'We all move at speed of light through spacetime'.. What does it really mean? 

So does it also applies for black holes as time ticks slower near them ?

@@Not_a_Physicist I'm from Nepal as well! To multiply two or more physical quantities is basically like combining them (not adding, combining) Area of a wall equals Length times Height is because for each number of horizontal unit there is, there is a unit of vertical as well. The same concept is for physical quantity, for each unit (length, mass, breadth, height, motion, etc) of one physical quantity, when you multiply it with another, there is another same equal unit of the physical quantity

@Mahesh_Shenoy Sir, what about the spacetime invariant, (ct)^2-x^2=S^2? I believe this is what you are referring to, but you have forgotten about the hyperbolic geometry of time. This is what makes time different from space right? You can't move freely, only forwards by some amount.

So maybe that's why entanglement seems to move faster we are seeing the actual extra dimension😮

Thats Great, thats mind blowing, keep making videos on such topics and thank you sir, for such marvelous experience!!!!!!!! Could you please provide the link for that book?

it doesn't mean time can't flow backwards. it actually assumes the particle moves forward in time (i.e. it doesn't explain that, it assumes that). then explains why we/particle don't have access to "time-travel" along time dimension like space but instead see "ghost" of time dimension instead (as clocks). if we assume a particle going back in time, we'll get same conclusions for a backward-time particle.

If you sat on the event horizon in a black hole you would see everything in the past everything in the present and everything in the future all at once. It is written God has this view so he may well have his home in a black hole.

Actually entropy is a super logical explanation why time flows in only one direction. It is one of the most accessible aspects about the whole theory.

Actually, if everything goes the speed of light in the 4th dimension then there will be no entropy or death and any decay at all.@@alexb241

@@Rudyard_Stripling Unfortunately for that deity, if it lived in a black hole, it would have zero influence on the rest of the universe because its sphere of causality would be limited by the event horizon of the black hole it lived in.

yes? In this case, he died without knowing how to resolve his/P.Langevin's nonsense Twin Paradox (in R.Schlegel, his conversation in 1952, 3 years before his death- in footnotes in R.Schlegels' books).

You're explained several topics that have always kind of baffled me. Not only that, you managed to do it without all the complex mathematics that usually goes with them. This is one of the best explanation of all of these topics I have ever seen. Thanks very much.

I can vouch for this being a factual comment I am in middle school and understand this topic

Do you happen to remember the title of the book? I'd love to check it out!

@@TheMusicPerson Sure! It's "The Elegant Universe". Being Green a string theory proponent, it's mostly about that, but in order to present string theory he explains in depth relativity and quantum mechanics too.

B.Green Show at World Univ. Festival on Time is a perfect BS for two hours but it provoked me to ...find his nonsense,esp. using another nonsense in Taylor, Wheeler, Spacetime, 1st ed. 1963, where he,by "accident", made a diagram with different "units" of time of a "traveler" on the space-time path! Don't be a fool like them and do homework: make a diagram from the point of view of the "traveler",i.e. you are at ..rest!

I scanned Greene’s book long time ago, obviously his description did not catch my eyes, now this channel explains spacetime in a very clear and elegant manner!

*through spacetime, not through time.

Underrated comment.

🤯

This comment is arguably one of the most brilliant on RU-vid

Yeah, that's why the allegory is still fundamental in epistemology. ;-) It's not something that turned out; it always was (well, according to Platonists, anyway, but u don't have to be so committed for it to be worthwhile to contemplate). That was Plato's (well, at least Socrates' lol) point. He was using allegory to illustrate en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

@@bsadewitz It's also a reference to the two shadows he uses in the video. That's why it's so clever.

This x 1000

I actually need time to recover from the amount of fundamental shifts of understanding I just experienced, holy shit.

I think the length contraction is a flaw in this, what if the airplane was a round sphere, then it wouldn't matter what angle it is at, no contraction.

If the third dimension in that example/analogy is time, whhat part/property of any object extends in this direction?

@@Rudyard_Stripling Actually it would. Calling it a rotation is a bit of an oversimplification. What's really happening is a sort of out-of-round rotation that actually causes the object to skew.

with a sphere, you can't have an out-of-round rotation lol.@@akaHarvesteR

what is cs?

