Why is this value this ? We don't know This made me smile

Best and most truthful explanation I have heard: "We don't know". No ambiguity or BS of "Oh it maybe this, or it maybe that"...🤔

Anyone giving this video a thumbs down is an idiot. That was 6 minutes of great teaching. Well done. (I taught orbital mechanics for 4 years - getting that stuff across to students is NOT easy.) Again, terrific job communicating where our knowledge of constants like G comes from, and where our knowledge has its limits.

Is channel is extremely underated

Omg that ending. I was hoping to find answers :D

sooo we invented "G" just to make our equations work? Or was it always there? I'm not intelligent enough to grasp this

Thanks for the video. I've always struggled with this concept as an engineer, especially as it's used in U.S. standard units. It's nice to have some background as to where this magic number came from.

Only one doubt I have ..that What the hell this gravitational constant is😡😡😡

I was looking for something like this online - and there was nothing out there this compact and to the point. Thank you!

Make more physics videos! This is the most thorough, and yet concise explanation that I have found!

What a delightfully clear and concise exploration!

Great! You know you've done a good job when someone with my background can say "oh, i get it"!

At last someone told the right answer: how did they find the value of G? We don't know 😂 I searched this many times but no one said 'we don't know'

Thank you so much for this brilliant explanation. I spent years in school plugging G into equations without a care for how or why it was that value and now I know :). You've also given me something new to dig my teeth into - Planck Time! Thanks again.

Very good! I hope you have an intent to make people think more about the subjects, you certainly have made me to think more about them!

This is an absolutely outstanding video. Congratulations. Concise. Full of information. Entertaining. 5 stars.

thank you, this helped me a whole lot. I also enjoyed your video, it's not often that i would smile when learning math.

Excellent! Thank you for your video. The clarity of your explanation is superb. I most certainly will view your other videos.

This is my #1, favorite science video on KZfaq. Ab Fab!

This video was amazing, everything clear as day! Thank you

Amazing explanation, I genuinely enjoyed your video! :)

Einstein said that if you cannot explain complex things in a simple way it means you dont understand it yourself. Could not agree more. You UNDERSTAND it. And I love your sense of humour! Great explanation! Thanks

Thank you, very clear and clarifying

You deserve more audience. Fantastic content!!

Thank you so much for clarifying that for me great and simple explanation...

Very awesome video! I love how you draw the characters :)

Very well explained sir, with a smile at the end. Thank you

Absolute banger of a video; this was very informative yet concise, and the visuals complemented the concepts well

Very delightfuly explained! Now I understand

Extremely great video on physics. G irritated me for a long time and of course no one could explain in straight like that. Love you man

Man, this is my new favorite science channel. Cuts crystal clear to isolate ideas without a lot of confusion. So could G be set by some fundamental limitation in the hardware used to run the software simulation of our universe?

This topic just baffeled me for some time now, thanks for the rundown.

Thank you for this video!

Been searching for a good gravitational constant video and I've found my winner! Ultimately I was looking for one that showed the exact calculations that led to 6.67x10^(-11) but it seems no one really wants to do that calculation. This video was great anyway!

6 lines and circle - Einstein head! *LOL*

Thank you, this clarifies so much...

Wonderful video! Thank you

Thank you so much i was looking around and couldn't find anything this good.

This is a great explanation! I am very interested in why G is the number that it is. There must be a reason.

This video was AMAZING!

Great video man, keep doing those

Everyday I'm becoming more fascinating with physics.

Could you please make a video on the universal gas constant? I love your explainations.

Thank you, the we don't know at the end was exactly what I was thinking.

That is an amazing explanation!

Please explain how Cavendish was able to pull off his experiment if there are so many factors (like he’s barn door for example) or anything else

Thank you, you inspire me to ponder more. I made a shorts on g, its should be related to the type of material / chemistry

How newton know the valUe of G

Very nice. Thank you.

great job! thank you!

Extremely exclusive content Keep it up

We don't know what it is, but our model of universe is based on this. NICE!

Awesome explanation bro..

Hi Vasilis, I tried to falsify G by considering the force of the Sun, moon, Jupiter, Andromeda etc but found that the symmetric design of the apparatus by Mitchel defeats these problems. The Coriolis effect is often taken into account by experimenters but I think diamagnetism or ferromagnetism that varies with time or point of origin at the South pole can have an effect to interfere with the apparatus. What do you think? Paraskevas.

This has to be the greatest explanation I've ever heard to explain the constant. I

Loved this, simple explanation with a simple confession of our ignorance

great explanation thanks

Ending is awesome.. I will share it with friends

This is the best video i have ever seen on G.

What a wonderful and knowledge full video. G is great.

That was a great explanation Thanks 😳🙌

Well done!

Wonderful video.

