Hi there, my name is Lukas Rafaj, and currently, I am a Ph.D. student of theoretical physics in Czechia. This channel is mostly gonna be about historical problems physicists had to solve to progress but also about some currently discussed topics in modern physics, demystifying certain problems in physics that might be counterintuitive for most people so sit down take your popcorn and enjoy my content :)
You can also support me on Patreon patreon.com/user?u=85062254 :)
Wouldn't 2 protons traveling at this limit in opposite directions see each other breaking the limit? Isn't it a limit only in relation to the CMB? And if that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to compare GZK limit to the speed of sound than light?
I have heard somewhere that at close to light speed all the light is blue shifted to gama rays. Also will that proton not also hit photons from other light sources, that have more energy to start with?
minute 3: ”There is no physical experiment that can distinguish between free fall and being out in space.” The correct formulation of it is ”There is no physical experiment that can distinguish between free fall and ACCELERATING out in space.”
No, that is incorrect. The equivalence is between floating freely in space and freely falling in a uniform gravitational field or, conversely, between being supported on a platform in said gravitational field or being on an accelerating platform.
Each and every velocity is INFINITELY relative, and this includes momentum. Naked velocity DOES NOTHING in physics. Infinite definitions also means no definition. Acceleration is agreed upon by all observers making it absolute, and this INCLUDES gravity. Gravity is a static absolute, and acceleration from some cause is the dynamic absolute. Gravity is centrally directed, and Einstein MISSED THIS POINT. A large frame can tell the difference between gravity and linear acceleration, because there is a component of acceleration toward a center of mass which is more of a triangle, not linear. It is a MASSLESS medium that seeks to contain mass and resists CHANGE. I do like your circular calibration idea. That concept is very close to my version of how massless space reacts to change. All mass displaces the ether making a dent, and your circle is that dent that mass MUST be centered in, or it means change. Gravity is consolidating MANY dents into a larger dent. The dent is tension or energy, and this is where CAUSAL physics begins.
Galileo : mass is not a force. There is no gravity/gravitational attraction. Newton : Acceleration is the actionable force. Okay then. What is acceleration? Where does it come from. Back to pre- Galileo. Mass is a force. Einstein: motion is absolute. Okay then. What is absolute zero? Einstein, my bad, motion is relative. Still using the 'earth is a flat plane' science. What happened to science seeking the truth? As Nicholson said. You can't handle the truth. If acceleration is the actionable force, then what is Acceleration? What is absolute zero. No acceleration, no energy, nothing. How do you get something from nothing? Take a blank wall/ universe. Now start drawing. Where did the picture come from. A higher dimension. The third dimension. Something from outside the 2d view of the universe introduced acceleration into the frame. For all their claimed brilliance, none of your geniuses could explain where acceleration comes from. If they could even understand that everything is an emergent property of acceleration.
Light-constant-per-observer was a declaration. It was never observed to be true. Transform equations adjust your dimensions to make it come true, but there was a Doppler effect BEFORE you transformed your numbers. How real is that?
As a charged particle falls, a man on the ground will detect a magnetic field created by the falling particle. A man falling with the charged particle will detect no magnetic field.
I think it might be possible to break relativity by somehow testing reciprocity, if there is an aether or an apsolute reference frame reciprocity would not hold.
This is after you assume that time is relative to your velocity. Prove that in a video sending a pendulum into space. Dimensions don't really exist. Math needs them, and you are making these fake math tools relative to YOUR velocity when ALL velocities are each INFINITELY relative which is exactly like saying NO definition. I don't think nature even knows what a velocity is, and here you are centering your science on it. The Earth may as well have stayed the center of the Universe. You've learned nothing.