And here me (A junior software engineer) addicted to his Videos

​@@BanterMaestro2-vh5vn "at my pace"

Counterstrike major

Thanks, Gordon :)

​@@Mahesh_ShenoyWe present an experiment that proves conclusively that information can be propagated nearly instantaneously across space, in the nearfield of an electromagnetic pulse. The experiment consists of a ~30kV high voltage spark generator creating an electromagnetic pulse that propagated 1.5m to a detector. The leading edge of the transmitted pulse and the leading edge of the detected pulse were then compared using an oscilloscope and no time delay within the capability of the scope was observed, where 5ns is predicted if it had propagated at the light speed. The maximum uncertainty in the measurement was 1ns due to noise in the electronics. Since a pulse is digital information. This experiment proves information can be transmitted across space nearly instantaneously. The results is perfectly predicted by Maxwell equations, which yield a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. Below is a link to see a preprint of the paper. We are currently looking for a journal for peer review and publication. The impact of this discovery has implications in both engineering and the foundations of modern physics. The result is completely incompatible with Relativity. Instantaneous signals invalidate Relativity of Simultaneity in all inertial frames and can be used to synchronize all their clocks. In addition, a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous electromagnetic fields (light) yields Galilean Relativity, where time is the same in all inertial frames of reference, and there is no speed limit for mass, fields, and, even light. This can be easily be seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform. This means that if a moving object is observed with farfield speed c light, then Relativistic effects will be observed. But the effects are not real and can be proved by simply changing the frequency of the light, such that instantaneous nearfield light is used, causing the Relativistic effects to disappear. This then proves that the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics due to its deterministic simplicity. Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 RU-vid presentation of above arguments: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sePdJ7vSQvQ.html More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 Dr. William Walker

It isn't unique to engineering [such that one could say "you're an engineer at heart" on that basis, tho please understand I am not deprecating engineering]. If one could say any discipline could claim it more than any other, that discipline is philosophy, but I don't really look at it that way--not quite. I had an intro philosophy textbook titled "Does the Center Hold?". That comes from: "Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world ..." That comes from "The Second Coming" by Yeats. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(poem) "The poem uses Christian imagery regarding the Apocalypse and Second Coming to describe allegorically the atmosphere of post-war Europe.[2]" It's also the title of this book, just to give you another example of the theme: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_Fall_Apart I'm sure you can see the applicability of the metaphor to understanding writ large. Indeed, consider the word "understand" itself. One could literalize it as standing under something--in awe.

The opposite of things falling apart is the integrative project of science, or generally seeking a coherent body of knowledge about the world, which science is a part of. And obviously physics plays a fundamental role in this project. Whether physics as it is constituted today will always be considered the MOST fundamental remains to be seen, as one may argue that the only thing that we actually have access to is consciousness itself. And nobody knows for sure what that (or perhaps THIS) even is, or whether we are even capable of coming to grips with that. I like to think so, but we don't know ...

Maesh's tensor nedeed agreed 😂

You make me understand the length contraction concept. Thank you

Honestly, I just picked the first free photo I could find :D

Yes that definitely is the Minecraft grass block loll

It’s not minecraft block textures are 16x16 this is double that

It was pure hype when you explain the length contraction

The atoms of our bodies and all other material objects are held together with electrostatic force... basically, "light". We are partially made of light, and so parts of us are propagating at the speed of light... you are always traveling at the speed of light and you can't go faster than yourself. Atoms and molecules are basically microscopic light clocks. The really important question that always gets skipped over in explanations of Relativity is: " _Why does anything travel _*_slower_*_ than light_ ?" And the answer is confinement, it's where "E=mc²" comes from... and I don't know why it only gets covered in colledge physics classes and not RU-vid videos. Anyway, it's the origin of inertia (mass), and why "time" and "space" have any distinct meaning.

well, he never could have formulated General Relativity w/o Minkowski, since its Minkowski's 4D spacetime that gets curved. I have never seen a GR formulation without it.

@@DrDeuteron yes, this was Einstein's reaction to Minkowski's work in 1908. As you say, it wasn't long before he realized that he couldn't formulate general relativity without it.

Something clicked in me while reading your comment: we say that kinetic energy is dependant on velocity and mass (as in E=mv^2/2) so using that logic and the way you made equation we can say that E=mc^2 is basically our kinetic energy in spacetime. Of course this logic might be flaved but it still sounds awsome.

It's quite simple, really. In that 4 Spatial Dimension area, where _our_ concept of time is really just a spatial dimension through which a 4D entity is traveling at the speed of light, there's a 5th Temporal Dimension. And that 4SD entity, of which we are its shadow, is a shadow of a 5 Spatial Dimension entity which is traveling through one of its 5 Spatial Dimensions at the speed of light, which then becomes _its_ 6th Temporal Dimension -- its concept of time. So really, that 5SD entity is a shadow of a 6 Spatial Dimension entity...

Speed just becomes a ratio of two spacial units. It is like how you can say, "That house is 3 units north and 1 units east." Speed will be like 1 unit in spacial part of space time over 1 unit in temporal part of it.

