The Rise of Einstein's Special Relativity

Рет қаралды 12,680

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 24

@JohnBl7167 3 ай бұрын

Much appreciate the time and effort you put into making these videos and making them available on YT. They are perfect for someone like myself to fill in the (many) gaps I need to get the most out of the research I do just for personal interest. Regret wasting too much time at school now 😊

@JasonKendallAstronomer 3 ай бұрын

My pleasure!

@johnrichardson8606 3 ай бұрын

Honestly, what on earth is going on here... after every *single* science video I watch, KZbin Autoplay sends me to Jason bloody Kendall! It is 100% consistent. To say this channel is blessed by the algorithm is an understatement. This is absolute sorcery.

@CosmologDiraEinstformula 3 ай бұрын

53:04 The Invariance proof is easy: the boxed equations can be ct sq suntracted from both sides, hiving a value zero, hence 0=0 is true in all frames, follows interval ds is also invariant hence equal to dx^2 -(ct)^2 , which is equal to 0 (from the boxed equation transformed by a subtracting first grader maths student)

@graham2105 3 ай бұрын

I appreciate the odd digression, it feels more natural to listen to. Thankyou

@JasonKendallAstronomer 3 ай бұрын

Thanks for listening

@MarthaStill-y1v 2 ай бұрын

Thanks so much for this excellent video. I wasn't interested in physics when I was in school so now I am making up for lost time!

@JasonKendallAstronomer 2 ай бұрын

Glad you’re enjoying it!

@robynsnest8668 3 ай бұрын

Okay, a new one! Yay!! Now, I have an honest question that bugs me and I don't even know HOW to ask it. I grew up in a very strict southern YEC church. Don't cry for me, but I came 30 years late to how the real world is. Not going to disparage anyone but I have been trying to wrap my head around several things that don't make sense to me. I have watched many many hours of your videos alone, been reading book after book and just digesting as much as I can. When I ask a question it comes from a genuine wonderment and not a troll. Here is my question, and please forgive me because I may not even ask it right. And feel free to refer me to a video if you can. Question: When did mass start being a thing? At what point was there no mass and when was there? Plank time start? Before inflation? After? When? Because, as I understand it, common start was at a singularity and there couldn't be anything with mass at that point. How would it be able to escape the starting state of the universe if it was? Would be, according to what I understand a primordial Black Hole. If there wasn't a singularity start, there still had to be a start for mass as it was all energy at the begining then into quarks, protons and so forth. I am missing something and don't get it and get hung up on it. And I have a very good grasp on just about everything albeit at a low level, but I can follow everything except the actual math. So of you could direct me I would be very very grateful as I also try and talk to my family. Thank you for the years of videos and I hope I very much asked my question in such a way as you can figure out what I am trying to ask.

@JasonKendallAstronomer 3 ай бұрын

Not a bad question at all. Mass arises through the Higgs Field mechanism. I’m sure you’ve tried to plow through the videos and arcane wiki references, to no avail. At this moment, I don’t have a simpler way to describe it. There’s no Big Size Scale metaphors or analogies that work nicely. I’ll work on it though, since it’s important for this series.

@robynsnest8668 3 ай бұрын

thank you. Best answer I got, or nearest I can figure was like 10-46 when the higgs got a hold of(sorry for the term) proton and neutron but then again is my question. Even at that point, wouldn't the universe need to be larger then what the singularity for the mass of the universe would be? It is nice to know this confusion I have isn't unique. I have come across too many "it is what it is" answers and it just doesn't sit well with me. I did come across something that was wild about neutrinos are so massless because they are possibly their own antiparticle. Man, that was a rabbit hole. Thanks for the reply, I'll keep an eye out for more info and videos. I am in my fifties and still seeing the universe with the eyes of wonderment as a child it seems @@JasonKendallAstronomer

@JasonKendallAstronomer 3 ай бұрын

That's one of the things about some of the more far-flung areas of Physics. Because they are inherently quantum-mechanical in nature, their descriptions of necessity must be principally mathematical. Is there a Faraday-like "lines of force" type metaphor that helps us truly understand it? I'm not sure. At this time, it's much like "what's a Mahler Symphony like? I'd like to know in simple terms." And the real answer is to near the symphony played. Or learn to play the french horn part. But, there's no metaphor for a symphony that gets the essence of it. It's a fully realized thing that needs time to experience. Perhaps a Marth Graham dance performance is another thing like this. You just have to allow it to be with you as you work it, and it's the working of it, mathematically, that gives the understanding.

