I Think Faster Than Light Travel is Possible. Here's Why. 

Darn i missed two "Your score is higher than 22% of the people, who took the quiz! Good job!" I wanted a 100 i have PTSD now heeding to safe space

Plot Twist, Sabine is from the other side of the Milkyway, and is trying to find a suitable mate ;) Hmmm, extraterrestrial extraspecie-al intercource, I think I personally would break the boundaries of C, but would do my best to not let my water hose spit out too soon.

You can think much faster than light already. To prove it, think about our Sun warming the Earth. Now think about the Andromeda Galaxy, as seen through a telescope. You did both of those things in an instant, but sunlight takes over 8 minutes to reach the Earth, and light from Andromeda takes about 2.5 million years to travel to our telescopes.

8/9. I could have gotten 9/9 but, although I knew the answer you wanted, I disagreed with it and a more accurate answer was available. But that's the wonderful thing about science, we don't always have to agree on everything. Often our disagreements can open the doors to new understanding and new advancements, for one of us, for both of us or - in some cases - for all of us.

@@RWBHere The trick is determining what is occurring in the moment. Sure, it's easy to determine that the sun is still shining this very moment. It's not difficult to make an inference from something as recent as 8 minutes ago. But let us not consider Andromeda, but use something much closer as a reference. Imagine a star in our own galaxy. It is 50,000 ly away. We see it clearly with WEBB. The star is an unstable red giant. Is it still there? Is it still a red giant? Is it a white or brown dwarf? What is happening to that star, right now? Now consider Andromeda, a galaxy 50 times further away that that star. What is going on there?

not plural, dolt

I get the general sentiment, but I disagree about these videos feeling like ramblings. They feel meticulously prepared.

@@alysdexia you know rambling can be a noun right dolt? Someone can start rambling, or someone can record a rambling. The noun form is just the conceptual object form of the verb.

@@robonator2945 I said nothing about rambling, you wit/2. But I know that a gerund isn’t a verb.

​@@alysdexia well that's bascially the only plural I used, soooooo. The only other plural I used was "those are the best ways to learn" which is a valid plural since I'm referring to the plural group of rambling *_s_* as a concept and not a single rambling. You could argue that it should represent a single "way" of learning but that point it's completely useless subjectivity and there is no "right" or "wrong" answer and it's just a classification problem. Equally however you could argue that a rambling is just a sub-set of the super-set of "passion inspired tangent from a professor" which can include other sub-sets and as a result wouldn't just be an acceptable plural but a demanded plural.

He was served beer but didn't drink. Why? Cause he was virtual

that is a very good nerd joke.

Did he walk in after because they go back in time?

lmfaooo

Are Tachyons related to Klingons? Because if they are, then that is a sure fire recipe for a bar brawl! Tachyons ain't gonna take that, not being served!

clicking on clickbait gets slow rolled by those of us who know better. this video is for the dummies out there...

man

In what medium? 😉

@@michaelfried3123 Oh, I'm sorry superior being who likes his own posts. I bow to you.

Not while your thumb was traveling through a medium

Thank you for elaborating.

Why would an advanced civilization use clunky spaceships to visit us? Won't they have perfected nanotechnology or quantum technology to achieve their goals?

Sorry again, if we are looking ONLY at physical manifestations, then YES. But the speed-of-light can easily be exceeded through thought. Even those little Greys use that technology and even our relatives from the constellation, Lyra, which we originate from, use consciousness as the base means ships, similar to what we see on Star Trek. Unfortunately, outside the SSP, we are restricted to consider such things as impossible, due to our programmed viewpoint. Maybe someday we will be able to break through this forced programming.

Beautifully explained we need new mathematics to first work out in theory behind Ftl then Do some experimental work

Thank you for this fantastic philosophy video, Sabine

Of course understanding an explanation is no guarantee of the explanation's validity... FYI: Whether Sabine is wright or rong is a totally-different issue.

I'm pretty sure the aliens have put Sabine's videos on your feed. Grooming us to accept that they traveled here at faster than light speed.

@@JerryHoward88 lol

You know the good saying, old man, better late than never, finally you can consider you were able achieve something in your life

Never stop learning then your curiosity and wonder will never leave you.

Congrats! Always good to learn new and wonderful things.

I experienced the same thing ( and also left handed ;)

@@sunbeam9222 Physics is something, you have to have certain attractions to physical things, to understand how to find key to understand secrets they fundamentally exist and function.