I have some difficulty accepting the derivations of the theory of relativity in the first place. I first learned of it as a child in a time-life book which gave the classic thought experiment of a train traveling near the speed of light through a station where a stationary observer watched a clock on the train ticking. A simple geometrical argument indicates that the clocks pendulum has to move further on a moving train than on a stationary one, and while this is no problem for a physical pendulum since material objects can move at differing speeds, upon replacing a physical pendulum with a photon ping ponging back and forth between a pair of mirrors, a paradox seems to arise because the speed of light must appear to be constant to all observers. My problem however is this: this argument assumes that the stationary observer can observe a photon bouncing back and forth between mirrors, in the same way that he could observe a clock pendulum swinging. The argument further assumes that such observations are instantaneous. I believe or rather it seems to me, that one must first take into account the fact that observations are themselves mediated by photons; and that an observer could not watch a photon bounce back and forth between two mirrors unless at some point that photon or scattered by an intervening medium and reflected toward the viewer's eye, in which case it would never reach the mirror and could not be observed to bounce from it. One gets a little better traction if one presumes a packet of photons, traveling together, of which only some are scattered to the viewer, leaving the rest to presumably reflect off the mirror, but at this point I start to lose track. Then, two, one must take into account the Doppler shift to be expected of observations carried out via wave phenomena such as light waves, when viewing phenomena occurring on a moving platform such as the train in question: surely those observations would appear to be slowed down if viewing the train pulling away, and to be sped up if doing the train approaching? Instead of watching a photon bounce between mirrors, let us say that the train is carrying a radio transmitter, broadcasting a 1 kilohertz audio beacon at a frequency of 5 KHz. Basically, every 5th peak of the carrier wave will coincide with a peak of the modulation. So as the train moves toward you, Doppler ship will drive the perceived frequency of the carrier up, and as the train moves away from you Doppler shift will move the frequency of the carrier down, and since the carrier is carrying the wave peaks that make up the modulation, the modulation itself will appear to speed up or slow down, and so if we go entirely by appearances, it looks like time on the train has either sped up or slowed down respectively. Doesn't that account for the perception of time dilation, sufficiently that we don't need to invent relativity? .
Page 0:30 A point charge in linear motion within vacuum-Aether space produces electromagnetic radiation? False. It only induce static B field that tracks the point charge in motion.
I really like the direct way you explain particle physics, because you explain it more as if you had a physics undergraduate in front instead of a high school educated peraon. Just think that most of your viewers don't fear mathematics, equations, probability and probably are even familiar with quantum and relativity basics! Thank you!!! You see, you don't need fancy animations, just explaining curves that are real and give us insights of the fearsome weirdiness of standard model, QED and quantum field theory.... i love it because you explain what happens at a particle accelerator, in real experimental physics l, which is the only truth that we can really step on....
Kazakhstan Hello. Need help developing an invention using new optical fiber “hollow core photonic-substituted vacuum zone or (NANF)” . You can earn a lot of money. The Mickelson-Morley experiment, let's turn it into a school device so that it can be used on a bus or an airplane - this is how Einstein dreamed of testing his theories 77% With the help of the “HYBRID gyroscope” you can make scientific discoveries; in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, higher theoretical physics,... I am writing to you with a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core photonic-substituted vacuum zone or (NANF)” where - the light travels 48000 meters in each arm, while it does not exceed the parameters 40/40/40 cm, and the weight is 4 kg. Manufacturers of “Fiber Optic Gyroscopes” can produce HYBRID gyroscopes for educational and practical use in schools and higher education institutions. Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, an airplane - through the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1881/2024, and only then would the experiment be more than 70% complete. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on the completion of more than 70% of Michelson's experiment, the following postulates can be proven: Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum. (We are not looking for ether, we will see the work of gravitational quanta) The result is a «theory of everything» in a simple teaching device and a new tape measure for measuring the universe.
You are the one who is wrong, any measurement device only works if the object you are measuring is accelerating faster than the device. Meaning you can only measure the relative acceleration. The ball on the springs for example along with the springs and the earth could like as well be accelerating upwards hundreds of meters per second, this is such a stupid argument because this is a big problem in physics and not something a youtuber will solve just making a video
That argument only works if all parts of an accelerometer are accelerating exactly equally, which is what gravity does. That is exactly the point of the universal property of gravity. This means you can not build an accelerometer that detects acceleration due to uniform gravity. And what then does acceleration _do_ , if it has no measurable effects? In General Relativity this means acceleration is relative to local geodesics. Proper acceleration is deviation from a geodesic. And relative acceleration of geodesics indicates tidal effects, meaning non-uniform gravity aka curvature.
