Calculating the Planck Units

[@MrYukon2010]

Well done. Dimensional analysis is very underrated but is a very powerful tool.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much

[@dnae16]

@@LearningCurveScience 0

[@HeyImLucious]

Unironically one of the best explanations of exponents I've seen.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much

[@bobgehrls8538]

Wow. I love this. Thanks for making this "simple" for us non Mathmagicians.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you so much. I try my best

[@jackmatchett1805]

@@LearningCurveScience he was being sarcastic btw

[@bbbl67]

Amazing, I love how you went into non-scripted mode to keep everything straighter. I can see why you can think clearer while you're working out the maths logically than if you tried to make a word script for the math stages.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much. Yes my script was just a mess, so I just worked with the maths in front of me (I did still make one mistake though, but corrected it)

[@JT-ls3ly]

"No one wants to watch me do maths for half an hour." Everything in this video is correct except for that part.

[@MarcFain]

Found a math error yet got the right results. Traced it back to a 2nd error that cancelled the errors. At 17:26 it shows 0=-1+2x, 2x=-1. Here 2x would equal 1. However 0=-1+2x should be 0=1+2x. And that correctly reduces to 2x=-1. Love the video!

[@saifuldeenmohammed8969]

Yes I send message also 😊

[@saifuldeenmohammed8969]

Yes I send messages too 😊

[@ozzymand1as]

I would appreciate a video explaining the what and why of these constants, like why is the reduced Planck constant a thing? And why do we use it instead of the standard Planck constant it contains

[@stephanieparker1250]

So hard to cover physics in 10 min videos lol

[@ozzymand1as]

@@stephanieparker1250 OK, several videos

[@stephanieparker1250]

@@ozzymand1as I’d love to see a series on this topic for sure!! 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌

[@ozzymand1as]

@@stephanieparker1250 ye

[@LearningCurveScience]

I am planning to do a video on the Planck constant, and the reduced Planck constant. I have a massive list of topics for videos and will work my way through them, though as people suggest new ideas, I suddenly get distracted by shiny science over there. My list grows ever longer.

[@joshmartin2744]

@17:21 0 = -1 + 2x shouldn't 2x = +1 by adding 1 to both sides of the equation?

[@griffinfinnell8371]

Okay, I may have just missed something, but at 17:20, shouldn't the two equations added together come out to 0 = 1 + 2x, not 0 = -1 + 2x? 2 + (-1) = 1, not -1. But again, maybe I just missed something?

[@LearningCurveScience]

No, you are quite right, it is a typo. However in the next equation, 2x still equals -1, so it all comes out right in the end. Hope that helps.

[@griffinfinnell8371]

Ah, I see. Thanks. I didn't look ahead at all, was just looking at that specific step.

[@LearningCurveScience]

@@griffinfinnell8371 No you were right to mention it, don't worry. I'm just glad that the maths worked out right in the end and the universe didn't fall apart. Phew

[@joz6683]

As someone currently doing Khan Academy to brush up on my maths, not used since my 'O' level in the early 1980's. Thanks for this, I almost understood this for the duration of this. Thanks once again for another great video.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much. Ahhh O Levels. Good luck with the maths!

[@mariodalporto2236]

I'm really not the brightest math enjoyer, but this video really made me feel like a true mathematician understanding it all! Awsome explanation for dummies!

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[@phenax1144]

Dimensional analysis is not for dummies 😊

[@ThunderBassistJay]

The clearly explained maths at the start of the video really helps people to understand. A few years ago I more or less performed the same analysis. This emphasisis why it makes no sense using medieval (imperial) units.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much

[@toumanisidibe3602]

Seems like they're a little mistake at 17:20. Adding the two equations should give 2x + 1 = 0. The result of x = -1/2 is correct though.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Yes you're quite correct. I did make a mistake but corrected it. To be honest I'm surprised there was just one mistake.