It's also very useful to people who can read in English but are still learning the listening part. It can be hard to follow different accents and speeds while still learning. The subtitles help a lot with understanding the content and also training your ears.

Just a small correction: as v approaches c, it’s the total energy that tends to infinity, not the mass, as we abandoned the idea of relativistic mass some time ago. The total energy of course just being the kinetic energy plus the energy from the mass (E=mc^2).

Imaginary energy let's go

So we just try to tunnel each of our atoms to FTL until we manage to do that for all of our 10^28 atoms and then try to sync up all of them travelling with different headstarts so they end up in a human shape again? Sounds like a plan

So do you end up in a parallel dimension after tunnelling through the singularity?

@@supercal333 I don't think so, your probably still passing through our space-time but the laws are different.. For example just the other side of the barrier if you shed energy you actually go faster!.. Sort of like star Trek subspace!

Time is meaningless at the speed of light. The very idea of time passing does not even make sense at the speed of light.

Isn't distance also meaningless?

I think so... Time dilation really messes with my brain lmao

As Zalemones1 said, time is meaningless at that point. The misconception comes from the maths which suggests that as speed approaches c the length contraction approaches the point where distance is 0 and so the journey is instant. But that doesn't mean it actually is 0 at c, at that point the equation is no longer valid in the same way 1/x has no value when x=0.

Exactly! Something travelling near the speed of light can cross the known universe almost instantaneously, from their point of view.

unfortunately true

Now I get it. Thanks.

One of the 5 people here in the States that does!

I spit my coffee on that one. Love it.

​@@GuyFromJupiter One of the five people who can. Our rail network is in shambles. Forget high speed rail, I just wish we had a rail and trolley network like we had in the mid-1800s up until the automotive industry poisoned this country.

To me it seems like if supersonic aircraft don't break causality faster than light space ships also shouldn't. But of course I don't have any formal education on relativity so I always assumed I just wouldn't understand the reasoning without the mathematical groundwork behind it. (tbf I still don't understand why some scientists believe FTL would break causality))

I just asked ChatGPT to write a limerick about travelling faster than light and time travel. I like yours better!: There once was a physicist quite bright, Who dreamed of a journey through light. With a machine that could time travel too, He set off on an adventure anew. He broke the light barrier with ease, Zipped through the cosmos with such great sleaze. But when he arrived at his destination, He found himself in an odd situation. His time machine had worked too well, And sent him back to a time he couldn't tell. He realized with a start and a fright, That he was stuck in a time-loop of light. So, if you ever think to travel so fast, And attempt to journey through the past, Just remember this limerick quite well, Or you might end up trapped in a time-cell.

the way the rhyme played I thought you might say something that ended in shi-ne a light

@@audiodead7302 OMG #talesfroma21stcenturyfairygodmother uses through loops to save a place in time and space, but this ai actually touched on a funny notion that eventually all time traveler's get imprisoned and I forget where I read it, a meme or work of sci Fi, but that's so interesting that was generated. "Sleaze" is a bizarre word to use there.

Prodiver7 I really liked yours. Did you write that?

@@audiodead7302 I would like to go on a sleazy trip across the cosmos

Yes but why is she hot?

​@@johnself6435Because of her binding energy!!

Only 6..? I always thought there were an infinite number..?

You just did.

I think that closed loops can exist, you can even imagine some "universe" that lives in such a closed loop.

This is all half-cooked theory, built up from isolated models. Ironically she's using these to argue against the half-cooked nature of SM+QM

They don't eliminate the closed loop. They make it reasonable to say there wouldn't be one. The closed loop itself is merely a reasonable conclusion to draw from special relativity, so that's the standard of argument she's aiming to meet.

