Completely New Relativistic Effect Just Found! Viscosity at Speed of Light

[@MisakaMikotoDesu]

I remember when this channel was still called What Da Math. Thank you for the years of high quality educational content.

[@whatdamath]

technically still is! YT won't let me change the name. Thank you though

[@zackdrake8735]

Goodness gracious

[@MantraHerbInchSin]

Oh my god I remember that!

[@hechticgaming7193]

I too remember those days

[@JeeJeeBeats]

True!!!! I forgot that!!! Yes thx for the science news you daily warrior ✨️💪🏽👍🏼😃

[@germalganis]

A lot of bots just spamming how inspiring and amazing are Anton videos… joke’s on them, Anton videos are actually inspiring and amazing.

[@marshallmkerr]

They need to start claiming their investment portfolios use relativistic effects to increase yields.

[@DonnaPinciot]

They're just posting generic positive comments on videos to get interaction. To what end, I'm not sure. Maybe it boosts their 'channel' and comments, making it more likely people will see them and allow them to start pushing the real scam?

[@artor9175]

@@DonnaPinciot Building up a history on the bot account so it looks less like a bot in other applications.

[@Cirwlos]

But he wasted 12 minutes, and didn't explained the point of the video. Do viscosity grows, or reduces with the speed? A total failure.

[@Yantryman]

Is it not him buying the bots??!

[@aleksandrpetrosyan1140]

I worked on this! Zaccone is my Proffessor, I was about to send him the link to this article, before checking the authors! Thank you!

[@tiberiusbrain]

Pretty confusing comment, but great work man! Interesting subject you worked on!

[@99guspuppet8]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ lurn two sppell

[@aleksandrpetrosyan1140]

@@tiberiusbrain The relativistic Langevin equation is the basis for the work on viscosity. I knew Alessio was working on viscosity, so I assumed this was an interesting article in the same field. Pleasantly surprised.

[@aleksandrpetrosyan1140]

@@99guspuppet8 Thanks, you too.

[@MantraHerbInchSin]

@@tiberiusbrain What confused you about that sentence? I don´t get it. I must be missing something, right? It seems clear to me

[@FuzTheCat]

It’s fascinating how this topic seems to confuse so many people! Just to clarify, Anton isn’t talking about the bulk motion of the fluid moving at relativistic speeds in another frame of reference. He’s referring to the particles within the fluid moving relativistically, while the fluid itself, on average, is at rest in our frame of reference. A subtle but important distinction! 😊

[@sofielundsskolan]

I'm pretty sure there's at least both? Astronomical phenomena aren't exactly subtle

[@orchoose]

I was about the say, velocity of frame of reference doesn't matter. Earth is moving close to speed of light compared to some objects and water is doing just fine.

[@sofielundsskolan]

@@orchoose unless viscosity is Lorentz invariant that means little though - is it?

[@orchoose]

@@sofielundsskolan How could it not be. Just stop.

[@sofielundsskolan]

@@orchoose That was a genuine question lmao, I've never done SR on fluid dynamics. Your wording makes me unsure if you're handwaving the claim or if there's an intuitive argument to be made for it? "Just stop" calm down man

[@FredPilcher]

There once was a fencer named Fisk Whose thrust was exceedingly brisk. So fast was his action The Lorenz contraction Reduced his rapier to a disk.

[@TheHappyhorus]

This is great, I love a limerick and am good at them myself. There was an old lady from Nod, Who wanted a baby from God, But it weren’t the Almighty, That crept up her nighty, It was the Vicar the dirty old sod!

[@davidtatro7457]

Awesome limerick. I would just change rapier to foil or epee for slightly better syllabic flow.

[@theoldbuzzard5239]

Can I suggest ‘rendered his rapier a disc’ for your last line. The syllables fit better.

[@BillyAsWell]

Asimov and Clarke would be proud

[@ossianx8752]

Roses are red Violets and blue Close to light speed Liquids are goo ❤😂

[@theevermind]

Makes sense. We use Reynolds number for so much in fluid dynamics, and it is the ratio of viscous & inertial effects, but at relativistic levels, inertial effects are greater so you have to expect anything that relies on the Reynolds number to be similarly effected. As for viscosity also being directly effected, that is less intuitive, but we already know that at sufficiently low temperatures (energy levels), viscosity can completely disappear. So at very high energy states, then it being affected by relativity shouldn't be surprising.