Couple try new experiences. ❤With the help of the “HYBRID gyroscope” you can make scientific discoveries; in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, higher theoretical physics,... I am writing to you with a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core photonic-substituted vacuum zone or (NANF)” where - the light travels 48000 meters in each arm, while it does not exceed the parameters 40/40/40 cm, and the weight is 4 kg. Manufacturers of “Fiber Optic Gyroscopes” can produce HYBRID gyroscopes for educational and practical use in schools and higher education institutions. Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, an airplane - through the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1881/2024, and only then would the experiment be more than 70% complete. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on the completion of more than 70% of Michelson's experiment, the following postulates can be proven: Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum. (We are not looking for ether, we will see the work of gravitational quanta) The result is a «theory of everything» in a simple teaching device and a new tape measure for measuring the universe.
Hey Lucas. Inasmuch as you've been obliquely invoking aether in some of your vids, lets face the fact that no such 'ether/aether' exists. The _word itself_ is an anachronism connoting something extremely insubstantial, tenuous, un-dynamic and functionless. As a synonym for 'space', it has no place in scientific discourse because WORDS HAVE MEANING. 'Aether/ether' needs to be kicked out of the science lexicon forever. As for the contextual meaning of "space", lets first apply an analogy: Picture a fish deep in the ocean. He has no concept of "water" or "ocean", 'water molecules', pressure or density. To his perception, his domain is simply "space", a great void of 'nothing'. He feels no physical presence or pressure, because he's composed of and immersed in, the perceived "no-thing". He's neutrally buoyant in it. In like manner, our perception of "space" is a 'no-thing' or nothingness. We're oblivious that we, even down to our constituent atoms, are *full of and swimming in* one great 'Ocean', the Plenum of space. Our very atoms, down to their quantum and subquantum constituency, are FULL of It. It's said that an atom is 99.9999% or so "empty space", which translates to it being 99.9999% FULL of 'Plenum stuff'. As with Mr. Fish, we're also in hydraulic equalibrium with it, sensing no physical presence of it. And because its 'cellularity' is sub-Planckian, below our sensory and EM resolution, we go on perceiving It as 'void' or nothing, just as "water molecules" would be to Mr. Fish in his domain of "nothing". In like manner, we, our planet and our Cosmos are dwellers in our element, the 'Ocean' of subPlanckian space. NOT an 'aether/ether'. This little vid contains a neat metaphor of 'particles' popping out of and back into "nothing". Begins at 3: 40 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fY8pucNaaH0.html Under a Plenum model, there'd be no need for dedicated 'fields' for each particle, because all particles and fields would be process IN and OF the one primal Substratum.