I'm not at all educated in physics, so apologies for any mistakes, and take this with a grain of salt... but here's how I've heard it explained: According to Theory of Relativity, if events A and B are causally disconnected, they don't have a "true" order. Depending on your frame of reference, A may occur before B, or B before A, or they may occur simultaneously. Whether or not events are causally connected depends on the distance between them and the speed of light. For example, if you see two buttons, that are 1 light second apart, and then you see them pressed simultaneously, then they are causally disconnected, and depending on your frame of reference the order in which the buttons are pressed can change. On the other hand, if you see those same buttons, one is pressed, then several seconds pass, and another is pressed, then they *are* causally connected, because light managed to cross the distance from one button to the other in the time between the presses. So now the order the buttons were pressed in is certain and independent from your frame of reference. This behaviour may seem weird, but it doesn't actually cause any problems or paradoxes. If you get into your spaceship and fly from point A to point B, your departure and your arrival are two causally connected events (because you travel at sub-light speed), and so have a definite order. But what happens if you make an FTL jump from A to B? Well, now your departure and your arrival are completely causally disconnected! And in certain frames of reference, arrival *occurs before departure*. Look what can happen now: - Make the jump A --> B - You are currently in the frame of reference where departure occured before arrival (as it should) - Engage your ship's thrusters and accelerate until you are in the frame of reference, where departure hasn't occured yet - Make the jump B --> A - You traveled back in time and broke causality! Crucial point is that breaking causality requires *two* FTL jumps in *different reference frames*. So, could there be some (purely hypothetical) mechanism that would allow FTL, but prevent paradoxes? Yes! There simply must exist a special frame of reference, and all FTL travel must only be possible in this special frame of reference. This special frame could be whatever, but for the purposes of this thought experiment we can pick the Co-Moving Frame (CMF), because it is easier to visualize and is already somewhat "special" (as mentioned in the video). Look what happens now: - Accelerate until your frame of reference matches CMF - Make the jump A --> B - Engage your ship's thrusters and accelerate until you are in the frame of reference, where departure hasn't occured yet (weird, but no paradoxes yet...) - Make the jump B --> A... but wait! You can't make this jump, since in the previous step you left the CMF! - Match the CMF again - Make the jump B --> A. - Since both jumps occured in the same frame of reference, causality is preserved! This is my understanding. You can search "fixed frame FTL" for some more info. see also this FAQ on Relativity which touches on this topic at the very end www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_intro.html

I don't think it has anything to do with GR TBH. Rather if you can guarantee that everyone can only move in such a way that everyone's arrow of time always moves in the same direction, then you can zip around faster than light - but still not infinitely fast! - without causing paradoxes. How can you guarantee that while lifting the c limit? Basically you'd have to hypothesize that there is something akin to subspace or hyperspace, that it indeed absolute, and that it is the only medium through which an FTL mechanism could work. Could this actually be true? Well it certainly can't be ruled out. Let's say we did make a warp drive. That would cause spacetime itself to bend and move. The stress energy tensor in GR is Lorentz invariant (meaning everyone agrees on the geometry of spacetime and thus the strength of gravity no matter how fast they're moving). Perhaps that means that all warp drives would indeed be riding waves in the same fixed and absolute medium and thus no paradoxes would be possible. But critically, again, this speed would still be limited - not by a single arbitrary number but by how fast an external observer is moving relative to "subspace". This limit is c^2/v where v is your velocity relative to the absolute frame. Specifically, instantaneous movement in any frame appears to an observer moving at v relative to that frame as c^2/v. So if we assume infinity is the speed limit of subspace, then on earth that speed would equate to roughly 1000c (if we're moving 300kps). Any faster perceived speed would indeed require the traveller to be going back in time in the frame of subspace. This means Voyager's trip home from the Delta Quadrant could've seemed instantaneous to the crew but 70 years would've passed on earth. In other words you can't fully escape time dilation but now it would depend on how fast the third party is moving relative to subspace rather than how fast the ship is going relative to the observer.

I'm pretty sure " presented very clearly with solid hooks to dig deeper around" describes every one of Dr Hossenfelder's videos

@@gregmark1688 Meh. Most. There is a few videos that I think weren't done well. Like her video on Elon Musk's "Population of Humans are too low video" and her conclusions at the end.

@@gregmark1688 no

Also my first time to hear about Higgs field condensation. I agree with you that Dr. H's explanation was clearly presented! She impresses the daylights out of me!

@@123Shel12 Me too! I feel kinda sad for all those losers who can't tolerate an intelligent woman and have convince themselves they're smarter than she is or whatever. Misogyny must be a miserable way to be.

Wondering if it's got anything to do with Mach's theorum which I've seen videos about.

There is no use for science if it can not solve the issue of distribution of Wealth and Power among the citizens.

Good read as well.

Funny thing is: we might be wrong. noone knows.

and it works for unicorns end elves too!

Speaking of sci-fi and its postulations, I rather like a Doctor Who explanation for apparent aberrations in the space-time continuum. “It’s a wibbly wobbly timey wimey thing.”

