Our Ignorance About Gravity

[@NegativeAccelerate]

I wish we could just float around like we did before newton discovered gravity

[@tres-2b299]

Whos gonna tell him

[@cerealgudforu5624]

@@tres-2b299 should I r/whoosh you orrr

[@bricktopian]

Same I didn't have to worry about getting fat back then as the scales all read zero

[@Anonymous-zw8kx]

what do you mean "discovered"?

[@luckyizzac]

@@Anonymous-zw8kx ah yes He *i n v e n t e d*

[@josephjackson1956]

5:00 be careful with that exclamation mark when dealing with a math problem

[@ojasvikamra6835]

joseph jackson that's factorial ain't it?

[@ojasvikamra6835]

✌🏻

[@somemagellanic]

hate it when my 5 becomes 120

[@ishworshrestha3559]

Yes

[@eufalesio1146]

or when my 50 becomes... you get the point

[@oscarin13]

"The Earth looks flat when..." flat-earther: *say no more*

[@dmahar58]

Observably, measurably, and demonstrably flat.

[@moioyoyo848]

@@dmahar58 and dumb

[@paulstovall3777]

@@moioyoyo848 I'd say, more along the line of simply 'stupid'.

[@karekarenohay4432]

@@dmahar58 It's very simple: If the Earth is spherical, Science is right and the world has sense. If the Earth is flat, the world is a conspirative masonic-judeo-reptilian cage of paranoid crickets.

[@agingchill9012]

Flat earthers best hope their airline pilot flies The Great Circle and not The False Flat: www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-paths-and-great-circles-or-why-you-flew-over-greenland/

[@ethribin4188]

In other words: Newtons law isnt wrong. Its imperfect, specialized, or misses factors that are ignorable in some cases but important in other cases. But thats physics.

[@Lucky10279]

It's a really good approximation for most practical purposes. But so is relativity for that matter. It's more accurate than Newton, but we know even it likely isn't _completely_ right because we still haven't figured out how to reconcile its description of gravity with what particle physics predicts about gravity. I'm far from an expert, to be clear, but that's my understanding.

[@anandsuralkar8376]

@Jedi Master what ??? Lol ..

[@anandsuralkar8376]

@Jedi Master noone is trying to prove newtons laws correct bcz they are correct at. Right scales.. Newton's law of gravitation predict the path and behaviours of stars and planets so very very accurately..and electromagnetic universe what even the hell does that mean yes electromagnetism exist so what??

[@anandsuralkar8376]

@Jedi Master what?? Have u every lessened physics gravitational law is very accurate and profound we can't find gravity at smalll scales bcz gravitational force is so weak we don't have that precise measurement investments any way u sound like a for rather u should be out of here "things fall bcz they have weight???" I mean yes bcz weight is valued force of gravity in scientific terms

[@anandsuralkar8376]

@Jedi Master air filled balloon to to in water bcz sir it's light than water is as simple as that go and learn basics 4th grade physics, weight of water creates pressure in water that pressure pulls balloon up simple as that

[@duchi882]

*According to Keeanu Reeves* Gravity is the secret for staying down-to-Earth

[@shayanshaikh534]

Oh. Makes sense

[@nicky_tdbp5353]

Isnt that breathtaking?

[@AshnSilvercorp]

Laws of Motion is just what goes around, comes around.

[@aasyjepale5210]

@@nicky_tdbp5353 No u!

[@fawzanfawzi9993]

He has IQ of more than 200 so of course he's smart

[@kennethmeisner2970]

still it seems to an excellent estimation by considering 1600's world

[@soumyasishbhattacharyya2805]

Absolutely!

[@soumyasishbhattacharyya2805]

Pretty remarkable.

[@alberttorres4830]

Man is stupid his theories has caused him to have artificial intelligence and thats the only fact.

[@personhuman2239]

@@alberttorres4830 Ah yes, Isaac Newton, the pioneer of Artificial Intelligence

[@alberttorres4830]

@@personhuman2239 and Albert Einstein the father of 2 dimensional thinking trying to explain 3D space with a 2D explanation. People fell for it right?

[@fowlr5751]

Well this wouldn't be a problem if Isaac Newton didn't invent gravity

[@shcadeyt6722]

Plot Twist: He Invented Discovering Gravity... By Inventing It. 🤦🏼‍♂️

[@breastmilkgaming]

Einstein handed Newton an instant L

[@davidgil6485]

Remember those good times when we were just floating around? Fucking Newton

[@thebeingwithnoicon7561]

Goddamit Newton. It was better when we didn't have gravity.

[@scottmackay5622]

Gravity is a theory that has never been proven. How does a ballon escape fake gravity? Why do we not feel a constant pulling? Birds easily defeat this phony fucking theory.

[@oulipolesceptique9449]

The best part about these videos is that the step-by-step reasoning is always clear and eminently logical, even if how the math works may be hard to grasp for non-specialists and even if the proposed conclusions seem unimaginable. Like following a trusted friend through a jungle on an island, listening to him explain why we're taking a particular route, which all seems very logical until we come to a clearing and somehow we're in the Alps.

[@nightlark]

you could say we don't really understand the gravity of the situation

[@thedeathstar420]

@@passthebutterrobot2600@@passthebutterrobot2600You pass butter stop being a smartass

[@EternalShadow1667]

Hehehehe

[@zengara11]

nice

[@Rekko82]

This dude gave every test question the answer "We don't know". Yes, we don't know and that's why we should stay in the closet and cry because we cannot travel to black holes or be smaller than protons.

[@nicolauscopernicus3923]

Ha

[@johnfarris6152]

I've done many observations, and two sheep definitely attract.

[@annyjones7228]

very underrated comment :)

[@mr.pramesh162]

Lmao😂😂😂😂😂

[@shononoyeetus8866]

well they certainly attract Welsh people

[@Imagine_Beyond]

I am the 500th like

[@sarahkauble8817]

Obv

[@brendans5195]

ZeptoNewtons. So small you never even heard of it

[@jamesmnguyen]

So small it barely nudges your attention.

[@Max_Matrix]

I'm pretty sure that's just Isaac Newton's nephew.

[@z-beeblebrox]

@@Max_Matrix It's not commonly known that Isaac Newton's nephew was a Marx Brother

[@gamingwithpratham2607]

zepto newton =10^(-21)

[@anandsuralkar2947]

Lol

[@calmkat9032]

Minute Physics: "Hair is actually 2D" Uh excuse you, my hair has VOLUME.

[@MrMichalMalek]

Marcus Byrd he said "surface of a hair" is 2D, therefore he stands correct

[@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174]

@@MrMichalMalek You missed the joke.

[@martingelinas1721]

[Looks at bald spot] My hair is trending towards 0D. Non-dimensional hair!

[@frederickdietz3148]

I don't get that, hair is 3d like everything else on this Earth ;:/

[@macaroon_nuggets8008]

@@frederickdietz3148 but what if I told you the earth is 4D becuase the universe is like movie flim stacked on top of each other, or like a flipbook but one dimension up?

[@EmetYAHU]

Now IF ONLY some Hipster could have plucked the Bass while I was learning Physics back in High School... XD

[@raymundom6974]

Be that hipster

[@zodiacfml]

i agree. that's only thing i hear from the rest of the video

[@TheGrundigg]

hipster? More like a nerd.. this is a jazzy double bass! :D

[@seydi_vakkas]

TÜRKÇE ALTYAZI LÜTFEN.

