Why haven't you read Einstein's E=mc² proof? 

Heck yea. Wishing her the best!

Also watch Dr Becky smothers i think her name is. She is a astrophysics specialist in supermassive black holes from the UK. Sooooo good

She's almost over a million, she doin alright

Because this is a science channel for smarter people than the average science-interested people. I watch different science channels on YT too. But when there are too many equations in it, I can't follow. No problem with Tibee's channel for me, because people have different degrees of smartness.

Sabine Hossenfelder is even right good!

I could do this, I have read a lot of Einstein's original papers and understand them well (I'm a physicist with publications in respected journals).

I agree

my personal favourite, not by Einstein, but the story is great, is the 2 page note Bose sent to Einstein after getting it rejected in England. Bose certainly didnt get the recognition for the simple leap he made in deducing that it makes no sense to consider "identical" particles as phsyically distinct. Einstein translated it to German and got it published. IDK but I think no copy of the original exists, but it has been translated BACK to English when he died and was re-printed. a copy of that in PDF form is linked to on his wikipedia page.

@@holliswilliams8426 Do you teach at Montgomery College?

a book said when an assistant showed Einstein his proof he said he could've written it way more simplified

came here to say this ... physics lecture AND AMSR .... gawd help me.

literally my first tought when i opened the video

Einstein was at least good at math, but not so good at physics or astronomy. Proofs: Matter is not interchangeable with energy. You can not create matter with energy. Go ahead and try to prove this wrong. He wasn't good at astronomy. He failed to understand that the Sun orbits around the Milkyway galaxy's center. This can be proven by his failure to account for Mercury's imperfect circle orbit around the Sun. E = mc^2 can also be proven wrong. Energy = mass x speed of light square. Energy = 5 grams x 300,000 kilometers squared Energy = 5 grams x (300,000 x 300,000) Energy = 5 grams x 90,000,000,000 450,000,000,000 = 5 grams x 90,000,000,000 Light speed squared has no bases for unit of measurement. All it produces is a large number and no bases for unit of measurement. The end product correlates to nothing. He is still hyped by people who learned science from science fiction shows and movies, like Doctor Who.

@@starbase51shiptestingfacil97 Let me present you with: particle accelerators. Which pump huge amounts of (kinetic) energy into particles to create more particles. Also the fact that summing up the mass of all the quarks and leptons in regular matter gives you only 10% of the expected mass. The rest comes from energy, mostly in the strong force. Oh, and if you pull apart two quarks that are being held together by the strong force, the energy you put into it will actually _create a new quark pair in the middle._ I have no idea about what you're saying about him not acknowledging the sun orbiting the Milky Way, but you didn't provide any evidence anyway. The sun is orbiting it so slowly that the effect would likely be negligible anyway. Oh, and, according to Newtonian mechanics, joules (the unit for energy) is just newtons (force) times meters (distance). Newtons are kilograms (mass) times m/s^2 (acceleration). Putting this all together, J=N*m=kg*m/s^2*m=kg*m^2/s^2=kg*(m/s)^2. Which is mass times velocity squared. The units match up.

@@starbase51shiptestingfacil97 holy hell you're not kidding. you are a top tier crackpot.

Music and math are closely related.

@@WoefulMinion Absolutely! Unfortunately, my math teachers wouldn't accept any sheet music in place of my homework. lol I would love for Tibees to do a video on the mathematics of acoustics and maybe even Pythagoras' "Music of the Spheres" though!

I wonder if you might have an appreciation for mathematics that remained dormant at school because you had bad teachers. You might want to consider seeking out a better teacher and trying again.

We should be suspicious of beauty in physics. It is unlikely that physics was made to be beautiful to us, and unlikely that we evolved to find it beautiful given that we so recently learned its details. That means we probably _permit_ ourselves to report only beautiful facts. In a sense, like how a photographer frames only a beautiful scene, a painter paints only a beautiful muse, and a composer composes only beautiful music, science is an art.

