Is EVERYTHING an Inverse Square Law?

[@doodelay]

This video is literally perfect. The perfect animation The perfect presentation The perfect complexity The perfect simplicity The perfect context The perfect humor The perfect generalization, damn... this is masterful teaching

[@ShivamSinghChauhan001]

The perfect comment

[@Fleetstreetbestone]

“”Uhm actually perfection is subjective and I didn’t find this funny….” 🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓”🤓

[@Fleetstreetbestone]

This reply is perfect

[@Aegisworn]

As a mathematician, can attest that we generalize everything

[@MsSonali1980]

But you will never find an epsilon < 0 no matter how hard you try to *1/2 it :D

[@davidnassau23]

You’re speaking for all mathematicians? What a generalization

[@MsSonali1980]

@@davidnassau23 That's so trivial :D

[@asukalangleysoryu6695]

@@davidnassau23 THAT'S THE JOKE!

[@Oscar1618033]

We surely do

[@evilotis01]

Man, i swear that every time i watch one of your videos, there's at least one "ohhhhhhhh NOW i get it" moment, even (or especially, actually) if the video is on a topic i've watched plenty of other stuff about. (This time it was the 4π being included in the constant - i'd always wondered why it just disappeared!) There are plenty of other really great science KZbinrs, but you have a real knack for explaining difficult concepts without dumbing them down, and for somehow just making things click. Keep up the good work - you're doing a really wonderful job!

[@frankherbert9606]

Dude, you are starting to beat out PBS Spacetime for my daily KZbin "science fix". I still love that channel, but your topics are consistently educational. Even if I'm already familiar the subject matter, you have the wonderful habit of striving for the most accurate models, metaphors and analogies while minimizing the use of and/or correcting models that are inaccurate or oversimplify the subject matter. This makes even well known topics seem fresh and exciting! Thank you and please...Keep up the good work!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! Glad you like my work :-)

[@Albertandearthie]

@@ScienceAsylum Nerd Clone: and mine!

[@Master_Therion]

6:40 In other words; before Einstein, physicists thought they had Unification mostly _squared_ away.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Ha!

[@MusicalRaichu]

What a bunch of squares!

[@Soupy_loopy]

Stop kidding around; I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation.

[@feynstein1004]

Ahaha glad to see you here, Therion-sama

[@TheNasaDude]

They Parker-squared it

[@desiderata8811]

Impossible not to love your teaching skills. Thank you!

[@old888]

You are damm right!

[@niji8310]

What if there is no Theory of Everything because it's okay for the Universe to be a little crazy too?

[@lkajsdflkasjdf1597]

If there isn’t a theory of everything then I cant wait to see the mathematical proof on that. The math to prove a lack of an answer is always more interesting than an answer to something. I cite the roman version of squaring the circle for that one. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle

[@viniciusdeloi9386]

What if there's no such proof? I mean, Gödel's show us that you can't prove everything in math (even if it's a true statement)

[@bozo5632]

That's a theory of everything.

[@justasaiyanfromearth5252]

@@viniciusdeloi9386 Does Gödel's theorem apply here? I thought it only applies to Arithmetic.

[@cxiliapersono]

@@justasaiyanfromearth5252 Well, it applies to "formal systems", where you assume axioms and go ahead with rules. You could call the Fundamental Laws of Physics "axioms" and then go ahead with "math as usual" (which can be as complex as you like, the likes of Whitehead and Russell's "Principia Mathematica"). Furthermore, Gödel's argument hints a "recursion problem" on the diagonalisation. There may as well be an undemonstrable conjecture upon information itself within our universe, which could forbid us from unifying the very same rules we're trying to tackle (and use as a tool to do so).

[@binayakthakur5122]

Coulomb to Newton : can i copy your homework Newton: yeah but change it little bit Coulomb: hah *changes m to q and g to k * 😎

[@ScienceAsylum]

Ha!

[@ahmedyasser3127]

😂😂

[@pranav_sutar]

Haha

[@SteveRyder14]

😂😂

[@lazaruslong92]

Atilla the Pun strikes again

[@GabrielTLGTaveira]

I'm from Brazil, your work is one of the most sensational things I've seen on KZbin. You might create scientists around the world.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! Let hope we create more scientists :-)

[@wolfboyft]

That thing about putting the 4pi in the constant was some great new information, thank you

[@crouchingtigerhiddenadam1352]

The most excellent science video I've seen on KZbin. Really love the visualisations.