[@toumanisidibe3602]

@@LearningCurveScience Congrats for such great explanations

[@Mampfie]

found this channel by accident and instantly subbed, i love listening to stuff like this while i try to sleep.

[@leonsunu1209]

this is more fascinating than anything i've leared so far in chemistry class...

[@coltonmims8561]

Great video! The arithmetic involved in dimensional analysis can seem complicated at first. But it’s really just algebra! The question I would have is why did we choose these constants in particular? And where exactly did the planck constant come from? Is it used anywhere else in physics or is it just used when defining these fundamental units?

[@LearningCurveScience]

The Planck constant is used in loads of stuff, it relates the wavelength of a photon to it's energy. Different wavelengths of light have different energy. These constants are useful because they have the terms we need. Using different constants would just lead to the values dropping out to 0, like with the Boltzmann constant until we got to temperature, which the Boltzmann constant contains a term for.

[@coltonmims8561]

@@LearningCurveScience so the Planck constant was found with the idea of having a constant with these specific units in mind? Knowing that a constant with these units could be used in the manner that it’s used in this video?

[@kindlin]

The real _purpose_ of the plank constants is that they are dimension-invariant, meaning, whatever set of things you select to use for time, length, temperature, and mass, when you work out all of these ratios, the plank scale value should always be the same constant. We're canceling out all of the other units, and so their numerical values all 'cancel out' as well, until you're left with a 'pure' number based solely on the measurable constants of physics. Or, I think.

[@carly09et]

plank's 'constant' was measured, it is emitted photons - the energy steps form a series that is indexed by plank's constant - Plank used it to explain away the ultraviolet paradox, then Einstein used the idea to explain the photoelectric effect (which he got the noble for) - it is the start of quantum physics. del(x)*del(P) >= h

[@BeenuZz]

Mate, you explain an absolutely brilliant way!

[@Jawst]

1:00 vroom vroom 😆 thank you for all the effort you put into making the videos 😁 exciting to see you uploading videos more regularly!

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much. I have to juggle this around my 'daytime' job but I'll upload as frequently as I can

[@normanofthetempest7347]

Thank you for the beginner explanation in idea 1 - 5. Wow I understood this for the most part. Thats a pretty nice feat imo.

[@hozb1]

Thanks, I could follow along for the most part. I would not be able to do this on my own. I did find one small error at Time 17:21 in video. You say that 0=-1 + 2x, when it should read 0=1 +2x. It doesn't matter because your next equation 2x= -1 is based on the correct procedure. I don't mean to be nit picky or arrogant. I'm just glad you explained it in a way that someone with my abilities could follow along. Thank you again.

[@victorchanalet9592]

17:26 this seems weird, isn’t it that x = 1/2 not -1/2?

[@victorchanalet9592]

I think I understand, you just did your equation on the left wrong it’s supposed to be 0=1+2x

[@joshmartin2744]

Yeah, I saw the same problem. Now I have to do the rest of the math to see how it turns out.

[@victorchanalet9592]

@@joshmartin2744 nah it turns out the same because I think he corrects it later on 🤔

[@stillwaterbuilders3714]

Could planck length be given a mass by incorporating the Schwarzschild radius into its value? what would be the mass of an object with a Schwarzschild radius of a planck length?

[@LearningCurveScience]

That is what the Planck mass is. I've made a video about it.

[@stillwaterbuilders3714]

@@LearningCurveScience that makes much more sense. Thanks from a humble plebe.

[@kyzercube]

LC, one thing I've always found fascinating about division is that it's the only 1 of the 4 operators of mathematics that comes in different flavors. 5 to be precise; Division, Fraction, Decimal, Percentage and Ratio and they're all perfectly interchangeable. None of the other 3 math operators have this trait.

[@bartvenken7138]

What is the reasoning behind the step you are making at 10:34? It seems a bit random. I know it isn't but I don't see what justifies that step ...