[@nuklearboysymbiote]

It helps so much

[@bencrossley647]

*@minutephysics* Henry, the graph at 3:25 is wonderful. This aspect of science is so poorly understood and I think leads to a large amount of pseudoscience. Could you please make a video with several different concepts showing how certain we are about each concept. This shows the danger of extrapolation so clearly! Excellent video as usual. Thanks, Ben - a mathematician.

[@shaylempert9994]

Great Idea!

[@Blox117]

"Thanks, Ben - a mathematician." ...when did those damned mathematicians start taking over physics? should I be worried about my job?

[@bencrossley647]

Blox117 Don’t worry it was only a few centuries ago. Shouldn’t affect most people for a while yet.

[@thethyphoon6370]

In chemistry when measuring with GC(Gas chromatography) it is the same the thiner peaks are certain molecules as it is a precise boiling point and the wider it means a mixture of molecules and we chemist must use a different separating technique to be able to isolate that certain molecule for measurment. Other similar graphs can be Infra red spectrum on the type of bondings. Have a nice day

[@hamiltonianpathondodecahed5236]

wow a mathematician thanking a physicist

[@josephcope7637]

I'm reminded of what Klaatu told Professor Barnhart in The Day the Earth Stood Still. "It (Newtonian gravitation) works well enough to get me from one planet to another."

[@waynelast1685]

Joseph Cope that’s good to know!

[@salmannazeer2688]

Klaatu baraada nikito

[@TheSecondVersion]

"But what do you really look like" "It would only frighten you."

[@harrishartman2]

Scientist: How many dimension we need to discover you? Gravity: Yes.

[@snrnsjd]

Hehehehe

[@Adam-jm5un]

0:54 for all the Flat-Earth believers, he just cleared it up

[@Zeegoku1007]

It's impossible to educate Ignorants my friend. A Magic book , An imaginary Sky Daddy , life after death are the primary reasons behind that ignorance , like.....BRUH 😑

[@JNCressey]

What about bumpy-earthers?

[@hellfire66683]

@@JNCressey you dare challenge our lord and savior mashed potatoes?

[@helved807]

Now you need triceratops-earthers

[@hector-m-carrillo]

@@Zeegoku1007 literally everybody was ignorant about everything until someone educated them. It's just a matter of how much the ignorant person is willing to listen.

[@davidefacchini1005]

Me: *spends years and patience to understand physic laws MinutePhysics: *ding dong what you knew is wrong*

[@ishanbanjara734]

My mind was blown and I was questioning myself 😂😂😂

[@Laura-Yu]

Davide Facchini But like the video said, it’s not wrong, it’s only wrong under certain scales, just how classical mechanics “breaks” at a certain scale

[@jondoe377]

@@Laura-Yu yah we just have wishy-washy explanations that change entirely depending on what b.s. we're trying to pass off as proven facts

[@donsimonds5186]

What they know is wrong? Do you consider what you know is wrong also. The fool has said in their heart there is no God. To be a fool is to be eternally lost, utterly destroyed at the end of all things but consciously imprisoned in your own unbelief. Eternal Consciousness in there in a place called gehenna.

[@ishworshrestha3559]

Jmm

[@kikivoorburg]

I've got a physics exam tomorrow, and am taking a short break from studying. Aaaaand what do I decide to do in my break? Learn more physics... I think I'm doing this wrong. Honestly though even though I don't understand them half the time, these videos are super engaging and fun and break complex topics down into understandable bits. Keep up the great work!

[@drmahanthashok3685]

Forget the exams. You are going exactly the right way. Good luck

[@capkenway]

@@AelundTwitch Detail is not boring. Its the teacher's way that is boring. Don't just give us concept (Teacher!), question the concept (like our boi Henry).

[@darkseid856]

@@AelundTwitch "into boring detail" lol bro then you probably have no idea of what actually makes physics interesting ! It's not the detail that is boring but teacher's way of teaching (as someone already pointed it out )

[@WeChallenge]

Maybe you are the only one doing it right. Good luck on the exam.

[@darkseid856]

@@AelundTwitch and also it's not ALWAYS teacher's fault either . Sometimes it's just , even tough if someone likes physics doesn't mean he/she will have interest in each and every topic related to it !

[@NGC-7635]

Who knew you could make an epic depiction of a black hole with just a sharpie and some pencil crayon scribbles?

[@Blackholefourspam]

seems odd to focus on the Newton equations here when they are just simplified versions of the more complex relativity ones. it doesn't really change the point that we don't know how accurate our model of gravity is on the small scale.

[@sofieselene]

Newton's equations are a low-energy approximation of GR, and talking about GR was beyond the scope of this video. Newton's Law is mostly accurate for planetary scales, and GR doesn't have much to say about how things behave on small scales, other than spitting out Newton's Law. Attempting to model it in field equations is way out of the scope of a 5 minute video, especially one aimed at a layman or mostly layman audience. Regardless, you'd mostly just get Newton's equations with extremely small corrections.

[@Blackholefourspam]

@@sofieselene My point was focusing on the equations at all other then the initial mention that this is how we think it approximately works. Everything after that just kind of perpetuating a half truth for no added benefit to the videos point that we don't have proof we know gravity works at extremely low mass.

[@sofieselene]

@@Blackholefourspam Again, Newton's law is a very good approximation of general relativity at low energy scales and low masses. As these were the scales being considered, it makes sense to focus on the law that is known to accurately describe them (though with unknown accuracy below a certain mass), rather than a far more complicated series of equations that won't add any significant value to the discussion. This is further reinforced by the gravitational interaction on small scales seeming to at least approximate Newton's law, and the fact that it is a 5 minute long video aimed at laymen. It is very unlikely that bringing up a tensors and spatial curvature would provide any benefit to the video, and it is therefore entirely necessary.

[@Blackholefourspam]

@@sofieselene "Again" my point wasn't that they should dive into general relativity, but that the focus on any specific equation was unnecessary for the topic other then to introduce the concepts and explain the compact dimension theory. I think we are done here.

[@olliedylan1381]

*minute physics... 5 minute video* *wait, that’s illegal*

[@brandonhughes645]

It's still a factor of a minute.

[@olliedylan1381]

Well no cuz minute is singular. If it said *minutes* that would be understandable. But it doesn’t. So it’s not.

[@brandonhughes645]

Well, Henry here seems to think a factor of 5 is good, so by my books it's good.

[@my3dviews]

@@olliedylan1381 But, you say a "five minute video", not a "five minutes video".

[@olliedylan1381]

My3dviews yes by you say 5 minuteS. Again, *minute* physics implies there is a single minute video. The fact I have to explain what was merely a joke is pretty triggering

[@00ryanm00]

I disagree that physicists are "ignorant" of gravity at short distances. Its not like they just choose to ignore it because they don't know enough about it. As you mentioned, the force is so weak compared to electric forces its a very very very safe assumption to ignore gravity because it has a negligible effect on calculations. The only usefulness to knowing gravity at small scales is to test the theory. But practically speaking, physicists ignore gravitational force between particles for the same reason they dont include the force of gravity from Pluto in their calculations. Its way too weak.

[@mbrusyda9437]

They are ignorant. They know it is weak, but they don't know how weak, even for non-quantum scale.

[@Fenrir1]

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "ignorant", as it has nothing to do with ignoring things.

[@RemembranceRugGuy]

Suggestions aside - (as if words that share a common root are not related) - so much for the adage that if I just ignore it - it will go away.