[@venkyratnam]

I read about it long ago. NIFS, Japan, in a study discovered that turbulence moves faster than heat when heat escapes in plasmas in the Large Helical Device. Characteristic of this turbulence made it possible to predict changes in plasma temperature, and observation of turbulence may lead to development of a method for real time control of plasma temperature. Anyway, great video again Anton. 👍🏼

[@efdangotu]

That's a gem, thank you.

[@kingpiggins292]

Nice, should make fusion reactors more easier to control.

[@BigfootGoforth]

Strangely enough, juggling flaming Diablo sticks was a nice lesson in plasma fluidity and hyperfluidity. They move a lot different when they're on fire, more slippery in the air. That realization started my study into hydrodynamic flows in conjunction with the thermodynamic effects therein

[@HaloForgeUltra]

Viktor Schauberger, an Austrian Forester discovered turbulence and natural vortices from studying rivers. He found out that these vortices purified natural streams. Unfortunately, most scientists didn't believe him, and we are only rediscovering his knowledge now.

[@WayOfAges]

That electrons are affected by SR as if they were particles, yet “shouldn’t be” because of QED, suggests a flaw in the assumptions of QED: that randomness and superposition are fundamental properties of nature. The contraindication is that these properties reflect limitations in our ability to measure, not a fundamental randomness in nature. We already know that our measurements are limited in this way.

[@GameraSoup]

Anton’s uploads are my universal constant.

[@rodrigoff7456]

That is actually quite intuitive: from the liquid's perspective, it'd be flowing at "classical" viscosity, but from an outsider seeing the liquid closer to lightspeed, it'd be flowing slower.

[@axle.student]

So it would "appear" to be higher viscosity to the observer frame, but no change for the liquid? So just a TD due to velocity effect (relativistic effect)? > Anton didn't mention if high velocity made for higher or lower viscosity of the fluid :(

[@jamespaden8140]

I would not stick my finger in it to test that.

[@j3i2i2yl7]

...but if reactions behave differently because of the viscosity change then wouldn't relativity be violated? I missed something.

[@werefrosch]

I watched it twice but I don't think he mentioned this detail. Can the bots at least read the paper for us?

[@rodrigoff7456]

@@werefrosch wait, are you accusing me of being a bot? I'd be very curious to know why if that's the case lol

[@speakeroftruth1952]

One of the few You Tube Channels worth watching, been a fan for years, though I don't always understand everything Anton is saying.

[@JorgetePanete]

Viscosity at Speed of Light sounds like a fire new album

[@ChrisMissal]

Muse probably

[@bsodcat]

Viscosity at Maximum Velocity

[@TheJunky228]

@@bsodcat I could see that being a metal album or like something twrp would have

[@DrMackSplackem]

A concept album,

[@shiho1481]

Its relatively new

[@ChrisKatsu-]

Anton I just want to say your channel is a great source of joy and information.

[@marksuplinskas3474]

Thanks!

[@whatdamath]

thank you!

[@choopatroopa4445]

I work in the oil and gas industry and determining the viscosity of additives is the bane of my existence. Now we're adding relativistic effects? As if viscosity wasn't finicky enough.

[@geoffstrickler]

I think you can safely ignore the relativistic effects for the next 30+ years.

[@jonstreeter1540]

😄👍

[@mathieucaron4957]

Your coworkers believe in science?

[@bobmcbobson8368]

@@mathieucaron4957I suspect you don’t.

[@hugovandyk9918]

It might be key to light speed travel. I wonder what effects that viscosity change would have on engines and the like. Fuel turning into a gel in the engine sounds like it might go very wrong very quickly.

[@rora9553]

I can see this knowledge being used for new sources of power in interstellar travel. Especially considering how regular neutron stars are.

[@blairleavell3501]

This guy is a for real genius. He’s extraordinarily curious about everything from viruses to epigenetics to astrophysics to quantum mechanics. The breadth and depth of his scholarship is astounding. He’s the ADD genius. The only reason he doesn’t have a Nobel prize is that he can’t focus on just one field long enough. We are lucky to have this brilliant science communicator

[@TomRaw-sd6xd]

I was approaching senility at 10% of the speed of light. Thanks Anton, for slowing the process down.

[@dishliquid]

I'm seeing more complaints about bot comments than actual bot comments

[@axle.student]

I can't say I have seen any bots at all yet :/

[@demonicsquid7217]

They get auto removed eventually, so unless you are here early on you don't see most of them. Also other users report them.

[@wayneharrison]

🤖

[@dougdupont6134]

Maybe the real bot comments were the complaints about bot comments all along.

[@mikicerise6250]

Sounds like something a bot would say.

[@paulmicks7097]

Thank you Anton , your video topics are so great they're Impossible to pass up !