[@CTCTraining1]

I have a GUT feeling we will one day have a grand unified theory of everything.

[@nanigopalsaha2408]

Great pun

[@herbertgrunkin6333]

Wow I’m watching this for a school project but can’t stop thinking about how good a product this video is for the channel size

[@RO1a346]

I can’t describe enough how much I love your videos. Truly one of my favorite creators.

[@erdmannelchen8829]

Haha. Nice thank you for showing my comment on your video. Made my day!

[@erdmannelchen8829]

Somewhat like shwarts--shilld He almost got it right in "Why can't you escape a black hole?" he said something like Swars-shield there.

[@jenf2580]

Nick you are my hero of science. Keep making videos. I never found any video of yours boring. I love QUANTUM because it's a little CRAZY!!!

[@kostantinos2297]

When these videos come out, I'm radiating with excitement in accordance with the inverse square law.

[@alimmaqsa]

Thank you for uploading. This is my best science channel.

[@semmering1]

The absolut best science channel at KZbin.. Simply excellent...

[@GianniStella]

I got It! I got this one! I understood this video!! Oh gosh it feels so good.. Thanx Nick as always, can't wait for the next one, kisses!

[@TheJohnblyth]

Nonuple! So good, as usual. I have never encountered a better physics teacher, nor expect to. Despite the crazy. Don’t let it go to your head, but: thanks.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Great, I suddenly grasped better than ever before where the concept of "fields" comes from and why it is so central to modern physics. Good job, Gauss! And also why it is so central to unification theories such as QFT. As for your question, I think we'd get to some sort of unification soon-ish, i.e. not too soon because of the excessive weight of QM-based ideology but soon-ish enough because that hegemony of QM, which IMO acts as blinders, is collapsing as we speak. My hunch is that rather than trying to reform GR to the QM mold it is rather the opposite what must be done somehow, and that QFT itself is a step in the right direction, i.e. less "point particles", more wavefunctions in fields, fields that incidentally are not distinct from space-time except in their way of "bending" or "vibrating". In other words the curvature of space-time is the wavefunction of gravity and the "particle's" wavefunctions are the curvature of the other three (or two) forces, just that one is "extense" and the other "intense" but both are "tense", i.e. some sort of "tensions" (describable surely by tensors) in space-time. This regardless of whether space-time itself is quantized (as it seems) or not: the Plank-sized space-time may be the quantum of uncertainty but it's not enough in itself to explain neither gravity nor QM, it's just the quantum of the field(s).

[@Mikey-mike]

You are by far one of the best physics teachers I know. I like your no nonsense explanations of physics as well as your pedagogic method. Well done. Unified Field can only be a principle which has not been found yet, and when found would be the end of theoretical physics.

[@Bassotronics]

Another fantastic video! It’s hip to be inverse square. 👍🏻😎👍🏻

[@zacbergart6840]

damn you... now I'm going to have your spin on the lyrics stuck in my head: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gnOYip6jn8afesk

[@hartzbaltz]

Their early work was a little too gravitational wave for my tastes, but when Sputnik came out in '83, I think they really came into their own model, commercially and artistically. The whole theory has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the ecuations a big boost. He's been compared to Stephen Hawking, but I think Huey has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humor.

[@zachhayes]

I used the Inverse Square Law when lighting shots a a cameraman for the news. Say the news anchor wants to do a slow walk towards the camera, but because they're also walking towards the light they will get brighter too. I use the principle of the Inverse Square Law (I don't do the math) to light them evenly as they move along the Z axis of the camera view. Moving the light backwards reduces the rate of the light drop-off, very useful

[@ailblentyn]

Returning to this video this for the tenth time or so. This is such a good channel. I really hope there are big, unifying discoveries in physics that I get to see. But if not, maybe it's enough that I was around when gravitational waves were first detected. That seems like a privilege.

[@user-nn6sw6ey8j]

Liked and shared. Love the way you explain things. As far as a theory for everything, I think the more we learn the more questions we will unturn. We will never be satisfied, and that's a good thing. Once we unify all forces and conquer the singularity, we will have even more questions than before. We will never know everything, but think about it. If we did get to that point, where would we go from there? Humans need mysteries, we thrive on figuring things out. Curiousness and consciousness are the real mysteries...