[@00ryanm00]

I should clarify. I am only speaking of forces near the atomic level. There I am stating gravity is negligible and completely safe to ignore. And if this doesn't clarify my comments then there is a real lack of understanding of the scales of the forces at play by those in the comments. If we calculate the gravitational force of an electron to its nucleus in the Hydrogen atom you get the force is 2x10^(-49) N. If you calculate the electrostatic force between the electron and its nucleus using Coulombs law you get the force is 2x10^(-8) N. This video suggests that the uncertainty at the atomic scale for gravity is 10^(20). So in the most extreme cases, gravity is either 10^(21) times weaker or 10^(67) times weaker than the electrostatic force. Even if the law of gravity is as strong and as wrong as it can be, it is still 1000000000000000000000 times weaker than the electrostatic force. If you are a physicist and try to claim that you need to take into account gravitational forces in a lattice or between charges separated by atomic lengths you will be be laughed at. It is absolutely ridiculous to state that "physicists are ignoring it and hopefully it will go away." They ignore it because it plays zero role in any dynamics. Gravity is never going to be measurable or relevant to atomic calculations. Physicists are anything but ignorant. They are scrutinized for every calculation. Gravity is safely ignored at atomic scales, there is no ignorance.

[@mikel4879]

Ryan /* "It's"

[@GauravSharma-dy8xv]

4:15 I heard this dialogue in the movie *INTERSTELLAR*

[@peggyfranzen6159]

So?

[@henrystone5442]

@@peggyfranzen6159 its all to obvioUS in any atom. Why? proton and neutron both drawn together and pushing apart yet bound together forever! That is a lot of energy in a very small space add electrons And and the possibilities are almost endless.

[@scrap8660]

@@henrystone5442 what's that got to do with gravity? those are the nuclear forces

[@MarkLewis...]

But... I Googled for a recipe about GRAVY.

[@peggyfranzen6159]

Only on a dried out turkey drumstick.(😒)

[@peggyfranzen6159]

@EarthChild Prince No.Gravity exists, however, EM is the predominant force.

[@martymcfly88mph35]

@EarthChild Prince lolololol

[@miri8851]

EarthChild Prince Don’t know if you’re a troll but I hope you know that the earth isn’t flat...

[@ManuelBTC21]

5:00 "it remains pretty crazy to blindly apply newtons law of gravitation to things like protons..." Pardon my ignorance, but does anybody actually do that? Aren't the Strong Nuclear Force and EM Force totally dominant at those scales? Even assuming the gravitational force is not well known at those scales, how much larger than assumed would it have to be to even show up on measurements when compared to the other forces?

[@StYxXx]

That's what I thought and why "meh" might be the common approach. I'v never seen gravity to play a role at subatomic scales.

[@Ni999]

Yes, people actually think about gravity at the small scale and work on it quite a great deal. Right now, we can not get general relativity to reconcile with observations at the quantum mechanics scale. The discrepancy is driving a lot of work on string theory and quantum gravity and those go to the heart of the question of whether we have the nature of spacetime right. Are space and time continuous, providing the reality upon which existence of matter and energy plays out? That could lead someday to validating string theory. Or are space and time actually discrete, only divisible into elementary packets - quanta? That might eventually lead to falsifying string theory and lead to a leap beyond general relativity. Either one would explain quantum gravity - but right now, the term _quantum gravity_ may imply the existence of the graviton. And _graviton_ doesn't necessarily mean the same thing in the two frameworks. Is gravity truly a force? Or is it a quasi-force, a change in spacetime caused by the existence of reality? There are a great many implications hidden behind the results of the comparison. EM may dominate at the small scale of an atom - but even so, why don't electrons bleed off energy in gravitational waves, exactly as general relativity predicts?

[@UDumFck]

Yes. If it does not apply, it is certainly not much, much stronger. We would see its effects, especially at the mass limit of when stars go super nova or go from a neutron star to a black hole.

[@gk10002000]

But you should try the inverse problem, Take Schoedinger's equation and apply it to an electron and a proton in "orbit" about each other. See what terms pop out.

[@johnny196775]

@@Ni999 You mention "String theory" during a conversation over physics... very odd, as "String theory" isn't science at all, can't ever even be tested, and for which there is absolutely zero evidence. I find this very sad and part of the dumbing down of the America in specific and the world in general. I don't mean to imply you are dumb... quite to the contrary... you seem bright. But you have been badly deceived by teachers who should know better.

[@rodrigolind5665]

Actually there is a very known Experiment "The Cavendish Experiment", where you calculate G just by measuring the attraction of two small lead balls to two big metall balls, with the help of an Torsion-Spring and a laser. I have done this experiment myself and its pretty accurate!

[@WillStrong7]

He mentions this experiment at 2:36. I haven't done the research, so I'm just taking his word for it, but his claim is that there is still a 0.01% margin of error, which is pretty bad for physics which relies on incredibly precise measurements.

[@jaelee5689]

@Norbert Kas i mean unless you want thermodynamics to screw your ass more, there's not much of profit there

[@harambey]

The future always behaves like the past That's what science is based on Wacky stuff I tell you

[@claudiosaldivia5646]

That's electromagnetic force not g force ...

[@jannegrey]

@@claudiosaldivia5646 Cavendish experiment measured Gravitation Constant - G.

[@LittleDergon]

I think the earth looking round, flat or bumpy depending on how close you zoom in is a really good illustration for how physics laws change for different scales

[@jakesta104]

the earth has 71% curved water on it. 😄

[@timezone5259]

Does anyone remember the first episode of minute physics Man how time flies

[@cube2fox]

I can't remember it 🙋

[@desmond3107]

@@cube2fox i think it was about why objects attract each other.

[@mimikal7548]

Trurl I Klapalcjusz?

[@cube2fox]

@@mimikal7548 :)

[@T1Oracle]

Really? It feels like 60 seconds ago.

[@DaHaiZhu]

"I think we've underestimated the life on this planet. The people have so much courage. Here they are hurling through space on a molten rock at 67000 miles an hour and the only thing that keeps them from flying out of their shoes is their misplaced faith in gravity." - Dick: 3rd Rock from the Sun

[@terner1234]

Their first mistake is using miles Also relativity

[@snowthemegaabsol6819]

Actually if there was no gravity, we would tend to keep moving in a straight line because of inertia, which means as the planet rotates, the ground will curve away beneath us. The planet itself would also completely fall apart in much the same way but details

[@z-beeblebrox]

And this is why you don't bother correcting the facts on a joke comment

[@Leonlion0305]

@@snowthemegaabsol6819 but, if there is no gravity (everywhere), there wouldn't be a force pulling on the Earth, so the Earth will also travel in a straight line, while carrying us

[@ferhatakbulut6572]

@@Leonlion0305 But when we walk we exert a force on the ground. And since there is no gravity to pull us down, that small force that we exert would push us away from the earth. Correct me if i'm wrong. Edit: No actually we would just like the earth and the sun because of inertia (rotation of the earth) go in a straight line tangent to the earth into space.

[@MacDaniboi]

I'm so strong I can lift the entire earth. *proceeds to do a handstand*

[@Attlanttizz]

And how high did you lift it exactly?

[@supersonictumbleweed]

@@Attlanttizz about half meter (with accuracy to 1 meter)

[@FireyDeath4]

You have to find the relative measuring point first since "down" applies to all bodies of gravity. AKA every single permutation of quanta in the entire universe. I'm guessing it's your centre of gravity, but even that is stupid since your body replaces like 2,000,000 cells every second. Also random particles get into your body.