[@MaxStax1]

Your videos are gold! Stay golden Anton.

[@swirley_boye-9372]

thanks for the video anton! delightful as always

[@tomsense404]

My understanding is that from the liquid’s reference frame, nothing appears strange. From an observer’s reference frame, of observing this thing moving so quickly, I think getting splattered by it wouldn’t be desired

[@axle.student]

I have got caught in some heated debates over the relativist effects of SRs TD due to velocity. But as far as I know it is an observer effect (or an effect seen from the relativistic (inertial) frame of the observer) and the object itself experiences nothing different. TD due to gravity (GR)(acceleration) is a very different thing which is real to the object under acceleration.

[@Tore_Lund]

Light speed fluid dynamics! Being an engineering student in the future will be fun.

[@TheMcEwens419]

As an actual person, I can say, these bots ruin everything. KZbin can offer 60 min worth of ads every 5 min but can’t control bots? I doubt it

[@Flesh_Wizard]

Really shows where KZbin's priorities are🙄

[@CharveL88]

For reals.

[@ridethecurve55]

As an actual person, I can opine that Anton Really needs to lose that fake smile (grimace) at the end of his videos. Unless, of course, he's actually a bot!

[@nickcarroll8565]

They can also delete every other comment of mine, no matter how benign

[@niccreznic8259]

@@ridethecurve55My friend I don’t think you realize how cruel your comment is.

[@profusemoose1488]

I love Anton's videos all the time, but you've also become a go-to for "fall asleep listening to" videos on bad days. Keep on keeping on, wonderful person.

[@brucerazor5202]

Hi Anton, love your channel

[@mikeottersole]

This is one of my favorite podcasts. Thank you, Anton.

[@aaronperelmuter8433]

Anton’s vids NEVER have been and aren’t a podcast!! They’re simple yt videos, nothing more, nothing less. Don’t insult him by accusing him of putting out podcasts. You shouldn’t stoop that low.

[@ElecTrev]

Wow Anton, always something new and interesting!

[@tatianatub]

clanker detected

[@ElecTrev]

@@tatianatub I don't fink so!

[@ZMacZ]

7:54 Viscosity changes due to field interaction taking longer times for any action=-reaction. Fluids that don't want to try and separate attracts it's content's molecules but is hampered by the field speed at velocities near c. Since each field has to travel to and fro for the proper action=-reaction, the distance travelled is greater for moving objects. Once this starts appraoching c these travel times increase dramatically, and thus lower the field effect. Result, they attract each other differently. Now for one model this means more attraction, the other model says less attraction, but both models share the same outcome, it's different at relativistic speeds. And so viscosity changes.

[@skysurfer5cva]

I am a civil engineer working mostly in the area of municipal infrastructure. Fortunately, I do not need to include relativistic effects when I model water, wastewater, storm drainage, and natural gas piping systems. 🙂

[@Flesh_Wizard]

Imagine the incredible water pressure you'd need to shoot it out of a pipe at close to light speed

[@CardinalTreehouse]

Sounds like your storm drains aren't moving fast enough, you should fix that

[@Rope_Adope]

@@Flesh_Wizardno plunger needed lol

[@Cirwlos]

Every time you use electricity, you use relativity, because relativity is included in Maxwell equations.

[@growthisfreedomunitedearth7584]

IDK... sometimes my poop flies out of me at light speed.

[@codedinfortran]

Thank you. I had not heard of this and it is very interesting in its implications, both for experimental and observational physics. Thank you for covering them so well.

[@jimcurtis9052]

Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 👍😎

[@SeorkMaxx]

So, if things change according to their speed and how much pressure is applied, this makes a good testing point for the early universe. Because everything was moving/expanding at a very high speed and must have still been under extreme pressure. Looking forward to new findings, we are living in great times❤

[@FuzTheCat]

Interesting, so the early universe would have had higher viscosity.

[@brubrusuryoutube]

reminder that like everything in relativity this change in viscosity will be relative to the reference frame. From its perspective the fluid will not experience time, length and viscosity changes

[@FuzTheCat]

I think Anton is talking about the particles moving at a significant speed, thus having more mass/momentum, not the bulk moving of the fluid in a certain direction. Thus, in bulk, the fluid has the same frame of reference as the observer.

[@brubrusuryoutube]

@@FuzTheCat so if you (a system made of particles) goes a those same high speeds, only the individual particles that make you up will experience dilation and you (the bulk of the assemble of particles) will have the same reference frame as a distant "inertial" observer? just following your logic or is the bulk of the fluid not moving as those speeds while the particles that make it up do?