@tradtke101 3 ай бұрын

>How would it be able to escape the starting state of the universe if it was? I struggled with this one. Ultimately what helped me is to consider a star, or supernova, or Quasar... massive objects suddenly violating the normal principle of "gravity brings stuff together". For the stars it has to do with the properties of atoms and the nuclear forces and fusion- enough pressure from gravity overcomes the usual repulsion and fuses the atoms causing a massive release of energy in all directions accelerating away faster than gravity accelerates them together. In a quasar its gravity and friction and magnetic fields causing gas to emit energy and particles to be ejected to relieve the traffic jam, and since it is the accretion disk and not within the event horizon enough force can get some lucky particles and photons out. Oh, or galaxies? There's an expansion of spacetime that could influence things? I mean, why are galaxies moving apart rather than accumulating- because spacetime is expanding and it far enough distances that's > than gravity. This is obviously just my dumb layman's rationale and I don't claim to know what I'm talking about. But basically I found it helpful to just think of OTHER things that act counter-intuitively like the big bang. And there's various examples at different scales from different forces. So that makes it easier for me to be like, welp, something was different, because the conditions were NUTTTTSSS. But seeing as there were no particles and gravity is playing for the other team, expansion of spacetime seems like the logical place to look. And indeed in some googling there is a lot of conflicting info but a RAPID expansion of spacetime seems the underlying principle. So basically, this overrides the normal rule about not escaping the singularity. Gravity is still pulling stuff harder than anything can get away (including light). BUT, the distance between EVERYTHING (and the effective barycenter) increases so much that gravity is much weaker. This actually happens in a normal black hole from what ive read- spacetime expands like it does everywhere- but its so small as to be negligible. But at the Big Band, the spacetime expansion was enough to break the usual behavior. I think. I could definitely be wrong and maybe its not even helpful. But idk, that's what I was able to come up with after an hour or two of musing and picking mites out of my fur. But I gotta go, it's dinner time, and if I'm late my wife mite bug out.

@WEPayne 3 ай бұрын

Howdy Jason, long time fan, THANKS, an keep up your MityFine work !! In Relativity you touched on the significance of μ and ϵ , but you only gave half the story. Units of μ are commonly given as Henrys/meter and ϵ as Farads/meter. Using the definition of Henry and Farad these further reduce to μ is in Volt*sec/Amp*m ϵ is in Amp*sec/Volt*m. At the start I write the numerical values of μ and ϵ on the chalkboard, before unwrapping the beautiful symmetry that lies here :) Taking the ratio of μ and ϵ cancels the space time units and leaves only electrical units squared. The square root comes out as 377 Ohms, or near 120 π Ohms, a marvelous number. In Antenna Theory there are "near fields" with inverse 4th and 6th power dependence. Computation of these are a delightfully diabolic way to torture undergrads. But once these EM waves or photons leave the source only the square law term remains, and in free space the ratio of electric to magnetic field is ALWAYS EXACTLY this number, from radio waves to gamma rays. After getting 120 π ohms and explaining its significance then I point out the product of μ and ϵ cancels out electrical units an leaves only space time units squared. And I stop and wait. They look at chalkboard, Calculators come out, and pretty soon students start to holler "THE SPEED OF LIGHT!!!" Always a wonderful moment :) Cheers ! Payne

@JasonKendallAstronomer 3 ай бұрын

That is truly amazing and would be seriously worth a video if you could swing it

@benquinneyiii7941 3 ай бұрын

What is doing the waving?

@JasonKendallAstronomer 3 ай бұрын

That asks for a medium, and that's been disproven. Light's wave properties do not rely on a medium. Loosely, light's medium is itself; that is, the Electric and Magnetic fields oscillate at right angles to each other. electric'ty's medium is the magnetic field, and the magnetism's medium is the electric field. Very very very loose thinking, but it works-ish.

@MajSolo 3 ай бұрын

Jason I love you. Hrrrrrm boy to boy I like you none of that other stuff. Einstein changed things. And some other person came along and summarized it all "matter tell space how to curve, space tell matter how to move"

@JasonKendallAstronomer 3 ай бұрын

Einstein did do quite a lot, didn’t he?

@dodatroda Ай бұрын

@@MajSolo Too bad science is still unable to explain WHY matter (a gravitational mass) tells spacetime how to curve, ie. what the mechanism is.