[@succsucc1585]

dont stop making videos , love your enthuisasm, keep it up

[@nikhilsomvanshi9960]

Well, to end the debate, The universe is under no obligation to make any sense to us, but we shouldn't stop trying carving sense out of it, since seeking is what we stand for, as a race.

[@william41017]

But we are the universe trying to understand itself/ourselves

[@avanishpadmakar5897]

@@william41017 no offence but that seems partially arrogant.

[@william41017]

@@avanishpadmakar5897 I'd like to see your argument. Personally I don't think Carl Sagan us arrogant, actually I think that's one of the things we can conclude from astrophysics

[@avanishpadmakar5897]

@@william41017 don't you think we are the universe is a bit far fetched?I am not against research .I don't think we need a reason to work about such an awesome universe.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

Everything is connected. The Universe is a single thing made of a great many single things, of which we are an inseparable part. That's my perspective anyway.

[@emmanuelpil]

Great! Great! I'll be looking forward anxiously to the next videos!

[@zacbergart6840]

always enjoy your vids... keep it up... please.

[@chuckbucketts]

I had always thought of vector fields as a property of the object. TIL they are a property of space. Wow! Thanks again for another excellent video and another nicely packaged bundle of clarity!

[@kingstewie6436]

ABSOLUTE EXCELLENT EXPLAINING !!! THANK YOU !!

[@dAvrilthebear]

Great video, never thought of inverse square laws in this way as a candidate for a unification theory. Plus Gauss is great (I didn't know he generalized it). Thank you very much!

[@therealallanjohnson]

Thank you for making your videos!! I truly look forward to learning whatever you’re teaching when you release a new video. THANK YOU!!!! 😄

[@abraarsameer9521]

Oh my god, I had been thinking where that 4pi came from in Coulomb's constant since my birth. Nobody ever told me the answer, and now I finally have it :D

[@rogeronslow1498]

But why is the permativity of free space 4 pi ×10^-7?

[@VedanthB9]

Roger Onslow Exactly the same reason. Permittivity is also related to spherical symmetry.

[@nanigopalsaha2408]

@@rogeronslow1498 Actually, It comes from the Ampere-Maxwell Equation, where we deal with the curl of a vector field . Since the curl deals with circumferences, for symmetric fields around a closed circular loop, the circumference is 2pi*r, which gives the pi to the constant known as permeability of free space.

[@rogeronslow1498]

@@nanigopalsaha2408 Thank you.

[@nanigopalsaha2408]

@@rogeronslow1498 You're welcome.

[@GustavoOliveira-gp6nr]

I love these lessons about physichs history, please make more!

[@powerzx]

I had already found it, but the World isn't ready for it.

[@EdgarSoaresPT]

Amazing video! Keep up the good work!

[@martinh.5068]

Your videos are excellent. So much information delivered so concisely. You really are an amazing teacher.

[@quahntasy]

Another one of fantastic video, loved it. And you are going to 100K fast, fast-fast.

[@भवशङ्करदेशिकमेशरणम्]

It's One of the Awesome Video I Ever Watched..... Thankyou Daniel....

[@constpegasus]

Beautiful episode sir as always.

[@beenodd]

You are just amazing . And when i was about 10 years old i thought about photon being spread and at a distance they wont be seen as if there was nothing and in your earlier videos you mentioned something similar and in this video too . And that made me feel sooo good as if i discovered that

[@zodiacfml]

Nice video, nice animations and good topic. I've come across some videos recently with the theory of gravity through EM theory which I think you're going into. Good point also on inverse sphere area law which is a better way than the pretty vague inverse square

[@Russocass]

Love your videos. Thank you for all your nobles efforts to educate people in science.

[@Poop_Deck_Pappy]

Another fabulous video! Thanks Nick!

[@noelomaolchraoibhe3911]

I just came back to this masterpiece having realized that electric potential does NOT follow the inverse square law! "It comes down to power and energy. Power is ultimately the thing that counts and as power spreads across a sphere of increasing size, geometry shows us that the power density goes down by 1/r2. Following through with this, we see that the amplitude of the electric field decays with 1/r2. Electric potential is calculated by integrating the electric field and the integration of 1/r2 leads to a 1/r relationship."

[@ScienceAsylum]

Correct. Not everything is an inverse square.

[@grolmidri4475]

Great video. Thank you. Keep them coming!