[@smexijebus]

Thanks for always providing patch notes whenever they drop a new physics update

[@Greg042869]

It matters because if you are traveling close to the speed of light, you will want to choose a lighter weight engine oil, like a 0W20.

[@BarBar_Binks]

Sometimes I watch one of your videos and my childlike sense of wonder is sparked anew

[@d.mort.]

I may be incorrect here, but you mentioned the satellite time moves slower due to their velocity. This is true, however the net effect is a quicker clock due to their increased distance from the earth! Oh the scale of +11ns for the velocity but -34ns for the distance per day

[@kylelochlann5053]

Exactly.

[@JulesStoop]

2:10 Nice! I remember when they first started painting these murals in Leiden. In the beginning it was just poems in many different languages later they also introduced the formula’s and other scientific discoveries.

[@Tyraelaus669]

Relativistic viscosity really highlights our current lack of understanding of physics as a whole and could potentially open an avenue of experimentation into the differentiation of the effects of velocity and gravitation.

[@SebSN-y3f]

Thank you very much for your great work Anton!!!! This video was especially great. Very instructive and well explained.

[@the80hdgaming]

So... This is pretty much the equivalent of aero drag on objects moving at speed in an atmosphere... ie: racecars or aircraft...

[@olic7266]

E=mc^2

[@shiho1481]

@@olic7266 ​ its mass to energy equivalence for non moving object. It can be ignored on low speed, but still In case of moving object or photons its different.

[@Phych_uk]

from a resting point of view

[@amelioravictoriadionyssia3323]

It's sort of like aero drag only aero drag is a fully kinetic/physical parameter rather than atomic... In terms of what kind of energy is influencing matter

[@litterbox019]

the faster you move in space the higher your drag through time

[@narmale]

Anton video's are some of the few i auto click the like button as soon as i start the video :D

[@kaarlimakela3413]

Einstein is right!?!? AGAIN?? Even he can't believe it! I'm Shocked. SHOCKED!

[@evesy66]

You mate, you get a like before I’ve seen the video, love your work fella!

[@shikazeevods]

as a current biochem student... I wish I understood.... geez

[@aristoclesathenaioi4939]

Given that different elements become solids, liquids or gases depending on temperature, there should be a relativistic effects on the phase transition temperatures of a material. This does relate to time dilation because objects moving with respect to one another at significant fractions of the speed of light will make objects apparently frozen in time. This change in the vviscosity of fluiids moving large fractions of the speed of light relative to the observer sounds like the same effects that cryogenic temperatures havee on matter that produces superfluids like liquid Helium at temperatures close to absolute zero as well as the formation of Bose-Einstein Condensates at very low temperatures. It is as if the relativitic speed also produces relativistic temperature levels where the temperature measured by one observer will differ from the temperature measured a by different observer depending on the velocity of one observer relative to the other.

[@Kags]

it occurs to me that this would allow an observer to determine their speed in the theoretical "sealed in a box in space" experiments where an observer is unable to tell if they're moving or stationary to an outside observer

[@VulpisFoxfire]

That depends..will the viscosity change in the box's frame of reference, or just to that of an outside observer? I'm wondering if the apparent change in viscosity all comes down to time-dilation effects--it appears to be thicker because the dilation makes it appear to be moving slower.

[@tim40gabby25]

Nice thought, right or wrong.

[@MaxBrix]

The viscosity is relativistic. The observer is motionless.

[@simonwatson2399]

It's got to be that the relativistic plasma appears to have strange behavior to the non relativistic observer trying to interact with it but an observer comoving with the plasma sees the non relativistic observer doing something odd. Have a look at videos on how moving charges affect other charges for different observer speeds. That's whacky too.

[@codyramseur]

All this means is that 2 different observers 1 moving at relativistic speeds and one stationary would disagree on the viscosity of the fluid. Which isn’t a huge revelation. They would also disagree about many other properties like density, color, or shape.

[@CGMaat]

Wonderfully awesome Anton - makes us say wow each time …thanks ... God bless all these wonderful person that decorate the cloud and help us be digital angels …hopefully rounding off to elementos espíritus - love the new pic of the invisible más lees photon - thank god it spins ..and allows us to see this lovely monstrance . ❤ real pantocrator.

[@bullpup4014]

Hi Anton, i love your channel your research is excellent, and i think to my self every time i watch, that you are a really really nice person.

[@j6moon15]

All the comments are bots 😭 Edit: not literally, but when I commented this 90% of the comments were bait bots

[@awedelen2]

how can you tell?