[@raymundom6974]

@@FireyDeath4 the cells may be replaced but the mass of atoms and molecules don't leave that easily

[@rewrose2838]

If you can do a handstand , you are stronger than most of US population

[@xhesil8848]

One of the big problems with measuring the gravitational attraction of two small objects (your yarn and tape) is noise or interference. Newton's Law is kind of an approximation, which holds most accurately when two massive objects are near each other within the same gravitational field, because gravity is not really the attraction between two masses, but between on mass and every other mass in the universe. So, the yarn and tape will have such a minimal attraction upon each other because the Earth produces much more gravitational force than them, and they're more attracted to the mass of your hands than to each other due to the larger mass. This confound of noise is part of why we have not and probably will not measure gravity to the same precision of other forces, because the only way to get a truly precise G constant is to measure the attraction between two neutrons in an otherwise massless universe. This is why the small scale is so uncertain, that and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is a factor to consider at distances and masses that small. Adjusting for Gravitational Time Dilation using the Schwartzschild metric (whose effect is negligible at Newtonian Scales), it should be possible to extend Newton's law to relativistic masses.

[@manthanc7727]

How is this not popular??

[@mykindoftime]

you're kinda correct when you said that we require a massless universe to get the value of G constant but then that's why there are problems, that's the exact reason why people say that gravitational theory can be wrong. See if you say massless universe can tell the exact value or maybe then that universe can tell you totally otherwise and the results are exact opposite to what newton has given us. Maybe two bodies repel each other,,,, who knows ;p

[@xhesil8848]

@@mykindoftime at most scales, Gravity works fine, because the noise making exact measurement impossible is negligible. The phenomenon of gravity is still extremely observable.

[@nobody....168]

Wait a couple of years Murph and Alfred are working on it

[@neiloppa2620]

@@stevenutter3614 which movie?

[@darkseid856]

Btw how he ended up flowing in space next to Saturn (I think) even tough he was inside the black hole ?

[@bobbobker3911]

Neil oppa interstellar

[@DeepakKumar-gd1wg]

@@darkseid856 sci-fic things

[@DeepakKumar-gd1wg]

@@neiloppa2620 wtf you don't know about "interstellar" movie😨

[@drewbutler8432]

Me: Watching video, pretending to understand everything

[@ProNoobAgarCOC]

lol, same dw

[@nothing9220]

Just keep watching you would not have to pretend anymore

[@eve_avery]

That was me a year ago too

[@zylnexxd842]

Lol

[@abhayrajsingh7587]

@@eve_avery what bout now!?

[@frankman2]

I'm not losing sleep over this. 0.01% precision for small objects 1 meter away is pretty good.

[@KermitFrogThe]

There is a large difference between knowing there is a potential inaccuracy and having it proven/ replaced. Until it is proven we use what we have. That is the fundamental of science and why it is the study of discovering questions. In this case the question are When does Newtonian gravitational law become provably inaccurate? What is the most accurate way of addressing this? Thank you for the video. I liked it even though I was expecting you to cover more of how we are addressing these 2 questions. It is a good intro into making people question science. Without doing this we cannot improve it.

[@jefferytownsend7787]

1. Gravity fits into relativity. You can use relativity to solve gravitation problems. 2. The gravitational constant is very small and depends of the mass of the object to provide a force. Boltzmans constant is freaking huge. Because of this, small charge has a noticable force. I'm not sure why that was neglected when making those points.

[@samburnes9389]

It seems to fit into relativity, but his point is that , just like we noticed Mercury’s orbit didn’t line up with what Newton predicted and we needed Einstein, some extreme may not line up with what Einstein predicted.

[@PratikChatse]

I have a masters in Engineering and I was unaware of the uncertainty about gravitational measurements wrt scale of distances. Thanks minute physics for enlightened video. I want to go back and study physics again.

[@ExhaustedElox]

I think the short distance gravity problem is very important because we need to know this answer to understand how stars formed in the early universe.

[@nuralimedeu]

Exhausted Elox D’oh! You’re right! How could we forget this?

[@Jackissimus]

At first, the video made me a bit unhappy at 0:31, when he said that for small masses we can't really measure the gravitational force. I was like "Does he not know about the 200 years old Cavendish experiment? What kind of a channel is this?" But as the video progressed, I realized that he does in fact know much more than I do, he just had to make shortcuts in order to make the video flow better. By the end I learned so much about our current understanding of gravity, that I can't help but love this channel :-)

[@Infi9tea]

*Gravity* pulled me here

[@nadjikernel9110]

gravity brought me to reply you

[@XtreeM_FaiL]

RotBotSkot More like, gravity directed us here.

[@otsisippi1]

i dare say density did!

[@JaydenET]

otsisippi1 density is not a force

[@zylnexxd842]

Lol

[@enteatenea]

Could you please share the papers titles of some of the experiments that appear in the video as figures. I would love to grasp a read on them

[@debayandas1128]

See arxiv doi number in the top right corners

[@lboy9889]

These are the things that ARE taught when the formulae is explained, but people forget all these other bits and just memorize the formula.

[@mostlynew]

Luis - Nevermind understanding. That’s just for geeks. Formulas are easier to test for - get your ticket punched - and forget it.

[@philip6419]

The REAL problem is: There are TWO areas of Gravity, [Cosmological or Space, planets] and [effects of an object ON a planet] that Scientists want to jam together. HELLO.. They are DIFFERANT!

[@maalikserebryakov]

@@philip6419no they’re not. A planet is composed of the same shite any object is. It is composed of dirt, rocks, minerals etc all which individually are modelled by gravitation models the same way. Why do you think clumping them together suddenly means an entirely different thing is going on? You are like a child who sticks two lego bricks together and yells WOW WHERE DID THAT COME FROM THATD TOTALLY DIFFERENT 🤓🤓

[@neutronstarpilot4393]

All i know is that that stick figure looked pretty exited to have two sheep at the end there.

[@dhalsim-1]

A Welch stick figure

[@larslrs7234]

Regarding distances larger than a light year, don't forget the expansion of space.

[@KillaBitz]

This concept troubles me. If it's expanding then it's expanding at every scale. It's not like 0.9 light years isn't expanding while 1.1 light years is. Understand that I'm not correcting you or anything. I just can't understand what different scale makes. Couldn't the same thing be explained by atomic collapse (every atom getting smaller) (maybe the gluon field pulling quacks closer and closer) We would never be able to detect it if it was universal. My brain is melting.

[@larslrs7234]

​@@KillaBitz The effect of expansion increases with distance. At small distances, the effect of expansion is much smaller than the effect of gravity. In my previous post, the distance of one light year was chosen arbitrarily as a lower boundary for a consideration of the effect. The milky way has a diameter of 200,000 light years. I did some basic calculations based on the Hubble constant. In my opinion, the effect of expansion should not be neglected for such a distance. But so far, no astrophysicist wants to talk about the effect of expansion at a range of the diameter of the milky way. It seems, they only want to talk about expansion between galaxies but never about expansion on "smaller" scales. Yet, many say that space expands everywhere... Sometimes, I get the impression that they prefer talking about dark matter instead of taking consistently into account that space expands everywhere. The latter could have serious consequences. So, regarding your question about how to detect expansion of space: Well, that would be situations, where the law of gravity alone could not explain the observation. For example, like the circular velocity of stars inside the milky way...

[@nicuramar]

The Milky Way is gravitationally bound far far stronger than the expansion of space at that scale.