[@Z-42]

Man, this is strange. About 2 hours ago I saw all of your Planck videos on my KZbin home page. But only 26 minutes ago you released this new Planck video. The algorithm knew you were going to be posting this video and it promoted your other Planck videos to me ahead of time. lol

[@LearningCurveScience]

It's a time travelling algorithm

[@mohamedkoroma-fb9vp]

Good work done

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you! Cheers!

[@haroldennulat8339]

An extremely good explanation that I could understand as a novice of these fundamental units. I also appreciated the brief explanation of where these units come from.

[@captainnoms9374]

This video sent me to my happy place.

[@LearningCurveScience]

I like a bit of maths myself. Glad you enjoyed.

[@rafaeldearaujo12]

17:22 shouldn't it be 2x=1 here?

[@kpmathis71]

One part that I've not had sufficiently explained, but I think you might be able to help me with: what does it mean to square the speed of light? Or raise it to the power of 5? While I realize these are the results, there is some underlying meaning. And I'm missing that key. Thanks for you content.

[@plesleron]

I've thought about a similar question before and the unsatisfying conclusion I came to is that there are just some nonsensical interpretations of how to express the dimensions of a unit. For example, energy could be expressed as mass * area / time^2 instead of mass * velocity^2 but I can't think of a way to meaningfully interpret energy in terms of area and squared time. Personally I'd love to be wrong and to learn that there is a meaningful way to understand that but that's where I'm at now.

[@LearningCurveScience]

The reason we square c is to make the units work. It's difficult to type it, but the maths that derives the equation squares the c term. If you think about it dimensionally. We know that KE = 1/2 mv^2. If you perform a dimensional analysis on E=mc^2, you need to square the c to make it dimensionally equivalent to energy. I hope that makes sense. Raising it to the power 5 is just what the maths requires. In real terms, where the values lie in the equation for the Planck units will determine if the value is very big or very small. Multiplying by c^5 will give a very big number dividing by c^5 will give a very small number. I'm not sure if that was the question you asked but there is an answer of sorts.

[@kpmathis71]

@@LearningCurveScience Partially, and I am aware that it just works because of the units, but I struggle unless that makes sense & so far it doesn't. Acceleration is the rate of change in velocity, thus it is m/s^2 or meters per second per second. But at ^5 (or ^-5) this has less obvious interpretation, even if you ignore fact we are talking of the speed of light (which can't go faster or slower so what is squaring it?). I think this is really wrapped up in "what are these fundamental constants really telling us?" & I'm not sure we know. Why does the rate of travel of a photon (particle or wave) influence the mass of a mountain? The math says it does, and given the Planck values it does ALOT but....? I guess I'm asking you to explain the Grand Unification Theory. Next video? No pressure or anything! 😜 (Of course I'm kidding....1000s of people seeking such for a century+, but it often happens that the pros overlook the obvious because they stop asking the easy questions.) Thank you for the time, content, and chance to comment. You do good work here (anyone that makes anything appear easy is doing a lot of work & doing it well). Thank-you!

[@IamOutOfNames]

@@LearningCurveScience ... I recognize some of those words...

[@civotamuaz5781]

I want to see you do maths for half an hour tho

[@LearningCurveScience]

You really don't 😀

[@justanotherguy469]

Perhaps I am incorrect, but why does it look as though you are solving a matrix through Gauss-Jordan elimination to reduced row echelon form,

[@alansmithee419]

I'm just now wondering why I did dimensional analysis in year one of my physics course and *never* again. Seems like it would be around more. Maybe it's because I'm a theory student it's not used as much.

[@normanofthetempest7347]

Planck and all of them back then were amazing.

[@bigbigestwiner92]

You just did what I never thought would be possible. Even tho I can notice it is really tuned down and simplified it’s still a really complete demonstration of these units and it shows how complex physics sometimes are really more clever math than experiments and observations.