[@jaakkopontinen]

Thank you, still here (and other places), learning! Thanks for opening up simple things as well, like the definition of a vector.

[@gary_dslr2615]

Theory of everything... Gonna have to be named Lucid's Law.

[@shayanmoosavi9139]

If Stephen hawking was alive he may have done that. But unfortunately he didn't make it. His ALS finally took over :( May he rest in peace.

[@alexandertownsend3291]

Such a law would certainly be eLUCIDating.

[@ValentineBondar]

Lucifer’s law?

[@rossk7927]

Wait. Is gravity the drag we feel as spacetime flows past us into the earth? The whole gravity IS acceleration thing has never been something I've been able to internalize.

[@ScienceAsylum]

I wouldn't say it's a drag, no. According to general relativity, gravity is what we see when straight lines aren't straight.

[@philipberthiaume2314]

Nick, you pronounce Coulomb pretty closely to the way it should be in French 🇨🇦, I agree with you that German names are pretty difficult to pronounce. Great video, thanks for doing these.

[@philipberthiaume2314]

@Atilla Kayaş Canada has two official languages, English and French. I speak and write both.

[@berk52tomakin84]

@Atilla Kayaş Türkmüsün ?

[@MusicalRaichu]

I don't think it's correct to pronounce foreign names in one language when you're speaking another language. You should speak in the language you are speaking. E.g., when we speak English, we call France France, not "Frahns", and we call Germany Germany, not "Doychland". When they speak to me in English, they call me George, not "Yorhgho", and vice versa when they speak to me in Greek.

[@nono547]

Is french realy that hard to pronounce ? I am french so to me french prononciation is quite natural, but he make it seems like french is 10time harder than german, is it realy true? Because to me at least, german seems like the final boss of european language pronounciation. XD

[@DMSG1981]

MusicalRaichu So you call the German film music composer Jack Room instead of Hans Zimmer? I'm sure that's pretty confusing to everyone else. By the way, your post confuses two different things. In the first part you talk about pronunciation. In the second part about a different word for the same thing in another language (Germany - "Doychland").

[@karnjyoti1552]

I knew there was a connection between gravitational law and coulomb's law. And now i really knew that my thinking was correct. Thanks nick for such great info. And oh, i know we'll find an explanation for everything around us, but i know it gonna take time but i have faith. And don't worry, if you all can't, i am on the line to figure out things!!!

[@neerkoli]

Another amazing video! Getting close to 100K subscribers. Keep up the good work Nick and tell the Nerd clone that, it's okay to be a little crazy.

[@felixfelix3421]

I want to comment this incase others with ADHD come across this and need it. I have been trying to fit my learning style which is a star into a key shaped hole which is the generic method taught to you in public school. I have been bouncing around youtube video to youtube video at 2x speed while opening new tabs and searching up specific concepts on physics forums when needed, I have been having an incredibly difficult time with Physics this semester because I simply could not find myself interested in the concepts due to the way the content was presented. Find your method of learning!

[@Skraboing649]

Great video as ever. By the way, Nerd clone should have his own show! 😀

[@chestersnap]

I have never heard the word "nonupled" before, but I will definitely be using it from now on.

[@ScienceAsylum]

It's such a good word!

[@tasosjw]

Very informative video. Thank you!

[@ScienceAsylum]

You're welcome :-)

[@kgangadhar5389]

Eagerly waiting for the gravity-electricity analogy :)

[@macronencer]

Another excellent video. How do you do it? I'm going to keep sharing them. Got to get you to 100k subscribers! You deserve a million.

[@DavidMendoza-pd3pr]

Wow so these are the formulas that Accelarator uses in his head in order to use his "Vector Control" powers. I have a deeper appreciation for the writing and complexity that goes in to making that series.

[@cesarverazzu2485]

I love your videos. I'm learning physic while I practice my English. I heard that the quantum theory could explain relativity without the geometrics fundaments that Einstein's used.

[@-isotope_k]

Thanks man ♥️ ,I was wondering about this law since 11th grade !

[@moohsinatabassum5915]

I'm from Bangladesh..And i love the way you teach..you are really great..may God bless you ❤

[@lennonwhitehead1352]

I thought you made it up till I googled it. Lol. Nonuple is my new favourite word.

[@yakovkosharovsky8487]

ouch.. now i really hope the next videos are coming soon! Thank you for another great video

[@saswatsarangi6669]

This is definitely a very good video. I like this kind of history as well

[@revathyb5526]

Thank you.