Sort of like how we used to think that heavier than air flight was practically impossible and that birds and insects had some magic or animal science we wouldn’t get. We figured it out for sure, but in a unique way. I suppose the problem is we’ve got 0 examples that this rule can be broken so we think it’s impossible but who’d have guessed we could see inside people’s body’s with x-rays and brains with MRIs before it was discovered.

Certainly to us sub light speed observers, but from its view it travels to Andromeda and back, millions of light years, in no time! It orbits black holes and nucleons and can pop out photons when either are disturbed, or capture or absorb them when a photon gets too close?!

It is as meaningfull as saying that you are amazed at how small pi is. C is not small or big. It just is. If you think it is small then you are probably rather amazed at how big YOU are. Or Earth, or Solar system, or Milky Way...

Yeah, especially given the size of the universe. It's slow to us just getting from the sun to the earth... let alone anywhere else! It's even slow inter-planetary; slow enough we can notice the slowness just trying to send data from LA to London. It's abysmally and impractically slow. ​ @edcunion @Jarek F

@@edcunion The nature of light means it has no rest frame. There is no photon's view.

@@kiefermattern917 For the photond the speed of light is infinite. They are created and destroyed simultaneously. A photon that travel 10 billion light years and is absorbed on an earth based camera, the emission and absorption together are just one instantaneous process happening at the very same location in space. The photon didn't even travel at all. 🤯

She is probably full of shit and trying to sell books or something

I was right

She somehow 'brings me back in' with her quirky lil jokes which I like a lot. Mind like a steel trap and rapier wit this lady has.

Just wanted to say smile face? LOL thats a lot of words for just :) I don't think you get it but at least you can understand you don't get it. Peoples intelligence can be measured by how others write or type. You can use commas but still using U for you and ur for your is either lazy or shows you're still very young. Understanding and being able to use real words is part of understanding what she's saying here. If you read 20 min a day for 10 years you will have a high IQ, maybe even genius level. Your reading comprehension will be maxed out so you'd know every word she said even if you don't get science. Umderstanding is the beginning of science. And if you understand the words the you can understand science

You're not following her. You think you're not following because she says stuff that doesn't make any sense to you and then she "clarifies" by telling you the conclusion she draws from the stuff she said that didn't make any sense to you. That makes you feel like you're following because you understand the practical upshot of how she's saying things work, but you don't really understand why she she's saying things work that way. If you understood her reasoning for thinking things work that way, you'd understand that she's spouting nonsense.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EsqSYX2vb7s.html

Yes this got somewhere very new! But there is no condensation for a scalar potential field! The condensation only happens when the field can form a sufficient density of sufficiently similar structures within that field: Higgs bosons or something even more simple, arranging themselves as a single entity of space-time. Or four space-times really, but three of them flow superluminally within ours - so I guess they are light invisible but gravity visible. Can information be harvested somehow about superluminal structures? Is there a before and after to us for superluminal structures, when they have an ortogonal time within them compared to the time within our structures?

So that's how I end up with an odd number when I always buy them in pairs!

Socks are explained by multiverse theory. Somewhere there is a universe with all of our socks.

I always find one is and one isn’t

As an English Man living in Germany! It's the first time I realised German people have a sense of humour 😂 Sorry just joking! Sabine is wonderful

I am not German but I think in the last 100 years Germans made more scientific discoveries then all other nations combine.

I'm from the US and love her humor. German ancestry may be to blame though

I'm only part German ...its hard to know what I can say confidently and what I can't...

As the old Beck's beer commercial goes, German's don't comedy, they do beer. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xwXlft6tOq0.html

This is still a little too dry for the majority of humanity. Stepping stones.

@@sf4137 Maybe, but I bet a lot of those people would not be interested in the content anyway. Additionally, this "dry" method of presenting can be a good thing in itself and it seems her current subscribers really like it. She wouldn't be the only RU-vidr to gain a huge subscriber count with minimal flair. Look at penguinz0. Besides, she has over 800k subscribers. That's pretty huge already.

271,000 views on this so far!

@@rhondaeverett8284 I see 266,473 views right now. Am I moving backwards in time? Na, probably just the RU-vid algorithm.

@@andcheck I think you're right, the algorithm probably incorporates negative views, just like some physicists use negative energy.

Do you actually laugh at her dry, corny jokes? Or do you just find them cute and endearing?

@@vickmackey24 Don't you happen to mix up "humor" with "laugh" tho? 2 verrrry different things...

