I've seen over at Science Asylum's channel a neat analogy for the attraction interaction. Imagine two people on boats on a lake facing away from each other and throwing a boomerang so it goes behind them. The boomerangs will fly towards the other person and they will catch each other's boomerangs. Because they threw something in the direction facing away from the other person, the action will push them in the opposite direction meaning both of these people will move slightly closer to each other, meaning the exchange of boomerangs represents an attractive interaction.

@@ThatCrazyKid0007 So they take the long way around? So is that what I'm seeing when I look at magnetic lines: the boomerang coming around?

How would this episode square up if the graviton exists? Would this require thinking of gravity as a force again, and thinking of the other 3 forces as another way of bending spacetime?

@@TristanCleveland Haha nah I don't think so, it's just a visual analogy to make the exchange of virtual particles result in an attractive interaction a bit more sensible to imagine. I don't think it works like that physically though, it's about momentum as the channel owner described.

I just found your channel, and I have to say I'm super impressed. Really good stuff. The problem with the "throwing ball" analogy is the same issue as the gravity/rubber sheet analogy. It's using the force to explain the force. Throwing the ball is using the electromagnetic force to explain the electromagnetic force. While I don't think a better analogy exists, I think it would be good to acknowledge this shortcoming of the analogy. Because I'm just left with the question, "How does the electron throw a photon?" I know there's no answer to why a fundamental thing is, it just is; such an acknowledgment would go a long way, I think. Thanks for the videos; they're fantastic.

i know right? i discovered this channel today and i honestly think i struck GOLD.

I was just going to say that

This. Priceless channel, mostly repeats the same things I heard before but in such a way all of them finally start to connect.

the problem isnt others the problem is that u are dumb (it was a joke lol)

Absolutely true. There is something beautiful about these explanation

Agree. I’d heard the explanation so many times but it just never clicked until I saw that part. Had to pause the video and just let the realization set in before I continued.

It's also completely misleading. The part about ground accelerating outward is correct. So is the part about internal pressure, in a manner of thinking. But the part about space-time being "sucked in" is entirely fabricated. While it is possible to come up with a coordinate system in which that very thing is happening, the whole point of General Relativity is that you don't have to. It's perfectly fine for surface of the sphere to be uniformly accelerating out without the size of the sphere changing.

@@konstantinkh He didn't say it gets "sucked in," as you put in quotes; he said it contracts. And in his dedicated general relativity video, he emphasized that it is just movement along a spacetime geometry as movement through time leads to worldlines coming closer together in space.

@@stevenjones8575 Again, there isn't actually a difference. You can chose absolutely any coordinate system, and so long as you have correct metric, you'll get correct acceleration values. As I've said in another reply, inventing a coordinate system that makes it seem intuitive is misleading to the point of being harmful. It's like somebody explaining to you how to solve quadratic equations by saying, "Just set a = 0 in ax² + bx + c = 0, and then it's just a linear equation!" If you felt like you understand how to solve a quadratic equation after that explanation, it has actually done harm. General Relativity is intentionally set in coordinate-free fashion, because there is no globally consistent coordinate system for a general case. If you tried to apply the logic above to two black holes spiraling into each other, you'd get nonsense. So the feeling like that "contracting" coordinate system makes any sense is erroneous. It has the same problem as explaining gravity as heavy spheres on a rubber sheet. Somebody gave you a visualization that looks intuitive and told you that's how it works. But that simply isn't how any of it works.

That's actually not what I do in the video, the visualization does not represent any coordinate system, it shows a bunch of geodesics evolving through time, thus showing us how inertial frames behave. I will soon post a series of 8 videos on the mathematics of GR to explain all of this about coordinates etc, but here it's not really what I am doing. Also the definition of curvature along the direction of time is precisely that the volume contained between geodesics shrinks along their affine parameter. Having said that, locally you do have some coordinates that are better than others for intuition : the coordinates that are inertial. It's only in inertial coordinates (normal coordinates) that you need no fictitious forces (Christoffel symbols) to describe the motion of objects

Exactly my thought. I literally follow every single sci educator on youtube about physics and cosmology. And this is just BY FAR the best I have seen. It's insanely good. It blows PBS spacetime out of the water, which is still also GREAT.

