lol

Rofl

@@Zaluskowsky please shut up Zalu

From a certain perspective...

Says headline on the Mu s at 10

No!!

They are not two sides of the same coin so as to say.

@@parthbonde2106 Perhaps you didn't watch the video. Time/length contraction is dependent on the observer.

Two sides of same coin earth

@@pabloleonjimenez Yes!!

You mean the ground reaches THEM

does that mean muons are russians and flat earthers?

Lê Xuân Khôi - James Considering a muon flying at 99.995% the speed of light lasts 100 times as long as a stationary muon, Earth, which is normally around 12000 km in diameter, would look like it’s actually 120 km in diameter in one direction, specifically the direction the muon moves toward. With that in mind, Earth, to a muon, would look like a double-sided pancake. So yeah, we can consider muons “flat-earthers”.

@@Operational117 A third perspective: The proper speed of the muon is way above light speed (Proper speed is the speed the traveller experiences and can go to infinity - the proper speed of a photon is infinite, for example). To the muon the earth doesn't look flat. It just comes at it way faster than light.

its crazy how people always make a way to make something important sarcastic. love u bro

You are awesome 😁🤗😋👍

Wait... does the right check mark mean you're actually Jesus XD ?

You are awesome! You might have to study a lot to create such particles.

Yo!! My maaannnnn!! :D

Jesus Christ,how can you be so quick?You commented on the video just after it got uploaded for like 10 mins.Good God.

spelunkerd In a way you can think of length contraction as the reverse of time dilation. If you are stationary watching a clock moving quickly from your perspective most of the motion of the clock is in the direction of travel so less of its motion is spent relatively on the ticks of the clock, hence it is experiencing fewer ticks per minute than you experience. On the other hand from its perspective it is traveling from the same point A to point B that you see it traveling, and in its frame of reference time is proceeding the same as if it was at rest, so for it to travel that distance in the same number of ticks on its clock that you see from the outside it must be seeing the distance it is traveling as shorter than the distance you are seeing it travel. Just like in the video we see muons make a long trip with a slow clock but they see their clock at normal rate but traveling a shorter distance and both us and the muon agree on how many total ticks go by on its clock during the entire trip.

It's more like time dialation and length contraction are both cause and effect of each other. If time moves slower at the speed of light then you're bound to travel less distance than you seem to move and vice versa

Mhmm. Length contraction is essentially the biproduct of time dilation from the point of view of the moving object. Good explanations.

For the sake of ease of explanation I'm gonna say that 100m/s is enough to dilate your time by a factor of two (just a bit of a stretch I know), so if you were to travel 100m/s for a second, a stationary observer would observe you travelling for two seconds. So from your perspective you had moved 100m, but the observer would see that you had moved 200m. That 200m was "contracted" to 100m for you due to your speed.

experiencing totally different rates of time isnt abstract and hard to comprehend? what are you, a time traveller?

Sounds like a veritaseum episode

Forgot too say no homo

Too dumb to read the Wikipedia article?

Believe it or not they are very simple. Detectors like this one in the video are scintillation detectors. When the muon passes through the detector material it gives some of it's energy to the electrons in the material, those electrons then re-emit that energy as light. Photosensors detect the light and turn itto electrical pulses which are digitized and the amplitude/time recorded so that the orginal muon path can be recreated.

@@fuqin9462 hi not dumb person, I thought you read all Wikipedia article, why would you come here

OK

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 O+

🇮🇷😘👍

same

@@AstolfoGayming Were you there (not to hear them)? 🤔

You mean "length contr..." R.I.P.

did you just assume my choice of lepton?

Yup, when moving at non-relativistic velocities from the reference of someone on Earth; the Earth is a Parker Oblate Spheroid. When moving at relativistic velocities relative to someone on Earth (since velocity can only exist relative to something else, we are technically moving at relativistic velocities relative to muons "hence why were are what contract from its point of view"). Ever try seeing if you could get someone to attack you with Ad hominems because you claimed "It is a scientific fact that the Earth is flat in some inertial reference frames" ? I always find it hilarious how people who think they are on the side of science; attack actual physics without ever realizing that they are wrong.

holy shit they were right all along lmao

@@zacharyb100 they won't understand shit lol

@@josephburchanowski4636 Only if you're falling towards the surface fast enough. On impact it becomes a globe again. Also running around in circles on the surface doesn't turn it into a disc either.

if the earth is flat... WHY R THERE MOUNTAINS AND VALLEYS???

isnt all physics... real world physics...? isnt that the point of physics?