@@vickmackey24 I find them endearing.

She is the absolute Queen of Deadpan

@@vickmackey24 A little of both. Some are funny because they land, and some are funny because they _don't_ land. Her humor was much more hit-or-miss when the channel was new, but I'm really enjoying it now.

Can't just say that without saying what you would say

“Don’t fuck Martha”. Or something along those lines?

And traveling to Betelgeuse wouldn't be possible even at faster than light speed. As you get closer, it'll begin to move closer to its actual position and then, when you get closer still, it'll very likely explode in a super nova and become a nebula.

@@deydraniasmith615 If you travel faster than light then as you distance away from where Betelgeuse was you'll see the nebula, the super nova and Betelgeuse again.

That, and she is completely wrong.

@@garytyme9384 Enlighten us then🙄

@@rekik2936 Light does not have a speed, it has a rate of induction i.e., hysteresis of the medium. Take Red Shift as an example of Hysteresis of the medium.

@@garytyme9384 Dude, even if you believe that you can't just say she's wrong- Light having speed is so widely believed by people and scientists that you can't simply say everybody is incorrect without an extremely extremely good argument with paragraphs of wording and elaboration and good papers with variety to back the claims. We have far more reason to believe that light has speed than we do to believe it doesn't. For example- If light is simply inducted, than why do we get afterimages? Afterimages are produced because light from where something was and is hits your eyes at the same time, causing an effect of seeing an afterimage, but if we simply induct light, then we'd not see afterimages and instead we'd see everything perfectly as it moves.

​@@neurotic3015 Oh dear. I am chatting to a moron. Actually, you see the attribution of light i.e., illumination, and even then you are seeing the reflection of that illumination of the surface of the object you are looking at i.e., the illumination the object did no absorb. Hence, the after effect you are talking about is to do with the over stimulation of the eye. An afterimage is an image that continues to appear in the eyes after a period of exposure to the original image. These can be either negative or positive afterimages. In most cases, this is an eye-related phenomenon, although there are some cases in which it is related to an issue called palinopsia. Negative afterimages occur when the rods and cones, which are part of the retina, are overstimulated and become desensitized. This desensitization is strongest for cells viewing the brightest part of the image, but is weakest for those viewing the darkest. When you look away, the least depleted cells react strongest, and vice versa, and you see an image with colours that are the reverse of how the image originally appeared. Many optical illusions take advantage of negative afterimages. For example, if you stare at a yellow, green, and black American flag for 60 seconds, then look at a white background, you will see the flag with its correct colours. A positive afterimage is when you see the image, but it is the same colours as the original. Unlike with negative afterimages, it is believed positive afterimages are caused when your rods and cones have no stimulation, such as when the illumination abruptly go out. BTW: Answer me this Einstein - without breaking the law of conservation of energy. If illumination has a speed then explain how illumination returns to the same rate of "speed" after it exits glass or water? Bet you can't, lol,.. well not unless you factor in the hysteresis of the medium and illumination not being a particle, wave, or wave-particle duality. I say this as Nature does not work the way the mathematicians have tried to convince you of. I bet next you will say the quantum realm is a real thing and pigs can fly.

Very nice. I has a q; Is Bob Turkish Arab because of German collective guilt or of need for YT algorithm multicultural video?

@@ilicdjo Or because the average male on Earth is brown? Or because why default white to appease paranoid culture warriors like you?

There is no use for science if it can not solve the issue of distribution of Wealth and Power among the citizens.

No actual, competent, physicists would agree with you. If so many people actually think this channel's hand-waving, sophomoric and often false narratives qualify as an "explanation" , much less as competently presented hypotheses for creating new physics, then the human race is in trouble.

The light from the egg hitting the ground gets to you sooner than the light from the intact egg

Yeah this sounds kinda crazy

Can you imagine a world only filled with plasma and energy? No protons, no neutrons, just quarks or even less "condensed" things? Because all the energy makes it so hot, that high level structures cease to exist? Think about it!

@@tylermacdonald8924 because it is, the binding energy of matter is actually negative, it was released when the matter was bound together into matter (at least for all non-transuranic stable matter) Now it's just negative potential energy. eg: it takes a huge amount of energy to unbind matter into it's constituent subatomic particles and even more energy to separate it into even smaller quantum particles like the higgs. That negative potential energy actually DECREASES the mass of matter, it doesn't create it, it's called the "mass defect". And honestly it seems like she switched the sign somewhere because if you plug that into the force equation, it takes more energy to accelerate to the speed of light, not less.

