How Simple Math Led Einstein to Relativity

Einstein turned the world on its head in November of 1919, when data collected during a solar eclipse matched the predictions of his Theory of General Relativity. But Einstein’s path to discovering his theory traces back much further, to when he was 12 years old and he first learned about an ancient mathematical method…
Special thank you to Professor ‪@AlexKontorovichMath‬ of Rutgers University and Museum of Mathematics (MoMath) for his help and participation.
Additional credits:
Giacomo Belletti - camera
Brandt Adams - newscaster voice
Kolja Gjoni - drum roll
Valentin Cazako - help with creating the “Pringle chip” model and 3D animations
Music from Epidemic Sound and Envato Elements.
Thank you to Joel Simser (‪@CreateSmarter‬) for valuable feedback on edits, and everybody else who gave me feedback and advice during this process.
_____________
This video was originally inspired by a 2015 article by Steven Strogatz in The New Yorker Magazine about Einstein’s proof of the Pythagorean Theorem: www.newyorker....
“Einstein, His Life and Universe” by Walter Isaacson served as a primary source for the biographical details: amzn.to/3TxtJRS
_____________
To learn more about Special Relativity and Minkowski space-time:
‪@Mahesh_Shenoy‬ - The Triplet Paradox - • The complete intuitive...
'We all move at speed of light through spacetime'.. What does it really mean? - • 'We all move at speed ...
‪@MinutePhysics‬ - SpaceTime Intervals: Not EVERYTHING is Relative | Special Relativity Ch. 7 - • Spacetime Intervals: N...
To learn more about General Relativity:
‪@veritasium‬ - Why Gravity is NOT a Force - • How Gravity Actually W...
_____________
*A Note about how I use AI generated images in my videos*
The emerging ability of artificial intelligence to generate compelling images from text prompts opens new possibilities for compelling storytelling. However, when mixed with real historical imagery, as is in my video, it has the potential to create confusion, or worse, if not handled properly.
I have set a few guidelines for my use of AI generated images in this video so that a viewer can easily understand which images are real photographs and which are synthetically generated:
ALL images that have been placed in a “frame” (eg a border that resembles an old photo print, etc) are REAL historical images.
ALL images that include Einstein's full face, as well as all World War I related images, are REAL historical images.
I have used Midjourney AI to create “stock” image elements including backgrounds, illustrations, and objects.
I have used Midjourney AI to create some images that are implied to be of Einstein. In these, Einstein’s face is FULLY OR PARTIALLY OBSCURED.
Please send me a message or drop a comment and I'll be happy to clarify any specific images.
_____________
Items that Appear in the Video:
•“Notes for an Autobiography” by Albert Einstein - originally published in the Saturday Review of Literature, November 26, 1949
•Fractals, Chaos, Power Laws: Minutes from an Infinite Paradise - Manfred Schroeder - amzn.to/3viq1n6
•Documents from Einstein’s Studies at the Zurich Polytechnical Institute - tinyurl.com/33...
•On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies - Albert Einstein - tinyurl.com/42...
•Space and Time: Minkowski’s Papers on Relativity - Hermann Minkowski - tinyurl.com/5n...
•An Introduction to Riemannian Geometry - tinyurl.com/yc...
•The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein - einsteinpapers...
•A Peek Into Einstein’s Zurich Notebook - John D. Norton - tinyurl.com/4w...
•Hilbert Paper - tinyurl.com/3m...
•Solar Eclipse Maps from 1911 - 1920 - tinyurl.com/3p...
_____________
Additional Sources:
•Relativity: The Special and General Theory - Albert Einstein - amzn.to/43xh4Tx
•Richard Feynman’s lecture on the Special Theory of Relativity - www.feynmanlec...
•Hermann Minkowski’s Spacetime: The Theory That Einstein Overlooked - David D. Nolte - tinyurl.com/27...
•How Einstein Lost His Bearings, and with them, General Relativity - Kevin Hartnett - tinyurl.com/3z...
•The 1919 Eclipse Results that verified General Relativity and their later detractors: a story retold - Gerard Gilmore and Gudrun Tausch-Pebody - tinyurl.com/54...
•Marcel Grossman and his contribution to the General Theory of Relativity - T. Sauer - tinyurl.com/5a...
•Einstein’s Pathway to General Relativity - John D. Norton - tinyurl.com/3m...
Photos:
•Wikimedia Commons - commons.wikime...
•Leo Baeck Institute - tinyurl.com/f6...
Note: Amazon links are affiliate links which help support the channel at no additional cost to you.

[@bensyversen]

Thank you for watching! I hope you enjoyed this one as much as I enjoyed making it. I'm thinking about what story from the history of mathematics to tell in my next video, so please drop a comment if you have a suggestion!

[@johngutwirth7706]

Why the loud music?????👎👎👎

[@briansmutti]

@@johngutwirth7706 exactly! if a professor would not teach a physics class and allow a student in that class to play their boombox … WHY do it here? i can’t watch this video because the music is too loud

[@krwada]

A very good video. In terms of interesting problems, I would like to see you do a video on fluid flow. I am talking about the Navier Stokes equation. This equation governs things as complex as our weather, yet we still do not know if there exists a closed form solution to this differential equation.

[@bensyversen]

@@krwada Thank you for watching! I will give this some thought. At the moment, I aim to make videos that involve both a mathematical concept and a historical or human story. By any chance are there any books that you'd recommend which discuss the history of the study of fluid flow/the Navier Stokes equation? I would be interested to read more if you do have a suggestion.

[@Laz3r2k]

Hello there, i quite enjoyed your video. One side note: the back ground music is sometimes a little bit too loud. greeting :)

[@Mahesh_Shenoy]

Whether gravity is fictitious (just an artefact of accelerated frames) or real (contains tidal forces that cannot be co-ordinate transformed) is the same as asking whether geometry is flat or curved was Einstein's key insight! Riemann probably never thought in his wildest dreams that his math would be useful to model curved spacetime. That's incredibly insane. Thanks for this wonderful video, Ben. I loved how the video slowly put all the pieces together. Wow! Also, thanks for the shoutout. Cheers!

[@bensyversen]

Thank you Mahesh! And also thank you for making such a great series of videos elegantly explaining the fundamental intuitions behind relativity. They've helped me understand the concepts more clearly as I'm sure they have helped many others as well.

[@bensyversen]

@user-ky5dy5hl4d Hi, and thank you for taking the time to watch my video! You are right that there are nuances to this - and even controversies - that I did not convey in the video, both for the sake of time and in order to give an overview to a less knowledgeable viewer. For example, in my summary of Einstein's thought experiment about the astronaut in outer space. There are some other things that you mention here which I'm not quite sure how they relate to this video. Can you recommend any books or articles that other viewers might find useful to learn more?

[@bensyversen]

Well for example the proof of the Pythagorean theorem. The proof itself is completely rigorous and you can read more about it here: www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/einsteins-first-proof-pythagorean-theorem I think what you’re responding to there could be the way that I keep referring back to the Pythagorean theorem itself as I walk through the reasoning of the proof, as a way to help a less knowledgeable viewer stay oriented.

[@jaydenwilson9522]

@user-ky5dy5hl4d Galilean Relativity would like a word lol And Paul Gerber published E=mc^2 15 years before Olinto De Pretto and 17 before Onestone. But SR and GR are both ad hoc anyway.... both have been debunked already but the mathemagicians and cult of newton can't handle it lol Acceleration is a GUESSTIMATE and Descartes Momentum is better than it. Newton did a goodjob on Mass but Universal Gravitation and overreliance on the Mean Value Theorem meant it was always doomed to fail lol

[@DrDeuteron]

How about Sophus Lies not so abstract math after all?