[@icebluscorpion]

We don't understand what Gravitation truly is.. So we speculate with formulas that define the relation of it but not the causes of it... It is like magnetism, we had to truly understand electricity to truly understand what Magnetism is... My opinion gravity is some sort of effect that acures like the effect of magnetism acures when electricity (flowing electrons) acures. If we could found a effect where you can convert gravity directly to electricity to measure gravitation then you could probably invert this effect and get gravitation from electricity like a peltier device

[@Stormwave6]

Found the electric universer

[@nuralimedeu]

*’Occurs’, not ‘acures’

[@drawapretzel6003]

The problem with gravity is that EVERYTHING attracts everything, we arent just point masses with some acceleration. At the atomic scale, the force of gravity may only extend to within the radius of a nuclei simply BECAUSE everything else is farther away than the earth is from the moon. The other thing we have to remember, is gravity actually isnt newtonian, it is relativistic, the whole reason gravity works is it is a gradient in space-time, applying uneven forces to masses in the T dimension, because it warps space in the normal 3 dimensions. So, we would be better off creating a new rule of universal relativistic gravitation, where the warping of space time is instead taken into account based on mass and distance. Because who knows, maybe the reason gravity doesnt seem to work the same on small and large scales is merely because of the sheer amount of space warp created by black holes, and the sheer amount of space warp caused by atoms in literally every direction. The force of gravity gets smaller the further away you are, so if gravity ITSELF affects space-time and affects how far away something IS, then that would change how much it attracts something. We arent falling down, we are moving in the same direction we always were, but space has warped around us to change the vector angle to point towards the largest nearby mass.

[@stefanschnabel2769]

Are you trying to be funny?

[@drawapretzel6003]

@@stefanschnabel2769 i take it from your sarcastic tone either you are confused or haughty, so to answer your question, no. I am responding to topics mentioned in the video, and talking about how gravity bends space-time. If these concepts are over your head, i believe Vsauce does a really good video explaining gravity.

[@stefanschnabel2769]

@@drawapretzel6003 Sorry, that question wasn't sarcastic at all. I was honestly wondering whether this was a parody of all those inept recapitulations of half-understood concepts and ideas that you find online these days. It's a shame that it isn't.

[@drawapretzel6003]

@@stefanschnabel2769 why would you prefer it was a parody? the parts that are accurate are accurate, the parts that are speculation are speculation. i know full well that they havent been able to come up with a better gravitometric constant to explain galaxy wide gravity effects, but, theyve also not taken relativity and space warping into account either, and thats necessary to think about when thinking on inter galactic scales. Just recently theyre finding inconsistent readings in the expansion of the universe based on different standard candles, and its entirely possible that instead of being constant, it is changing in some fashion, i have a very good theory on why galaxies are accelerating apart, not that anyone seems to care, but it goes back to space warping.

[@stefanschnabel2769]

@@drawapretzel6003 I would like to imagine you as a reasonable person. That's why. Your entire initial post is a mess. Just one example "gravity (...) is a gradient in space-time". That is nonsense. Gravity is a phenomenon that is related to the curvature of space. There is no such thing as a "gradient in space-time". All the other sentences are as bad or worse. I will most certainly deeply regrett asking this question but let's do it anyways: What do you even mean by "warping of space time"? Please be as precise as possible. The more actual formulae the better. P.S.: The singular of "nucleus" is "nucleus".

[@hongeeleow7506]

For very small objects, yes the gravitational pull is very small but the reason why they don't move towards one another is that this gravitational pull is smaller than the inertia needed to move the objects. If we were to put them in space with no gravitational fields, they will eventually move towards one another over time

[@hongeeleow7506]

Also the reason why Einstein's general relativity explains gravity better because it not only takes into account effects of very big masses (very big gravitational fields) like blackholes or very small objects but also for massless objects like light and how it bends around a gravitational field when Newton's law of universal gravitation requires objects with mass to be affected by gravity

[@samburnes9389]

But we can’t prove that they will come together like we predict. Just like the orbit of mercury didn’t line up for Newton, so to this might not line up for Einstein. It probably will, but uncertainty exists

[@VariantAEC]

Thanks for this. Gravity is a tougher thing to measure than people give it credit for. Mathematical equations can only go so far, without real testing we cannot verify accuracy of the force of gravity on all scales.

[@DrakiniteOfficial]

Thanks for clarifying our uncertainty about gravity. It's pretty clear how little the everyday person knows about gravity, too. The other day, I was talking to my differential equations teacher after class, and he started spewing conspiracy theories at me about science and physics. I won't bore you with the details (unless someone replies and asks), but he's under the impression that NASA used anti-gravity technology to land on the Moon, and that electrons/protons get their energy from another dimension. When a nutcase doesn't understand something, they come up with wild explanations for it that make Absolutely no sense. Maybe I can show this to him, and maybe it can give him some insight on the fact that No, Gravity Isn't Understood. (... though with my luck, he'd just say "This is just another cover-up. Minutephysics is working for the government and is lying to us about the truth of gravity.")

[@siddiki9778]

Same. One of my HS physics teacher used to say that, CERN is actually trying to open a portal to hell and the devils are actually helping CERN scientists in order to do that (He cites that ritual hoax video when questioned). He also believes that, 5G is gonna fry our brain 😂

[@DrakiniteOfficial]

@@siddiki9778 Yowza.

[@darkseid856]

How is he even a teacher ?

[@sam93931]

If newton hadn't invented gravity, we would be floating around right now!

[@sam93931]

@AmplifiedSilence Go away punk!

[@matiasgarciacasas558]

AmplifiedSilence what the heck is wrong with you

[@sam93931]

@AmplifiedSilence punk kid is easily triggered...

[@darthmortem585]

AmplifiedSilence you are one of those people who have joke dancing naked infront of you and you don’t recognise it

[@supC_]

AmplifiedSilence r/whooosh

[@Akhileshkhajuria]

I remember using this equation for atoms in school. Now I'm questioning if my degree is valid?

[@mukrifachri]

Science experiment : looks pointless, ends up very useful a few centuries later.

[@9308323]

That definitely is true. It's mainly because we don't know what we don't know. Sounds "pointless and obvious," but a lot of our innovations right now wouldn't be possible if scientists aren't painstakingly verifying what we know and constantly asking questions.

[@exoplanets]

*_I only know that I know nothing_*

[@vitakyo982]

Nothing ? Neither to write ?

[@q.e.d.9112]

The Exoplanets Channel Manuel? Is that you? I thought you’d gone back to Barcelona. Polly sends regards.

[@manojpadhan9378]

Paradoxical

[@shattered2137]

*Deep quote, but not yours*

[@vickryan4007]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bYepe4arjMilr5Y

[@karioken]

That's why I think there is no need for dark matter in the universe. Gravity behaves differently when there are a lot of massive objects (Stars, Black holes, etc.) scattered around - like in galaxies. I know this is no mathematical description. ;)

[@carlosalexandreFAT]

The Euler Number is approximately: 2.71828... Newton’s law of gravitation: G = 6.67 x 10^-11 N.m^2/kg^2. Golden number: 1.618ɸ (2.71828 ^ 6.67) x 1.618 x 10 = 12,756.23 Earth’s equatorial diameter: 12,756 km. Golden number: 1.618 Golden Angle: 137.5 Earth's equatorial radius: 6,378 Universal Gravitation G = 6.67 x 10^-11 N.m^2/kg^2. (((1.618 ^137.5) / 6,378) / 6.67) x (10^-20) = 12,756.62 Earth’s equatorial diameter: 12,756 km. Earth's equatorial diameter: 12,756 km. Speed of light: 299,792,458 m/s. Universal Gravitation G = 6.67 x 10^-11 N.m^2/kg^2. (12,756 / 299,792,458) / 6.67 x (10^9) - 1 = 6,378.22 Earth's equatorial radius: 6,378 km. Book: Orion: The Connection between Heaven and Earth eBook Kindle

