 and something 2" so your "he sees his time" can actually make sense. (3) this is not a suggestion but I think the sentence "observer 2 sees more time elapsed than observer 1 sees at observer 1's location but sees less time elapsed than observer 1 sees at observer 2's location" just gave me cancer
Observer 1and 2 is fine
Why are you struggling with this. I think he did a very good job of communication.
It seems many lecturers in natural science would do well to take some communication seminars.
@@ronclass1782 Physicists are used to abstract thinking and if you often listen to this kind of talk you might get used to it, but if you try to aim at a more wider audience then I think the OP suggestion is in place. I think Lincoln is aware of this since he mention one probably have to listen to it several times before it sinks in, this unless you already is used to the language, then you do not have to spend that much thinking effort in recalling or understanding the meaning.
The level of understanding Lincoln present this at is, in my estimate, somewhere in between college and university and that makes it hard for most people to follow - it take some time to wrap your head around Lorentz transformation. I believe one problem that comes with education is that you forget how hard it was to learn in the first place and after a while you tend to take basic knowledge, which more advanced build on, for granted - I for sure do that mistake myself. So if you don't struggle with it, the reason might be that you already are on a higher level than most of use which listen to this. I.e. it suit you but it does not suit a wider audience, which was the issue the OP tried to address.
On the other hand I also have the impression Lincoln tries to challenge the audience by being at the edge of the audience grasp of things and thus tries to tease us to bridge that gap by putting a little bit more thinking effort in and thus deepen our understanding of the subject. It is a good lesson in many ways, for instance when we are at the edge of or own knowledge and can see that we have not understand things properly it (should) promotes our own humility, this in contrast to when we think we understand how things are.
Sorry to hear of your cancer diagnosis... Good luck !
The problem i found watching other's videos was they never say if it's the physical graviational pull on the clock parts that makes it harder for the hand to move, making it tick slower. No-one cleared that up for me. Like if i fall with a rain drop i can say the rain has frozen if i'm at the same speed
@ritemoelaw_books83 is it like say rain just stopped because the wind is blowing it back. An observer would see like the rain has paused in time but really time hasn't even changed at all? This is the type of stuff that made me not want to fly because I didn't want to go back in time out of touch with family.
@ritemoelaw_books83 it confuses me but I don't think we travel into the past 😊
ritemoelaw_books83 then this doesnt have to do with time slowing down its entirely persepctive (what we see). Like how bodies underwater appear warped to us but it doesnt mean the body is actually deformed. Its just refraction. With the black hole thing its just the light being manipulated that affects what we see, not actual time slowing. Time is absolute
@@HG-us6qc thats different that is light being warped time dilation is not a warping of time its just the your relative velocity changing your prospective of time from what i understand you can't change time in any way all you can do it male time "feel" faster or slower
@@samuelscalise9686 This is a quote from the channel PBS space time on CZcams: "You should watch as many videos about special relativity as you can no matter whos made them. This is for your benefit, to prime your brain. This stuff is unintuitive so every little bit of osmosis helps."
It doesn't make sense at first but you still understand some things. Each time you hear about relativity or read about relativity, it should consolidate your bases. I recommend you start with this video : archive.org/details/frames_of_reference (its on the website archive dot org. Look up frame of reference)
Time dilation is a paradox in itself in that the more you try to understand it, the more you don't. In order not to confuse myself further, I've taken just the basic points and not stressing myself further. The points are:
1. Gravity is basically caused by how the mass of object bends and distorts the space around it. Thus, almost every object has a universal 'pull' or 'push' on other objects around it, no matter how infinitesimal.
2. It's almost like time is a construct that exists outside of space. It doesn't want to be where space is. Space and time are inversely dependent on each other. The more space you experience or pass through, the less time passes for you relative to someone at rest (who isn't moving through space). Vice versa is the case too.
3. Going back to point 1, this would mean that an object experiencing a large gravitational pull will be stretched out in space more than one experiencing lesser gravity. Thus, time will literally pass slower within that object.
4. Lastly, the way I see it is that, within the universe, exists an anti-universe. In that anti-universe, time is the physical seeable construct while space is 'abstract'. Dark matter is visible while matter and light isn't and this anti-universe inversely complements and exists mutually with our normal universe.
Would love to see this from other people's perspective, so I can know where I'm wrong. Thanks for reading.