@@koolguy728 ye it is the guy up there is just dense

@@koolguy728 a lot of physics is hard to grasp, and thus I place it in the back of my head as "standard physics". This video made me acually understand how this phenomenon workes, and thus got promoted to physics I understand, aka "real world physics".

Actually, it really is. The topic of Muon is nothing remarkable but its properties are when compared to photons/electromagnetic radiation. If Muons decays then photons travelling at exactly the speed of light will never decay! Photons don't have a sense of time or age until it collides into something.

They have a live detector on display at the Einstein Museum in Bern. It lights up every time a muon is detected - pretty cool.

I think it's a fairly light thought actually

My mind is blown thinking about that and it’s amazing that this happens in real life and isn’t crazy science fiction.

HE WIPED MY FACE WITH A PLANET

“vibe check”

The earth moving towards the sun is varied as the color of sun is changing from orange red in the morning to yellow white later on.

Gotta go fast!

@@mmmhorsesteaks That would do the opposite, scrub !

@@TheMiracleMatter Not from my perspective...

@@JordanNexhip say jonathan and me are both wearing watches but he's really fast during the weekend. Say it's 0:00 saturday morning and weekend starts. By the time weekend's over for me; it might only be sunday morning for jonathan.

you can do it

yes it should...

sans

@@Cavething777 yea you think you are *humerus*

But you know what I like a lot more than materialistic things? *K N A W L E D G E*

*K N A W L I D G E*

Oh no don't make me shoot u with cringe blaster

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Lab experiments can't produce energies per particle on the level of cosmic radiation. Also, if you smash two particles in a head on collision instead of shooting one at a stationary target, the resulting particle shower is also relatively slow in the laboratories frame of reference.

@@TheAgamemnon911 ok thx 👍🏻

this makes no sense at all

Agamemnon that was the kind of explanation that only someone who already understands, would understand lol

He made a mistake explaining that bit, I think. Muons are supposed to have a half life of 1.5 microseconds when they're at rest in lab frame or their own frame. So if they move at nearly the speed of light for that amount of time the don't reach very far. That's the conundrum. But if you put relativity into work, it checks out

Time for you to mu-ve-On

@@kyogrix much better... Muuuuuuch BETTER

@@mr.j_krr_80 MOOOOOOuch better

What's a Pokemon's favorite particle? A mew-on. I'm not sorry.

Moo?

That is a very good question

Being totally different effects? No it's the same effect. If treat time like other dimension, then time dilation is just length contraction applied to time. Time is stretched, so is space.

They're not different effects. They're the same effect viewed from different observers. In this case, we observe the time dilation, the muon observes the length contraction. We would also see the muon as length contracted and the muon would see us a time dilated, but neither of those are important for resolving the muon paradox.

the real mystery is why spacetime has these things baked into it instead of fried.

@@gracicot42 no, time dilation and length contraction are different. One stretches one squishes IIRC. This was covered in a previous video in his Special Relativity series. There is a comparable affect, distance dilation, for distance and another comparable affect, duration contraction (or something), for time. Also, the formulas for space and time are somewhat different, space and time have different maths applied in the Lorentz Transformation: x'=y(x-vt), t'=y(t-vx/c^2) (where y is my attempt to replace the symbol for gamma on my phone), and in the spacetime interval (ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2-ct^2). Notice the extra factors of c in both, as well as the minus sign in the spacetime interval which give's space it's hyperbolic character (noticed recently you can see hyperbola's in the space globe actually). I suppose though to be fair in natural units the c's have a value of one (sans units) which do in fact make the direction you are travelling in, x, and time, t, transform in numerically identical ways, but I would caution against simply saying time time an identical dimension which transforms the same so of course time and space are treated the same because 1) time transforms the same as the direction of travel x, not the y or z directions, and 2) the minus sign in the spacetime interval is a fundamental difference

@@Jordan-zk2wd I stand corrected. Thank you!

wow 😂

Kitten explanation of muon is simple and easy to understand.

Ananya Pathak LOL you killed me

You're kitten me

Ananya Pathak ,Schrodinger is the man to ask about that.

I think cations are good enough for them

antimuon

Quahntasy - Animating Universe you are everywhere

Possibly (probably?), but for non-linear movement the situation is really complicated. You'd have to either approximate the circular path as a series of very small straight lines, or somehow invoke General Relativity. In either case I don't think there's any simple way to calculate the expected effect. And probably it would be quite small and hard to measure anyway.

@@danieljensen2626 Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.

@@AkwardCheeseIsAkward I'll admit that this is a weird problem and I'm not well versed in GR, but I am a physics PhD student, and I am quite familiar with special relativy...

