Imagine working your whole entire life to find an equation just for some guy on youtube to put it on C tier
@itsmeagain14153 жыл бұрын
are you talking about Kepler's
@sohangchopra64783 жыл бұрын
@@itsmeagain1415 IMO Kepler's Laws themselves are not really used that much in general - but they are important mostly because they led Newton to his Gravitation formula
@dogwoof53912 жыл бұрын
life is a cruel mistress
@psychedelic5290 Жыл бұрын
its a tier list. you cant put everything on S
@somethinglemon3 жыл бұрын
Newton: *writes second law, fathering mechanics* Andrew: "yeah, this one didn't age well for me"
@asherkhan60233 жыл бұрын
Didn't he later decide it deserved more respect and put it in A tier?
@somethinglemon3 жыл бұрын
@@asherkhan6023 maybe I'm a Newton fanboy but I wanted it in S ;_;
@jans19823 жыл бұрын
@@somethinglemon ANdrew's evaluation was absurdly anachronistic. It hurt my eyes to watch the whole video.
@jans19823 жыл бұрын
I haven't watched the whole video when I posted this comment. It got even worse.
@random224532 жыл бұрын
all of mechanics can be derived from f=ma
@GaetanoArgiuolo19953 жыл бұрын
"Navier Stokes... I'll put it B tier" "Kepler's Laws... C tier" Me, an Aerospace Engineer: "Am I a joke to you?"
@alejandrorincon56493 жыл бұрын
Omg same here
@balazsfoldes47003 жыл бұрын
Me, a chemical engineer: "Know your f*cking place, trash..."
@colekinyon22673 жыл бұрын
Yes, you are a joke
@Arthur-xe3pu3 жыл бұрын
Yeah true cuz it literally nerds too much of u sub to work out and that reduces my liking towards it.
@user_27933 жыл бұрын
@@colekinyon2267 Imagine unironically believing the "enGinEeR bAd" jokes
@spinor3 жыл бұрын
I'm gonna pretend this counts as studying for my QFT exam
@oakleafwarrior97333 жыл бұрын
It does
@chriskindler103 жыл бұрын
IT DOESN‘T
@aaronrashid20753 жыл бұрын
It totally does
@chiragverma16873 жыл бұрын
Schrödinger's does(n't)
@christianpaul36513 жыл бұрын
My essential piece is very elastic
@neutronstarlord57163 жыл бұрын
"smart people" the further i get in physics the dumber i feel lol
@justyourfriendlypebble89433 жыл бұрын
True that except I learnt that at a young age we can still try to get to the point though don't give up
@ty63393 жыл бұрын
Sdunning, isn't it?
@horrorandgames3 жыл бұрын
Paradoxically, that means you're learning!
@waffles97713 жыл бұрын
@@justyourfriendlypebble8943 huh
@asolarasolarasolar3 жыл бұрын
Some people don't give a single fk about Physics, man.
@gcslksd3 жыл бұрын
"Dont take it personally" Alright "Ohm's law is D tier" I'm about to write an essay in the comments about this, and you cant stop me
@1tubax3 жыл бұрын
This man knew he was gonna piss off thousands of people when he made this video
@gamma_dablam Жыл бұрын
You're certainly resisting opposition to opinions😊
@abhinovenagarajan.s72373 жыл бұрын
Nothing screams you're studying physics than having 4 tabs to physics stackexchange open lmao.
@AndrewDotsonvideos3 жыл бұрын
7 :')
@TheChronUltimate3 жыл бұрын
This man really called the law of gravitation "cute"
@XenOz3r0xT_883 жыл бұрын
I think in Griffith's E&M book, he used the word "cute" to describe examples a few times at least lmao.
@droher13443 жыл бұрын
Woudln't you?
@MrKnivan3 жыл бұрын
@@XenOz3r0xT_88 love the way Griffiths writes lol
@HackersSun3 жыл бұрын
It is For him and his langranians or w.e It a seems so small and simple
@erezsolomon38383 жыл бұрын
It's a cute equation, what do you mean?
@bondmode3 жыл бұрын
Pov: you are alone in your small apartment, rooting for famous physics equations to be ranked higher (or lower) on an arbitrary scale by a random -altough likable- dude on the internet you never met and who won't even hear or care for your opinion. Guess I'm living the dream
@sakanagakyoko3 жыл бұрын
I must be in a simulation right now
@jeeranker11673 жыл бұрын
The FBI wants to know your location.
@idkbro6425 Жыл бұрын
Mannn Why?