[@antran4465]

This video blows my mind.

[@parthabanerjee1234]

I love the way you present serious stuff. Keep it up. :-)

[@rtt1961]

Excellent video.

[@ThatWarioGiant]

great video as always

[@evilkidm93b]

I am really happy you made a video about this! Especially since you gave examples where the power laws no longer hold. I find the introduction of 4pi into the equations quite arbitrary, aren't we just putting it there to make it look more like it has to do with the sphere picture? We could just redefine all units to make pi vanish (less constants).

[@adamroach4538]

Almost 100k subscribers! I can't believe you don't have more subscribers.

[@anguswombat]

Great video!! Thank you!

[@JuergenNoll]

Wow, 100K coming up soon! Congratulations!

[@paulcervenka]

First time on your channel. Absolutely love the content!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad you found it 🤓

[@Rafaga777]

Another great and interesting video. Btw: I hope that you will pass the 100K frontier very soon and from there to boldly go where no one has gone before.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! We're so close!

[@joyjoseph7672]

Wow...what a great explanation!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! I try.

[@ashwinianand2495]

I like that clock behind you

[@RadioJonophone]

Unified theory of the universe and everything: The nearer you approach a solution, the further away the question retreats. Probably by a factor of pi.

[@mukeshchand5301]

It's really amazing. The Science asylum

[@Neo-po2xw]

Wow this videos was very easy to understand. Yo thanks for the great content.

[@ffggddss]

Another good one! A few things that I noticed/thought of during it: 1. 5m 26 - 44s: In your animations of grav & E-field vectors, from Earth/charge q wandering through space - for the Earth-grav case, the arrows should point *inward.* [EDIT: Oops! I see you've already said so yourself, in Comments.] 2. 6m 40s: So was it Heaviside (1885) who put the EM laws into vector form? - That *was* a big deal, but it was J. C. Maxwell who, two decades earlier, actually first wrote the EM laws, unifying electricity & magnetism. 3. 7m 36s: In your answer, at the end, about gravitons "escaping" a BH, another way of putting your answer is, that in order to even *have* gravitons, you must already have a quantum theory of gravity, which we don't yet have. To imagine QM particles moving in a non-QM grav field (of spacetime curvature), is erroneous from the get-go; especially when the field being quantized to make those particles, is the very same spacetime-curvature field. Stay nutty! [Make mine cashews, please...] Fred

[@ScienceAsylum]

1. Yes, I already corrected this (as you noticed). 2. Yes, the way Maxwell wrote the equations was a complete mess. There were a total of twenty. Heaviside turned them into vectors and reduced the equations from 20 to 4. Heaviside was brilliant, but also had no people skills so everyone hated him. 3. I will do a video on gravitons eventually.

[@ffggddss]

1. Appreciated. Perhaps the most singular feature of science, is its insatiable appetite to correct itself. And your exemplification of this, is one reason I like your channel so much. 2. Then shouldn't we also credit Einstein (or whoever did this, after SpecRel was published) for simplifying Maxwell's Equations even further, to 2? To wit: d *F* = 0 d **F* = **J* where *F* is the Faraday 4-tensor, which is antisymmetric and contains the 3 E- and 3 B-field components; and *J* is the charge-current 4-vector. 3. I surely want to see that when it comes out. The graviton is a particle that *must* exist, and we even know what some of its properties must be, but we can't yet figure out how to tease it out of the theory, because we don't yet *have* the theory it would come out of. So doing a video on that will be a real challenge, I'd have to say. I'm looking forward to hearing the latest ideas from theorists working on QG, an area I confess I haven't kept current on. Fred

[@ScienceAsylum]

2. Unfortunately, while important for a deeper understanding, the tensor form barely ever gets used. _Use_ plays a big factor in how things get named. In fact, a lot of laws are named after the first people who used them rather than the people who developed them.