[@Erichasadong]

Thanks for your contribution bot

[@SoftBreadSoft]

​@@awedelen2not 100% of them but theres a bunch down there with generic ai generated attractive lady photo, generic wow amazing video comment.

[@KtosoX]

I can see 3 very similar generic comments. Not all comments - but I agree that this is worrying.

[@Auroral_Anomaly]

@@ErichasadongBruh he joined 11 years ago.😭

[@jimgraham6722]

Thanks for the briefing Anton

[@LouisHansell]

A lot of people get weird at the speed of light

[@dotdot7911]

Yeah I hate that

[@nickcarroll8565]

You’d act weird too if everyone else stopped moving

[@juhajuntunen7866]

Even thinking of it made them crazy.

[@Bit-while_going]

And yet because of relativity, you can never be sure it's not actually you that is actually weird.

[@noob19087]

@@LouisHansell Me: Me at light speed: Send feet pictures

[@bloodyorphan]

Well said , Thankyou Anton. Everything in the hyper-space moves faster than the speed of light. Because of Gravity/FlowSpace any particle can be completely stationary and still exist on the speed of light scale, because of Higgs Field gravitational flow.

[@Chamuzi]

@1:43 Nice Klingon Battlecruiser.

[@RonnyAndersson-q9b]

Antons videos are amaizing and inspiring.

[@springchic1977]

I can’t help but wonder….if fluids become more viscous the faster they travel, do they ever become solid?

[@UnfollowYourDreams]

Now try to imagine what happens when you go FTL 🤯

[@Kneedragon1962]

I don't know, but speculating ~ Glass is technically not a solid, it is a liquid. It just has an enormously high viscosity. If the moving liquid / fluid gains a viscosity like glass, then it effectively becomes a solid.

[@UnfollowYourDreams]

@@Kneedragon1962 it's a myth that glass isn't a liquid, it just doesn't crystalize due to the rapid cooling like for example ice would. But this effect is actually what happens when a liquid approaches the speed of light. This might actually be survivable.

[@christopherleubner6633]

It gets even more bizarre, they become glass like, and very close to light speed they would undergo a phase transition where they would behave similarly to Bose-Einstein condensate😮

[@m.streicher8286]

​@@UnfollowYourDreamsnothing because you can't

[@acidarmour447]

The way I understood the speed of light is that it is an absolute limit. So an object moving at the speed of light could not have components within it that are also moving as that would imply greater than light speed from a difference frame of reference. It should follow that liquids and gases basically behave like solids at light speed then won't it? In terms of movement of their particles anyway. Genuinely curious, what have I misunderstood?

[@-BuddyGuy]

I discovered this effect when I first tried Taco Bell. I've witnessed first hand how at ultra high velocity/temperature fluids can actually get thicker. Their stainless steel toilet bowls are built to take it though

[@Nardage]

No that's aids

[@thatcanadian6698]

Sounds like your meal went through you at relativistic speed.

[@kingpiggins292]

Dude I was blinded by Cherenkov Radiation because the toilet bowls acted like heavy shielding

[@mamneo2]

Incroyable.

[@jamesritter4813]

I too have experienced this with Milwaukee ice lol

[@Silhouetteconnections]

Excellent work, fantastic graphics.

[@samtigernotiger3886]

Something is wrong. The equivalence principle, which forms the basis of the theory of relativity, also states that chemistry and fluid dynamics behave completely normally even in objects that move close to the speed of light; viewed in the object's inertial system. From the observer's perspective, relativistic effects naturally occur; lengths and time courses change. But the result of a chemical reaction must remain exactly the same, regardless of the relative speed. Of course, chemistry changes at extremely high temperatures, probably because individual particle speeds then become relativistically relevant. But even then, only in the observer's perception.

[@kylelochlann5053]

Exactly. Relativistic effects aren't physical effects upon matter but a recognition of a background geometry that differs from Euclidean expectation. If they were, I could take a glass of water and define a reference frame by writing 0.9999999999c on a sheet of paper next to it and observe said relativistic fluid dynamics.

[@axle.student]

To the best of my knowledge yes, it is just and effect for the observer (observers frame relative to the object of observation). People get confused with this. From an observer view it is much distorted, so we need to calculate out that distortion to see what the object (which we can't see directly) is "actually" doing :) This is only for SR velocity. Acceleration is something different.

[@myhalong]

@@axle.student The color of gold is not an effect of the observer's frame in relation to the object of observation. This video does not sufficiently distinguish between the effect of a change of frame of reference and that of the "proper" internal dynamics of an object

[@axle.student]

@@myhalong The color of gold is not an effect of the observer's frame in relation to the object of observation. If the object of observation is moving at near the speed of light then it is due to the observers relative frame. Although we are talking orbital velocities at an atomic level.