@ItsaMe444 Жыл бұрын
This man is very attractive and cute. AND he knows Physics 😍
@ramonmerinorojas85353 жыл бұрын
It would be nice to have some formulas from Optics. You know, to fill rank D a little bit more!
@AndrewDotsonvideos3 жыл бұрын
Lmao
@РођакНенад3 жыл бұрын
what a savage
@quornnugget77992 жыл бұрын
Yea let’s get some fresnel coefficients in there
@abdoonyt9049 Жыл бұрын
😭
@abdoonyt9049 Жыл бұрын
@@Syzygizing not really, nothing too good about it
@jikaikas3 жыл бұрын
Navier stokes b tier Engineers : BLASPHEMY
@kaylo16803 жыл бұрын
*Sad supercomputer noises*
@vladimirputin84953 жыл бұрын
Last year, I had the Navier Stokes equation in my course, i had anxiety just by seeing the equation. Later when I finished solving it, i realised the elegance of the equation. One of the most beautiful equations in physics, hands down!
@schierke3 жыл бұрын
@@vladimirputin8495 i thought they were unsolvable?
@SuperMariocapo3 жыл бұрын
My exact reaction when he put it in b tier 😔
@kaylo16803 жыл бұрын
@@schierke I assume he means solving special cases with some boundrary conditions that give weak solutions.
@felixeschment72573 жыл бұрын
My screen wants to thank you for ranking Noether’s theorem s-tier because otherwise I would have punched it quite hard.
@AndrewDotsonvideos3 жыл бұрын
lmao
@zaraloves84203 жыл бұрын
What is this niche joke that I don’t understand?
@azerack9553 жыл бұрын
@@zaraloves8420 Noether's Theorem is probably the single most beautiful result in all of physics. If we didn't have conservation laws, physics would be VERY different, and Emmy Noether formalized our understanding of conservation laws by relating it to an even more fundamental concept, differentiable symmetries.
@bwensink25273 жыл бұрын
@@azerack955 It popped up in a symplectic geometry course I was following. In there it's just a side remark as it follows super naturally from the theory. It was a big shame, I hoped it would be a highlight, something where everything just came together.
@luker.6967 Жыл бұрын
@@azerack955 Isn't it kind of obvious that a symmetry implies something is conserved? I guess formalizing that is pretty cool.
@noahroyce90383 жыл бұрын
My guy's complaining that a fluid dynamics equation isn't relativistic *This post was made by classical gang
@erezsolomon38383 жыл бұрын
classic complaining
@captainsnake85153 жыл бұрын
“It’s fun to use gausses law because it’s kind of easy” One of the great things about this channel is that it keeps my ego in check
@HackersSun3 жыл бұрын
Lol mines gone Loooong ago gone
@erezsolomon38383 жыл бұрын
yeah it does!
@morganmitchell40172 жыл бұрын
I know it's an old comment, but it really is easy. If you have a spherically symmetric charge distribution and choose a spherical boundary, the closed surface integral over that boundary of E.dA becomes E*A or 4 pi r^2 E. From that, you can work out the electric field. 4 pi r^2 E = Q / epsilon_0 from Gauss' law E = Q / (4 * pi * epsilon_0 * r^2) which is Coulomb's law :)
@random22453 Жыл бұрын
You can only use gauss law in cases with cylindrical symmetrical spherical symmetry or uniform electric field
@random22453 Жыл бұрын
Well you could use it in other cases but you're not gonna get anywhere with it
@tp_23013 жыл бұрын
Andrew: it's 97 degrees Me as a European: 👀👀👀
@maxwellsequation48873 жыл бұрын
Lol I also thought he was boiling for a sec
@fuji_films3 жыл бұрын
Imagine not specificing the unit of measurement.
@ngzbblax3 жыл бұрын
97 f is still hot
@popupro3 жыл бұрын
@@ngzbblax it's hot, but using an online convertor 97C° = 206.6F° I don't think 97F° is quite on the same level
@76543212203 жыл бұрын
Me: a bit more than half pi
@AmokBR3 жыл бұрын
First time I saw the d’Alembert operator, I thought there’d been a problem when the book was printed and a little square got printed as a placeholder instead of some operator. Like when you get encoding problems.
@AndrewDotsonvideos3 жыл бұрын
Same! I thought they tried using an emoji or something
@AmokBR3 жыл бұрын
ཀཱ wow, that’s an interesting job
@ErkaaJ3 жыл бұрын
"Euler-Lagrange equation is essentially F = ma" As a mathematician, this made me scream in variational principles.
@frooskys22 Жыл бұрын
He didn't say anything wrong, in classical mechanics the Euler-Lagrange equations give F = ma, although in quantum field theory it gives the particle wave function.