@@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012 Man, comparison with PBS Spacetime studios is saying a lot. I would say different styles. But I also thought in some ways it is better. Maybe in most ways, I can't tell. Oh, boy. It is even scary good. I am also truly shocked. And I feel very happy to see somebody more experienced is also as mindblown. This guy got my Patreon faster than the Primer guy, this guy got it 2 hours after I saw a video from him. Two days ago. I feel he poured drugs in my brain to take my money, knowledge drugs! More!

I'm a lot into sciences, and I didn't like it. Too simplistic and misleading in places

True

@@fritt_wastaken it is a long time ago, but can you detail what didn't you like?

For real! Where has it been all our lives?

I like how "the new" diagram is 100 years old introduced by relativity! :D

They actually have the same mechanism

That’s the British way.

It would be interesting, but consider the main content creators as far as I understand, are from the french channel. Besides, as they are in fact physicists, they tend to avoid continuum mechanics as if it were the plague, which I find a shame.

Thanks glad you like the channel ! That's a good idea, actually I had thought of talking about lift in a video, it's in my list ;)

@@ScienceClicEN Good to hear!

"intuitive explanations requires a intuitive audience" -Carl Sagan i like you wish you tube and for that matter people carry more common sense. which i believe recently crossed the threshold of oxymoronic realities. "common sense" suggest that its common to see something a certain way in reality its not. its a perplexing observation of the now moment.

@@ScienceClicEN Looking forward to it! If I may I would recommend the book Understanding Aerodynamics by Doug McLean. I haven't finished it, but has a refreshing focus on 'real' physics. He also has a presentation here on youtube that might be interesting to watch called "Common misconception in Aerodynamics".

I agree :))

you are explanations

Wow thank you very much for this comment, I am very glad if you enjoy my approach, even more so coming from a teacher ! Honored if this can be of any help, and I hope you will like the next videos

Hi ! Glad you like the videos :) I hope you will enjoy future ones, and I wish you good luck for your degree !

i know right? i discovered this channel today and i honestly think i struck GOLD.

It makes you realise the genius of them

@@meepstyle13 That scientist was Einstein

🙏

When I was a kid and in a car, my field of view always seeing things like trees or lamp post being constantly moving backward like I am the one who was stationary and they are the one that moving.

@@zharul8716 Movement is always relative, and so depends upon the observer's OWN frame of reference. Both pilots can completely contradict each other's recollection of events (who was moving and who was stationary) and yet BOTH still be 100% correct.

I get that but on trains, especially moving next to another.

Nice

yes its realistic touch✨

Thanks for the comment I am really glad you enjoy our work :)

Very glad it can help !

That's exactly what's coming up next ;)

I agree this channel is legendary but IMO DrPhysicsA is best because he is easy to understand & goes into the equations

​​@@alwaysdisputin9930I miss his stuff. He hasn't uploaded in over a decade 😢 Sabine Hossenfelder is good, too

Glad you liked it ! If you haven't watched it yet, I go in more details in my video about Quantum Field Theory

@@ScienceClicEN I watched it already. To be honest after watching it I felt like the Universe is actually just a simulation and we are the result of some wierd combination of interactions. Very thought provoking for my hungry brain.

Ahah theoretical physics can have this effect ^^

And he deserved WAY more, never have a seen easier to understand yet thorough explanation of scientific things

he's now at 34K 5 days later

This guy should and will be in millions soon

He's at 50k lol

@@Zeeno Closing in on 60k at this point, and it is very well deserved

explain further pls

Pauli Exclusion Principle is a consequence of Fermi-Dirac Statistics, which governs interactions between indistinguishable half-integer spin particles. We don't even talk about Pauli Exclusion Principle in physics. Interactions between indistinguishable full-integer spin particles are governed by Bose-Einstein Statistics.

@@allenho2778 Thank you for the response! Do you find it the least bit unsatisfying that most of the forces we experience day to day don't fit as neatly into the standard model of physics as the strong and weak force?