[@ffggddss]

Yep, math and physics, I know, and I'm sure lots of other fields of study, are rife with misnamings. Bode's Law in astronomy, discovered by Titius (& now recognized as such - Titius-Bode Law) Pell's equation in number theory, named (by no less than Leonhard Euler!) for John Pell, who merely revised a translation of someone else's book about it. etc. But from what you say, it sounds like the equations in question should be called the Maxwell-Heaviside equations. (As an aside, did Heaviside generate the differential form of those equations, or the integral form, or both?) BTW, my dad, a career meteorologist whose main contribution to the field was in the delvelopment of numerical models for forecast computation, mentioned Heaviside to me a few times. I wish I could recall in what connection, but I think it had something to do with the governing equations of fluid dynamics - Navier-Stokes, and so forth - so I'm thinking it might have been something similar to the case of Maxwell's equations - i.e., casting them in vector calculus form. But it's striking to me that I got through math & physics in high school, college (math major), and grad school (in physics) without ever once hearing Heaviside mentioned. And one of my dad's longtime beefs was about the ivory-tower, clique-ish mentality of academia; so putting 2 and 2 together, I surmise that Heaviside's work was sort of black-balled by academia. Whatever his people skills were or were not. Fred

[@marijnaqvi3300]

Since it's okay to be a little crazy, then here it goes. In quantum mechanics, we quantize forces too, we have done it with Weak, Strong and EM forces, while gravity is yet to be quantized. All these quantizations involve Planck's constant and it kind of works as the scale of our metric. We are well aware how feeble gravity is in terms of strength when compared to the other forces. So here is my proposition, what if we come up with a constant with similar units as the Planck's constant but with a much lesser order, I think then we might be able to quantize gravity as well. In classical mechanics everything appears as a continum as our metric of perseption is way larger than the one those forces have intrinsicly. I am not able to express my idea, but if you are able to get the point do let me know if it is workable or not. -A Crazy undergrad Physicist

[@ScienceAsylum]

I wouldn't really call Planck's constant a "scale." It can only scale things _in combination_ with other constants. I would be more comfortable saying the Fine-Structure Constant scales the quantum world. It also has the added benefit of being unitless (dimensionless). As for gravity, we already have constants for it that give us an idea of its strength.

[@user-nn6sw6ey8j]

@@ScienceAsylum oh please pretty please a video on fine structure constant

[@justcrono]

gravity becomes "quantised" if we consider a quantised time... In loop quantum gravity theories Plank units are "unitary bit" for space and time (c=L/T with L and T plank length and time, while hbar=ML2/T with M plank mass). If we consider a quantised universe (holographic space + quantised time) we can live with 1 real degree of freedom as mass or frequency to account for the total local energy :) I agree a fine structure constant based representation, with no "human chosen" units of measure, will be much more "general"... I believe it's connected with a geometrical problem of angles and perspective from which we look at the gauge bosons effects on reality..a kind of "projection" of e2/q2, where e is the elementary charge and q is the plank charge.. but I still have to figure out all the math...

[@flonomcflooneyloo7573]

*Casimir

[@suesheification]

@@user-nn6sw6ey8j and its relation to reimann hypothesis

[@zakariyamohamed9035]

POOOOOFFFFF that's how my brain reacts to your awesome videos . I am not a math nor physics guy but I enjoy your videos

[@jakecarlo9950]

This is very good. Completely goofy and very good. Thank you Master Splinter.

[@kw6540]

Great video!

[@cautiousoptimist]

GREAT video!

[@abhijitkmt]

YES

[@Marcos-bo6vi]

Thermodynamics is ways let aside at the corner. No unification without it!

[@regisk]

Damn, I love your channel so much!

[@scientificmusician3447]

Good explanation

[@BullCheatFR]

3:55 but you're saying it right!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! I lot of people tell me I pronounce French names correct, but others tell me I'm terrible at German names. I'm not sure if that's because I'm better at French names or because Germans are just more critical 🤷‍♂️

[@BullCheatFR]

@@ScienceAsylum maybe Germans are just a little more crazy

[@mitsoos1]

Nice videos crazy!! We need one on Larmor and cyclotron frequencies, i.e. what really happens with electrons (and their magnetic moment) inside magnetic fields!!!

[@GWAIHIRKV]

Very interesting. Thanks...

[@yuda8518]

Amazing as always 👍👌

[@rouxbnr]

I love how good your vids are, cant wait till you hit 100000! Can you make a detailed video on time dilation? It would be great!

[@ScienceAsylum]

I'm not if you've seen it, but several months ago I made "The Ultimate Guide to Relativity": kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJW6foBslr2jj6c

[@tristanband4003]

I'm kind of in the whole "there probably isn't a unified theory of everything, but we learn more about the universe in that futile quest to find one"