[@stephanieparker1250]

Whoa this was a big jump from your usual videos lol but I love it! All your videos are awesome 👍👍

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you so much. I'm glad you enjoy them.

[@KaliFissure]

An I wrong but it seems like the best way of looking at c is Planck lengths per second. Light always travels at one Planck length per Planck second/Planck rotation no? And if we see space as being more dense, having smaller Planck, when it has energy in it, then gravitational lensing can be seen as light being refracted through a more dense medium. Space with gravitational energy vector?

[@arianmohajerani4417]

Bro, make more videos . I love your content ❤

[@user-nm9fk7cb4b]

15:32 You’re not my MATHS SUPERVISOR!!

[@artsmith1347]

7:18 I would have expected this to start with the speed of light, which is the simplest of the four examples. This was quite surprising to me: "Let's *_start_* with h bar ..."

[@LearningCurveScience]

I did them in the order I did the maths myself and I started with h bar to get my head round the maths.

[@brucewilliams6726]

I'm confused, adding the two: 2 +(-1) = 1 5x + (-3x) = 2x y + (-y) = 0 or null Should be 1 + 2x / not -1 + 2x ? Also 0 = -1 + 2x ---> Sub 2x both sides - 2x = -1 ---> Div both sides by -2 ---> -2x/-2 = -1/-2 --> +x = + 1/2 not -1/2 ??

[@LearningCurveScience]

Yes I do make an error in one of the calculation but it gets corrected in the next step. To be honest I'm surprised there is just a single error in this. It was difficult keeping track of the maths.

[@bbbl67]

Did Max Planck go through these ideas himself when he came up with these units?

[@LearningCurveScience]

I believe he did yes, but I could be wrong. I know he came up with the idea for 'natural units'

[@ConorFenlon]

That was fundamental. Thank you.

[@Mouse-qm8wn]

This video is so great, thank you very much😊❤

[@stephanieparker1250]

I think you might use a dot * instead of X for multiply because you’re using algebraic letters for units.

[@LearningCurveScience]

I didn't want to use a dot simply because I didn't explain that you could do it, and the video was long enough as it was. Good point though, thank you

[@tim40gabby25]

Good pint (pub intended)

[@carly09et]

17:20 error 0 = -1 + 2x , you corrected it in the follow 0 = 1 + 2x === [3 + -2] + [ 5x + -3x] ...

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you, yes someone pointed out the error, which fortunately I did rectify. To be honest. I'm surprised I only made one error.

[@axyswailtlightspeed3442]

Because all planck units equations have c based conversion factors based on electromagnetic fields and charges ±, those equations are not fundamental, and limit our definitions of the universe to light speed constancy limitations. The string theory super symmetry non unified fields dark matter and dark energy and super symmetry unified fields dark energy don't follow light speed constancy limitations. The definitions of Planck units and it's extensions Hawking units have to be redefined by removing the light speed constancy limitations and the limitations of other relativistic constants.

[@rowell340]

Well done . . But please check your calculation for [M] it is supposed to be 0=1+2x . . Thanks . . .

[@enpeacemusic192]

Amazing video and explaination, but at 17:20 it should be 0 = 1 + 2x, not -1 + 2x

[@4pharaoh]

Perfect example of what is wrong with physics today… Other than dimensional analysis, what is the reason for including “G” , especially since we have absolutely no idea what in nature gives us the value of ‘G’ we have? Blinded by the math, clueless about nature, we make stuff up, imagining our coincidences have a reality. … Therefore:the Plank Length is (this) Plank time is (that)…insane.

[@saifuldeenmohammed8969]

Excellent work😊 but you have error in planck mass the equation was correct in the final the video was great will🎉

[@LearningCurveScience]

Yes I realised there was a mistake but I correct it later on. To be honest I'm surprised there was only one mistake. I wrote lots and lots of equations.