You wouldn't be the first to notice the sheer elegance of the equations of physics. That is, right up until you see how crabbed and inelegant the equations of general relativity turn out to be. Special relativity and the Schrodinger equation as well as Maxwell's equations are distinguished by the apparent simplicity and economy of expression.

Ibe found nothing more staisfing than reading and rereading technical books from before computers and trying to work out what exactly they mean. Im a master's naval architect student and I feel there is always something lacking from textbooks written after computers became mainstream for design. they just don't seem to have the same mathematical logic written into them that the older books do.

@@abyssaljam441 Exactly! They try to simplify and level down things to the point that the whole essence just dies. And in the end, everything boils down to just learning for passing an exam.

Dr. John Campbell, YT channel, PhD in nursing education. Almost every episode is devoted to Covid research papers.

I can't read

It's one of those bizarre things where everyone talks about the equation and thinks they know all about what he wrote, but when you actually ask "Have you read the paper?", it's like um -

Especially the German version

I'm studying german, maybe after 5 more years of German and 10 years of maths and physics I can read it. And only half of it will fly over my head.

Club penguin

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

Hi. What do you mean "reading the paper in German, it is more obvious?" That the "mistake" is more obvious or that the "mistake" was created by the English translation? . . Anyway, for me personally, an approximation is an approximation. It's good enough for me. Let the mathematicians worry about mathematical rigor. I mean they already did back in what, 1910 with Minkowski?

@@eliteteamkiller319 EXCELLENT REJOINER

The things is here written that magnitude of forth and higher orders are neglected hence the equation got modified from relativistic form to classical form of kinetic energy I.e. 1/2mv^2.The equation is also for classical prosoective I.e. when speed of certain object is less than speed of light,then realistic kinetic energy dimishes so cant used in expression. For eg in case of photoelectric effect also the speed of electron ejected is very less as compare to speed of light so classical form is kinetic energy is used there.There are maximum eg even in this world general eg we cant achieve the speed comparable to velocity of light except microscopic level ,electron in certain cases have speed comparable with that,but generally classical form is mostly used ,so here is not mistake in video or english research paper.

No it is half.

No irrational number has ever dropped out of anything, for irrational numbers do not exist as numbers.

My thoughts exactly! I remember at primary school when overhead projectors were cutting edge , so I guess I am old school 😂

There is no "rest mass" as such, but I think people later misinterpreted what Einstein was saying, which was not that the mass is variable as you go faster, but that when an object emits light, mass is 'diminished' (consumed or transferred?) to generate that light. Einstein said: γ.∆E(rest)/½v² - ∆E(rest)/½v²= ∆m and that: L=∆E(rest), ~~~> L=½∆mc²(1/γ+1/γ²) =∆mc²(½√(1-β²)+½(1-β²)) If β≈0, then L≈∆mc²(½+½)=∆mc². ...QED 😊

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

@@hyperduality2838 not quite. The idea you said and quoted Yoda is right but not that simple. We basically know that symmetry, like "always two... " exists, non locally, meaning not necessarily in the immediate environment around, it could be a little far to say it someway... 🤔 And not just in pairs, take in account, atomic nucleus, it has 8 for symmetry stuff, and gives us a 9D matrix to work with. More than two at quantum level but your idea is well oriented.

Ich mag Deutsch sehr sehr. Ein mal wenn ich besser mit Deutsch bin, werde ich das auf Deutsch lesen!

@@pepaxxxsvinka3379 Ich mag Peppa Pig. :D Es gibt viele lange Wörter in den Texten über Physik. Das lesen ist manchmal schwer. Viel Erfolg! Dein deutsch ist schon sehr gut. :)

@@31337flamer Das ist sehr lieb von dir! Die langen Wörter sind ja schwierig, aber interessant. Physik in dem Artikel ist nicht weniger zu verstehen! Haha ja! ich heiße Pepa Pig ohne Grund hier :)

That must be intensely interesting!

@@ShaneOsborne auf jeden Fall

hmmm it seems its giants all the way down! and at the bottom of the giants, perhaps a turtle! :p

So here’s a question: since E ≠ 0 for a photon, doesn’t that mean a photon has mass? There seem to be some people who are now insisting that photons are massless.