@henrybarber288Ай бұрын
I think they mean that the Euler-Lagrange equation applies to a lot more than just physics.
@christiangonzalez32623 жыл бұрын
“Btw if it looks like I’m sweaty it’s just the sweat” is my favorite line of this whole video
@TheMostFacts3 жыл бұрын
She: "He's probably out there now thinking about other girls" He:
@bushidobrown67423 жыл бұрын
Andrew: it’s 97 degrees My Prof: Degrees of what? Oranges? Apples
@ausaramun3 жыл бұрын
Degrees of Freedom.
@Azazel_Woodwind3 жыл бұрын
@@ausaramun lmaoo
@antarmusicofficial3 жыл бұрын
@@ausaramun What in the System of bodies is that DOF?! Mental
@Arthur-xe3pu3 жыл бұрын
but then what's the uncertainty
@joaoruxa2 жыл бұрын
@@ausaramun omg im so dead
@gonzalezm2443 жыл бұрын
*Navier Stokes goes in B tier* Mechanical Engineering/Pure Math Major: *Sad Noises*
@sohangchopra64783 жыл бұрын
Well, he is ranking important Physics equations, NOT maths!
@alidurrani46452 жыл бұрын
@@sohangchopra6478 Fluid Mechanics is *PHYSICS* and it is *IMPORTANT* You Physicists have abandoned us, we are *FAMILY*
@leswhynin9133 жыл бұрын
F=ma was in B Tier until it was realized most of the modern world was built upon it
@PapaFlammy693 жыл бұрын
where my D=AB at?
@thephysicistcuber1753 жыл бұрын
How about 2 != 0?
@AndrewDotsonvideos3 жыл бұрын
Oh man this changes everything
@HackersSun3 жыл бұрын
I'm the 69th like :^)
@revooshnoj40783 жыл бұрын
What is this equation?
@adamuhaddadi53323 жыл бұрын
@@thephysicistcuber175 🙄
@gustavsreders44793 жыл бұрын
Me a musician who knows nothing about physics watching this: Hmm yes V = I R really sucks. It sure does deserve D tier
@Joseph-tm5vv3 жыл бұрын
This was such a fun video to watch. Please make more math-physics content with your commentary.
@DavidSmyth6663 жыл бұрын
It took me quite a long time to really understand the significance of Kepler's laws but I feel like I'm appreciating them more and more the longer I do physics. The first thing you have to appreciate is that they were all derived empirically by Kepler, simply by looking at tables of numbers. This was before any classical mechanics was formalised and arguably before experimental science became a major thing. Given that, it's really quite remarkable that all three laws have some profound meaning. Kepler must have had an incredible intuition. The first law describes the orbits of planets in purely geometric terms. Historically, it was also important because competing models at the time modelled orbits as circular rather than eliptical, so this was a major discovery. It also somewhat anticipates energy methods in modern analytic mechanics, where people try to get information about a system from its integrals of motion, without having to solve the equations of motion exactly. Regarding the second law, Feynman had a good comment. A lot of people (including me for a long time) think Kepler 2 is kind of trivial since it's easy to show from integrating the two-body problem. However, as Feynman pointed out, it's really just a statement of the conservation of angular momentum (which obviously did not exist as a concept at the time of Kepler), which is in fact much more general than Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. The third law is perhaps the hardest to appreciate because it appears a bit arbitrary. The first time I understood its context was when I was reading Landau & Lifshitz vol. 1 in grad school. There they have a section on scaling and dimensionality and one of the examples is deriving Kepler's third law simply from seeing how the Lagrangian changes under rescaling. To emphasise this point, this is something you can do on the back of the envelope, without even writing down the equations of motion. The two ways of interpreting it then is, if you accept the inverse square law on theoretical considerations, then Kepler 3 drops out in a few lines. Alternatively, if you take Kepler 3 as an experimental observation, then it allows you to determine the power dependence of the law of gravitation. Again, to highlight Kepler's foresight, arguments from "power counting" in modern physics are usually the first thing you do when renormalising a field theory.
@sash7048 Жыл бұрын
really profound stuff, thanks for the interesting read!
@tachyon3.143 жыл бұрын
My school is teaching Ohm’s law now and I simply can’t stop laughing seeing it in D tier
@nHans3 жыл бұрын
I know, right? In high school, you solve a lot of problems using Ohm's Law. But later on-spoiler alert-you learn that it's applicable to only a small class of materials called Ohmic resistors-materials that obey Ohm's law. (Yeah, kinda circular definition.) When AC and semiconductors get introduced, life becomes orders of magnitude more complex. Oh, how I long for the simpler days of V = IR!