[@saifuldeenmohammed8969]

@@LearningCurveScience thank you for your great Videos 💙

[@theunholybanana4745]

Planck units are the metric system of the metric system

[@stephanieparker1250]

More physics please!! ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@LearningCurveScience]

I will do my very best. I enjoy making cool visual effects, but I'm determined to do some more like this. I also love the history of science so want to make videos about that. Basically I want to learn about and explain all I can. What kind of physics would you like?

[@stephanieparker1250]

@@LearningCurveScience I would love to see you make a video on why light can apply a force even when it doesn’t have mass. The physics of mass created by acceleration is something I’m still not 100% I understand lol

[@stephanieparker1250]

@@LearningCurveScience Also, why monopoles have not been found despite some very compelling theories showing they should exist.

[@jackmatchett1805]

the plank length is so small that the laws of physics start to break the plank temperature is so hot that the wavelength of the light coming out of it, is the plank length the plank time is how much time it takes for a light particle travel the plank length and, the plank mass is new to me

[@floppy8568]

wait... So F_P=m_P*l_P*t_P^(-2)?

[@peteralexis1446]

Why is the assumption that any constant is made up of all the others

[@michaelpreston6125]

So they're just mathematical tricks of units... So it's a coincidence that the Planck length is the smallest possible length?

[@6DAMMK9]

looks like we can apply linear algebra but somehow it doesn’t

[@justanotherguy469]

Math is something that does not exist, yet it is the only thing that is real. I hurt myself today.

[@ChristinaStone-m1k]

+4plank ÷ Reversed -4=weightlessness

[@herobrine8763og]

This is way more confusing than your usual content.

[@LearningCurveScience]

It's a lot more maths-ey than normal (sorry). I want to do more of the Planck Units without the complaints that I haven't talked about where they actually came from so now I have.

[@alangrant3259]

was with you till G factored out

[@wardelllindsay8677]

Planck's Constant h Copyright 2022 Wardell Lindsay h=25e/3 w/2E15 = 4C/3X V/2Pf Z=w/q=375 W/C = 375 Ohm

[@justanotherguy469]

Excuse me sir, but I would like to see you do the math for half an hour.

[@PrintScreen.]

idk

[@overmind06]

Hahah my boi keeps misspelling plank, it don't need no C in there science man :D

[@BlackPDigitalMedia]

1 hour ago.. or was it?😂

[@jannis11]

noIce

[@randolphholmes8997]

ρɾσɱσʂɱ

[@nashblue1855]

My head hurts

[@LearningCurveScience]

Mine too

[@ChristinaStone-m1k]

Pay roll curse her

[@JohnDlugosz]

too many mid-roll ads!

[@LearningCurveScience]

Sorry I don't really have control over that. I just turn ads on and KZbin decides where they go.

[@eveningstarnm3107]

Even when I was taking third-semester calc in the early 80s, we still called it "math". Too many people have enough problems with esses to force them to needlessly use one following a "th". It's rude and insensitive, so we didn't require it. Then, some elitists came along and told us we were doing it all wrong, and now we have to listen to this guy say "mathh'-sss" even though he hates it, but he's too chickenshit to admit it. He may not realize that we're talking about two different things. He's looking at the trees. We're talking about the forest. It's magnificent. You can define everything with length, mass, time, and temperature. The alchemists were way off. They thought they could do it with only three elements.

[@LearningCurveScience]

The British have always called it maths rather than math

[@eveningstarnm3107]

@@LearningCurveScience My Iranian tutor for the first semester, who was British educated, said "math".

[@i-am-evil-morty6710]

I will be there first to lay claim to this comment section. I am Lord Morty.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Welcome Lord Morty!

[@AboveEmAllProduction]

Just ask me next time and I'll tell you don't have to make a video about it

[@dustscythe7702]

lmao i love the confidence

[@fullfungo]

“I’m too smart”🤡

[@AboveEmAllProduction]

@@fullfungo you don't sound like it