@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 The mass of a moving photon is hf/c². A theoretical non-moving photon would have the mass zero, e.g. photons have no rest mass. That means that photons have no inertia and are always moving at the speed of light.

@@SiqueScarface You said “rest mass”. And I would, too. But the physicists are now saying photons have no “mass”.

@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 Photons carry energy, thus they have a mass as soon as they travel at light speed. But as photons have no rest mass, they can't move slower than light speed.

Still in use in the late 80s at least. One maths teacher had the transparency on a roll so she could write the whole lesson without changing pages

Try reworking the formula using algebra. "Energy is neither created nor destroyed." Einstein. On this planet. In this solar system. All electromagnetic gravitational energy either comes from & or returns to the Galaxies Fermie bubbles magnetosphere via the Sun's Oort cloud magnetosphere to power the Earth's double torus magnetosphere. Jesus warned us about the AntiGoylumites & these the climate change END TIMES with the book of REVELATION & the cause with the 7 north stars of the PRECESSION of the Earth's orbit equinoxes when Earth's orbit ellipses the Sun's magnetic equator at the Alpha & or Omega equinoxes every 12,000 years for a 1,000 years causing these the cliamte change END TIMES Jesus warned us to watch & prepare for. These are just the birthing pains of the climate change END TIMES. Noah's floods won't be pulled OUT & around the planet east to west until the conjunction of Mercury-Venus-Moon-Earth in 2033 & every 40 years thereafter for the millennium it takes to eclipse the magnetic plane of the Sun's fermie Bubbles Oort cloud magnetosphere. You are not God's. You can no more change the climate of this or any planet than you can change your gender.

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

Yes that derivation at the end you mention is what I was fortunate enough to be shown in a first year physics course in Uni (I dropped out). It was quite mind blowing.

@@luker.6967 It is indeed. Despite knowing the thought experiment and the mathematics behind the derivation, I am still somehow blown away that simply applying Einstein's postulates and simple considerations of electromagnetism can somehow lead to the equivalence of mass and energy. That conclusion seems so vastly different from what relativity is all about, namely how various quantities change as you go from one reference frame to another.

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

Is that to try to argue that photons have no mass? But a photon (actually I think a pair of photons) can be produced from the meeting of an electron and a positron, both of which have mass. So if they produce a massless result, where does the mass go?

@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 No. And it's mass AND energy that is conserved. I don't know of any violations of the conservation of mass AND energy Law. Do you Leonardo DiCaprio?

@@hyperduality2838 Dark energy and Dark matter are distinctly different phenomena Mr Hydraulic. Scientists infer the existence of both through indirect observation and measurement. The only similarity between the two is that they are both currently "invisible". Dark matter pulls galaxies together, while dark energy pushes them apart. You should apologise my friend.

@@PetraKann Convex is dual to concave -- lenses, mirrors. Convergent (syntropy) is dual to divergent (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Decreasing the number of dimensions or states is a syntropic process -- homology. Increasing the number of dimensions or states is an entropic process -- co-homology. Homology (syntropy, convergence) is dual to co-homology (entropy, divergence). The 4th law of thermodynamics is hardwired into mathematics. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. From a convergent, convex (lens) or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All observers have a syntropic perspective according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics! My syntropy is your entropy and your syntropy is my entropy -- duality. Duality creates reality! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). Uncertainty (unpredictability) is dual to certainty (predictability) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic geometry. Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Curvature or gravitation is dual -- gravitational energy is dual. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).

Close, she is from New Zealand.

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

Who are you? Are you for real? I loved your story about that guy thanks!!!! ❤️‍🔥👍🏻

in chinese?

On the first day of my first chemistry class (also at a community college) the professor walked us through a mathematical proof of the equation, but did not tell us until she concluded what her point was, and that we did not have to remember the math. I've forgotten the lecture, but will never forget the room full of terrified students frantically taking notes, while I sat there worrying that I had gotten in over my head.

