I never thought I'd say this, but these lectures are great fun to watch

made months of misunderstandings crystal clear in seconds, amazing work!

Why didn’t I find this channel when I was taking Modern Physics last semester😢 It was made 1 year ago!

Thank you, God bless

Thanks

Dr, I assume the formula you wrote should be as follows, Del T (for moving object) = del t (for object at rest) / sqr root (1 - v^2/c^2). I think you flipped them. Object at rest should be in the right hand side of the equation.

Prof I need assistance with this problem, A black body at 7000K has a 0.1nm diameter in it.Estimate the number of photons that escape per second from this hole and that fall in the range of visible light,say from 400 to 750 nm

how are you writing on that glass from your right to left....and with glowing ink of pen .....how .. by the way I'm from India and you are doing a great job........😊👍

I have always wondered about this: I understand that if twin A is stationary on earth, and twin B travels in a fast rocket, that time moves more slowly for twin B. But if frames of reference are all relative, wouldn't it also be that case that, from twin B's frame of reference, twin A and earth were moving away from him very fast? In which case, wouldn't time slow down for twin A? Which would lead to an oxymoron.... ?

Okay an easier question, does time dilation have a counterpart? An opposite effect?

Will see you in the future

But there is no absolute frame of reference. So on what basis do you say which object is moving? You said from the perspective of the one in the spaceship time moves more slowly. But from the perspective of the one in the space ship, it is the person on earth that is moving. There is something missing from this explanation. Otherwise they each think time moves more slowly for the other one.

😎

Yeah, I'm not this smart

So potentially immortallity Doctor?

sup

BS! "Moving clock run slow"???? Is the language of ..physics or poetry? The formula is super simple but the interpretation of this parameter of time (and also of distance) is a typical textbook's BS! In the end, he almost got the right answer: "It looks like" (ok!) that the so-called ""particle" lives "longer but immediately he repeats the first statement as applied to the twin in a spaceship: "he will live longer"! Hm, what about from the point of view of the spaceship that in its own reference system is at rest and the other Twin(clock, particle) is now moving? A perfect reverse situation (the Lorentz formula is symmetrical in a sign expression: one only exchanges the subscript "o" in (t^0-at the bottom) with non in t = t^0/(1-(v/c)^2)^(-1/2) - the Lorentz formula! More, this "particle" is not a point particle, it is a stream of something that reacts with a measuring device but mathematically one can attach a time to just one (fictional particle) instead of a statistical set of disintegrating radioactive nuclei.

You made a mistake, in higher speed IF particle must be longer alife compared with earths life time. But this also is not true. The men in orbit will just measure same life time, because his time period, was dilated longer. Life time of particle is invariant, else we would know that we are moving.