[@konstantinkh]

For the first time, I have to say, "Booo!" I mean, confirming things with direct experiment is great, and we should keep trying to do so even when it seems wasteful, but sometimes you have to accept indirect confirmation when direct experiment is infeasible and there isn't at least a plausible mode of failure. General Relativity and Quantum Electrodynamics are both gauge theories and together have been probed to precision of better than 10 decimal places on scales from electrons to neutron stars. That's an absurdly good coverage. So we can say that gauge theory works at all scales at which we can conduct an observation. If we can agree on which degrees of freedom have local symmetries, we can construct a field theory for it that will be correct to the absolute best of our combined scientific knowledge. That leaves two possibilities. Either Poincare symmetries, which lead to General Relativity as a gauge theory, break down at microscopic scale, or we can apply General Relativity until quantum effects kick in. And we would have seen the effects of the former, because it would actually break relativistic effects in QED as well, and these are some of the best measurements we have in physics! And sure, quantum gravity is a thing, so there's certainly a scale at which all of this breaks down. But evidence for universal law of gravity being applicable and correct for something like grains of sand is absolutely overwhelming. The kind of elephant that would have to be hiding in proverbial room for this not to be the case and for us to have not found a thorn in particle physics that indicates it is absolutely unprecedented. And a lot of it, like anisotropies of space that would indicate space-time symmetries being different at microscopic scales, people have been actively looking for with zero success for a long time. Law of Universal Gravity may have started as an empirical formula that required direct experimental verification, but we've gone way past that point. And when viewed as a classical approximation to the effective field theory on the underlying quantum gravity, it has experimental backing of basically the entirety of modern physics.

[@malejeeck]

Наконец то подняли такой важный вопрос. Давно стоило в этом разобраться.

[@degrelleholt6314]

Well, I know the gravitational pull between a cheeseburger and my mouth is pretty damned strong.

[@daithiocinnsealach1982]

This video is basically a variation on the rhetorical question: How long is a piece of string? 1:45 There are no laws per se, only observations made at certain frequencies and densities.

[@Ulturism]

This was one of the most informative, interesting and well structured explination videos that I have ever seen. I love it. Thank you! PErmission to use this in High School science classes?

[@sphakamisozondi]

0:57 Flat earthers left the chat.

[@dhalsim-1]

Earth is flat.

[@harambey]

Earth is flat.

[@kripeshkr.3865]

Earth is fkd up

[@mauricecardinal6352]

It's 100% flat, immovable and established firm.

[@whatifyellow5679]

screw round earth, never mind flat earth, from now on I am a BUMPY EARTHER! i mean i have seen alot of the earth and it sure was bumpy

[@ShoeibShargo]

Veritasium is running after views now but you are still precise and state to the point physics. Take love, sir.

[@nickhayley]

THANKYOU. Now I'm both certain and uncertain I know about these gravitational uncertainties.

[@Smonserratm]

I think gravity has also been measured with small objects. Like the Cavendish experiment I mean

[@sofieselene]

It has, yes. That experiment used a torsion balance and a pair of 160kg masses. Torsion balances are quite effective at measuring tiny changes in force, but 160kg is still quite large when compared to the scale of, say, molecules. The question that concerns this video is whether the gravitational force follows Newton's Law when the masses involved are extremely low, ranging from a few grams to the scale of molecules and atoms.

[@Smonserratm]

@@sofieselene I just think refering to molecular scales but showing pictures of cats and humans on the video is misleading

[@sofieselene]

@@Smonserratm It's easier to depict cats and humans than it is molecules, so there's that. The scale is also from a few grams on down, so maybe insects would have been a better choice or some such.

[@hail_2_u321]

"Do you believe in gravity?" - a gay blond vampire

[@matthewto7406]

Not where I thought I would find a JoJo reference

[@kirklandday]

was looking for this, thank you.

[@baronDioxid]

Totally expected.

[@gemmaalguero8913]

I wasn't expecting to see a reference here but good job

[@its_me_kirankumar]

Why there is a negative sign in the equation

[@00ryanm00]

Its just convention. Usually away from the earths surface is taken in the positive direction. Since gravity pulls things towards earth it pulls down in the negative direction. Forces are vectors so they need a direction. But if you choose a different set of basis vectors you can make the force of gravity positive too. It doesnt matter.

[@faznaz7455]

@@00ryanm00 I do believe there's more to it than convention but i cant seem to recall exaxtly what it is.

[@00ryanm00]

@@faznaz7455 its definitly convention. For notation, Ill let hat{x} be the unit vector of a vector vec{x}. I let vec{x} be the displacement. You may be confusing the force of gravity's negative sign with that of a spring. The force from a spring is F= -kx hat{x}. Here the negative sign is necessary because the force always points in the opposite direction as the displacement of the mass on the spring. If you define left of equilibrium as negative and you pull the spring in the negative direction, the force is positive. If you define right of equilibrium as negative and pull right, the force is positive. So in both scenarios, the negative sign must be included in the force to make the force go in the right direction. For gravity, the force is F= mg hat{g} where g is the acceleration due to gravity (the force always points in the direction the object is accelerating towards). If I define up to be the positive direction, the force must point down so you need the negative sign in front of the force to make it negative. If I define down to be the positve direction, I dont need to put the negative sign in front of the force because the force is already acting down. Therefore, for the force due to gravity the negative is only needed if you define the up direction to be positive. And this is convention. You can make down the positive direction and then you dont need the negative sign for the force of gravity. The negative sign is not fundamental like it is for a spring. What matters is the basis vector.

[@faznaz7455]

@@00ryanm00 Thank you for taking your time. And now i realise that i did overlook something and it caused a bit of confusion however it was clarified. Thanks again.

[@its_me_kirankumar]

@@00ryanm00 thanks for your explanation

[@mahxylim7983]

The most known stuff are the easiest to overlook, its always good to have a lil reminder! nice vid!

[@deepashtray5605]

Maybe the 0.01% discrepancy would be less if the experiment were done in the vacuum of space and not on the surface of a planet.

[@austingoh8112]

Just cause you're in space doesn't mean that you don't feel the effects of the earth's gravitational pull. Its weaker yes. But its still there and therefore would still introduce a level of bias/discrepancy

[@deepashtray5605]

@@austingoh8112 That would make an interesting experiment, looking for a discrepancy at different distances from various types of massive bodies such as a planet or star.

[@therealzilch]

Fascinating. I must say, though, Newton serves me well day-to-day.

[@rigvedanshtripathi1503]

3:50 We can't use these other formulae since they are dimensionally incorrect

[@EebstertheGreat]

You can simply change the constant of proportionality. Technically, if any of these laws applied at some scale, there would have to be a more general law that approximated both laws at the appropriate scales. That's why he said that if there is an extra hidden dimension, the force of gravity would technically only be _approximately_ proportional to the inverse square of the distance at large scales and the inverse cube at small scales.

[@alancham4]

I think the answer is in a 4th spacial dimension. Your focus on scales is apt. I think we’re overlooking the obvious gravity at subatomic scales.

[@Bigfoot_With_Internet_Access]

Us: *Is ignorant about gravity* Gravity: Am I a joke to you?

[@magno5157]

Us: No, we're just uncertain whether you're a joke.

[@RazorBaze]

I do like (I don't really) how u pointed out that GR is more accurate than 300 y.o. theory, and then spent 5 minutes speaking about that old theory.