I liked that too, though it wasn't quite correct. Hope this won't spoil the anaology as it's generally a good one, but here goes.... If you observe an area of grass or plants that has an object above it, a tree, a roof or whatever, on a morning with dew, you'll notice an absence in that area. This is a clue as to how dew actually forms. When air cools down so much that it can no longer hold all the water vapour, it condenses into mist but mist is not necessary for dew to form. What happens is that opaque media (in this case grass) radiate heat away faster than transparent media (the air). So, grass exposed to the sky loses heat faster than the air around it. During a windless night, all solid surfaces become colder than the surrounding air. The surrounding air may still be warm enough to hold the water vapour but not once it comes into contact with these surfaces. So, the water condenses on these surfaces. Any opaque objects between the grass and the sky prevent the radiated heat escaping into space, so here, the grass loses less heat and may remain dry.

Agreed, but I think her analogy might make better case for ether rather than the higgs theory.

"If you live in hte US..." hilarious. 😄

Questioning one's beliefs is a rare trait

You are the perfect person to subscribe to brilliant according to her

POV: you're Sonic The Hedgehog

@@chrisdonnell7200 The problem with being faster than light is living in eternal darkness. Sad Sonic noises.

@@dylanwight5764 actually not sure if it does... if you move towards a lightsource at exactly the speed of light, the wavelenth will be squished to 0, which leads to photons with infinite energy... but if you are OVER the speed of light, the wave should just be inverted right? if i turned the light on and off making pauses of: 1sec 2 sec 3sec and 4sec at some exact "over lightspeed"-speed you would recieve: 4sec 3sec 2sec 1sec pauses. in the same way the interval between wave peaks should change from 1ns below lightspeed, 0ns at lightspeed, to 1ns again just in the oposite direction for over lightspeed.

Don't carry the head for all this. With the bulk unexplored, the space expanding. Have nowhere to go travelling FTL or even supersonically. Metaphysics appears, delusively perhaps, more real. "The manifest universe is a mental construction". Existence - Consciousness is the fundamental reality, all else is dependent reality; appearances in Consciousness. It is that which underlies and pervades wakefulness, dream and deep sleep (and like states of experience of absence).

Officer, I wasn't speeding. I was attempting to reduce my speed relative to the universe.

Dry humor at its finest.

The humour bit is doubly impressive given thatEnglish isn't her first language and Germans are well known not to have any.

I must've missed the humor 🤔

God has a sense of humor too. As we understand more of the physical universe, especially quantum physics, we also begin to understand the spiritual universe. This journey is however within ourselves. Our understanding that everything in the universe is conscious is a relatively recent development. As spiritual beings, we are made of energy. We can manipulate and control energy and matter. For example, without moving, think about raising your right hand. Now do it. It was your THOUGHT that made your hand move. You manipulated the physical with a thought! Likewise, the ability of remote viewing or astral travel can take you anywhere in the universe instantly. We are merely individual viewpoints of the universal consciousness. We are entangled with everything. Warp speed (faster than light) can occur because we think it. We simply must be practiced at moving scalar particles to manipulate the fabric of space to create a gravity well in front of the ship. Try this method the next time you go on a long drive. Spot a spot in front of the vehicle. Just pick a spot up ahead and then bring it in to your body. Repeat this process throughout the trip. This simple manipulation will reduce the amount of time to your destination (without speeding). We can not understand the physical universe until we first understand that we are the ones who create it.

@@malcolmberke4862 🤣

Above my pay grade too. Either I was not born with enough of the right brain cells, or fed them the wrong foods, or else I slept through class the day these principles were discussed ... but I still find your lectures very interesting.

Au contraire, writing a serious paper will be the ballsy move... a YT vid is irrelevant crap

Such a paper could never stay obscure for long, I don't think. Basically all the science RU-vidrs would jump on it the moment they heard about it. There was a time I would have worried it might not get published, but now I can't imagine it being ignored in the prepublication paper exchange. Maybe if the title or synopsis were poor, but I'm pretty sure Sabine of all people could write those well.

@@TheChzoronzon Few people read a serious paper and in that way the general public remain indifferent to physics. Many people watch RU-vid videos and if complex subjects can be explained with clarity and relative simplicity then our collective intelligence is raised.🌱

@@TheChzoronzon yep but the theory is not new. The big bang went faster than the speed of light.