[@logankoster4703]

"This was when Einstein came upon what he later called the happiest thought of his life. He imagined a painter falling from the side of a building-" This made me laugh

[@bensyversen]

I’m glad it made you laugh! I think it’s funny too. There were a few variations of this story that floated around in the press at the time (eg did he actually SEE a painter falling, or did he just imagine it?), but the basic idea of Einstein envisioning a thought experiment similar to this is pretty solidly in the typical telling of the story at this point. It’s possible though that Einstein was having a bit of a laugh to some degree at the expense of the reporter - don’t forget that he WAS more than just a little bit of a troublemaker…

[@ossiedunstan4419]

@@bensyversen LIAR, Read Einstein's own book on relativity instead of getting your science not from DUD like Laurence kraus or the nutter neil tyson de grasse.

[@Begeru]

I really appreciate you bringing up Einstein’s contemporaries that aren’t household names but we’re an integral part of Einstein’s work.

[@bensyversen]

Thanks! There were others as well who I didn't mention, for simplicity's sake. A few other mathematicians who helped Einstein with the math are mentioned by others in the comments. One more person who I didn't fit into the video (again, for time/simplicity reasons) was Michele Besso. This was Einstein's close friend during his time working at the patent office. In Einstein's paper on Special Relativity, the only person he thanks is Besso, with whom he took many long walks where they talked through the ideas together.

[@TamagoHead]

@skippy6086That was General Mayhem. 😋

[@TheNewLooter]

30:07 bro went "my pain is greater than yours" 💀

[@Cd5ssmffan]

yeah and nowadays we have emo pfps in youtube posting youtube shorts about pain lmao goobers

[@70mavgr]

Besides Minkowski and Grossman, Einstein also received help from Constantine Caratheodory, a Greek Mathematician considered one of the best of the 20th century. Caratheodory researched and wrote his PhD under the supervision of Minkowski at the University of Gottingen.

[@bensyversen]

Wow I will look him up, thank you. I knew that Einstein consulted with other mathematicians as well, but I didn't encounter their specific stories in most of the sources that I consulted.

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

Dirac needed the help of Weyl and Oppenheimer for his famous Dirac equation. Leibniz published calculus before Newton did. And consulted the works of Fermat and Descartes before publishing the error-riddled masterpiece Principia Mathematica. There is no such thing as a "lone" genius. Einstein's "problems" in mathematics didn't stop him from predicting stimulated and spontaneous emission; nor entanglement; nor Bose-Einstein Condensates; etc. And in your video, you make a glaring omission: the REASON Einstein BEAT Hilbert to the final field equations of General Relativity is precisely because Einstein understood the necessity of a coordinate system that was generally covariant - Hilbert did NOT grasp this until it was too late (even though as the premier mathematician of his day, he should have known this). The video does a great job of humanizing Einstein, foibles and all, while treating the other characters with a deference that they don't deserve. Michelle Besso deserves a bit of a shout out for helping Einstein as well. For instance, you make no mention of the fact that it was Einstein's openeness to share his ideas with Hilbert after Hilbert invited Einstein to Gottingen to give lectures on relativity theory that LED to Hilbert trying to "nostrify" Einstein's work. You also don't make it entirely clear that it was more likely than not that Hilbert had copied ideas from Einstein from reading a preprint of his November 1914 paper. You'd think Hilbert, not Schwardschild, would have come up with the first exact solutions to GR. And you'd think Grossman, as the professional mathematician, would have identified general covariance as a necessary framing for making use of a coordinate system, but they did not. You should also do a deep dive on how Heisenberg needed Max Borns MATH and how Born, not Heisenberg, but matrix mechanics into quantum theory. Also do a deep dive on how Einstein got about 33% of the way to what is now known as The Schrodinger Equation, and that without Einsteins direct help, Schrodinger likely never gets to discover the very thing he's most famous for (as Schrodinger always acknowledged). Or how Max Born credited Einstein with the idea of probability waves. It's become en vogue to declare all the "help" Einstein got as a way to humanize him. However, the opposite is also true. Einstein GAVE a lot of help to scientists who took his ideas without attribution and he often gets overlooked for ideas he came up with. De Broglie is a great example. He took Einsteins equations in his 1906 - 1909 papers on quantization of energy and applied them to a gas of electrons, rather than photons as Einstein had done, and got matter waves. Or how Einstein predicted the boson (which really should be called an Einsteinion) after Schrodinger completely misunderstood Bose's paper so thoroughly, Einstein had to write a letter to Schrodinger showing an example of the new quantum statistics (e.g. 1/3 instead of 1/2).

[@bensyversen]

@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 Hi, thank you for watching my little video and for taking the time to write this very thoughtful comment. You are certainly right on these points about the people and information that I left out of my video. In fact, I very much wanted to include something about Besso, AND more detail about Einstein and Hilbert's relationship. However, this video's runtime of 30 minutes very much pushed me to my limit as a fledgling video creator, so I had to cut fairly ruthlessly, keeping the total number of historical "characters" introduced in my narrative at 6 (Einstein, Minkowski, Grossmann, Riemann, Hilbert, Eddington) and leaving out any detail that would provide more refinement to other people involved besides Einstein. (As far as the discussion of WHY Einstein beat Hilbert, it is a fascinating detail but I thought that it could be a little bit too "in the weeds" for a general audience). Do you have any favorite books or resources that you would recommend to viewers who are interested in learning more about these figures and the relationships that you describe?

[@sphakamisozondi]

​@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270Poincaré contributed to SR by suggesting that the physics should be the same for all observers, regardless of the reference frame. When discussing GR and SR, people always omit his name. Remember, this is the backbone of RT, as it uses coordinate and Lorentz transformations to preserve Poincaré's "principle."

[@TamagoHead]

@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270so, in the details, is the Devil or God there?

[@CreateSmarter]

Wow Ben! This must've been a huge undertaking. Amazing video, full of wonderful visual explanations and put together extremely well. Great music choices, great story. Love the addition of the interview with Professor Alex K! You should be very proud of this.

[@bensyversen]

Thank you Joel! I learned a lot making this and I'm proud of the result. I definitely appreciated your notes at the end on some of the finer adjustments too.

[@Dr.Nguyen-Bakersfield]

One of the greatest achievements of this short video is it allows me to see all these great historical figures in the overall context. We all know Riemann hypothesis, the Hilbert list of problems etc. But now I can directly connect all these geniuses and see them in the great spacetime of the cosmos.

[@bensyversen]

Thank you, I’m so glad that you enjoyed It and got this out of it!

[@robertunderwood1011]

There have been many good videos on Einstein, but this is probably the best Amazing that Hilbert deferred to Einstein, whereas Poincaré did not

[@bensyversen]

@@robertunderwood1011 Thank you, that is very kind. The story itself is amazing and I was just doing my best to do it justice!

[@rickwilliams9001]

I remember reading about the history of mathematics and Archimedes use of infinitesimals. It gave me a much better understanding of calculus.

[@mnazaryan6032]

I‘m so glad KZbin recommended this incredible quality video after two months

[@bensyversen]

Thank you!

[@EmdrGreg]

I'm not a scientist. I have only a layman's grasp of the basics of all of this. But I too was baffled by the mysterious merging of Einstein's theory and the miraculous math that supports it. How on earth did this 'just happen'? This video really sheds light on the whole thing. Thanks Ben and Alex.

[@bensyversen]

Thank you!

[@lauriefaber6627]

I remember a moment during a tutoring session nearly a decade ago when you gave me the best explanation of the number "e" - and years later, when teaching logs and "e", I still attempt to replicate your demonstration of a random accountant trying to continually compound interest with an obsolete gear/lever machine until his arm nearly fell off (of course, I add my own dramatic flair)! Anyway, fast forward to this week, when one of my more curious students came to me asking me a LOT about "e" and its discovery and significance and oh so much more. Naturally - pun intended - I thought of your work, and that this might be an interesting topic for a future undertaking of yours!