@EnergiaRocket3 жыл бұрын
@@nHans sounds like it comes straight out of The Devil's Dictionary, just like its definition of magnetism ;) MAGNET, n. Something acted upon by magnetism. MAGNETISM, n. Something acting upon a magnet. The two definitions immediately foregoing are condensed from the works of one thousand eminent scientists, who have illuminated the subject with a great white light, to the inexpressible advancement of human knowledge.
@Eisommolos3 жыл бұрын
@@nHans Even if it gets a lot more complex and complicated, you still need Ohms law when working with AC or transistors... It's probably the most basic equation in electronical engineering
@nHans3 жыл бұрын
@@Eisommolos Not denying the importance, utility, or ubiquity of V=IR. But again: It's a property of a limited number of materials-an extremely useful property for us, no doubt. But it's not a universal law of nature. All the other equations on Andrew's list were laws of nature. To be sure, most of those were special cases. But they were not properties of specific materials. I agree with you that in AC, you can continue using Ohm's Law with complex quantities. And electronic circuits definitely contain lots of resistors-open up any electronic device and the PCB is chock full of them. And your mind immediately starts going BBROY... However, I disagree with you regarding transistors (and other valves or semiconductor devices, including diodes). V=IR is useful only when R (or Z) is constant under operating conditions. In fact, the whole point of electronics is in using components that don't have a constant R. You don't apply Ohm's Law to them. You use transistor parameters α and β, operating characteristics etc. BTW, on the very first day of my college electronics course, the professor summarized the difference between electrical and electronics engineering in exactly that way: In electronics, we use many components that _don't_ follow Ohm's Law. To be clear: Neither my professor nor I said that Ohm's Law is _never_ used in electronics-just that you can't apply it to every component. Electronics uses resistors, and resistors obey Ohm's Law. Period. I tutor high school students in science, particularly for competitive college entrance exams. I can't help thinking how (relatively) easy their electrical circuits are, compared to what they'll be challenged with in future electrical and electronics courses! However, even at the high school level, V=IR isn't enough to solve the problems they set for you. You also need P=VI, Kirchhoff's Laws etc. Unlike Ohm's Law, the latter two are universally true, and apply to all materials. We are lucky that the metals Ohm studied obeyed Ohm's law. It makes it easy to study electricity and to design useful electrical circuits. *But it's not a universal law of nature.* There are materials that don't follow a linear V:I relationship. It's more difficult to build circuits with them, but not impossible. And like I said, we are doing it. That's why I'm not in the least annoyed when Andrew ranked Ohm's Law a "D."
@Eisommolos3 жыл бұрын
@@nHans I don't say that Ohms law is all powerful or something... It's a very simple and useful equation that is very important in electronics. I know that you can't apply it to every component, but in almost every circuit are resistors and even the most basic transistor circuit needs resistors to adjust Voltage. So you still use Ohms Law
@jaraadkamal7223 жыл бұрын
Me: *with only a high school physics background and is here for the vibes* Andrew: next we have the euler-lagrange eq Me: Ooo yes the best because drawing the L is fun.
@idkbro6425 Жыл бұрын
Me too lmao
@samuelwaller4924 Жыл бұрын
Man, and here I thought I would be able to relate, but I don't even know what it means Most fun letter we've learned to draw is sigma :(
@l.2620 Жыл бұрын
I don't even know why I'm here. I picked biology after catastrophically failing physics
@Macandcheese1818 Жыл бұрын
I mean I'm going into my second year of physics at uni and I don't understand 50% of the stuff he's saying
@yaheltzuriel27723 жыл бұрын
I disagree with the ranking of F = ma (or F = dp/dt as Newton wrote it). While it could be considered "boring" in today's standards, this equation was a result of a huge leap in logic which may as well be the origin of physics as we know it. The equation encapsulates a basic but profound law of nature, such that even the most complicated quantum and relativistic equations can be reduced to it at certain limits. Edit - found out you moved it up in the end, cheers!
@bleblo133 жыл бұрын
Yeah, it looks really simple for us, but if I recall it correctly it was the first differential equation ever, and everyone can count for himself how many equations up there are NOT differential equations.
@christianthrasher48793 жыл бұрын
I think that this video might have focused a bit more on applications of the formulas. If it were influence/importance, then just about all of these would be S tier.
@maxdonaldson861 Жыл бұрын
I would rank F=ma lower because a more general form would be F=dp/dt because that allows you to account for changing mass by using the product rule, for instance if rain is falling into an open carriage on a train.