@@popwwy Yes, agreed. I don't think the Standard Model is complete. As high-energy physicists want to search for more high-energy particles by building larger and more powerful colliders, one gets the feeling that searches will be conducted without any guidance from the Standard Model.

This ties into something even more fundamental. "Everything in Life is Vibration” - Albert Einstein The idea that Quantum Effects come from wave & frequency modulation. The Pauli Exclusion Principle arising from waves canceling out making it impossible for two fermions to be in the same state. It isn't too surprising, consider the Higgs Boson. Symmetry in physics can only be conserved if all particles lack mass, this is why the Higgs interaction must exist, and we discovered it, to give particles mass. Constantly interacting with the Higgs prevents them from reaching C as light does. As ultimately, mass is an illusion, it comes from interaction. Most of the mass in say, a proton, comes from the interactions between the quarks & the gluons. Mass, is simply matter being slowed down by interaction preventing it from traveling at the speed of causality, C, commonly known as "speed of light" More on that in a bit. This means all particles ultimately have energy, but no mass. But isn't mass equal to energy? But how can something have energy but no mass? Wouldn't they have neither & be nothing? But there is something that can have energy but no mass. A wave... In a wave, like an ocean wave, energy is transmitted, but the particles of the water remain in the same place. Thus waves have energy but no mass. Thus, going back to mass being an illusion, only energy exists. Only force. Only interaction. This indicates, that particles do not actually exist, rather, everything is waves, vibrations. ( Which explains the double-slit experiment wave interference pattern. ) That the interactions we see are simply emergent from wave constructive & destructive interference patterns. Creating wave packets we detect as if they were objects. Energy is simply the frequency of the wave, which influences the interference pattern. Motion, is the wavevector. The direction of wave propagation, of the packets. But it isn't contained to the packets, as the quantized interference pattern of the Universe (quantized energy levels), the vacuum state, quantum entanglement "spooky action at a distance", as well as the violation of the bell inequalities tells us, locality does not actually exist. The Universe vibrates with waves that destructively interfere, those that do not make up the matter/energy/interactions we see in the "location" that we see it. But that is an illusion. The location of wave-packet particles does not actually exist. A wave-packet particle is not a part of the universe, it is a field across the universe, no, it IS the universe. Wavevector, propagation, motion, is simply the field canceling out at one point & existing in another, in sequence. Creating the illusion of propagation, or movement. It gets even weirder though, back to C, or the Speed of Light. Relativity tells us time is relative, the faster you go, to you in your frame of reference, time slows. This continues until we reach the cosmic speed limit, the speed of cause & effect, C. Where time appears to stop, where length appears to contact. Where objects, like photons or gluons, experience simultaneous creation & reaching of their destination. Which is how they hold the universe together, by seemingly always existing. Like handy glue or springs. Which is how gluons are named & portrayed in diagrams respectively. This tells us that time & space, is an illusion, interaction is an illusion, all is solid, all is a built-in solid pattern. Everything that has, is, & will happen is all part of a pattern, like a fully thought out storyline. Like a flipbook, but without pages, a 4D solid flipbook. That is spacetime. That is reality. A 4D mathematical space. Makes sense really, space & time are always intimately connected, we measure speed, motion & location, in "miles per hour" after all. This is the nature of reality generally. But wait, aren't objects actually waves? Isn't motion, propagation, canceling out in one place & forming in another? Yes! And energy, frequency, vibration, isn't that canceling out & existing differently across time? A repeating pattern at a certain rate in time? Which is an illusion? Yes! This tells us the waves are also an illusion, a pattern in the 4-D structure of space-time. Modulation, constructive & destructive interference is the combination & cooperation of patterns to form new emergent patterns. A solid, determined pattern, within solid space-time. There is a bit we still don't know, however. The question of quantum gravity. We know gravity, space-time curvature, is essentially the Universe bringing things together. The force of gravity, again, is an illusion, no one is accelerating, rather, it is time that is bringing objects together. In the terms of what I have said above, it can be said that the patterns converge on their own within the structure of space-time. As the structure of space-time is distorted. Non-euclidean. The question is how do the waves lead to this? What is the theory of everything? Where do relativity & quantum field theory meet? What is the full anatomy of the structure of space-time? Perhaps the curvature emerges from the waves, would explain why the amount of mass(energy[frequency]) relates to the amount of gravity. (even photons theoretically have gravity, a photon of a high enough frequency/energy would likely create a black hole. Fun fact: Sunlight from nuclear fusion reactions causes the sun to lose tons of mass every second! And thus, gravity, though it isn't significant enough to cause problems with our orbit. ) This would mean the waves are made of space-time & that the universe's structure is quite a bumpy pattern indeed. It could even mean, perhaps, if we can generate an opposing frequency, we can create Anti-Gravity technology or even shortcuts in space & time, perhaps wormholes, perhaps warp drives, perhaps even manipulate the direction of matter from a distance. Perhaps even become Maxwell's demon & defy entropy. But I'm speculating. In the end, the final question would be why any of this exists at all, it just does. My philosophical idea is that simply, looking at it mathematically, nothing is everything. 0 is what you get when you combine positive & negative infinity, 0 is larger than infinity. When you divide by zero, your calculator produces an error to protect itself, but a mechanical calculator shows the truth, dividing by zero gives unending results. Perhaps asking why there isn't nothing is wrong. That this consistent, conserved, logical storyline we human beings find ourselves emerging from as inquisitive social coupling mechanical interaction systems, this pattern, is a division of the nothing we say should be. One of the unending results. "Infinite realities, Morty!" - Rick Sanchez ("Rick & Morty") Our favorite stories & beyond exist as others, other structures, conceivable non-relativistic space-times, higher dimensional space-time branching structures that allow time-travel or interlocking results that form a multi-verse network. Beyond or below 3D universes! Sky's the limit. That's my idea. So yeah. So ends my spiel on the nature of existence. Hope you enjoyed! Hope, before I went to speculation & metaphysical philosophy land, that it answered your question & showed you how insane it all is.