[@bensyversen]

Good idea Laurie!

[@mescwb]

I'd love some good "e" video

[@bensyversen]

@@mescwb Good call. I've got something planned for the fall that I think will fit the bill.

[@carlosdario9810]

I wouldn’t call tensor calculus “simple math”. Anything else that tries to explain GR without tensor calculus is an offensive oversimplification, and sadly KZbin is full of this kind of quacks.

[@bensyversen]

You’re right that it’s not. The “simple math” referred to is the axiomatic method which provided the framework for Einstein’s thought experiments for SR. In the video I feature a math prof who gives a general-audience-friendly summary of Riemannian Geometry and describe some (but not all) of the mathematicians who helped Einstein with the math for GR. So definitely not attempting to explain tensor calculus, but if you watch the video, I hope you will see that I am taking care to avoid the “offensive oversimplification” while still making it approachable to a non-expert.

[@priyanshuindra4648]

One of the best video I ever watched on this weird website... Great work guys!!! Thanks for making such a great video...

[@bensyversen]

Thank you for watching and I'm glad that you enjoyed it! I'm looking forward to making more.

[@MrNeada]

I would really have enjoyed your video if it weren't for the volume of the music, i had to leave halfway I couldn't put up with it any longer. If you do an update without the crappy music I'll subscribe. Cheers

[@bensyversen]

Thanks for the feedback and thanks for checking out my video. I’ve heard this comment about the volume from other folks too and while I can’t change this video once it’s been published (I would have to take it down entirely first), I am working on improving my sound design skills for future videos!

[@nadionmediagroup]

This is awesome. Your visuals compliments the concept and you explain it well. Not too easy, but not too dense either.

[@bensyversen]

Thank you!

[@nadionmediagroup]

@@bensyversen you set a high bar too early. no pressure 😉 your style is really good. It’s “accessible” but not condescendingly “dumbed down” like I’ve seen. It’s a tough concept at once but you break it into pieces that explain it in chunks.

[@bensyversen]

@@nadionmediagroup Haha, yes I've thought about that. :-0 This one took me four months to make if you include the time spent figuring out the concept/framing of the story. Now it's time for a few shorter, more concise videos I think!

[@nathan9901]

​@@bensyversenyeah, I could tell. I just watched your archimedes video and clicked on this one and had to check that I was on the same channel cuz the lengths were so different

[@bensyversen]

@@nathan9901 Yeah. Seems like people are voting with their eyeballs and telling me that shorter is better, at least for now. Gonna stick with shorter and more concise videos for the next few.

[@montyhall2805]

Levi-Civita gave Einstein the tools he needed to flesh out general relativity with tensor calculus.

[@T1M5TER]

Stunning video! Always fun to learn about the history of physics. Especially with a production value like this. Impressive work

[@bensyversen]

Thank you very much!

[@binbots]

Now the next step is figuring out how general relativity and quantum mechanics fits together and once again time is the key. General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that each individual observer is observing them both at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where one observes it from will be the closest to the present moment. When one looks out into the universe they see the past which is made of particles (GR). When one tries to measure the position of a particle they are observing smaller distances and getting closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start trying to predict the future of that particle. A particle that has not had an interaction exists in a future state. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. It can predict the future but only from information collected from the past. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable. Only once a particle interacts with the present moment does it become predictable. This is an observational interpretation of the mathematics we currently use based on the limited perspective we have with the experiments we choose to observe the universe with.

[@PlayNowWorkLater]

Omg! This adds such a depth to the development of Einstein’s theories that I have never seen. I love this addition of seeing what he saw as a child, that lead him to develop theories and then having others expand upon those theories and leading him to appreciate math he had previously found unhelpful. It really digs into the importance of how we educate our youth. Something I am passionate about. I hated math. Same situation you mention in this video, how am I ever going to use this complex math in my life? What is the point on learning this? Later in life I grew to appreciate that same math when I grew fascinated by naked eye Astronomy. First looking at stars. Constellations. And eventually planets. And I wanted to know how we figured it out. Thousands of years ago. Without calculators or computers. Just smart people seeing a problem, and the math couldn’t explain discrepancies with a theory and observations. This was such a treat finding this video! Thank you for making it and sharing it! Brilliant!

[@bensyversen]

Thank you so much for this extremely kind comment! I'm really glad to hear that the big themes that I was thinking about while making this video resonated so well with you!

[@Grateful92]

Overall, The video quality was great and the information presented is a brief summary of the history of physics and maths and how the latter provides the foundation for the former. I thank you and Mr Alex for separating some time from your busy schedules to make this well-produced and informative video. I hope to see more such collaborative videos by you. You deserve more attention than youtube has allocated for you. Alex Kontorovich's role in this video was similar to Minkowski's role in Einsteins work. I am proud of him for advocating Mathematics in such a happy and exciteful way.

[@bensyversen]

Thank you very much! The math world is lucky to have as excellent a communicator as Alex Kontorovich around, and I was thrilled by his participation here.

[@jmathg]

I can't believe this only has 4k views right now! Bpund for millions! Amazing production and storytelling.

[@bensyversen]

Thank you. Fingers crossed!

[@DrDeuteron]

Regarding useless 19th C mathematics, that entire story would be replayed with the works of Sophus Lie, and the eponymous groups that are foundational in the standard model.

[@cesarjom]

28:46 even more ironic and interesting is that the brilliant Bernhard Riemann while a student at university was assigned in a sense a doctorate thesis research topic to formulate a generalized geometry that would extend beyond classic Euclidean "flat" geometry. Riemann as this young student was not particularly happy or interested to be working on this topic of research but ventured forward none the less thus developing this new field of mathematics known today as Riemannian geometry.

[@bensyversen]

Wow that is very interesting!

[@Bestape]

Einstein's Pythagorean Theorem uses scale-symmetry, and that's what gave him relativistic intuition. Wish I could show him my d=(c-b)/a base scale. Maybe he could've used it for simpler gravity math. Thanks for the insight that a cone is Thales Theorem with infinitely sized radii.

[@ythandlerandom1278LK]

This is criminally under viewed! What a great piece about one of the most important moments in the history of science and math!

[@bensyversen]

Thank you for your kind words!

[@ythandlerandom1278LK]

@@bensyversen - Keep at it!

[@trident1409]

good things are always under appreciate. ❤

[@DaMoNarch91]

More proof that the universe is well defined

[@teddyspaw]

This is the most informative piece I have ever seen about AE. I was amazed to learn of his initial disdain of higher level math and of his intuitive use of the axiomatic method. Congratulations to Ben and the team for creating this gem!

[@bensyversen]

Thank you very much!

[@karlfreiha4745]

just imagine internet was a thing when Einstein was there

[@nyworker]

Einstein was The King Of Abductive Reasoning...

[@TheNewPhysics]

Ben Syversen, I would like you to accept a challenge in which I prove (using Occam's Razor) that Einstein was wrong about everything he said about Relativity, Time, and time Dilation. You can count on me to provide an alternative representation (not using geodesics) that can reproduce all Einsteins' successes and succeed where he failed. The Occam's Razor support comes from me providing a simpler model that doesn't require geodesics, metric, inflation, false vacuum decay, Higgs Mechanism for Inertial Mass Creation, Quantum Field Theory, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Space Stretching. You seem knowledgeable about Einstein's work and might still be capable of learning new tricks...:) Marco Pereira

[@careswho1879]

Amazing watch this while you hight asf Btw when the bald guy speaks why the hell that board at the right side changes for real xd

[@bensyversen]

Haha I love that. I hope the blackboard didn't freak you out too much! :-0

[@polskisklep7665]

Bro this video was so good

[@bensyversen]

Thank you!