@The_Canonical_Ensemble Жыл бұрын
@@maxdonaldson861 It doesn't. If you try to do that you would get an equation that isn't galilean invariant.
@lorenzobarbano3 жыл бұрын
Kepler at D tier. You can derive all of it from universal gravity
@vf19413 жыл бұрын
Everything in D tier. You can derive all of it from the lagrangian
@thabomsiza25023 жыл бұрын
Feels so nice to finally know all the most significant physics formulas.
@BhanuNarra13 жыл бұрын
Greatest tier list video in existence
@FlaminTubbyToast3 жыл бұрын
Ok, V = I R is bad but like that isn’t even true? Like it’s an edge case for a ohmic circuit. It doesn’t even require calculus.
@dr.uncertain67323 жыл бұрын
more of an "Ohm's Rule" as my prof explained to me.
@poge61923 жыл бұрын
Yeah, it's a result from solid state physics that concentrates on a very specific usage regime of devices. These kinds of complicated systems are going to be nonlinear in nature, but Ohm's law can be applied very accurately for whatever conditions they are linear. However, it's not just for resistors - a more general form much more widely used is V(w) = I(w) Z(w), as a frequency domain/phasor equation. This allows us to treat capacitors and inductors, whose behavior can be confusing and needs to be modeled by a diffeq, as ohmic (in sinusoidal steady state). In that way, Ohm's law creates a vital piece of the puzzle to solve more complicated circuits for much more interesting results than a high school resistor nest homework.
@judedavis923 жыл бұрын
like, y do u say ‘like’ so much
@coffeeguy.34383 жыл бұрын
Not to mention circuits suckkk
@Jordan-cr6rh3 жыл бұрын
@@poge6192 yeah i personally find the equation for impedance in an AC-LRC circuit to be better than V=IR
@neilgerace3553 жыл бұрын
"Pushing aside their Arduino boards" hahaha
@keaganhurter25505 ай бұрын
8:23 every high-school student ever: *looks at Andrew menacingly*
@Airsofter46923 жыл бұрын
Always good to see some love for physicsoh! I think I mostly agree with this (except the standard model and Klein Gordon, those are both S-tier!). Though I don't think i personally would put the Euler-Lagrange equations that high, however I would keep the action at S tier. It's usually easier to vary the action directly; and the EL equations are really only a special case where the Lagrangian is first order and nothing too funny is happening with any boundaries. You can't even use EL with the Einstein Hilbert action, as the Lagrangian has second order derivatives with respect to the metric
@AndrewDotsonvideos3 жыл бұрын
There are higher order versions of the E.L.E's though, right? I think there's an exercise in goldstein where you have to derive the E.L.E's for a lagrangian that depends on second derivatives but I can't say for sure.
@Airsofter46923 жыл бұрын
@@AndrewDotsonvideos you can, yeah. You end up with a series of higher derivatives, where in the derivation you have to do integration by parts an extra time for each higher derivative. But I'd argue this is often easier to vary to the action directly, with this generalised EL method you can end up needing to take some pretty unpleasant derivatives (for example, trying this with the Einstein Hilbert action would be horrendous. Which is why no textbook I've seen tries this). This also doesn't deal with the possibility of strange stuff going on at the boundary. In GR this is even more complicated, as you need to add an extra Gibbons-Hawking-York term.
@prasadpawar70273 жыл бұрын
Navier-Stokes equation not being relativistic had me chuckle ngl
@leridecirunato91993 жыл бұрын
Me: Ok so I just got through an extenuating exam session,I just want to relax for now My brain: "EqUaTiOn TiEr LiSt"
@neusaap57083 жыл бұрын
Im glad you're uploading more often lately. Good job!
@simonjech38623 жыл бұрын
I am so happy that relativistic energy is not just E=mc^2 in there. And I would add Boltzmann equation because its really important in statistics.
@AndrewDotsonvideos3 жыл бұрын
Yeah that would be a good one
@person98153 жыл бұрын
"If it looks like I'm sweaty, it's just the sweat."
@LoganCralle2 жыл бұрын
You stabbed me in the heart with a dagger when you put F=ma in B tier then gave me a cupcake when you moved it up to A.