So the reason why we take covariant and contravariant components of vector in relativity is due to the way which the space time diagram is squeezing after a transformation?
내가 고등학교 때 습득한 과학지식은 우주공간은 원자로 이루어져 있으며 완전 유전체 물질수지 공간이며 질량보존의 법칙이 기본법칙이다 중력 빅뱅 배경복사 팽창 등 아무것도 일어나지 않으며 원자 자기력으로 움직인다 이것이 암흑 에너지다 자기장이 있는 물질이 회전을 하게 되면 내부의 압력으로 열이 발생하면 지구의 용암 태양의 홍염 코로나 태양풍 흑점과 같은 현상이 생기며 자기장은 자기장의 가두기로 태양은 타고 있으며 타지않으면 블랙홀이다 블랙홀의 중심은 메타물질과 같은 암흑물질이 생기며 폭발은 없으나 폭발하게되면 극지방으로 빠저나간다 그리고 달과 화성에 운석의 충돌 흔적이 많은 것을 보면 자기장의 차이이며 제 역할을 할때는 운석을 밀어내나 역전현상이 생기면 충돌로 이어진다 공룡의 멸종을 부른 운석의 충돌은 자기장이 자전축의 변화로 일어난 것이며 동식물의 진화에서 동물의 진화는 난활의 시작이 진화를 보여준다 동물극과 식물극의 차이로 동물의 진화는 결정된다 공룡의 알은 노출된 것으로 나와 있으며 그러면 털이 있어야 알을 부화할수 있으나 복원된 공룡이 털이 있는 종류는 하나도 없다 인류의 진화는 유인원에서 시작된 것이 아니라 인 류라는 독자적인 개체에서 진화를 하였으며 유태반류의 높은 지능을 가진것은 유태반류의 특징이며 지구상의 최고의 포식자로 자리매김한 예를 보여준다 인류의 영양상태가 좋아진 것은 녹색 혁명을 맞이 하면서 좋아진 것이다 그리고 식인풍습 근친혼은 근대에도 행해졌으며 이러한 결과는 유전병을 달고 살았으며 유골로만 진화를 판단하는 것은 오류다 흰머리 스트레스 멜라닌 과산화 수소 이것은 흰머리가 나는 주요 원인이다 그러나 이것은 면역과 효소에 의한 것이다 그러나 인간의 의학은 원인만 알지 과정과 결과는 모른다 면역과 효소가 어떻게 일어나는지 서술하지 못한다 스트레스도 쥐를 통해서 가스와 전기자극으로 스트레스를 주면 자손들은 모두 유전된다 식물은 광합성을 하면 영양분이 대부분 토양에 뿌려진다 뿌리의 ARF7 물질을 제거하면 수분을 감지하지 못한다 그러나 인간의 과학지식은 원인이 무엇인지 모른다 화학반응과 물질이다 답은 서술하지 못한다 동식물은 꼬리없는 정자와 꼬리있는 정자로 수정을 하며 어류는 부유성 어류는 성전환을 하며 저서성 어류는 난활때 성이 정해진다 성이 정해질수 빡에 없는 이유가 있다 양자 역학의 스핀은 전자기파에 의해서 영향을 받으며 중첩과 얽힘에서 얽힘은 반물질이며 전하를 계산할수 있다 입자성과 파동성을 동시에 볼수있는 예가 햭 연료 제어봉의 푸른빛이 현상이다 서양의 양자 역학은 불확정성의 원리와 같은 보이지 않는 미적분의 양자 역학이 아니라 동양의 동양 철학의 무극이 태극이요 태극이 무극이요 란 팔괘에서 시작 되면서 보이는 양자역학 미시적인 양자역학 거시적인 원자 자기력을 보여준다 양자 컴퓨터는 원소와 원리를 알아야 할것이다 일반 일반 양자 컴퓨터의 효과를 낼수있다 이것뿐만 아니라 인간이 만든 최고의 폭발물은 원폭이다 과거의 원폭은 우랴늄이 주원료로 사용된 것이라면 현대는 기폭제만 우랴늄이고 주원료는 수소다 이것은 우랴늄 기체 폭탄에는 수류탄 급이다 아르곤 가스가 우랴늄 기체다 여기에 두 종류의 기체를 첨가하면 독특한 반응을 보이는데 수소가 소진할때까지 반응한다 즉 멸종이다 초전도체라는 이론이 나온지 백년이 넘어도 물리적특성도 개념도 모른다 오비탈이 0이고 전기저항이 0이다 이를 수용하는 물질이 우랴늄염이 있다 그리고 직류에만 작용하는 이유와 BTS 이론이 맞지않는 이유가 무엇일까.프라즈마 초전도체 우랴늄염 지구의 내핵 용암 자기장이 같은 현상이다 그러나 설명하지 않는다 답 보다 논리가 문제다 한 나라의 국방은 항공모함에 달려있다 이 항공모함의 제일 큰 비중은 캐타펄트이며 수증기식이나 전자식이나 문제가 많다 제일 적은 비용으로 할수있는 방법이 폭약식과 유압식이다 그리고 추진기의 기술은 보여주지도 않는다 그 이유는 추진기만 보면 음파를 알수있기 때문이다 그러나 이 음파도 조와저항을 줄이면 음파도 줄일수 있다 인간의 통증을 다스리는 봉독이 중합 효소인 까닭과 결합과 성분이 병에 작용하는 원리는 무엇일까 그리고 독버섯의 독과의 같은 점은 무엇일까 그리고 이 같은 자료가 5년 동안 몰래카메라 한국 방송공사 인간극장 촬영으로 얼마나 아래와 같은 자료가 남의 손에 들어 갔는지 모른다 이것은 처음에는 상사병 이라고 주민들에게 알려져 있었으나 본질은 논문 대필용이었다 실제로 그 다음해 2월에 논문이 인터넷에 나왔으며 그 후에도 몇편더 확인할수 있었다 그러나 얼마나 남의 손에 들어 갔는지모른다 그리고 안기부 맨하탄 솔루션 문 제인 대통령도 자주 왔었던 걸로 주민들은 알고 있으며 나는 그기에 대해서는 잘 모른다
These are concepts very deep and require lots of mental exercise and power to become comfortable with. I have one question for the author: can we imagine physical universe which is composed of only ONE object i.e. there cant be anything to be called "observer" of that object. If such universe is possible will it have Space? How about Time? Isnt space an emergent property from the fact that more than one object has the property called existence. ,"existence" is the property to have a property....