[@denny9634]

You earned a subscriber with this one! Really well put together!

[@bensyversen]

Thank you!

[@nebbykoo]

This is an excellent presentation. Kudos and thanks!!

[@bensyversen]

Thanks!

[@williamwalker39]

The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *KZbin presentation of above arguments: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZazlX1tq7iErLM *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997

[@Brucec-x6r]

Einstein said reality is an illusion

[@chyldstudios]

Very well done!

[@bensyversen]

Thank you!

[@mandar.deodhar]

Hilbert Space and other math concepts --> String Theory --> Modelling problems from other domains

[@JorgeBrown]

Einstein had previously obtained the same incorrect value with his variable speed of light theory, because in 1911 he had assumed that the variability originated from a variable lapse of time only. He did not realize that length scales were also shortened in the gravitational field. The discrepancy between the wrongly calculated 0.85 arc-seconds and the correct (double) value of 1.7 arc-seconds was always considered by Einstein as experimentum crucis deciding between the two mathematical versions that he had published in 1913 and 1915. He did not suspect that the correct value came out as well from a variable speed of light assumption, as Robert Dicke showed in 1957. On the contrary: the success of the 1915 formulation was certainly main reason why Einstein himself came to see his brilliant idea of 1911 as a preliminary, misguided attempt. -->> Einstein's Lost Key: How We Overlooked The Best Idea Of The XX Century by Alexander Unzicker

[@The-Cosmos]

I suggest on the history of mathematics you make one about Isaac Newton.

[@bensyversen]

Newton is on my mind! 😀

[@stewiesaidthat]

Tesla described Einstein's relativity work as "a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors". Gravitational lensing is simply refraction. Gravity is a Reactionary force. The resistance of the mass to being accelerated by an external force. Motion is absolute. Nothing can travel faster than light. Motion is absolute (bounded) to the frame of reference. Light travels in its own frame of reference. Space and Time are separate frames of reference. There is no Relativity. No time-dilation. No gravitational lensing. No mass attraction. Mass is not an actionable force. Newton's laws of Motion. F=ma. Force comes from Acceleration of the mass. Not the mass itself. E=mc. Acceleration defines/creates mass. Mass does not create acceleration. Congratulations. Those of you looking for a god to worship have picked the worst god possible. You are not going to find the fountain of youth or eternal life in Einstein’s relativity nonsense. Not a single experiment has validated Einstein's relativity nonsense. Not a single experiment. In fact, many have disproved. The bowling ball and feathers in a vacuum chamber. An increase in mass did not result in an increase in acceleration. Mass is not an actionable force. The Hafel-Keating synchronized clock experiments. Both clocks used the same amount of energy. Where is the time-dilation if they both had the same amount of runtime on the battery? Where are the biometrics showing decreased heart rates? Nasa's flight log data shows accelerated heart rates during lift-off. Accelerated. Not decelerated. Proving that motion is absolute (bounded) to the frame of reference. Galileo-> the tides are the result of the Earth's motion in space. Not some unquantifiable force emanating from the moon. How can a celestial object with 1/4th the size of the earth have more gravitational pull than the earth? JWST imaged a solar system with a bulge on the opposite side of the Jupiter size planet. Once again, how can the miniscule gravity of a planet .1% the mass of the parent star gravitationally affect the star? E=mc where mass is a form of energy and c is absolute acceleration of the mass. The point at which energy is transformed into another form of matter. E=mc then becomes E=a, or Everything comes from Acceleration. Not Mass. Acceleration. The Equivalence Principle. Acceleration creates gravity. Newton's laws of motion. Action and Reaction. Acceleration creates gravity. A Reactionary force. You've wasted your time on this video. Einstein was a fraud. Said motion was absolute and then claimed it to be relative. Said gravity came from Acceleration then backflipped and said mass warps space. What are the properties of space? Space has no properties becsuse its not a physical entity. Mass is just stored energy. How can it warp something that doesn't exist. The only reason you have idiots like Einstein running around claiming everything is relative is because of the alternative. E=mc. Acceleration defines mass. What defines Acceleration. F=ma. Acceleration creates force. What creates Acceleration. The Bible invokes the hand of god. Giordano Bruno theorized an infinite universe with no cosmological center. As Carl Sagan would say, Both possibilities are equally frightening to a physisist. How do you get something from nothing. How can the universe have always existed. Newton saw where F=ma was going. What creates Acceleration. And buried his head in the sand and let the flat earthers interpretation of the observation prevail. There is no evidence for gravitational attraction. There is no evidence for relativity. There is, in fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary.

[@stephanverbeeck]

Neat, but how hard is it (knowing how to compute movement in N dimensional space) to observe THAT NOT ALL PARTICLE MOVE IN THE SAME NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS. Or that it is exactly THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS in which each type of particle moves that MAKES IT THAT TYPE. Think of it: why do only photons travel at a fixed speed which is exactly the speed of time? Conclusion is that ALL particles (not only the photon) move at that same FIXED SPEED combined in each of their dimensions. How hard is it to think of space not as Euclidean but as field-shaped (time=distance=first dimension, up and down is the second dimension, magnetic dipoles have 3 dimensions and so on). The only way why you silly human think that you live in a 3 dimensional world is because you are mainly build of that type of particle. Also a particle is not a point but its entire domain of coordinates from creation/start to destruction/end of that particle trajectory (the particle is the trajectory, not the point at a single moment in time). So obvious and yet, with billions to think about it, you and yours don't get it. Maybe yours are not an intelligent species and even that you thought of wrongly.

[@zeroonetime]

Sir Richard Dawkins under-stands the Natural/Neutral System rather than succumb to B.S./ Belief Systems. Well done Richard Dawkins. 010 I.S. mathematical Truth.

[@mcnugget9999]

I’ve seen hundreds of videos about Einstein and relativity. This is top 3 for me. Glad I found it

[@bensyversen]

Thank you for the wonderful comment! I’m glad you enjoyed it!

[@mcnugget9999]

@@bensyversenI’m coming back a day later because I vaguely remember when I was dozing off to dream land last night that there was some other recommended channel in the video you said to check out but can’t seem to find it.

[@bensyversen]

@@mcnugget9999 oh, the channel Float Head Physics (linked in the description) has some very good videos going into more detail on things like special relativity, exploring it in a way that I think can help people understand the intuition behind the ideas.

[@mcnugget9999]

@@bensyversen thank you!!

[@Khashayarissi-ob4yj]

With regards

[@m_arto]

Nah this video was beautiful from start to end

[@juliavixen176]

This video presents the common narrative used by most pop-sci stories about (what was eventually named) Special Relativity which leaves out a lot of important details about the theory itself, and the context Einstein was working in as he developed it... _and the actual problem Einstein was trying to solve_ You highlighted that in the introduction of Einstein's paper on the "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" but didn't explain what problem Einstein was referring to. It's actually a very important detail for understanding Special Relativity. I'm actually falling asleep at the moment and can't focus on writing this comment right now. To summarize what I was going to say in a lot of words, what someone really needs to understand is: • Inertia (yep, Newton's first law of motion, and Galilean Relativity) • Classical electromagnetism (Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force) Special Relativity is a direct logical consequence of this. Furthermore, nobody was surprised by Einstein's 1905 papers on electrodynamics. Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Larmor, Poincaré, et al. had already figured out the same thing over the previous 20 years (in a tremendously convoluted roundabout way). The reason why Einstein didn't explain anything like why the speed of light is constant for all observers, _is because everyone already knew that_ ! Maxwell figured that out in the 1860's (arguably the experimental measurements going back to Rolmer in the 1700's also indicate a constant propigation velocity for light). The controversy over Special Relativity at the time it was published was about whether or not it was actually a new idea. There were at least four other theories of relativity by other people at the time. Most people credited Poincaré until Poincaré said that Einstein's theory was completely unrelated to his theory of relativity. I've actually read Poincaré's papers, and it's stunning, because it's what gets used to explain Einstein's Special Relativity in pop-sci videos about Einstein... which brings me back to my original thesis... The stories you hear, outside of an actual physics class, in the popular media _is the old Lorentz-Larmor luminiferous aether theory_ with the word "luminiferous aether" crossed out. That's why everyone who hears these stories thinks: "Why isn't there an aether? It sounds like there should be an aether." The source of pop-sci explanations of Special Relativity are _other_ pop-sci explanations of Special Relativity, and not modern physics textbooks. So these pop-sci stories haven't been corrected since the 1920's. I have a lot to say about how badly Relativity gets presented, but I'm currently falling asleep right now, so I'll have to write it later.