@@spiralsun1 recognize u from Curt’s channel!

@@RetNemmoc555 why would a professor go over this in a gen chem class is beyond me lol

Yes, in German there are two words for mass: 1) Mass as defined by a body’s resistance to acceleration, or inertial mass - expressed in the equation F = ma. 2) Then there is Gravitational Mass. The Gravitational Force of attraction which is proportional to the product of two masses (and inversely proportional to the square of their distance apart), in Newton’s Theory. So it was perhaps more natural for Einstein to wonder why these two masses should be exactly equal.

@@dnickaroo3574 In English, those would be "mass" and "weight". Mass is the raw mass it has, weight is gravitational force expressed as a unit of mass.

@@dnickaroo3574 Name them.

Einstein was at least good at math, but not so good at physics or astronomy. Proofs: Matter is not interchangeable with energy. You can not create matter with energy. Go ahead and try to prove this wrong. He wasn't good at astronomy. He failed to understand that the Sun orbits around the Milkyway galaxy's center. This can be proven by his failure to account for Mercury's imperfect circle orbit around the Sun. E = mc^2 can also be proven wrong. Energy = mass x speed of light square. Energy = 5 grams x 300,000 kilometers squared Energy = 5 grams x (300,000 x 300,000) Energy = 5 grams x 90,000,000,000 450,000,000,000 = 5 grams x 90,000,000,000 Light speed squared has no bases for unit of measurement. All it produces is a large number and no bases for unit of measurement. The end product correlates to nothing. He is still hyped by people who learned science from science fiction shows and movies, like Doctor Who.

@@starbase51shiptestingfacil97 Actually, Einstein always struggled with math, even failing some tests. He commented that he could no longer understand his own theories due to the math. His strong points were physics and astronomy. Mass and energy are interchanged all the time. Even burning coal shows a mass loss equivalent to the energy produced.

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

I recommend "Mathematics for the Million" by Lancelot Hogben, a good old book that you can find in PDF (free) on Internet. Excellent!

oh, scotland my favorite country

Love to Scotland from Egypt ⚘️

Not only in Australia, but the whole world. I agree 100% that not following a timeline and the lack of proofs really undermine understanding. It's absurd we "learn" the electron orbitals (1s2, 2s2, 2p6,...) in Chemistry in high school yet in order to arrive at such result you need to learn quantum physics first. Then teach the bloody quantum physics first (even if that means more math is needed).

No no, I don't know of any Physics student that has not seen a derivation. I have to do one for homework and another during an exam (using the kinetic Energy equation for the second one). When one studies physics or math a good part of the time is used in proofs, in part because they are trying to teach you to think with rigor and also for understanding. Engineering students see the full derivation of most of the results of classical mechanics, and then see at least partial derivations of Maxuel equations using vector calculus. In applied math courses we also go with the derivation of rigid bodies equations, and some of the fluid mechanics too. We do the derivation of ideal gas equations, and if you are lucky your professor will do the calculation leading to the ultraviolet catastrophe. So if you are wondering if you will get just recipes when you go to University you are for a nice surprise. Sorry for any errors English is not my mother tongue. Best regards.

Note also before Newton the Ancient Greeks believed that fire (plasma/chemical reaction happening) was the primordial substance which like a stream was always moving stuff, and matter was just "frozen fire".

@@aoeu256 Indeed.The ideas of the Greeks and other ancients could be touched on initially and briefly. Students would not be mislead because when the current state of knowledge is taught it becomes obvious where the Greeks were right and where they were wrong.

​@@ElVerdaderoAbejorro You are correct. I remember as a secondary level student being taught that electrons orbit the nucleus. I was also taught that positive and negative charges attract. Sadly the question of why the electrons did not immediately plunge towards the nucleus did not occur to me until much later when I was struggling to understand quantum physics. (still working on that)The clarity of the moment when I associated the wavelength the electron with the circumference of an atom has never been forgotten. Wrap one cycle of the electron's wavelength around the nucleus and you get the smallest radius possible. No smaller radius is possible.