[@gardenhead92]

But GR is only more accurate at large scales (i.e. extremely high mass). BOTH theories fail on the small scale, which was the point of this video.

[@RazorBaze]

@@gardenhead92 My point was, I'd rather see same video from GR perspective.

[@laharalal5960]

@@RazorBaze Maybe you can improve your understandig of physics because from the point of view of a physicist newton's law is as important as GR. For example the same gravitational G constant of the universal law is needed in the most important equations of GR. So they are closely related. Something missing in the video is that this "universal" law is not only used in the scale of solar system, it is also used in the galaxy and galaxy clusters scale. Dark matter was discovered using the same old law. Because numeric GR is very difficult to handle, physicists and astronomers have to make simulations using classical mechanics when it is more convenient than using quantum physics or GR. Even so, is way more easier working with computational quantum mechanics than computational GR, and quantum mechanics is the most precisely tested scientific theory we have. On the other hand, you can find GR videos on this channel too.

[@mbrusyda9437]

@@gardenhead92 No, the point is that we don't even know whether the theories fail or not on the small (non-quantum) scale

[@RazorBaze]

@@laharalal5960 I'm just not into approximations. If there was a way for me to do a complex simulation using GR math - I'd do it; instead of wasting everybody's time pointing out the obvious.

[@cyruszahed2955]

No, newton's law is not wrong but incomplete. Good video

[@defenestrator9119]

A lot of people still view gravity in a Newtonian sense. As though gravity means the 2 objects are directly tugging on each other. But general relativity, which has been experimentally supported over and over, tells us it's better thought about as matter and energy being able to warp space/time, and then because space is warped, the objects move. I've heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson quote Einstein once as "Matter tells space how to curve. Space tells matter how to move." You can think of gravity as a one-directional standing wave in a field, in a similar way to how we think of light/radio/all EM radiation being waves in the electromagnetic field. Some of the math suggests that perhaps even gravity is not just one-directional. Perhaps it is possible to bend space/time in the opposite direction, which we call "negative energy" or "negative matter" (not seen or confirmed yet). This would be matter or energy that warps space/time in the opposite direction. If this is possible it opens up all kinds of possibilities, such as FTL travel through manipulation of space/time (the Alcubierre drive), and being able to negate the effects of the gravity well you're in (levitation).

[@lionelcarnel9642]

Gravity is hocus Pocus

[@cyruszahed2955]

@@lionelcarnel9642 le rappeur ?

[@soumyasishbhattacharyya2805]

@Kung Lao and it is to be remembered he gave us this law back in the 1600s

[@lachlansydneymcintosh]

cyrus zahed It is wrong because, well it doesn’t work at all scale.

[@Method9]

Great video, I really liked the parts about uncertainty. Still, I feel like a disservice was done to the viewers by not mentioning the unification of spacetime, Lorentz transformations, or the way in which the Lorentz factor scales so as to allow for classical equations to work at the sizes that you've illustrated here. An object's size and the strength of the 'force' of gravity between two black holes are two very different measurements being used to disqualify Newton's classical equations, when all you need is the difference between reference frames to see why the classical equations cease to apply accurately.

[@tedreynolds3338]

Just when I thought I was smart, KZbin sent me this.

[@donsimonds5186]

Yes they sent you this and now you know you're as dumb as they are, what happens if Dumb and Dumber breed? You end up with another dummy.

[@kerrymcauliffe9906]

Um...no offense but this video should not be a measure of intelligence for anyone.

[@DeezNutz-yg8io]

As Socrates reportedly said, all I know is that I know everything (expletiiiiive)! disclaimer: This is not the real quote

[@eve_avery]

Did this video make you feel dumb? Learn more and stay curious. Then eventually it won't. Something else will.

[@SirBenJamin_]

We need to get cloning working, so we can dig up Einstein, clone him a million times, and then get a million Einsteins working on these problems! I think my idea sounds sensible and we should totally do it! NOW! .. who is with me?

[@giraitnagamer]

Why couldn't G not be a constant but instead be composed of other constants and variables and that's why it's very uncertain (because it's not accurate)

[@framegrace1]

That's may well be what will happen, if they find how it works. (Einstein's gravity formula is just what you describe, but on Mass. It was composed of other components instead of M). Making G a field for example, or things like that.

[@jdalton4552]

The shape of the uncertainty curve gives a clue to the origin of the uncertainty. Its obvious that uncertainty increases much more as distance decreases than as distance increases. This is exactly what Dewey Larson.s Reciprocal theory predicts. In that theory he postulates a separate region of space, called unit space (where space is less than 4.5 times 10 to the minus 6 cm), where the gravitational constant is subject to random variability due to motion inside unit space which can be positive or negative.

[@PaoloFarinellaPhoto]

Isn't Newtow's gravitational law a specific case of the General Theroy gravitational law?

[@calmeilles]

No. Newton's law doesn't really go further than describing an observed phenomenon.

[@EebstertheGreat]

It is. Newton's law of gravity is the special case that applies in nonrelativistic settings. A more precise way of saying it is that in nonrelativistic settings (small energies and densities), the difference between the predictions of GR and Newtonian gravity is negligible.

[@EpiCuber7]

Why can't we just use general relativity for subatomic attractions?

[@User-jr7vf]

Because general relativity reduces to Newtonian relativity for nuclei, and the latter won't give you accurate results cause it doesn't take quantum effects into account.

[@isaactfa]

I'm not an expert at any rate, so don't take this as gospel, but I believe that at the subatomic level quantum-mechanical effects like the Uncertainty Principal come into effect, which means we can't measure a "particle's" properties independently anymore. General relativity is still based on classical mechanics, reliant on momentum, position, acceleration, and so forth, so if we can't determine those quantities, we can't apply GTR. As of yet, it's sadly irreconcilable with quantum mechanics.

[@morvan4175]

As a brief disclaimer: I did not follow a course on general relativity yet. However I think that when general relativity is applied without the presence of a very strong gravitational field it will be very be almost identical to Newtonian mechanics. Just like when special relativity is applied to low velocities it will be barely different from the Newtonian approach.

[@mbrusyda9437]

@@User-jr7vf and according to the video the latter may still won't give you accurate results even without quantum effects

[@CaptEvangelion]

Wait, would factoring in the scale ratio to Newton’s “Universal Law” of Gravity give a better explanation of its workings at these inaccurate scales?

[@skepticmoderate5790]

No. Before you formulate a law, you must first KNOW the effects of that law at all scales you are interested in. As he stated in the video, we simply don't know the magnitude of gravity at the quantum level, so we can't formulate a law.

[@null-0x]

There is a theory called Modified Newtonian Dynamics(MOND) which works on the principle that Law of Gravitation changes with the scale.

[@jeffdege4786]

We also assume that electrical and magnetic attraction can be ignored over interstellar or intergalactic distances. And we may be wrong there, too.

[@filiphavojic8045]

Actually Newton's law of universal gravitation cannot explain Mercury's orbit... But never met a physicist ignorant about this.

[@thehiddenninja3428]

Indeed. It's close enough to the sun's high gravity for the inaccuracy to show, and we need Einstein's general relativity to be accurate. But is Einstein's gravity measurably any more accurate than Newton's at small scales?

[@sofieselene]

Nitpicking. The video's author knows that, it's just that mercury is the exception, and Newton's law still gets it mostly right. 5 minutes is nowhere near enough time to go into all the gritty details. The fact remains that Newton's law is a very good approximation of the gravitational interaction on low energy scales, namely from the interactions of planetary bodies on down.