Interesting and mostly I would agree but I would like to expand on point 2. Yes, even light takes time to get from point 'a' to point 'b' and time (t) is relative to velocity and space (distance) or (v=s/t). However, there is motion and also 'relative motion'. That is because in space there is no fixed reference point by which you can measure velocity. In other words, where two objects are moving relative to each other there is no way to determine which one (or even both) is actually moving. The only thing that you can be sure of is that there is relative motion between the two objects (unless acceleration is involved). This is different from two objects moving at the same relative velocity. It is this 'relative motion' that is relative to time(t) and which creates time dilation between two objects. This does not apply to two objects with the same constant velocity and no relative motion, which are considered to be 'at rest' with each other and do not experience time-dilation, except to a third object which does have a relative motion through space (and therefore time).
I hope that helps.
I can express lots of things mathematically that balance out - but that doesn't mean that they are happening or ever will. All I need is my supposational end point and known starting point. Adding additional clocks as points of reference for the one stationary doesn't solve the paradox, but only adds additional points which could all be moving in tangent with person 1 from person 2s perspective - and because of the distance variable person 2 would see different times on every one of the clocks whereas person 1 would perceive them all identically. Another, more damaging paradox has now been created by the attempt at solving the first.
The process of scientific inquiry involves more than just mathematical manipulation. It includes formulating hypotheses, conducting experiments or observations, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions based on evidence. While mathematics plays a significant role in this process, it must be combined with empirical evidence to validate or invalidate hypotheses.
special relativity is an established theory NOT JUST because the maths balances out. it is an established theory because all the experimental predictions of the theory , which might sound paradoxical and counterintuitive have been experimentally verified.
@@silverrahul I have yet to see a physical example of what can be proven IS time dilation. I've read of several where you could reach that conclusion as a explanation, but not that rules out other and even more probable possibilities. Several of these upon closer examination show measurements and data points all over the board which were cherry picked from and a margin of error which exceeds the unit being measured. Others were one-off experiments in which the data collected was close enough to the expected that it could be adjusted within the margin of error. The margin of error in this same studies could also be used to adjust the measurement to show just the opposite but a conscious choice was made in order to uphold the expectation. The old keep at it until "this one was accurate" approach, which bears only superficial resemblance to scientific method. This is backed up by continuing research which proves without a doubt that it's repeatable - if you do it enough times.
That is not to say that the theory is incorrect, or that the measurements chosen weren't correct. It can't stand as empirical proof though or else we will all go out and using the same method prove all manner of fantastical things.
All I'm saying is that people struggle to explain it logically, when it is explained it has logical fallacies and paradoxes, and mathematically it suffers the same afflictions as far as I can see.
It's not the kind of thing that "people just can't understand because they aren't smart enough" although that truly must be the case for some IQ ranges. The theory has problems that haven't been adequately explained or that create other problems when they are explained. The tests which have been performed are either illegitimate or simply show that SOMETHING is causing an effect without providing evidence of WHAT.
All that said to say, it's incredibly clever and certainly worth pursuing. It is definitely not a basket I would put all of my eggs in however.
🤯and 😵 rewatch after my brain calm down
Awesome video, as usual.
thats why i'm always late on a meeting, my boss clocks ticks faster than mine...
Best quote “so that’s pretty easy” lol
I think you are presenting this in a more complicated manner than necessary.
I learned about time dilation from "Interstellar"
Nubbins That’s what made me look up the theory of relativity.
@TheWeeaboo Yeah I know Mathew Mahogany would have been stretched out and mashed like fly guts but just lemme have my sci-fi . My good sci-fi films and my kitty cats is about all I have left
No one knows anything about black holes. They’re totally made up. When a human beings from planet earth can actually go to one, go inside and witness it, then return to earth with proof of the discovery besides just math equations or studying the characteristics of the space around them through a telescope, then there can be a true discussion. It’s all theory guys. Though I admit it is very entertaining.
@@aboriginalunderground4958 we know black holes exist, but not completely whats in them
@@mastertek383 I think you are talking about spaghettification in which a person perceives gravity more on head region than feet while passing through blackhole and which streches him apart . Also blackhole is more unstable than wormhole because black hole has more energy than wormhole.
Yeah it just a sci-fi movie and not taking account of real science
Observer1 clock looks slower from Observer2 perspective because it takes additional time for the information from Observer1 to reach Observer2 since the distance between them is constantly expanding (just like in the case of sound doppler effect).
Every example shows observers moving away from each other, so it makes sense that they'd see the other's clock slow down. What doesn't make sense to me is when they move towards each other.