[@bensyversen]

HI thank you for writing. You’re right that there are a lot of details left out. That’s by design - this video is intended as more of an overview/starting point than any kind of definitive word, especially as it relates to the details of what’s known as special relativity. The broad outline and conclusions about originality that I convey are mostly based on the Walter Isaacson biography(certainly you’d probably categorize that as pop sci), but I’ve also listed in the description a number of other resources that I consulted, esp with regards to things like Minkowski’s work. I invite you to write again with more detail on your perspective, and I would ask that you also point the audience towards reputable resources where they can learn more if they are interested. Thanks again!

[@kingZ3ro]

Leaving this here to get notified when an update comment is posted

[@juliavixen176]

@kingZ3ro I haven't forgotten about this; I have just been very busy with other stuff and not... you know, writing stuff in KZbin comments. Most of the explanation is about _inertia_ specifically _how_ it works. Inertia is fundamental to the very core of Einstein's Relativity. Also, electricity and magnetism. Special Relativity *_unifies_* electricity and magnetism into _electromagnetism_ (This *is* the actual reason Einstein created "Special Relativity" as it's now called.)

[@kingZ3ro]

@@juliavixen176 Understandable, people have stuff to do But about the unification of electricity and magnetism, I'm probably missing something here, but wasn't the whole point of Maxwell's laws to prove that electricity and magnetism were two sides of the same coin? If so what was then the need for special relativity to unify them? Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question.

[@juliavixen176]

@kingZ3ro There's a "problem" with Maxwell's Equations. There's nowhere to stick a velocity term... You know how a moving electric current creates a magnetic field, and a moving magnetic field creates electric current? How does the magnet know it's moving? Moving _with respect to... what_ ? If Alice and Bob are looking at some electrically charged whatevers, and Alice stands "at rest" on the surface of the Earth, while Bob rolls by in a tain car in a straight line at constant velocity. Bob has two electrically charged balls sitting on a table, at rest, inside the train. From Bob's point of view, the electric charges are _not_ moving, and so there's no magnetic field. Alice watches the train with Bob and his electric charges moving in a straight line at constant velocity. From Alice's point of view, the electric charges _are_ moving... so Alice will see a magnetic field... right? So, is there a magnetic field or not? Who is correct? Anyway, the solution is to invent Special Relativity.

[@rbwinn3]

Here are the correct equations for relativity. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z z'=z t'=t The equations Einstein used have an obvious error. If t' is the time of a clock in a flying airplane, and the clock that shows t' is slower than a clock that shows t, then v in Einstein's equations is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. We common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock than an observer on the ground has, he will get a faster speed for the airplane than the observer on the ground will get. The inverse equations that show the pilot getting a faster speed for the airplane are another set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity. x = x' - (-vt/n')n' y = y' z = z' n = n' n' is the time of the slower clock on the airplane. (-vt/n') is the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane according to the time of the clock that shows n'. n=n' shows that the time of the slower clock is being used in both frames of reference. (-vt/n') is a faster velocity than v, just as we can see in any experiment that can be devised.

[@honkynel]

Maths is hard enough. But I can't get my head around something being named for somebody ie. Pythagoras's theorem named for Pythagoras. I'm more an after person. For; sounds too much like fore or even before. Confusing. And we haven't even got to the maths yet! I think it was named after Pythagoras or because of him.

[@Spiegelradtransformation]

So, do you be able to think about Universes Ground without axioms?? Really Axioms is human thinking, but does every Quark know this !

[@coolmancoolman8777]

You're better than Vertasium

[@bensyversen]

Thank you that is high praise! Veritasium is one of my favorite channels!

[@toddmarshall7573]

They keep saying that Einstein's theory must be accommodated for GPS to work... getting the clocks in sync. Can someone answer this question: If all the GPS satellites were synchronized in the same room and then fired into all their different orbits and allowed to move around an arbitrary amount of time. And then they were all brought back into a room again (it may be the original room or any room anywhere in the universe). Does this theory say that the clocks would not be synchronized just as in the beginning? And another question for extra credit: If all these satellites carried three rulers... an x ruler, a y ruler, and a z ruler. And these rulers were orthogonal and identical in all satellites when they leave the room. And then some arbitrary time later with the satellites traveling different and arbitrary distances these satellites are again brought into the original room or any room anywhere in the universe. Does this theory say that the rulers will not be identical in length as they were originally? And now do it for mass. Inquiring minds want to know.

[@peta1001]

Would anyone comment the idea that the finite speed of light can be compared by finite speed of sound in certain Earth conditions? What is interesting is that the whole idea about time running slower when an object moves faster (time stopping when the speed of light is reached). Can that be compared with an airplane moving at the speed of sound that you do not really hear when it "hits you"? BTW, the theory that time is the fourth physical dimension that you can manipulate by moving faster has not been proven, as all the cesium clocks were used in the strong gravitational field of Earth in all the experiments we could observe so far. How the light bends around a planet tells you that gravitational field cannot be ignored when a cesium clock is moved in the same or a similar trajectory.

[@DrDeuteron]

Gravity really is just acceleration. "g", the Coriolis force, centrifugal forces are just fictitious forces because you chose the wrong coordinate system. To understand general relativity, you really need to believe that saying the earth is stationary at the center of the universe, and all the distant stars and galaxies revolve around us every 23h 56m is an entirely valid statement.

[@kzelmer]

To SPECIAL relativity. Math behind General Relativity is far for simple :D

[@shawns0762]

Einstein thought it was best to understand Relativity intuitively rather than focusing on the math. The best way to understand dilation/gamma/y is to imagine a spaceship traveling at a constant acceleration rate. When the ship reaches 50% light speed, as viewed from an Earthbound observer with a magically powerful telescope, it would appear normal because as the graph nothing has changed at that point. When the ship reaches 75% light speed it would appear fuzzy because as the graph shows relativistic effects would be noticeable at that point. When the ship reaches 99% light speed it would not be visible because every aspect of its existence would be smeared through spacetime relative to an Earthbound observer, not onto itself. This is the phenomenon our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Dilation/gamma/y occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers.

[@stewiesaidthat]

You were taught wrong. F=ma. Mass decreases as Acceleration increases. E=mc. Acceleration transforms atomic energy into radiant energy. Hot water has less mass than cold water. In Einstein’s fantasy world, hot water has more mass. How can that be? Where is the mass coming from? Relativity is an illusion. Everything is 180 degrees from reality because F=ma. Acceleration is the actionable force, not mass. Now, go back to school and smack the teacher upside the head and say 'That's Gravity'.