[@bp9762]

It has been known for a while that proximity to large masses distorts time. It is even liely that gravity and time are two expressions of the same phenomenon.

[@ongvalcot6873]

No, it can explain Mercury. if Sun mass distribution is oblate spheroid. Or if we assume that gravity field propagates with a finite speed as a retarded potential.

[@sofieselene]

@@bp9762 Haha, no. The actual explanation is that the universe is actually four dimensional, with 3 dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. Combined, they are referred to as space-time, and the gravitational force acts to warp this space-time. Time and gravity are not expressions of the same thing - space and time are. It is simply that much like physical objects can progress through the spatial dimensions with which we are familiar, so too can causality progress through its own dimension, that of time.

[@MirlitronOne]

Hey, if Newton's Law ISN'T universal, it may be that "dark matter" need not exist - which could explain why, after 30 years, we still haven't found any.

[@brandonhughes645]

We can't physically find dark matter. It will be found in the math somewhere. I could take another year or 100 years to figure the problem out.

[@Ignacio.Romero]

Your comment makes no sense

[@jqbyteam]

​@@Ignacio.Romeroit does

[@Ignacio.Romero]

@@jqbyteam Newton's Law is not how we model, therefore no, it doesn't

[@cautiousoptimist]

Newton's gravity matched the observational limitations of the time...

[@cozmo8849]

Really

[@TIJEY-BEG]

You are great! Soon I can make my doctoral degree in Minute Physics. But really, you helped me a lot.

[@rick4electric]

Thanks ALSO for supporting the theory that Einstein was a genius! They are MASTERS of distribution!

[@Cypekeh]

Why's there a minus in the equation? 0:10

[@pgoeds7420]

The force is an attraction that tends to decrease rather than increase the separation (r).

[@simonsidorov8315]

The explanation in the first answer works for a minus in the corresponding relation for energy. For force, technically it comes from the fact that the force exerted on the second body by the first one, is opposite in direction to the vector connecting the first body with the second one. As a result, r=-r_12, where both these r are vector values. But yeah, the same should happen for any attracting forces.

[@bartonpaullevenson3427]

Gravitation between two relatively small objects was tested in the Cavendish experiment in 1798.

[@coleozaeta6344]

He used .73 kg weights. Those are huge compared to individual particles.

[@donsimonds5186]

Nobody cares about that either. We are held to the Earth , we live our lives on this little blue ball, and for what? The Lord Has Told The Old Man and what does the Lord require of thee but to do justice to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. To get that one mixed up is to have eternal judgment fall on your back and it will crush you forever and ever.

[@duncankelly4354]

And has never been repeated. Science. Provable. Repeatable.

[@ricomotions5416]

@@donsimonds5186 what

[@alexpotts6520]

And he was able to measure it with an uncertainty of less than 1%, which is quite remarkable. Even today, with technology that would have seemed like magic to Cavendish, we can't do much better than 0.01%.

[@moshebr-c9q]

This explanation just opened my eyes this explanation is so clear much better than others I just don’t know from where such knowledge comes from.

[@WorthlessWinner]

Here I was thinking uncertainty was confined to the life and social sciences, now you tell me it's in the physical sciences too :P

[@JamesDavy2009]

If you read up about Heisenberg, his uncertainty principle tells us we can never be certain about what's going on in the quantum scale. It was something that Einstein disbelieved with his statement "God does not throw dice."

[@WorthlessWinner]

@@JamesDavy2009 - That's a slightly different kind of uncertainty but you're right that it exists. I'm still on Einstein's side on that issue though. Heissenberg didn't seem to want to know what was going on at the small scale, only to make predictions (I'm bad at math so am going by his reasoning in words, in "physics and philosophy," which means I'm almost certainly missing a lot). While simple hidden variable theories have been disprove, those with non-local hidden variables like Pilot wave theory supposedly were not. Linked channel has a lot of good videos on those theories, though even the video maker isn't sure if they're true. kzbin.info

[@meatloaf6107]

So whatever I learnt in school was wrong? My future is bright!!

[@hoveringvan9961]

No and no

[@YounesLayachi]

100% of what you learn in school (physics, chemistry, even some maths and biology) is wrong

[@jinojohnson9653]

@@YounesLayachi what? Oh flat earther ok bye

[@danilooliveira6580]

only fractions of a percentile wrong, and very VERY incomplete.

[@anullhandle]

@@YounesLayachi change the last word "incomplete" and you're on the right path.

[@ethribin4188]

Gravity is theweakest force in the universe. But the most ineneviteable too. In the end, gravity will always win.

[@GrahamMilkdrop]

When I was a kid I imagined gravity as everything expanding in size at the same ever accelerating rate. I think iy was my way of understanding the feather and hammer on the moon experiment.

[@anmoldeepsingh9281]

I think it should be positive (GMm)/r^2 and there shouldn’t be the negative sign. I think the negative sign belongs to the gravitational potential formula. Please correct if I am wrong

[@bertsiimon2879]

Well since you lose potential energy and gain kinetic i think that it's only logical that potential energy equation is +. Also since 2 postive charges with positive force repel each other then negative force would be pulling force.

[@jovanovicoliver]

It depends what you want: 1. If you need intensity, no need for negativity. 2. If placed negative sign, that usually mean: force is directed opposite to the direction of axis (increase), r in this case. I always avoid the negative sign, me no like that, even if it is right thing to do.

[@ryansmith135]

Chronos King it is entirely dependent on your reference point.

[@wurttmapper2200]

He is using a coordinate system in which outwards is positive and inwards is negative.

[@JANJAN-vw3km]

@@wurttmapper2200 yes but if you take the moon as reference point, an object falling to earth has a positive gravitational force even though an object goes inward to the earth

[@shaylempert9994]

Great video! To me it seems crazy to apply laws that weren't experimentally proven. The whole point of science is to use testable hypothesis, that were experimentally proven to be good approximations of reality!

[@NotCapitalist]

Any result is an approximation, and it's going to have bounds of applicability. Newton's Law has been shown to be a good approximation for planets, but we know it's wrong, which I'm sure the OP knows but doesn't do a great job of explaining. General Relativity describes how gravity works on larger scales (planets and black holes), but nobody knows how gravity works on very small scales (i.e. Quantum gravity).

[@shaylempert9994]

@@NotCapitalist yes, of course.

[@fawzanfawzi9993]

0:54 "The earth looks flat when you're relatively close to the ground" Check mate Round Eathers

[@darkseid856]

*Flat earthers

[@eugenebunt5515]

Einstein explained gravity over one hundred years ago: He said it was warped space-time and told where to look for it, the bending of light in a gravitational field. He explained the bending of light was caused by space rising from the surface of the Sun, as space rises light coming from the background constellation passing close to the surface of the Sun, enters the rising space at a higher level on the far side, and as the space rises it exits lower on our side as it travels toward us making, the images of the stars appear as if they are at a wider angle away from the Sun (the gravitation lens effect). He also said time slows in the presence of mass, with rising space coming from the core of the Earth (our gravity source) we move farther, faster toward the gravity source than matter moves away from it. With matter moving toward the core, matter applies pressure on the core, anything put under pressure radiates heat (long-wave energy) in essence elongating the fabric of space vertically to the planet's surface which allows light to make longer jumps per second. Change in momentum lags behind the change in velocity. Matter does not pull on matter, we are decelerating on the planet's surface at the rate of acceleration that the core is expanding new space as the surface pressure is heating the core. Gravity is a change in uniform motion.