@@erazure. PhD student, don't have the degree yet, but Special Relativity only applies to non-accelerating reference frames. An object in a centrifuge is constantly accelerating, so you can't just take the magnitude of the tangential velocity and calculate the time dilation caused by that. (Obviously the tangential velocity is trivial to calculate, that's not the problem). So strictly speaking you cannot answer the question with special relativy at all. I believe what you could do though is break the circular motion up into infinitesimal linear segments, where you can sort of pretend special relativy does apply. Then you could account for the time dilation occurring during that infinitesimal movement, but you could not simply add those up, because you also have to account for the change in reference frames between every infinitesimal segment. I'm pretty sure this would be extremely non-trivial. A quick search of "relativistic rotation" on Google scholar reveals that this is actually a somewhat open area of debate.

@Wei Zhao You can believe whatever you want man, I was just trying to answer the question. I don't actually know if that's how it's done, probably there are other approaches, that's just how I would do it. Which I bring up not to brag, but rather to say I haven't actually tried to work out the problem and I might be completely wrong. But yeah, I'm borrowing the segments thing from problems I've done where you treat linear acceleration that way, I don't actually know if it would work for rotation but it seems like it might.

1g of hydrogen has like 6.023 × 10²³ particles. U need a metric shit ton(thats alot in imperial) of cosmic rays to produce even a lil bit of muons which would eventually collide with the proton and deutron whi h inturn would catalyse the nuclear reaction. But I do have a idea tho, u can use the earth's magnetic field and solar wind dynamic as a giant particle collider to generate muons and catalyse the reactors in space. Also this would greatly decrease the delta v needed to bring the He³ fuel from the moon to earth orbit. The problem would be building the reactors in space and transmission of the generated power

@@tis_ace Do we have to build such a thing in space? Aurora lights start at 80km, inside our atmosphere. Building one in space wouldn't really have a huge advantage compared to building a magnetically confined fusion reactor on the ground.

@@kayraaa2646 auroras are created when the said energetic particles predominantly from the solar wind(some cosmic rays too) are redirected by the earths magnetic field to the polar regions where they come into contact with the upper regions of the atmosphere(hence the 80 km value you gave), by idea was to situate a tokomak or other magnetically confined fusion device in the van Allen belts (the region where the solar wind and cosmic rays are trapped semi permanently) and hence lead to collisions with the confinement thermos thus creating the muons and a bunch of other things which catalyse the fusion reaction.

@@kayraaa2646 I was banking on the fact that these particles are highly penetrative(on reasonable scales)

@@tis_ace How much magnetic confinement would we need when we're using muon catalyzation too, anyway? I don't think we'd have to send an entire TOKAMAK to orbit.

Technically, for a particle traveling at 0.9999999991c (might've messed up the number of 9s there), the Earth would actually be flat for them.

@1998SIMOMEGA They are referencing en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-On!

You're the weeb here. Get out of here. We're discussing physics here, not anime.

@@CavCave cringe

not near enough to get the same relativistic effects.

I thought the same thing. I couldn't find anything from a quick search but they have something close to 200 times the mass of an electron so I would guess muons we create in lab settings are pretty stationary. Electron's in molecules only go a fraction of the speed of light. This is all from browsing around a bit though so I could be dead wrong lol

Mario A Min created in particular accelerators do travel at relativistic speed, but nowhere (or least very unlikely to) near the speed of light for the time dialation to really matter.

At 95% of C the efect reduces perceived time to 31%, at 99%C it's to 14%, at 99.9% to 4.5%, at 99.99% to 1.41%; I hope you see what I'm trying to show. The effects get much larger the closer you are to light speed.

I mean they'd have to create the muons at high speed considering we usually make them by literally smashing particles together it'll be difficult to achieve muons speed since the particles which are both colliding are going near light speed so the particles they create only move at a fraction of the speed they had

MAV Acceleration isn’t the reason for the twin paradox, it’s that the twin in the spaceship experiences two different inertial frames of reference versus the Earthbound twin experiencing only one frame of reference the entire time. Acceleration doesn’t enter into the calculations. There is no absolute perspective, everything believes it is at rest in its own inertial frame and there isn’t some absolute frame that everything can agree on. What is absolute is the speed of time, aka the speed of light. No matter what frame of reference you are in you will always see light traveling the same speed in a vacuum. It’s from that absolute that the rest of relativity such as time dilation and length contraction follows.

Even if it's not the right eay to think of it, i found that the frame of reference that used more energy has the actual time dilation. If you think about it, to get moving from the earth you can either put some energy to move yourself OR build massive rockets to move the earth away from you. In the second scenario, you would age faster than your twin on the earth. Here the muon has a longer lifespan because he was created by high energy beams in the upper atmosphere, while the detector did not move at all, thus not consuming any energy, to hit the muon.