[@Player-pj9kt]

Excellent Video! This is a Netflix worthy documentary! One small note - I think it would be better if u included the Michelson-Morley experiment on how the speed of light is constant in all reference frames to explain how Einstein got his postulate for special relativity

[@bensyversen]

Thank you for your very kind comment! As far as the Michelson-Morley experiment, this was one of the juicy historical tidbits that I came across in researching this video that I had to leave out for time purposes: It’s actually unclear whether Einstein was familiar with the Michelson-Morley experiment at the time that he wrote his 1905 paper (the physics taught at Zurich Polytechnic at the time that he attended was somewhat dated, and when he worked at the patent office he had a hard time keeping up with the latest research because the library was closed by the time he got off of work). Einstein himself said different, slightly conflicting things over the years: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89375/did-einstein-know-about-the-michelson-morley-experiment/89379#89379

[@bensyversen]

There are two reasons why I love this historical tidbit so much: 1) It reminds us that history is messier than just connecting the dots chronologically. Human elements played a role back then, just like they do in our own lives. 2) Like so many of us, Einstein was once a 20-something with a day job and a dream (and a pregnant girlfriend, but that's a whole other story that I also had to leave out of the video...), and sometimes his day job got in the way of his dream.

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

@@bensyversen In my opinion there is no proof in the Michelson-Morley experiment or for that matter any other experiments that I have seen that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. In every one I have seen it is the "Two way" speed that is measured as far as I can see. It is my opinion that the speed of light is probably constant but from a constant stand still meaning that any moving observer should see the speed being slower (red shifted) if you are moving away from it's origin and faster if you move towards it's origin. The time dilation is correct I believe. That has to do with time keeping that on the very small scale (in the atoms) must have to do with the electro magnetic propagation speed. Time itself is a different story i believe. I believe it only exist right now. Time gone only exist as a memory and the future is yet to come but that is philosophy. That any body's time moving at any speed should go slower than my time if I am the observer I believe is wrong. If not then a light beam emitted from my point of view should move away from me with the speed of light even though I might be moving nearly as fast in the same direction.

[@user-gr5tx6rd4h]

@@leonhardtkristensen4093 And so it does! (c + (2/3)c) / (1 + c * (2/3)c /c^2) = (5/3)c / (5/3) = c.

[@ecavero1]

29:21 "This happens all the time". This is very similar to the mathematics of Boolean Algebra and computers.

[@ExcelinusCom]

The problem with Einstein's math is uv. It should be is something else. Good video by-the-way.

[@shawnouellette1953]

I suspect time simply doesn't adhere to general relativity because there is no way to measure it accurately without first containing it to at least two points in space. I believe this is due to time having no real value on its own; neither finite or infinite: it is an emergent dimension that first requires space, then requires space to be occupied by objects of dimensions equal to or greater than space itself; then requires space to have the ability to hold matter without collapsing into a singularity. Space then requires an extra dimension: time; to be able to persist and be real. Time emerges from the confluence of space and matter as a dimension that allows the other 3 dimensions to occupy observable reality. It is this relationship that allows for the relative measurement of the equation of general relativity to occur: in support of the constants of space and matter. Without the three dimensions of space first being present, and objects in space to then define an area to measure relative to only itself, time would not occur: thus time must be emergent.

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

Dirac needed the help of Weyl and Oppenheimer for his famous Dirac equation. Leibniz published calculus before Newton did. And consulted the works of Fermat and Descartes before publishing the error-riddled masterpiece Principia Mathematica. There is no such thing as a "lone" genius. Einstein's "problems" in mathematics didn't stop him from predicting stimulated and spontaneous emission; nor entanglement; nor Bose-Einstein Condensates; etc. And in your video, you make a glaring omission: the REASON Einstein BEAT Hilbert to the final field equations of General Relativity is precisely because Einstein understood the necessity of a coordinate system that was generally covariant - Hilbert did NOT grasp this until it was too late (even though as the premier mathematician of his day, he should have known this). The video does a great job of humanizing Einstein, foibles and all, while treating the other characters with a deference that they don't deserve. Michelle Besso deserves a bit of a shout out for helping Einstein as well. For instance, you make no mention of the fact that it was Einstein's openeness to share his ideas with Hilbert after Hilbert invited Einstein to Gottingen to give lectures on relativity theory that LED to Hilbert trying to "nostrify" Einstein's work. You also don't make it entirely clear that it was more likely than not that Hilbert had copied ideas from Einstein from reading a preprint of his November 1914 paper. You'd think Hilbert, not Schwardschild, would have come up with the first exact solutions to GR. And you'd think Grossman, as the professional mathematician, would have identified general covariance as a necessary framing for making use of a coordinate system, but they did not. You should also do a deep dive on how Heisenberg needed Max Borns MATH and how Born, not Heisenberg, but matrix mechanics into quantum theory. Also do a deep dive on how Einstein got about 33% of the way to what is now known as The Schrodinger Equation, and that without Einsteins direct help, Schrodinger likely never gets to discover the very thing he's most famous for (as Schrodinger always acknowledged). Or how Max Born credited Einstein with the idea of probability waves. It's become en vogue to declare all the "help" Einstein got as a way to humanize him. However, the opposite is also true. Einstein GAVE a lot of help to scientists who took his ideas without attribution and he often gets overlooked for ideas he came up with. De Broglie is a great example. He took Einsteins equations in his 1906 - 1909 papers on quantization of energy and applied them to a gas of electrons, rather than photons as Einstein had done, and got matter waves. Or how Einstein predicted the boson (which really should be called an Einsteinion) after Schrodinger completely misunderstood Bose's paper so thoroughly, Einstein had to write a letter to Schrodinger showing an example of the new quantum statistics (e.g. 1/3 instead of 1/2).

[@bensyversen]

Hi, thank you for watching my little video and for taking the time to write this very thoughtful comment. You are certainly right on these points about the people and information that I left out of my video. In fact, I very much wanted to include something about Besso, AND more detail about Einstein and Hilbert's relationship. However, this video's runtime of 30 minutes very much pushed me to my limit as a fledgling video creator, so I had to cut fairly ruthlessly, keeping the total number of historical "characters" introduced in my narrative at 6 (Einstein, Minkowski, Grossmann, Riemann, Hilbert, Eddington) and leaving out any detail that would provide more refinement to other people involved besides Einstein. (As far as the discussion of WHY Einstein beat Hilbert, it is a fascinating detail but I thought that it could be a little bit too "in the weeds" for a general audience). Do you have any favorite books or resources that you would recommend to viewers who are interested in learning more about these figures and the relationships that you describe?

[@zzscotty]

Without Einstein's equivalence principle Hilbert would never have thought of GR.

[@rickwilliams9001]

👍 Nice.

[@Bjowolf2]

Brilliant, thank you 😉 Did they ever consider that the Lorentz factors look surprisingly much like projections ("cosines") back and forth between the two systems, if we interpret them geometrically - so that is it's NOT the actual length of an object along its direction of motion that appears (!) to be contracted, but rather its projection (!) onto this dimension of space that shrinks more and more, as v goes towards, so that there really isn't any paradox - i.e. the faster an object moves relative to an observer, the less it's present in this "length" dimension of the observer. And in a similar way, but in the opposite direction for the time axis. Have we simply been wrong all along in assuming a one (!) dimensional time, which can then be dilated or squeezed? - do these relativistic effects "really" stem from the observer and the object following different paths (directions) in a 2-dimensional complex time plan?

[@bensyversen]

Hi, thank you for watching! Yes, I am sure that Einstein, Minkowski, etc understood that the Lorentz transformations can be interpreted as "projections" of 4 dimensional space-time on 3 dimensional space, though I'm afraid I can't point you offhand to a specific document where they describe it that way. I can say that there are a handful of good KZbin videos which use this approach to intuitively explaining Lorentz transformations. Here's one that helped me get a good handle on how to discuss this topic for this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/invQmH6amJx7aZY

[@harrybarrow6222]

Linear motion at constant speed is relative… But rotation is not. A point on a rotating object moves in a circle. Consequently, it experiences a lateral force, causing a lateral acceleration that keeps its path circular.

[@treint6751]

This video is really cool!

[@bensyversen]

Thanks!