@null_s3t Жыл бұрын
"If it looks like I'm sweaty that's just the sweat" *if it ain't broke don't fix it*
@shawcampbell77153 жыл бұрын
I am studying electrical engineering , and my fav equation of all time is sin(arcsin(e^2)=((ln(e^g))^2)^(1/2)
@julians.25973 жыл бұрын
"I haven't used [ohm's law]" - over a computer like a badass /j
@Hex...3 жыл бұрын
"Sorry Ohm's Law" in your wrap up at the end absolutely SENT me for some reason, don't know why I found it so funny
@Sith523 жыл бұрын
I cannot say I love your takes, but I appreciate you posting this lol
@unifiedcodetheory84063 жыл бұрын
calling Newton's equations "cute" lol, the power move
@ghanshamchandel18543 жыл бұрын
We want justice for the Navier-Stokes equation. No other equation can contain as beautiful (although numerical) solutions as NS.
@_Nibi3 жыл бұрын
No.
@rtg_onefourtwoeightfiveseven3 жыл бұрын
I don't know, the Einstein Field Equations have some pretty darn beautiful numerical solutions too.
@jarahfluxman203 жыл бұрын
Call me when someone solves its millennium problem
@keplercreations3 жыл бұрын
in fairness without ohms law literally all of experimental physics wouldn't be possible, that moment when u wanna do experimental physics but should've taken more engineering courses xd
@thephysicistcuber1753 жыл бұрын
-EM lagrangian -QFT partition function -Kramers-Kronig -BE distribution.
@AndrewDotsonvideos3 жыл бұрын
@michasm19683 жыл бұрын
I'd say Newton's law is S tier given it's literally the first equation you really ever learn in any physics class, and the fact that you can use it for nearly 95% of IRL engineering - send people to fucking space with its consequences, makes it insane given it was postulated in the 1600s. That's crazy to me
@bobbwc70113 жыл бұрын
I don't know what kind of trash school you went to but In Germany physics as its own standalone subject starts in 6th grade and you immediately start using equations since you learned a lot of basic maths betweenn 1st and 5th grade which is ready to be applied in 6th grade.
@PhysicsOH3 жыл бұрын
Glad the Uggos got some love *tears up* gives me hope.
@adamharoon60213 жыл бұрын
This day just got so much better thanks to your new upload.
@jansabata3456 Жыл бұрын
not putting Maxwell Equations in S tier feels almost illegal
@88manta88 Жыл бұрын
Can be easily derived from Electromagnetic tensor in QED so not needed at all
@BamBoomBots3 жыл бұрын
I actually feel really sad about how the Navier-Stokes is written here, there are much more complete and elegant forms of it. And yes, unsolveable analytically, but I just love the ingenuity of people when it comes to doing simplifications in order to get solutions which yield suprisingly accurate results. Working in fluid mechanics has an inherent feel of 'what are we missing, it all just feels as if it should work analytically' and NV is at the bottom of that. Can't wait to study some relativistic flows, that's going to be some weird stuff.
@AndrewDotsonvideos3 жыл бұрын
Yeah I think I've come across prettier version in terms of what the fluid people call a material derivative I think.
@BamBoomBots3 жыл бұрын
@@AndrewDotsonvideos Not sure if the material derivative form refers to the same thing but one I particularly like from a theoretical point of view is the generalised vector form with the stress tensor and force acting on the fluid included. That stress tensor is strongly related to solid mechanics and if you really wanted to torture yourself you could probably include some QM in the NV equation. Never gave it much thought or tried it though.
@GuruPrasad-qu4vg3 жыл бұрын
@@AndrewDotsonvideos yeah material derivatives are more cosmetic But turbulence as a phenomenon is absolutely so interesting. Heisenberg's doctoral thesis was on it. It was verified later using DNS simulations in more recent times. His adviser was the Chad Herr Professor Sommerfeld of course
@GuruPrasad-qu4vg3 жыл бұрын
@@BamBoomBots the Boltzmann equation translates from statistical mechanics to Continuum, but it's strictly classical. Nothing quantum about FM unless you consider superfluid Helium
@seminaia20093 жыл бұрын
You should look up magnetohydrodynamics. It's pretty much coupling both the maxwells equation and navier stokes equation.
@abuuzarbuz22333 жыл бұрын
Zero curvature equation seems to be deep and elegant, containing Chern-Simons and also having intimate relation with integrability employing existence of infinite number of integrals of motion. Definitely would have included it.
@skepticmoderate57903 жыл бұрын
As an aerospace engineer, I totally understood when you put Bernoulli's equation quite low, as it doesn't work for incompressible fluids, but when you relegated the Navier-Stokes equations I was so pissed that I had to log in to write you an angry face. >:(
@meltossmedia3 жыл бұрын
All of y'all shitting on V=IR but that's deadass one of three equations I use in most of electronics engineering, it's technically ΔV but same thing
@RedRacconKing3 жыл бұрын
Same its s tier
@nHans3 жыл бұрын
What are the other two? (I know Kirchhoff's Laws, complex values in AC circuits, capacitor's charge-to-voltage relation, transistor's α and β etc. Are you talking about any of those?)