[@myhalong]

@@axle.student Yes, but as you are at rest with the gold coin, the gold coin is yellow and to predict this color you have to take into account relativity. But you never need to change the frame of reference. It is the same to calculate the rest mass of a body, if you are in the frame of reference of this body you must take into account the relativistic dynamics inside this body

[@hermancharlesserrano1489]

This feels like a fundamental insight into the nature of a dynamic universe

[@walter-o6y4h]

We got a completely new relativistic effect at speed of light before GTA 6

[@blufynn]

Anton you're a blessing to my algorithm

[@jenpalex2]

I couldn’t understand from the Anton’s commentary whether viscosity increased or decreased with increases in velocity and temperature. Perhaps a clarifying comment could be pinned at the top.

[@FuzTheCat]

Higher temperature -> faster moving particles -> increased particle mass -> higher momentum transfer -> greater viscosity.

[@jenpalex2]

@@FuzTheCat many thanks. It feels counter intuitive to what happens at lower temperatures. Custard thins as you heat it! I wonder where the switching point is.

[@FeuerhammerX]

Not gonna lie, these videos always keep me coming back, and somehow he manages to ensure that the content remains useful for the average person.

[@danthesquirrel]

So the good news: We can get you to the Centari star system in 10 years from your perspective. The bad news: Your blood will have the viscosity of honey until you get there. It’s always something.

[@FuzTheCat]

Not the relativistic bulk speed of the fluid, but the relativistic speed of the fluid particles.

[@Thorarin]

Greetings from Leiden 🙂 Fun to see a picture of that wall I've passed so many times.

[@benryhenson]

wait so, when fluids approach the speed of light, they become non Newtonian?

[@iyziejane]

For the disclaimer at 4:55, that the electrons are highly quantum and so they don't have a well-defined velocity, you could say that they are relativistic because their kinetic energy is larger than (or comparable to) the electrons rest energy from E = m c^2. This is a general suggestion for modern popular discussions of relativity: refer to energy and momentum (which have a solid quantum meaning) instead of velocity (which does not have a solid quantum meaning).

[@aaronperelmuter8433]

Please explain, exactly what does it mean if something has or does not have a solid quantum meaning? WTF even IS a solid quantum meaning, that isn’t actually a thing. So seriously, what are you actually talking about? You’re saying that distance and/or time somehow have no meaning in relation to quantum effects? Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, what you stated has no meaning. It’s like me saying this chocolate tastes building. Unless building has some kind of meaning with regard to flavour, it’s nonsensical. Same as your statement about solid quantum meaning, absolute nonsense and pure, unadulterated, complete and utter bullshit. As in, the kind of shit you just make up when you’ve no clue what you’re talking about. If I’m mistaken, please enlighten me.

[@iyziejane]

@@aaronperelmuter8433 I'm referring to the well-defined mathematical theory of quantum mechanics. Physical observables like position, momentum, and energy are defined by specific mathematical operators - they are well-defined observables within the theory. Velocity is not an observable, there is no velocity operator. An explanation to provide some intuition is that quantum mechanics gives up on following individual particle trajectories, so unlike classical mechanics you can't say "the particle is here at this time, then it moves here." Uncertainty principle and so on. But momentum and energy are still conserved, and that can be used to understand interactions. Hence momentum and energy being more defined / useful / appropriate in a quantum setting, than velocity. By the way I am a physics professor; students learn these basic elements of quantum mechanics in the class Physics III which is usually the first semester of the sophomore year.

[@sp_ce.]

2:10 oh wow I past here every day!!

[@yvonnemiezis5199]

Interesting information, thanks Anton 👍❤

[@magicyeti5630]

… Been telling Lazar for years we need to be able to Excite the atoms in order to envelope.

[@takingiteasy17]

As someone who doesn’t have the patience or technical ability to read scientific papers, Thank you Anton ❤

[@stashorodnyansky1258]

A relatively established theory....a theory of relativity. Not gonna lie, you got me in the first half

[@SuperLocrian]

Thanks Anton. Weird and wonderful as always!

[@czerskip]

For GPS satellites, time dilation due to gravity gradient is significantly larger than to velocity, and as a result the clocks run faster than on Earth, even though the velocity component slows them down.

[@konradcomrade4845]

impressive, little known detail!

[@czerskip]

​@@konradcomrade4845The actual problem is that Anton keeps making such absolutely basic mistakes over and over again, spewing misinformation without ever correcting his errors, just like in this very video.