[@aleattorium]

This video is underrated, soon this channel will average 10x the amount of views per video

[@bensyversen]

Thank you!

[@chrisalmighty]

One of the things that puzzles me is when for example they say that "special theory of relativity says distance is not absolute... how do we do gravity when distance is in the eye of the beholder?" - Shouldn't we be able to differentiate an observer's distance from the "actual distance"? This seems obvious from normal experience when we observe a building far away such that a single finger can appear to be equal to the whole building. We know this is not true but instead based on the observer. Why this is an insight that seems profound is puzzling to me because it should be obvious. So instead distance not being absolute would not break gravity but instead demonstrates that different observers will measure different force of gravity depending on the their "relative distance". Can someone explain why this is taken as profound in some way for example?

[@bensyversen]

I think your comment really cuts to the heart of what makes relativity a profound idea. In relativity, there is no "actual distance" since everything is relative. The conception of the universe prior to relativity, dating back at least to Newton, imagined that the entire universe existed on some sort of giant Cartesian grid. Who created that grid? Well, Newton stated (or at least implied) that it was God. Relativity theory says that there is no such grid. In this case, all we are left with is shifting measurements that vary based on your velocity relative to other objects. So it's not just that some people observe a length or distance to be different than what it "really" is, but instead that there is no such thing as "really" being a certain value in the first place. With velocities it's easier to picture I think: if I'm in a rocket ship going at a constant velocity in outer space, how do I measure how fast I'm traveling? Maybe I can see planets and stars and asteroids wizzing by me, but how do I know that I'm the one moving and not them? The answer is that there is no way to know for sure, since there's no such thing as absolute rest. There's no universally accepted "fixed point" in the universe that we can compare everything else to. Does that address your question?

[@mikeolsze6776]

Keep showing the world such fundamental break downs of the scientific stories making up our world today. Awesome work Ben ! Really places many scientific aspects together in a coherent framing as allowing far more people to efficaciously apperceive & cognitively grasp. Such important information.

[@bensyversen]

Thank you very much!

[@TamagoHead]

Great work! 🤞👍Hope your channel grows!

[@bensyversen]

Thank you!

[@TamagoHead]

@@bensyversenas a hobby, we kind of gave up of gave up on shortening the proof of Fermat’s last theorem. The CDC 6600 counter-example won’t likely work for the Collatz Conjecture, and I’m glad I wasn’t a maths major.

[@Darthvanger]

9:57 - "The math didn't really go above the high school level". I just took a look at "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES", and I can see partial derivatives and integrals there. Maxwell's electrodynamics, Einstein is referring to, is far beyond high school maths, isn't it?

[@bensyversen]

Yes, when sources make this claim (I am far from the first to say something along these lines), they are including single variable calculus under “high school math,” and indeed Einstein had mastered integral and differential calculus by the time he was 16. That said, if I were to revise my script today I’d probably say something like “MOST of the math didn’t go above a high school level” to temper the claim a little. As for Maxwell’s electrodynamics, you’re right … I’ve certainly never met a high school student who understands these and I’ve met many ambitious high schoolers. The purpose of that statement isn’t to suggest that a high school student could fully understand the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, but to contrast it with the much more mathematically sophisticated General relativity.

[@qualquan]

Oh Come on! The 1st axiom of relative motion was known to Galileo. The 2nd "axiom" that light speed was invariant, unaffected by motion of obsever or source was REVOLUTIONARY since no other speed was invariant and unaffected by motion of observer and source. The 2nd "AXIOM" turned everything upside down meaning what were cosidered Invariant like time speed, length, mass and simultaneity became variable and what was considered vaiable meaning speed of light became invariant. Yet he could not give a coherent reason for the 2nd REVOLUTIONARY Axiom. Just "pulled a magical rabbit out of a hat" which turned out to be TRUE!!

[@bensyversen]

Yeah, to be honest I think this description of him "pulling a rabbit out of a hat" is pretty fair (and yes, you're right that what Einstein described as his 1st axiom was known since Galileo's time). The 2nd axiom was implied by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but it's not clear whether Einstein was aware of that in 1905. While I was working on this video I had a conversation with a friend who has a PhD in Astrophysics, basically to ask "did Einstein just get really lucky that this axiom worked?" I was imagining that there could have been some other hypothetical patent clerk with big dreams in some other hypothetical office who we've never heard of, working on their own theory but with the wrong axiom. My friend didn't think Einstein was "just lucky." He said that when you study the breadth of his other work, including the smaller discoveries -- the "sawdust" from his big theories, if you will -- you come to a full understanding of just how deep Einstein's intuition about the universe was and recognize that it wasn't luck. It's spooky in the same way that Newton's intuition was spooky.

[@JStephs1950]

Suggested visual: At the end of the Pythagorean proof, in the QED, rotate the small triangle (on the left of the screen) and move it so that it's long leg fits against the short leg of the middle triangle, then move the reconstructed triangle over the original triangle to show how the areas are indeed equal. You've used only math in the QED section, when your presentation is both math and graphics - so why not continue the graphics to the end of the proof also?

[@bensyversen]

Yes, that would have been a good idea. I don’t remember why I didn’t do that. It’s possible that it didn’t occur to me, or there could have been some other reason (like difficulty in creating the animation, lack of patience, etc) that stopped me. Thank you for watching and for the suggestion!

[@ihateketchup995]

HOW DOES THIS GUY HAVE ONLY 13K SUBS????? I EXPECTED AT LEAST 300K..... CRIMINALLY UNDERRATED

[@bensyversen]

I need to make more videos first! The next one is long delayed but I’m excited for it…it will be good when finished.

[@Chris-op7yt]

yes, the reason 17 or any number of dimensions works is because it also works in one dimension. any number of dimensions boils down to a vactor of distance in one dimension

[@lawrence1318]

Relativity is based on a trigonometric contradiction and is therefore a load of nonsense. It's sci-fi, not science.

[@thingthingthingthingthingthing]

YESS DOUBLE VERITASIUM And good luck replying to comments until 100 million subscribers

[@bensyversen]

Haha thanks! Yeah at some point I’m gonna have to delete the app from my phone and stop replying to so many comments, but at the moment I’m enjoying hearing from people and writing back!

[@BartvandenDonk]

I wish I had this knowledge in my school years. I would have gone further in my efforts to understand the laws of physics. I still wonder about gravity and what its origin is. I am convinced that gravity is crucial for the exitance of DNA. Also Chemistry must have a place for gravity as an attraction "force". The implications of GR are far greater than most people realize.

[@bensyversen]

Thanks for watching!

[@Incompleteai]

That was very well done! Thank you

[@bensyversen]

Thanks for watching!

[@Wol747]

This video is rather akin to those Captcha blurred characters you have difficulty interpreting! I found the jingly soundtrack so distracting I couldn’t follow the interesting commentary. Just saying.

[@bensyversen]

Hmm, I'm not sure I understand what you mean with the first comment but thank you for taking the time to watch. I hear your feedback about the music and other people have said similar things. I'll be working on improving my sound design for upcoming videos.

[@rogersecura378]

Suggestion - not criticism: PLEASE remove or at least tone down the music in the background from all your future videos - it does nothing but distract the viewer from what would be a good presentation. Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Unfortunately, some KZbin content providers are under the impression that background music somehow makes an instructional video more dramatic and/or professional. This is not true! It's bad enough that we have to crank up the volume on some videos because of a bad audio recording or a regional accent, only to have the music overpowering the vocals. KZbin documentaries should not be created/treated or edited like a music video - Sorry for the rant.

[@bensyversen]

Hi thanks for watching. I’ve heard this feedback from some folks and I’m working to improve my sound design in future videos.

[@mistafizz5195]

Good vid

[@bensyversen]

Thank you!