@henrylee43743 жыл бұрын
Is V=IZ not just a more useful version?
@RedRacconKing3 жыл бұрын
@@nHans Ohms, Kirchhoff and Thevin/Norton is all you need mostly...
@sandearcubus92993 жыл бұрын
@@RedRacconKing And just but 1uF Caps everywhere.
@varunmarar6771 Жыл бұрын
"F=ma yeah i never really used it" Every jee aspirant ever:
@evelynkimbirk28993 жыл бұрын
5:43 “If I look sweaty it’s because of the sweat.” Huh. Interesting. Learn something new everyday.
@virtuoso17753 жыл бұрын
He was more referring to why he was sweating, which was the 97 degree heat.
@shaneturley92993 жыл бұрын
5:07 that's S tier right there
@alexistrobat1627 Жыл бұрын
I have absolutely no clue about Physics but I still watched this all the way through. Very nice.
@modolief3 жыл бұрын
Couldv'e used boxes around your equations, but loved the concept and execution (and humility). Tibees sent me. Subbed. Thanks!!
@Тамэг2 жыл бұрын
The feeling when I do understand words, but have no idea what he was talking about..... But it was surely fascinating, i didn't get any of that, but keep doing what you do!
@Azagro3 жыл бұрын
Every engineer watching this video: "After all the tools we built for you physicists, you disrespect us like that?"
@mideoryan33753 жыл бұрын
"if it looks like I'm sweaty, it's just the sweat." siense
@DumblyDorr3 жыл бұрын
Noether's Theorem would be my first top tier pick as well. But I think it's even more than what you describe. Its semantic extent and conceptual importance is broader and more fundamental than what is captured in the equation for conserved currents. I thinks not even (primarily) a *physical* principle - it is a logical/philosophical principle, by introducing important precision into the very conceptual structure of and between the concepts of "symmetry", "continuity" and "invariance", the former of which is a "passive mode" of description - describes the properties from a static perspective (not necessarily merely static properties though). The latter is a fundamentally "active mode" of description - as "invariance" is always invariance *under* some process/transformation. Weyl was one of those who recognized this broader importance of Noether's work for questions of philosophy of science and ontology - and even tried to relate that insight to the layperson in a few popular science books - while being one of the last "universalists" in maths & physics (with maybe only von Neumann as a peer in this regard), himself advancing the state of the art in these matters. In this regard, I think it's similar to the *general* "uncertainty principle" captured in fourier analysis, which also regards a "shift in pespective on the same thing", by translating between time and frequency domain - which is not actually mainly a fact about nature, but about our "frame of representation". If our "periodic table" for constructing/analyzing continuous signals are pure frequencies, their ideal nature includes extending infinitely in time and space. This entails - purely conceptually, you don't even need a physical context - that to represent continuous signals which are bounded in any way and thus non-pure, non-ideal, you get infinities - an infinite number of weighted contributions from the ideal, infinitely extending "elements". This in turn entails a general principle extending beyond the physical context - that the more finely you specify limits in either the frequency or time domain, the less "certain"/"specific" your value in the other is - there is a complementary relationship in specificity of determination. The wider the temporal boundaries are, the closer to "pure" we can get - with absolutely pure waves only being possible in the infinite limit. OTOH - the more narrow our temporal bounds are, the less selective/specific the distribution of frequencies with their weights. This is why group-theory, and in general abstract/universal algebra, (higher) category theory etc are so useful - because they "extract" the most general principles which then apply to so many different situations.
@kairostimeYT3 жыл бұрын
I am taking undergrad Electronics engineering and though Ohm's law is popular, it does not necessarily having anything astounding in it. So I'd give it C or D as well.
@notstorm2083 жыл бұрын
It would be a little cooler if it was at least the phasor V=IZ
@rafg.14933 жыл бұрын
KVL or KCL is more important than ohms law. But those are pretty trivial and go off of the idea of conservation
@bobbwc70113 жыл бұрын
The problem is that everybody commenting on Ohm's law here reveal a lack of proper education in electrodynamics. Ohm's law is NOT R = U / I. That is only a special case which is obtained by integrating the differential form of the principle. J = k E is Ohm's law and there are some interesting insights to that. But despite not being that old I feel like I'm a boomer when I see how shallow people study stuff in college and university these days. Or maybe I just went to a really good university where the professors were no superficial retards.