[@jamespaden8140]

This man is amazing in his ability to explain the complex to the simple. My greatest trouble with academia is its' demanding that math be seen as exact. Far too often new discoveries force a change in our understanding of physics, which would seem to be proof that math is not exact, yet. We do not have ALL the information, so we cannot say, "It ALL adds up!" Without having understanding of even the concept of double digits, knowing one plus one equals two is not very impressive, and it cannot solve all the problems you find.

[@brrrayday]

The closer you get to the speed of light, your mass begins to reach infinity, which would have crazy effects on momentum, and liquids are defined by the atoms/molecules moving about. Would be hard to move about while wearing lead shoes

[@seaoftears2984]

Mass does not go to infinity. Mass is constant. The full mass-energy equivalence formula is E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4. There’s no relativistic mass, there’s just one mass

[@brrrayday]

@seaoftears2984 then why does it take more force to accelerate one mile per hour when you are near the speed of light than when you are stationary? Of course there aren't more atoms in the object, but mathematically the same number of atoms become more massive. I didn't say it made sense, I only stated the mathematical reality behind the physics.

[@jnhrtmn]

The CERN website used to say, "No matter how much energy we put into the fields, the particle never reaches the speed of light." It is a simple question to ask, how can you expect to push a particle faster than the speed of the pusher? They don't answer this, because it is presented as a proof of Relativity. It is likely that fields have a reaction speed, so a fast speed is reached quicker with more power, but there is ultimately a ceiling for PUSHING, which is not a speed limit for the particle. Electric charge may have more to do with mass than is known, so why wouldn't the mass be affected by huge amounts of power? Most people are fanatics for Relativity, so real questions are skipped.

[@SaberFox-xo5jf]

My question is what would happen to the human body when we get up to these relativistic speeds and the viscosity of our bodily fluids change.

[@fikretyet]

I was looking for this question to answer or I would write this as a comment myself; any liquid, including what is inside the human body, would never be exposed to such speeds. We would have to consider equivalence principle inside a spaceship. This means, if you don't accelerate independently inside a spaceship or "without a spaceship" over %10 of speed of light, you would be fine. But for example, this effect would be about the blood of a person that has been shot by a laser gun.

[@ДмитрийФилиппов-в3н]

Nothing going to happen. It is all relative.

[@samgragas8467]

Your fluids can't move faster than the rest of your body. You are misunderstanding relativity.

[@samgragas8467]

@@shiho1481 Rest mass is an invariant, that is what an inertial observer moving at speed v measures. You don't notice anything different.

[@graxxor]

Blood is travelling at the same speed relatively speaking so we would notice no change. The only changes would be noticeable from an external observer travelling at relativistic speeds in relation to us.

[@johnculver6994]

Now tbhis is both interesting and useful Anton.

[@erasmus_locke]

2:00 looks a lot like a helicopter rotor seen through a camera shutter

[@TheJunky228]

good observation!

[@sol889]

Plasma, keep going Anton, you’re onto it!

[@richardzeitz54]

As a neutron star collapses into a black hole, it must rotate faster and faster as its diameter decreases. Seeing as how they're full of fluid, this might have some bearing on the fate of rapidly spinning neutron stars above the mass limit. As they shrink towards a point, SOMETHING must happen to their angular momentum - they cannot spin faster than the speed of light but if they are to become point-like, any spin would tend towards infinity! Too bad we can't peak behind the event horizon. Anyhow at some point they must break down into a rapidly spinning quark-gluon plasma if they grow small, dense, and hot enough. A very viscous q-g plasma!

[@gshenaut]

One thing I don't understand about changes due to traveling at certain speeds, including speeds near the speed of light. Speed is always measured relative to a stationary object, but how can we know what a stationary object is, or if that concept even makes sense. For example, it is possible that due to some unknown fact about its genesis, the entire universe is traveling at a speed near the speed of light away from its stationary origin. And that that origin and everything relative to it is itself traveling near the speed of light from some other origin, and so on. Or to say it another way, suppose you are in a space vehicle next to your friend in another one. As you watch each other, your friends starts moving away from you, gradually accelerating almost to the speed of light. But wait! Your friend's vehicle was out of gas, and in reality, it was your vehicle that moved away, gradually reaching almost the speed of light in reverse. Or, both started moving away from each other, and, relative to the point midway between them, each accelerates to speeds greater than 1/2 the speed of light. From your point of view, your friend (or you) will now have accelerated to a speed greater than the speed of light. Finally, if an object is moving at a speed near the speed of light relative to you, its perspective may be that it is. stationary, and you are moving at near light speed. So if an object is changed by traveling near the speed of light, wouldn't the observer have to be changed identically?