[@marksimpson2321]

Very good production. Melvyn Bragg in his BBC Radio 4 'In Our Time' repeatedly marvels at how abstract maths or things done just because someone thought about doing it often turn out to be part of or essential too later developments in science and / or technology.

[@bensyversen]

Yes indeed. Thank you for watching!

[@valyavv]

The very important but omitted fact that leads to out of nowhere groundbreaking papers is hus fist wife,-Mileva Marić! This is why he gave his Nobel prize to her!( agreement, - )

[@bensyversen]

Hi, thank you for watching and for your comment! While I don't claim to have done original research on this topic, I followed the conclusions about Maric's contribution as presented in Walter Isaacson's biography of Einstein (Einstein: His Life and Universe), which are basically as follows (I would have loved to include this info in the video but I felt that it would have obscured the other themes that I wanted to focus on): There has been scholarly debate on the question of Einstein's wife Mileva Marić's contribution to Special Relativity, including articles and panels at several scientific conferences in the 1990's on the topic. The emerging consensus has been that Marić was likely a sounding board and probably helped check Einstein's math, but there is no evidence (from both published work and their private letters between themselves and friends) that she was responsible for the concepts themselves. I should also clarify that this question revolves around the 1905 papers on Special Relativity. I am not aware of any discussion or suggestion that she had any involvement with General Relativity, as by that point their relationship had become quite strained and they would eventually divorce.

[@w1darr]

Why do you show Newton's Principia, Minkowski's papers etc in their original language, while presenting English mockups of Einstein's?

[@bensyversen]

Fair question. I did the English mockups for "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (aka Special Relativity) because I show quotations from that paper throughout the video. From there, English mockups of the other 1905 papers made sense to me too since they all appear on screen at the same time. The other papers are serving more as "visual aids" to illustrate whatever I'm talking about, so I felt that going with something that is typeset and looks "authentic" rather than a translation that might just be in plain text made the most sense. (FWIW, Principia is *technically* in English since Newton was British, but it would certainly be very hard for a modern audience to read!)

[@klasta2167]

Great video, honestly i wanted it to be even more longer.

[@bensyversen]

Thank you! No question that I had to leave out a lot to get it to 30 minutes

[@ivocanevo]

Wow. I didn't realize that Einstein was also a timely cultural hero: a pacifist German Jew reinventing the rules of nature just as the world searched for new meaning post WW2. It's cool to think that his fame, deserved as it is, initially wasn't just for math and physics, but also from his timely alignment with the cultural subconscious - which so often is not in lockstep with science or logic.

[@bensyversen]

Yes, this is a good point (small correction, this was post WW1 not WW2). I have read some discussion asking the question of why was it Einstein who became the global icon rather than one of his contemporaries? The likely answer is for the ways that he met a certain cultural zeitgeist as you describe, combined with the fact that Einstein took quite well to having a "public persona" -- probably better than many scientists would have.

[@MarcoAurelio-zu7sd]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aWPdmGV8fL1nmaM Is anyone else confused by the fact that this part of the video implies that Newton's equations predicted light would bend in the presence of massive objects? I thought there was no such inference from Newton's work. Can anyone help me with this?

[@bensyversen]

Hey this was a point that I found confusing when I was researching for this video as well. One mathematical way to think about this is that it's something akin to a limit as mass approaches 0 -- that since gravitational acceleration is the same for any object at a particular location in a gravitational field regardless of the object's mass (since mg = ma), then you could extend the same thinking to light. Here's a good video exploring this idea: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZmbNd5urh9hgrZIsi=4BggaqDY_9tsbG-3 Something else that I'll add is that Newton did suspect that light was made of particles. As such, in his view they would have had mass (he called the particles "corpuscles" of light). Eventually he kind of gave up on the idea and became influential in documenting the WAVE nature of light. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the corpuscle idea was seen as one of Newton's few "mistakes." But then the 20th century rolled around and Einstein described the particle nature of light in his 1905 paper about the photoelectric effect, and quantum physics was born. The point being, if Newton had a mental model where he saw light as being made of matter of some sort, then his gravitational theory would indeed predict that light bends in the presence of a strong gravitational field. All of that was too much of a mouthful to include in the video but I'm glad you asked about it!

[@David_Logr]

how is this channel so small? the quality of this video is amazing!

[@bensyversen]

Thank you!

[@mescwb]

now can light speed be empirically proven is constant wheter it even exist?

[@gpcrawford8353]

There’s no mention of Ricci ,or Tallio Levi-Citiva pardon my spelling doing this off top of my head or of absolute calculus.

[@bensyversen]

Yes indeed. Nor of Einstein’s friend Michele Besso, who Einstein credited as being instrumental to formulating special relativity thanks to their many walks together. I definitely had to simplify the story and leave out some important people in order to make this digestible as a 30 minute video. Thanks for watching!

[@reopreop4690]

Younger and older is a concept - living things get "older" because of a mistake in the cells division. We are copies of a copy of a copy until one day we are "old" ..... Because of this I still can't grasp these ideas and I find them interesting :) Does flying anywhere for any time and any distance stop your cells from basically destroying each other via constant copying ? And if not then wtf is time itself 😂 something we created another dimension that we reside in :D

[@bensyversen]

These changes aren't measurable until you are traveling close to the speed of light, but when that happens, yes, cells would divide more slowly. This is actually one of the ways that special relativity has been experimentally verified: atoms in a particle accelerator the would ordinarily experience rapid radioactive decay actually decay much more slowly (as measured by an outside observer) when they are moving inside the particle accelerator.

[@Thewerwolf]

Not allay other time the math is baked on the fly by the physicist like in the case of Dirac

[@kirdref9431]

4:50 There is no such concept as "congruent angles". The angles are pairwise EQUAL. (Also, learn proper pronuncation of "congruent".)

[@bensyversen]

Are you from the UK perhaps?

[@pillettadoinswartsh4974]

Good science is never "overthrown." It is merely refined. Newtonian physics is not wrong. It is just not 100% precise.

[@bensyversen]

Yes good point

[@paul-tz7ld]

11:18 The second "axiom" is not really an axiom, it is the consequence of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein's relativity was a theoretical proposal to solve the real problem : this experiment could not be interpreted using Maxwell equations and the standard definition of time.

[@bensyversen]

In one English translation of the paper, he calls it a "postulate"....another translation uses the word "assumption" instead. In any case, one possible reason why he described it like this instead of as a consequence of the Michelson-Morley experiment is that he might not have known of the experiment at the time that he wrote his paper. In subsequent interviews he gave different and slightly conflicting answers to this question over the years (he told one interviewer that he only learned of it after 1905). It is true that he doesn't cite the Michelson-Morley experiment in his paper....in one subsequent interview he said that if he'd known about it, he would have cited it! Here's more detail on this: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89375/did-einstein-know-about-the-michelson-morley-experiment

[@mroygl]

I wonder what could Swiss patent office reveal to us.

[@zionsky3342]

29:15 yeknow... I think the exact same thing about the MOON. Without it they wouldn't of been able to do any of it... it's weird how things work 😅

[@bensyversen]

Not to mention the extremely lucky coincidence that the sun is 400 times bigger than the moon but the moon is 400 times closer to earth, thereby making them appear the same size in our sky and making total solar eclipses possible!

[@WielkiKaleson]

Come on, after 1910 he was past his super-prolific year 1905. He was NOT unknown.

[@bensyversen]

He was known within the scientific community but less so to the general public. The eclipse results were what made him a true celebrity, known to people who otherwise couldn’t have named a contemporary scientist.

[@henlofrens]

I like how the ant is a she for inclusivity's sake in the example between minute 20 and 21, but the only female ants are the queens and not workers out foraging for food 😅

[@bensyversen]

Actually all worker ants are female. Kontorovich mentioned that in our conversation but I edited it out for brevity