Thanks !

I don't think this channel does astrophysics...

@@MonkOrMan then what do you call this?

@@skeleskele Physics

@@MonkOrMan LOL you clown

@@skeleskele uhhh... It isn't astrophysics

The best Symmetry is found in PlayBoy. As for video'as of such I guess they can be found with google. When you ask about exchanging photons at a distance you are pointing out a massive failure in the current understanding of things, so don't expect any clear answer soon. The fastest they can do is the speed of causality. the speed at which physical realities can affect each other, folk's call it the speed of light, just because it is the fastest speed that light could ever travel. The fact remains that action at a distance is a very real reality. And that makes questions of 'How' pretty moot ... until the next Einstein comes along :-)

Recently in a different video I saw the attractive force being explained using a bumerang analogy. Bumerang being thrown in the opposite direction pushes the first particle towards the other, then it goes in a circle and comes to the other particle from the other side.

@@VaclavBrozik0 . Yeah that's the one! But that's still weird because boomerangs change momentum because air applies force on them. So how do photons change momentum without some force at a distance?

Wait wait, photons have no mass therefore no momentum, right? Still! They shouldn't change directions just like that! Unless the spacetime is curved... But electromagnetism doesn't curve spacetime in a circle, does it?

@@AntonAdelson Photons have zero still mass but as I understand it they have mass determined by their energy (E=mc²).

@@watzyh Ya but space here space seems to be moving inward constantly, I thought when a massive objects curve space, it stays curved and doesnt move in any way, it doesnt constently contract into it self as shown here.

@@TheCls63 I don't understand it either, but I think this representation of the space contracting inwards constantly is because is considering the time dimension. I can not explain (and even less in english) what I think, because I don't fully understand, but I think that in that example, if you keep the apple and the spacetime curvature but omit the earth, the apple would look still because we can only percieve the 3 space dimensions, even if through time the apple is still moving (inwards). But when you add the earth (that is expanding outwards through time dimension) you have a reference, so now the apple apears to be falling because, as time passes, is closer to the floor. Edit: So to answer your question, I think the space is contracting into the future. Trippy uh? I don't need any more acid with this videos...