[@FuzTheCat]

Good question. Interestingly, we cannot measure the one-way speed of light. We can only measure the round-trip speed of light. It's the person who accelerates and then decelerates back to our frame of reference that will experience slower aging.

[@gshenaut]

@ But that's assuming that you're the stationary object that something accelerates away from and then back to. Instead, it could be you who accelerates in reverse and then forward back to the other guy. The relative velocities would be identical in those two cases, or in any of the infinity of cases in which both are moving and accelerating in opposite directions and at different rates.

[@FuzTheCat]

@@gshenaut Each party can independently feel if they are accelerating or not.

[@gshenaut]

@ How does that change their velocities? Maybe they were asleep.

[@kaptainwarp]

I clicked because you didn't mug the thumbnail

[@Randy12346]

Same and watched the video too

[@DeecentAnimal]

I’ve never seen so many people complain so much about a thumbnail.. you’re making nerds look like pricks also 😂😂😂😂

[@vkreso]

I wonder about the viscosity effects on human bodies in hypothetical interstellar travel, hibernating or not. How would body fluids behave or would it be negligible?

[@pauls5745]

I'll have to take their word for it. I can't wrap my head around some of these concepts of speed of light effects. I can guess there is a hella lot we can't see out there because it's too far, too dim, too fast or any combination of

[@2147B]

We have our universe in it's entirety, and the more common "observable universe" which is used in the astro world. Telescopes are getting bigger and better every year, photons keep on going!

[@southernflatland]

Given a long enough timeline, one of those stars is gonna smack you in the back of the head. All silliness aside, awesome video as always!

[@Sk8Bettty]

Your smile makes me smile.

[@petepanteraman]

This fluid thickening effect and heat description reminds me of the Earth's core and the effects of the core around us, i.e. lightning, magnetosphere and the mantle too. I wonder if geology has some answers in this case?

[@DagarCoH]

I am kind of disappointed that the effects on people blood near the speed of light was not discussed. But kinda understandable, if the effects themselves are not entirely clear yet. Would love a follow-up that says "You can't go over 70% light speed or you will turn into a gummi bear. A dead gummi bear." Maybe we then start mixing lower viscuos fluids into everything to keep it flowing?

[@nycbearff]

There would be no change for the person in the space ship approaching the speed of light. They would perceive everything as being normal. It's all relative.

[@kylelochlann5053]

The video is a relentless pile of anti-relativistic nonsense. If you read through the comments you'll see the public has been damaged by it (people questioning if they move too fast (as if velocity had some objective existence) what would happen to the fluids in their body). Anyway, I imagine the paper in question is a hypothesis about the behavior of extremely hot fluids where the behavior deviates from the Newtonian expectation due to the background geometry (Minkowski vacuum spacetime).

[@rosedruid]

Which way does high speed change viscosity? Thicker or thinner? Flows more or less easily or is it some kind of change that breaks those understandings?

[@matthewcasady6276]

Relativity has always been fairly easy for me to understand. With quantum mechanics I never am too sure.

[@Auroral_Anomaly]

@@matthewcasady6276 There are two types of people ahh situation.

[@rimbusjift7575]

Neither are those who practice quantum mechanics.

[@bartekgorniak5758]

You are genius. Finding your channel was a gold :) Btw. do you think, is there any chance , that those relativistic effects, have something common with high temperature superconductors??

[@patriciofernandez6500]

The filler ends at 5:55

[@AGI-Bingo]

Great except yt shows me your comment exactly 2 seconds before your timestamp.. great yt great👍

[@ldmtag]

I had to scroll really long to find this comment YT flashed me briefly

[@AGI-Bingo]

@@ldmtag they love that flash and "go find me " they're assholes on purpose

[@lawsonwebb8182]

Anton presentation 10/10

[@fridgeffs5662]

I love how russian speakers dont know how to use the word 'the'. They dont have it in russian so they always either say it at the wrong time or miss it when its needed. 😂

[@Phych_uk]

He's not Russian, he is Ukraine yics!

[@artor9175]

Are you referring to Anton? I don't think he's Russian.

[@СергейИванов-ы1п8э]

@@Phych_uk he didnt call him russian, he said "russian speaking", can you read? In ukrain millions of people have russian as their first language, and the name Anton Petrov is typically russian name. That mean his family is of russian origin

[@Phych_uk]

@@artor9175 nope he is not and i don't think at this time he would be happy about it :)

[@Phych_uk]

@@СергейИванов-ы1п8э yup agreed. Still not the best choice of words though! :)