@@Madrrrrrrrrrrr space expanded fast than light. Not the matter within it.

Maybe it was a beam of light. Light travels much faster than any aircraft, and is completely silent. It may have looked 20 meters wide to you, but you had no way of actually measuring it, did you? It could have been 2 millimeters wide but very close to you eye or it could have been 2000 kilometers wide but very far away, The one thing we know for sure is that it wasn't an alien spacecraft, because if it was they would have abducted you and you'd be famous now.

agreed, I appreciate Sabine pushing us to the edge of our average Joe knowledge, but the second half of the video really lost me with some of the examples, especially the graphs of Alice and Bob. I'll rewatch it but not very hopeful I'll understand it more.

@@nadamuchu Don't have a good resource readily available but if you want to get a better understanding of the graphs you can look up 'Minkowski diagrams', that's what those are called. I will tell you though that it's pretty much impossible to understand why all the lines move the way they do without understanding the mathematics behind special relativity, which is probably why Sabine didn't give a detailed explanation for that in the first place.

@@nadamuchu Is she thinking *outside the box?*

moral of the story is- while something can travel faster than light, it can't travel faster than time. If you send information at the speed of light to someone on a nearby planet, even if you get immediate response traveling faster than light, you'll receive that response in a future, no matter if it travels faster than light.

@@democratictotalitariansoci1462 Like emails, they may travel at the speed of light, but it may take minutes to receive due to connection speed, or even hours to respond, depending when one reads the emails, or replies in

They are easy to understand when you have had 4 years of graduate physics classes. After faster than light travel becomes routine, then, as an everyday experience for everyone, even children will understand it. Just as children now understand driving 70 miles an hour on the freeways.

I fully expect to listen to this 10x.

I would say: After video games showing faster than light travel become routine...

@@rodschmidt8952 I hadn't thought of that. People learn a lot from games. Thanks for your comment.

After first viewing, the only two things I understood about this lecture was the photo of Colombo and Sabine's summation how general relativity may present an incomplete picture until smarter brains have figured out the theory of quantum gravity.

We have trains in the US?

You have to work on it

@@stargazer7644 I think they all crashed somewhere...

rip any transport that isn't cars

@@stargazer7644 Yes, but no Kilo Metres.

16:37... Isn't her time diagram flawed anyway? She shows the first traveler flying on a negative slope. For that to happen they would have to travel faster than infinity... right? I mean, infinite speed (instantaneous) speed would be a line parallel with the X axis. Or do I have that wrong? If that is correct then the information would get to the other ship in zero time... then that ship would bring the info back in zero time. Meaning it wouldn't arrive in the past but at the same time you sent it... assuming there is no transmission delay.

@@101perspective From an outside observer's perspective the speed is not infinite, the speed is actually the same as the speed of light when the line is parallel with the X axis. So the one in the ship flying at that speed will feel like zero time has past until they arrive at the other ship, while for the other ship it took as much time for the ship to arrive as normal light would travelling that distance.

How about 22 minutes of vague, hand-waving flim-flam using diagrams from a sophomore-level modern physics course.

Light speed cannot be surpassed? ........Only on the grounds as we limited humans think we know.

@@MrConformation We gotta keep this stupid UFO hoax alive, physics be damned.

W rizz OG. Shoot ur shot like Devin Booker.

Bob gets on a train going 200km/hr ....make that 20km/hr if ur in the US. OUCH. Felt that burn all the way in Florida and down here we're USED to sunburn.

2:46 Bob gets on a train going 200km/hr ....make that 20km/hr if ur in the US. OUCH. Felt that burn all the way in Florida and down here we're USED to sunburn

But it wasn't clear at all. Still seems like a reintroduction of the same concept, wrapped in enough sophistry to get past the physics consensus that it's an outdated wrong idea.

@@johndododoe1411well I'm just happy that somebody at least talked about it 😔 I'm not physicist so I'm no one to disagree with any ideas these guys come up with

@@johndododoe1411 I've always viewed gravity as Bernhard Riemann did. Would love to figure out how his "sinks" might have worked. Can't say I'm full convinced there's no aether. The Michelson-Morley experiment never looked up. If they did they would have seen an interference pattern. I know that generally is chalked up to time dilation. But has anyone checked if an object in free fall undergoes time dilation, along a gradient, while it's falling, or all at once when it hits the ground?