According to this formula... the reason we don't know precisely the value of G, is because we don't know how big the universe is. Providing we understand the falloff of the relative gravitational effect by distance squared, then if we knew the exact measurements of the universe (at least the furthest possible distance anything can be from anything else, including from the limits of the universe itself) then we could calculate the absolute constant measurement of gravity that always must exist so long as there is even the smallest rational form of existence which emits a gravitational field. This finding is complicated, since the universe keeps expanding, but even things that are moving can be measured. If we understood the tensile strength, elasticity, and rate of expansion of universe makeup, and the volume of that makeup which exists, then we could calculate the maximum limits the universe could expand before retracting back in on itself, or ceases expansion, or if the rate of expansion outpaces the tensile strength we would know how far it will go before it begins to fray itself (though it would be curious as to where it gained the energy for accomplishing that feat). INB4 "The aether theory was disproven." We exist. We exist in the universe. The universe is apparently expanding. I don't know what the universe is, that things can exist in it and there may be a limit to how big it gets, but whatever the makeup is, that's what I'm talking about. Whatever it is that's being expanded, that's what I'm talking about. And if "the universe is expanding" is actually in reference to the observable universe, cosmic background radiation and the rate and direction of how things are moving away from each other and there is no actual limit to the size of the universe, then that means; instead of calculating for a precise universal constant, we must calculate for what amounts to a North South system of measurement, where finds the constant between two markers and adjust accordingly. And because they are want to move, the measurement could be accurate in a moment, but unlikely to remain constant for all time. That is of course unless there is a limit to gravity, where something will stop emitting a gravitational field any further than a certain distance, regardless of practical effect. If that were the case, rather than measuring the volume of the universe, we could measure the rate of falloff to the maximum distance of a field. But if gravity must be a practical thing, then we can measure for the maximum distance to make an intersect point, whereupon two of the least gravitationally significant rational forms of existence can impact each other. Though to do this, it may require an environment without background gravity. Possible in a simulation, but maybe not in real life.

Incredible!!!!!!! Wow!!!!!!!! Just wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you sir!

1:29 I am shallow. Great video btw!

I was watching an episode of Star Trek ds9 the other day where they were talking about the Big Crunch theory. They said there was too much mass in the universe and they wanted to use subspace to get rid of some of the mass. When they said that someone said, “you want to change the gravitational constant?” It really made me wonder why they likened the gravitational constant with subspace.

Amazin video well explained!!

So much stuff started making so much sense in my mind watching this video.

Thank you for the video bro. Please note that the "distance between m1 and m2 should be from one center of mass to the next and not like your drawing. I can't remember which is correct.

So how did Cavendish come up with that 6.67x10^-11 number?

woow! We don't know why G has this value, I'm like how am I suppose to learn physics like this? Thank you for sharing! Great teaching!

Thanks! Still unclear how exactly experimentally that value was got?

@1:25 You show EFE with the constant normally written with k for kappa as 8*n*G*c^-4, the n = pi = 3.14159..., but it looks like n (that is a visible error not math error), so G = k*c^4*(8*pi)^-1. If we change c from being the speed of light in a vacuum to just v = speed constant of gravity, then we get a reasonable value of v. I am thinking this is related to the gravitational red/blue shift cause by light leaving/coming from a planet or star. Am I wrong? Other places show the power put to c as c^-2, can you be clear as to which power should be used and why?

Just subscribed. Awesome.

Thank you so much

When he says both the right side and left side is measured in newtons, what does that mean exactly? both F and (m1/m2)radius^2 measued in newtons or what is meant

U made my day bro. Greetings from India..

Do you know that G can be defined and calculated with a corpuscolar model developed by a france physicist contemporary to Newton and that Newton knew this corpuscolar model ?

Nice explaination

Thank you Very helpfull

The theory which can derive the gravitational constant is Dewey Larson's Reciprocal System. If you analyse the dimensions of Newton's equation you find that there is an extra time dimension inside G which does not cancel. Accordingly, G=1/t . Larson also adjusts this concept by his discovery of "secondary mass "and arrives at a number which is close to the 2018 CODATA standard but not close enough to be persuasive. However, the CODATA standard is still very controversial as latest measurement results contradict each other and no one really knows why.

Question: If G has such a high uncertainty would that not also mean that for instance Planck time and distance also have a high uncertainty? Or any other constant derived from G?

Thank you my new physics teacher alongside Vsauce and Because Science

1:05 Thanking you from India 🇮🇳 after watching this my doubt was cleared 😍🙏🏻

Nice video!

The closest estimate actually changed in 2018, it is now believed to be 6.67430 * 10^-11 instead. Heres the wikipedia page for proof (or you could get the link yourself): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

why are newtons and kg/m not equivalent. when you said that i felt like i skipped over a very important part of the lesson that wasnt there. where do i go to learn about this?

Do you think that 0.66 = 2/3 is geometrically significant?

Excelente 👏

What do you get we divide the plank Length by the plank time

I have been trying to calculate gravity using newton's equation but I could not find g, google adds some unnecessary stuff and is indirect. This is such a useful video.

Wonderful

Thanks a lot.

Nice man

Thank you. I still don't get the m3 and kg but I do get the idea. I don't believe G is a constant, and not sure 'gravity' is the right name for it. It's like having a checkbook and accounting for some but not all of your deposits and checks, but claiming the ending balance is right. Even so, it works for many calculations, so until a better explanation occurs, we use it.

So what experiments we made so far to calculate it😢

The origin of momentum creation is founded on the application of energy. Momentum serves as the initial cause of pushing and pulling. The energy, emanating from the internal core of a planet, is what gives rise to momentum, commonly referred to as gravity, and not due to the planet’s size, mass, or space-time curvature. For example, when energy is applied, it generates the necessary momentum for the actions of pushing and pulling. Without the application of energy, momentum cannot be established. Consequently, force cannot be exerted for pushing and pulling, as it lacks a physical existence. This, in turn, clarifies why force is not gravity. ~Guadalupe Guerra

If Gs value has a large uncertainty does that mean any equation it is used in has a large uncertainty?