MAV Doug Rosengard is correct, Riccardo not. This is a common misconception about relativity, but i will try to explain it to you. There is a difference between relative and absolute quantities. Absolute quantities are the same for every observer, relative quantities are different for every observer. For example in classical physics the length of a car would be considered an absolute quantity, because for an observer inside the car it would have the same length than for an observer ouside the car watching it drive. In classical physics the length of objects is the same for every observer. The number of fingers on your hands would also be an absolute quantity, because every observer, whether or not he is moving, would agree that you have 5 fingers on each hand. Velocity would be an example for a relative quantity. The observer inside one car thinks that the car has a velocity of zero, and if there would be a second car driving next to him with the same speed, he would say that the second car has also a velocity of zero relative to him. For for an observer on the side of the street both cars have a velocity v not equal to zero. So now a good question would be: How is it possible that the same car has two different velocities simultaniously? Isn't that a condratiction? The answer is that for every observer the car has only exactly one velocity, but it can have a different velocity for every observer. Velocity is a relative quantity. But is that real? Or is one velocity actually right and it just looks like the car is moving or not moving for the other observer? Well think about it: If the observer in the first car reaches his hand out of the window and touches the second car next to him, he can do that without hurting his hand, even though the cars are driving at high speeds. So for the observer inside the first car the measured velocity of zero for the second car is totally real, with all its physical consequences. For the observer on the side of the street the situation is like this: If he reaches out to touch the car, his hand will get hurt because for him the car has a velocity, with all its physical consequences. Both observers measure different speeds, both are right and the respective speed is real for each of them. Now in special relativity the number of fingers on your hand is still an absolute quantity, but length's and times are now relative quantities. In some experiment one observer might say "My own clock is going faster", while the second observer says "No, my clock is going faster". Also the first observer claims that his car is longer, while the second observer disagrees. The above example with velocity was easy to understand, because it is intuitive from our everyday experience. With length and time it is not so intuitive, but it really is the same thing, so we can ask the same questions: How is it possible that the same car has two different length's simultaniously? Isn't that a condratiction? The answer is that for every observer the car has only exactly one length, but it can have a different length for every observer. Length is a relative quantity. But is that real? Or is one length actually right and it just looks like the car is shorter or longer for the other observer? The answer is the same as with velocity: Both observers measure different length's, both are right and the respective length is real for each of them, with all its physical consequences. The same it true for time.

@ It's not about using more energy either. For example, there is a variant of the twin paradox that the Fermi Lab channel has a KZfaq video about involving three people all of whom travel at constant speed with no acceleration or change in direction. You get the same effect of a travelling clock leaving Earth and coming back experiencing less time than a clock that stayed on Earth but without any acceleration or differences in energy expenditure. It's simply because the out-and-back clock goes through two frames of reference while the stationary clock only experiences on frame of reference kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fc2mlM2m27nUdmg.html

@@Bodyknock That video's explanation is.. not quite right either. The observers may not experience an acceleration, but there is one hidden acceleration involved there: When B and C cross, the time measurement has a flipped sign. In the video's graphical depiction, there's no effective difference between the description at ~7:00 and a scenario where B somehow manages an instantaneous reversal of motion at point 2, which is equivalent to a very large instantaneous acceleration. Now I'm sure mathematically that's probably irrelevant (much smarter people than me have worked on this for a long time,) but it was still a bit jarring to notice (Don's videos are usually spot on.. not surprising being Fermilab and all.) I got a "that's not quite right" vibe almost immediately but it took me quite a while and a few reruns of the video to pin down the actual problem!

😁

You can’t have 4minutephysics without minutephysics

For minutephysics it's still minutephysics. He's just moving faster than you are.

It's actually one minute that seems from our perspective as four due to time dilation.

Actually 5* Because 4:33 or 273 seconds is ~5m or ~300s rather than ~4m or ~240s (If you look at the whole video, because without the sponsorship it is closer to 4m). And even though this is a joke, for the people that are curious Henry has said that he purposely didn’t call it oneminutephysics so he wouldn’t have that time restriction.

Hmm

to thinking was I what is That

I was also considering this, but in order for Muon fusion to work, you need all of the particles to be traveling at the same speeds, which means that they share a reference frame and have the same degree of time dilation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

Not exactly, for a particle to travel in relativistic speeds you need to provide them with relativistic amounts of energy. So this can't help the net energy gain

In Germany it! Myon, you say it like Müon. The more you know...

@@flemlius3507 In Latvia people are so dumb there isn't even a word for muon. Since the really smart professors often aren't local they just use english word

that what made Fatman to go boom.