Yes, I haven't come across any convincing explanation for twin's paradox so far. All the explanations deviate into answers that don't explain the fundamental problem. The actual question we should be asking is : "Between two objects that are in constant relative motion, which one sees time dilation and length contraction". If we can't do an experiment to determine who is moving as per the theory, then the time dilation for only one of the objects disproves this statement, as we can simply compare the clocks and see who moved !!

You should take into account the relativity of simultaneity and really ask what this question of age means from each reference frame. Mahesh already made a nice video regarding that.

The perspectives of the twins aren't the same. One twin moves away, then changes direction and comes back. The other doesn't change direction. That's a measurable difference. If both would be constantly throwing a ball in the air and catching it, the twin that moves, then changes direction and comes back would lose her ball, because the ball would continue in the first direction (try throwing a ball in the air while you change the direction of your car, you will lose the ball). The twin that stayed stationary would never lose the ball, because she didn't change direction. So there is no symmetry between the twins movements. That's why one will be younger than the other one and they can observe the difference themselves.

@@drfisheye What if the space time is curved such that he doesn’t have to change direction and meets his twin after travelling in straight line?

@@pavandn the Twin paradox is about special relativity, not general relativity, so there is no curvature involved. Even so, if there would be curvature then if the stationary twin would let go of a ball, it would fall down. If the twin in orbit (because of the curvature) would let go of a ball, the ball would continue to move with the twin. So that situation isn't symmetrical either.

You're so welcome!

I think the length contraction is a flaw in this, what if the airplane was a round sphere, then it wouldn't matter what angle it is at, no contraction. Am I right or wrong?@@Mahesh_Shenoy

Tell that to Elon and we'll have spherical rockets

We have spherical UFOs already and they could definitely be made purely spherical lol.@@bobspongieux

​@Rudyard_Stripling I wish he would just lookup Terrell Rotation. Length contraction doesn't actually make things *look* smaller... Also lookup Born Rigid Body Motion too, because all this "Introduction to Special Relativity" stuff is neglecting to mention that it's only describing *points* in a 1D line, and not extended 3D objects.

"it just keeps getting more beautiful in its simplicity." Physics in a Galilean universe would be a mess.

@@DrDeuteron Physics in an elliptic universe wouldn't have time, since the spatial dimensions are already elliptic. If it did have time, then accelerating enough would let you go back in time. Galilean relativity at least maintains a distinction between space and time, though the 0s that can pop up can make things weird.

Not the next deeper realization, but the one from the past. I threw some vids together 10 years ago that use a geometric representation of "c" motion within space-time, (a geometry composed of the combination of motion vectors and length scalars), all to explain special relativity and at the same time it is used to derive the SR mathematical equations, and derive the Lorentz transformation equations, with each derived in the most simplest and quickest way ever possible.

I am not a scientist nor was I a science major but, I thought that he was going to say that Gravity was a consequence of an object diverting some of its speed in the spatial direction because it looked like the plane was nosediving back into the ground the more it diverted its motion to the spatial direction. But he didn’t say that so, I am probably not really understanding what he is saying.

@@sevenstarsofthedipper1047 Gravity IS Indeed a conséquence of spacetime deformation. Check PBS "IS Gravity an illusion l'' on that matter

@@sylfthesoundyoulongfor8363 Are you saying that the “deformation” in spacetime we call Gravity is caused by mass in motion inside a moving Universe? So, then what is spacetime made of? It must be made of something, otherwise, this SR model makes no sense. Something has to generate the shadows that are used to explain length contraction in this model?

You don't actually live longer, you can simply delay your death with respect to others. Don't forget that from your own perspective you are at rest, therefore your clock is ticking normally.

There is no "time axis" in the world to move relative to - there are only the world-lines of objects.

@@kylelochlann5053 i am sorry i don't have proper words to say my thoughts...but what I wanted to say is like even if the one moving doesn't feel anything different in time he experiences... but as a third person we know that the one traveling or moving is experiencing time dilation and will not age similar to that of a person stationary or consider on earth....one traveling will experience the time normally but he can know in his head that he is experiencing time dilation and when he meets his counterpart he will be younger than him..and when i mean at rest or stationary it is all relative ...in this intuition of his he says everything is moving at max. Speed ..i.e light speed ..so if we consider relative velocity we r all at rest ...or constant velocity..which we can't differentiate...time axis and all is intuition we just move through time but the time itself is measured by motion of something(photon)....but yes that's what i wanted to tell...so i said even if insignificantly small..if u move alot then u will age late or die after ur twin or any other counterpart....

At best you might somehow snag an extra femtosecond or something

@@THICCTHICCTHICC yep..ik that...but man even a part of second matters...😂