You won't get far in in the 'hard scienes' if you don't have a voice in your head merilessly attacking your pet theory. As someone recently put it: "Scientists work from the known toward the unknown". From what I see scrolling thru social media, the vast majority of laymen work in the opposite direction

I often get the impression that being, feeling or appearing smart is mostly about cutting through all the bullshit others put around things to make them look difficult - so it's more about perseverance than genetics.

@@gzoechi This is a really excellent approach. Never change! :)

@@SevenTheMisgiven Thanks ❤️

Well said, thank you for your input.

She talks way too fast and covers so much ground that my little brain is left way behind. Math & physics was many decades ago.

Keep chipping away at it. Things go faster as you progress. It could take centuries but you have forever to get it.

Also.. loved the Columbo reference!

It's mainly, I think, because physicists are convinced paradoxes are impossible. Cause and effect has to hold. On the other hand, there's various math that shows any quantum-level closed-timelike-curve can be solved with a consistent result. I.e., there's always a consistent loop. And I'd think that if one could go back in time, you'd keep "going around the loop" until you settled into a pattern in which everything is consistent, or it would change next time around. There's a sci-fi novel called Thrice Upon a Time (James Hogan) where the protagonist invents a machine that can send info back in time. And it causes sort of paradoxes. And ... yes? So? You receive messages that were never sent. So? It's treated as "this is the experimental reality."

Oh, they get asked alright, but the lecturer can't point at a theory that doesn't exist yet, so they stick with the current and incomplete one. Maybe it would be best to always add the disclaimer "according to our current and known to be incomplete models" to all of these.

It makes less sense than most people realize. As a simple example: E = mc^2 (1 / (1 - (v/c)^2)^0.5 - 1) Assuming that she is correct, the equation for this with values of v greater than c introduces an imaginary number into the equation. This would mean E = iE' where E' would be some finite energy amount. But what does i do here? How can a measurement of energy have an imaginary number in it? Worse than that, E' would be a small negative value as well. So the faster one goes beyond the speed of light, the less "negative energy" it takes assuming a positive mass. What would negative energy be? If E is positive energy, that in turn would require negative (imaginary) mass in order for E to be positive. It sounds nonsensical mathematically when discussing reality. At best, one would need to describe this as something like "using another dimension", assuming that other dimensions exist. Granted, the equation for energy above the speed of light might have a different equation completely. But typically, that is not the case in physics. At best, the equation has some more factors that zero out or some such at one extreme or another. For example, MOND. There are mathematical reasons why most scientists do not buy into unorthodox theories. Mostly, the math falls apart or other well proven theories have a conflict.

@@darlenesmith5690 you may find that simply because math has an imaginary number in it, that does not preclude it’s existence in reality. It is simply a two dimensional numberline with sqrt(1) on one axis and sqrt(-1) on another. You may not be able to hold i apples, but you cant hold pi apples either. But both are a part of the real world.

@@benruniko I think you missed the point. I agree with what you just wrote. Best that we know, infinity never exists in nature either, but it does show up in equations. Think of it this way. The energy for low velocities is low. The energy for high velocities near the speed of light is really high, but still finite. The energy for velocity at the speed of light is infinite (hence, not achievable). The energy for velocity beyond the speed of light is negative and/or imaginary, and/or the mass is negative and/or imaginary. The equation tells us that. How can these be negative, let alone imaginary, and how can the energy decrease the faster one goes? Another way of saying this is that the energy for velocity beyond the speed of light is undefined and a bit nonsensical. No known or even theorized energy or mass has those properties. The final value of E has to be a type of energy. Let me put it another way. When Voyager 2 went to the outer planets, scientists at the time thought that Neptune did not get enough heat radiation from the Sun in order to have any type of wind. It turns out that Neptune has the fastest winds in the solar system at about 1000 MPH. It took scientists nearly a decade to figure out how that was happening. My point? Whenever scientists guess at what is possible without solid facts to back it up, they are usually wrong. Nearly 100% of the time unless there is previous proven (relatively speaking) science that will practically force a given prediction. Science is based on observations, not guessing. The theory here is not based on observations, it is based on a series of unrelated ideas. In this video, she is throwing darts at a dart board in the dark where not only the distance and direction to the dart board is not known, but whether the dart board exists at all is not known.

I loved when he would say Watch it now! Watch it!

@@Kalifornia11 He sure was!

everything seems to point to the fact that light is the maximum speed. we have never learned to break a law of physics.