@EklavyaClassesz2 жыл бұрын
@@bobbwc7011 my teacher told me something like that J= kE stuff
@Mforader17928 ай бұрын
Living like the pilgrims. Bro.......newmexico with swamp coolers is awesome at 97 you can feel the dust stick to your ....everything.🤙 thanks for the video mane!
@noxioustab1347 Жыл бұрын
*puts ohm's law in D tier* "we still use swamp coolers like the pilgrims" xD Jk
@andreacosta22383 жыл бұрын
here come the frustrated engineering students in 3,2,1..
@nicmalecha47383 жыл бұрын
As a financial consultant, the fact that buy low/sell high was omitted from this list of fundamental equations is highly egregious and offensive.
@Brendakye24683 жыл бұрын
EE here, I disagree with the EE above saying that they took ohms law D-tier personally... However Maxwell's equations on the other hand, that was a hit
@aidenwinter11173 жыл бұрын
The kind of video we didn't know we needed and also don't deserve
@digxx3 жыл бұрын
I really like that self-honesty at the beginning, cause it's true :-)
@jpa_fasty39973 жыл бұрын
Navier-Stokes in B tier is the most offensive thing I've read in my life you heathen. So much information in those equations. Turbulence, for one example.
@patrickgambill93263 жыл бұрын
I am surprised Maxwell's equations aren't S tier. Griffiths would be disappointed.
@patrickgambill93263 жыл бұрын
Not angry. Just disappointed
@nHans3 жыл бұрын
I'm guessing, it might be because it's a classical theory and has been superseded by Quantum Mechanics. Andrew admitted quite plainly that he's biased towards anything "relativistically consistent or quantum mechanical in nature."
@Honest-King3 жыл бұрын
This is the most random thing I have ever experinced , even more than my dreams. Still like it though
@renevillela1293 жыл бұрын
The "Master equation" has become my life. S tier for me
@larswillems98863 жыл бұрын
12:55 bias towards relativisticly consistant things. Also puts Lorenz factor in c teir
@rtg_onefourtwoeightfiveseven3 жыл бұрын
5:52 I clicked on this video just to see where you would put Noether's theorem. I'm satisfied.
@jamesmanning5159 Жыл бұрын
The entire modern world is built off Maxwell's equations not having it in S tier is diaboilically sinful
@VillegasCar3 жыл бұрын
i love this video format
@aol21343 жыл бұрын
1:50 After explosions on the Sun, the solar wind, in the form of a giant electric current, moves towards the Earth, creating a magnetic field around itself. Upon entering the Earth's magnetic field, positive particles deflect in one direction and positive ones in another, creating meteorological changes on Earth. This is the Belgrade School of Meteorology, thanks to which, we know up to 20 days in advance, what the weather will be like on Earth.
@f.l1069 Жыл бұрын
bro i 100% agree with this list!!! Great job!
@trishamondal61513 жыл бұрын
Ah....I'm currently feeling what you said about Schrödinger equation... Like it's really cool!
@vishrutjain4268 Жыл бұрын
8:48 - 8:59 . There's something so 'athletic' about this statement. I didn't know this statement could be used in the Scientific World. "I would rather not be average at a bunch of different formulisms, I'd rather be really really good at one."
@ericjohnson-greer9687 Жыл бұрын
How ironic the guy making a tier list on a computer put Ohm’s Law at the lowest tier
@JTB3123 жыл бұрын
Maybe a little unfair on Navier Stokes. It can be made relativistic (even can be formulated in GR) and is particularly applicable for modelling the insides of stars in GR (which let's you compute conditions for star collapse etc)
@lthecatt96673 жыл бұрын
Two minutes in, and it feels like you're speaking a foreign language
@townley10173 жыл бұрын
I finished my undergrad in physics last year and it already sounds foreign to me, don’t worry haha
@PieMaster24252 жыл бұрын
Andrew: using a computer to make this video Also Andrew: puts Ohms law in D tier
@OleLemmers3 жыл бұрын
Congrats with 200k subs
@pratikkharel3 жыл бұрын
My favorite quote: What's going on smart people?
@thobejanekarabo98553 жыл бұрын
love the formulas video bro!
@pratikkharel3 жыл бұрын
Almost at 200k? Lets goo!
@William-Sunderland3 жыл бұрын
The pinacle of internet, a equations tierlist.
@PMA655373 жыл бұрын
5:00 V=IR is the definition of resistance. Ohm's Law is that R is constant (not dependent on I).
@adsa21242 жыл бұрын
5:44 "if it looks like I'm sweating it's the sweat" - at least it's a self consistent theory 😂