I had this question few years ago, why a charge fixed in the surface of earth although accelerates it does not radiate, and searching on internet i thought i had found a convincing answer. Now i understand it was not that convincing :) Very complicated question.
Re: The Light Postulate? At the 'initiation' of light from an emitter? (for example(s): the operation of a flashlight, a 'struck match', a star, whatever?! ) From the 'Planck moment'? How 'instantaneous' is the velocity of light? Does it 'speed up' to its ultimate vacuum frame reference velocity? Or...? Is light always at C, only to be 'deflected' by 'source' acceleration(s) per gravity? I'm sneaking these questions to various youtube threads but your 'enlightenment' (as well those expert others) will do wonders for my ego against certain 'precocious' relatives of mine!
Interesting video!I never knew about this, But I think the distant between an object accelerating at 1g and that horizon should be 1ly according to your equation.
This is actually funny because I wanted to mention the Zeno's paradox in the video but I then realized that this is absolutely nothing like it so I rather cut it off so I don't confuse people :D In Zeno's paradox it is just the issue that we are naive when working with infinities but todays math can handle it well and we know that Achiles could overtake the tortoise but light can't overtake the accelerated observer even on infinite distance given big enough head start
Thanks! I felt that his explanation was way too "good". I was not smart enough to see why Dr. Lincoln was wrong, but I know that SpaceTime on the other side of our universe is moving ftl relative to us.
So, if you did this experiment with a kilo of lead, all of the electrons would radiate energy? What if I put a lead block in my car and accelerated? But isn't the radiation of an electron due to acceleration a classical notion? This was the quantum mechanical fix of the classical prediction that an electron would radiate energy until it crashed into the nucleus.
Equivalent principle and universal free fall are very bad theories, they ignore all other physical interactions. For example, what if the Earth is positively charged and a positively charged ball will definitely not going to have universal free fall. Even the Earth and the ball are both charge neutral, what if they are magnetic, the fall cannot do universal freefall because of the magnetism. This simply shows that universal free fall is such an idealized theory that overlooked all physical interactions.
You've forget that non-charged matter consist of charged particles. First time when you compare charge particle falling from tower. In this case both charged particle and neutral atom will radiate or not in the same way. The difference could be only in case of truly neutral particles like fotons, neutrinos or graviton. Second time in the last experiment: 10^50 atoms times 10^-52W = 0.01W . But you shuld multiply this by average number of electrons. So free falling Moon to the Earth should radiate weakly. This is still very subtle effect but at least there is some hope that in future it could be detectable.
My answer is that it *has to* radiate because as far as I can understand, there is no real physical difference between falling down and being in orbit around an object. And there is no way an electron being in orbit around something (gravitationally) wouldn't create any radiation. That's happens even with gravitational waves and those are definitely confirmed to exist. If this violates the equivalence proinciple, so do gravitational waves (or, it doesn't in the same way as gravitational waves don't, regardless of how that works, most likely something like "you can't locally observe radiation you emit yourself")
There's a way to agree on that frame: suppose that the observer are in some fluid and the fluid has some temperature(isotropic )associated with due to the temperature there will be blackbody radiations and the radiations will have same temperature everywhere in the rest frame of the fluid but as soon as you start travelling with some speed there will be an anisotropy in the temperature due to the Doppler effect,