I didn't know either, until I saw one captured in an detector similar to the drawn one in the video, at the DESY accelerator in Hamburg. Very impressive way to detect particles.;) Highly recommended, if u have the chance to see the detection in person. here a video of it kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aJhjYNN30K-vdWQ.html

@@TheShootist I thought tiny plates of mint chocolate do that.

Just go to school

If you really want (not just wish), then you can. Just study one thing at a time and eventually you'll get there.

Keep reading. Keep watching. Minute Physics has awesome explanations for lay people that are inclusive!

RedOnTheHead - I agree

Claudio Jaramillo that’s silly 😂

@@DeadlyNerotoxins I do not consider myself special I simply guess this video will follow trend of this channel, meaning this is going to be a great video. There are enough samples for me to safely predict this video will be great without actually seeing it. then I watch the video and confirm that indeed it was great video, as it was according to my prediction

@@larax222 i interpreted your comment wrong man, thought you were bragging that you knew the info in the whole video before you watched haha my mess up

@@DeadlyNerotoxins no worries! ^,=,^

Who cares about the dumb ones.

Averages

50% of any amount of muons decay in 1.5 microseconds, the average decay rate for any one is 2.2

This was my question too. How fast are the Muons traveling when we create them in a lab? The video says they average 2.2 μs half-life in a lab from our perspective, but then later say that outside the lab and with time dilation they travel 2.2 μs from the Muon's perspective which is 22 μs from our perspective. Something is wrong.

Every 9 after the decimal place makes a big difference to the calculated time dilation. If you are talking about time dilation there is a huge difference between 99.9% of the speed of light and 99.99% of the speed of light. Also: I think in a particle accelerator, the protons they are colliding have 99.9% of light, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the speed reaction products.

Lab-created muons are moving relatively slowly; a few percent the speed of light. So they experience very little time dilation and have an average half life of a few μs. Atmospheric muons are made by cosmic rays. We think it's possible neutron stars of black holes act as giant particle accelerators for these One, the 'Oh my God' particle, had the kinetic energy of a home-run baseball... in a single proton. Imagine an ATOM hitting you and knocking you out... So these make muons that can travel at a hair below light speed, almost frozen in time and with half lives (To us) of hundreds of μs.

I think you would appreciate his series on special relativity utilising the spacetime globe, chapter 5 to be exact.

first like to the first like

It says 0 likes

@@wanderingshade8383 first like to the first like to the first like

Satvik Sharma It’s a veridical paradox (i.e. something that sounds contradictory but isn’t) as opposed to one of other types of paradoxes. (Not all paradoxes are logical contradictions.)

So it both is and isn't a paradox. That's very contradictory.

@@culwin so it really is a paradox

The point is that the detection of these muons would literally be impossible without relativity being a thing. IOW, this is a proof by contradiction: if no Relativity, then no muons; we have muons, ergo Relativity... or at least something very much like it. Looked at yet another way, every one who says Relativity is false has to deal in some way w/ this observation of "impossible" muons. ^_^

​@@R.Instro Yes, but like I said, special relativity is over 100 years old. If it had been wrong, that would have been known long ago, and it would have been passed to history.

@@db7213 a pedant, I see. As evidenced by the comments, it's not something everyone in this audience has known for a century. Also, you must be new to the internet? where a round Earth, the Moon landings and yes even Relativity are often claimed to be "evil" "conspiracies" perpetrated on the masses by some nefarious Power(s) That Be? ^_^ This is an educational channel intended for those unfamiliar w/the facts behind the subject matter, not necessarily for those who can actually calculate Einstein's equations by hand, or for gratuitous pedants; surely, some allowance can be made? Clearly the muons in question are not 'impossible on any grounds' or they would not exist at all. In this you are correct. However the fact that they ARE 'impossible' _without time dilation & length contraction_ serves an educational purpose, and is relevant to the last several videos that this channel has done on the subject of Relativity, both Special & General.

@@R.Instro But how is it educational to make special relativity seem mysterious and impossible? Should educational videos also make a fuss about how impossible it is that we're standing on the ground (because without the electromagnetic force, that would be impossible)?

@@db7213 as anyone who had actually watched the video could tell you, it is not Relativity that's been labeled 'impossible', nor is it a mystery as to why/how the term was used. Contrary to your straw man question, the term is used to DE-mystify a paradigm (Relativity) which is not generally percieved on human scales, quite unlike the EM force you sought to equate it with. The bottom line is, your criticism is a nit-pick at best, and I hope you understand why I believe it is both petty and not worth any more of my time to discuss. Cheers!