@bob roger Yes, that's what I think what happens. If you track one patch of space, it's getting smaller and smaller, and closer and closer to the center of the earth. At some point, the earth grows large enough (relative to the space around) that the patch of space goes inside the earth. There, it still keeps shrinking and going to the center. However, it will never reach it, since there is always the space between it and the center (which shrinks as well), but as time goes on, it gets arbitrary close towards the center.

@@x432ph I think this is not right, I believe Cinepo above is closer to the truth. The slope is constantly falling inwards because of the 4th dimension, time. If you take a snapshot of it at any given time, it will look static. But because of time, it happens every "tick" of time, hence it falling inwards, against outward pressure of the Earth, which is pushing back, giving rise to the force we feel as gravity. Space is not "going" anywhere. It is not an object. This is my own speculation, I have not studied GR...

I would have the exact same question if I haven't watched this video first, also from this channel. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rdinmqybp7u9hpc.html&ab_channel=ScienceClicEnglish I am going to answer based on what I learnt from the video is. Space itself is not collapsing to earth, but instead is a static state of spacetime. However, we describe it as falling because we are only able to perceive spacetime as a snapshot of "here-and-now", which converts temporal speed (which we cannot experience) into a spatial speed (which we can) which results in the effect of "falling". But in actual spacetime, they are still on the same 4d point. I think I sort of butchered it. Watch the video i guess, they do a much better job

Virtual photons are sent all directions at all time through some hard-to-understand quantum wobbly stuff

@@blinded6502 In that case how does the net force become opposite of the other electron? Edit. Wait, is it because the other one is sending them too, and so the fact that they are playing ball means that you have to catch some too, and only from the direction of the other electron, and that's why the net force will be repulsive between the electrons?

That's a good question ! The thing is this is a simplified picture, my video on Quantum Field Theory is a bit more precise about virtual particles. Mathematically virtual particles are described not as points that move, but as waves that fill all space (this is due to the uncertainty principle : if you know the momentum of a particle, then its presence has to be spread throughout space)

@@FinBoyXD BooBoom! it is the net result of all possibilities making it the most likely.

@@FinBoyXD For attractive forces, photons change momentum and position, or disappear and reappear, or however you like to interpret them math.

For this check out my last two videos on Symmetries and Quantum electrodynamics

Yeah it does not have to, their is just a probablity that it does it randomly. That's the limit of causality because at such small scales the world is fundamentaly random

Good question ! As explained in this video, gravity is just an inertial force, appearing because in reality the ground accelerates upwards. However for this explanation to work, we introduce the idea that spacetime can bend. It's to explain the curvature of spacetime that the graviton is imagined.

I'm guessing because particles have mass too? Which according to this video will mean they are constantly getting larger and larger. But why would a proton constantly accelerate outwards??

@@ScienceClicEN I guess what I'm struggling to understand is how a massive object would be using these gravitons to bend spacetime. I just don't see how that can be real. Makes more sense to me that particles simply Interact with spacetime locally and sort of drag it with them. The more massive they are, the more drag. And since all of spacetime is connected, the curvature can affect other objects at a distance. No gravitons needed.

String Theorist's are grabbing at straws. Being dumb they spell them as gravitations.

I think a quantized model of gravity is required to understand some extreme scenarios, like events near black holes and moments afters the big bang. Since QFT is the best model of the subatomic world that we have, it makes sence to try to fit gravity in it, instead of developing a new framework. I might be wrong in this one, but I think GR implies a contiunous space, while a QFT theory of gravity would treat the space as discrete

Probably how to be a KZfaq influencer

It does not. It's just an analogy but it's flawed. Of course we can introduce some new hidden dimensions to explain fundamental forces the same way we can explain gravity, but no one has proven that's true (yet). Quantum Field Theory explains forces as messages passing between interacting particles via virtual particles. This exchange tells particles to move closer or to move away from each other and that's it. We do not know how exactly that happens. Oh, and in the same way quantum physicists try to explain gravity: as an exchange of gravitons. So if gravity is also a fundamental force (not proven yet) and every fundamental force can be explained as an exchange of virtual particles maybe this exchange causes space time curvature? And exchange of other virtual particles (photons. gluons, etc.) causes curvature of higher dimensions?

@@azi_and_razi thats true, one or the other theory may be true depending on how you define the fields