I Think Faster Than Light Travel is Possible. Here's Why.

  Переглядів 2,668,858

Sabine Hossenfelder

Sabine Hossenfelder

День тому

Try out my quantum mechanics course (and many others on math and science) on Brilliant using the link brilliant.org/sabine. You can get started for free, and the first 200 will get 20% off the annual premium subscription.
Take the quiz to see if you understood everything: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/...
If you've been following my channel for a really long time, you might remember that some years ago I made a video about whether faster-than-light travel is possible. I was trying to explain why the arguments saying it's impossible are inconclusive and we shouldn't throw out the possibility too quickly, but I'm afraid I didn't make my case very well. This video is a second attempt. Hopefully this time it'll come across more clearly!
💌 Support us on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
👉 Transcript and References on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Sign up for my weekly science newsletter. It's free! ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
00:00 Intro
01:51 The Speed of Light as Limit
06:12 The Speed of Light as Barrier
12:44 Time Travel Paradoxes
20:47 Quantum Gravity and Summary
21:54 Learn Physics on Brilliant
#science #physics

КОМЕНТАРІ: 12 000
@SabineHossenfelder
@SabineHossenfelder 7 місяців тому
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1687737623494x575496266320185500
@kh9242
@kh9242 7 місяців тому
Darn i missed two "Your score is higher than 22% of the people, who took the quiz! Good job!" I wanted a 100 i have PTSD now heeding to safe space
@brycering5989
@brycering5989 7 місяців тому
Plot Twist, Sabine is from the other side of the Milkyway, and is trying to find a suitable mate ;) Hmmm, extraterrestrial extraspecie-al intercource, I think I personally would break the boundaries of C, but would do my best to not let my water hose spit out too soon.
@RWBHere
@RWBHere 7 місяців тому
You can think much faster than light already. To prove it, think about our Sun warming the Earth. Now think about the Andromeda Galaxy, as seen through a telescope. You did both of those things in an instant, but sunlight takes over 8 minutes to reach the Earth, and light from Andromeda takes about 2.5 million years to travel to our telescopes.
@firecat3613
@firecat3613 6 місяців тому
8/9. I could have gotten 9/9 but, although I knew the answer you wanted, I disagreed with it and a more accurate answer was available. But that's the wonderful thing about science, we don't always have to agree on everything. Often our disagreements can open the doors to new understanding and new advancements, for one of us, for both of us or - in some cases - for all of us.
@firecat3613
@firecat3613 6 місяців тому
@@RWBHere The trick is determining what is occurring in the moment. Sure, it's easy to determine that the sun is still shining this very moment. It's not difficult to make an inference from something as recent as 8 minutes ago. But let us not consider Andromeda, but use something much closer as a reference. Imagine a star in our own galaxy. It is 50,000 ly away. We see it clearly with WEBB. The star is an unstable red giant. Is it still there? Is it still a red giant? Is it a white or brown dwarf? What is happening to that star, right now? Now consider Andromeda, a galaxy 50 times further away that that star. What is going on there?
@robonator2945
@robonator2945 Рік тому
The thing I love about this channel is half the time it doesn't feel like a youtube channel, or even a documentary channel, it just feels like a professor's mid-lecture ramblings that they spend half the class talking about because they're just so damn interested in it they completely lose track of the discussion and if you ask me, those are the best ways to learn.
@alysdexia
@alysdexia Рік тому
not plural, dolt
@Kumagoro42
@Kumagoro42 Рік тому
I get the general sentiment, but I disagree about these videos feeling like ramblings. They feel meticulously prepared.
@robonator2945
@robonator2945 Рік тому
@@alysdexia you know rambling can be a noun right dolt? Someone can start rambling, or someone can record a rambling. The noun form is just the conceptual object form of the verb.
@alysdexia
@alysdexia Рік тому
@@robonator2945 I said nothing about rambling, you wit/2. But I know that a gerund isn’t a verb.
@robonator2945
@robonator2945 Рік тому
​@@alysdexia well that's bascially the only plural I used, soooooo. The only other plural I used was "those are the best ways to learn" which is a valid plural since I'm referring to the plural group of rambling *_s_* as a concept and not a single rambling. You could argue that it should represent a single "way" of learning but that point it's completely useless subjectivity and there is no "right" or "wrong" answer and it's just a classification problem. Equally however you could argue that a rambling is just a sub-set of the super-set of "passion inspired tangent from a professor" which can include other sub-sets and as a result wouldn't just be an acceptable plural but a demanded plural.
@p.a.1675
@p.a.1675 Рік тому
“Hey, we don’t serve faster-than-light particles in here.” A tachyon walks into a bar.
@rajeevgangal542
@rajeevgangal542 Рік тому
He was served beer but didn't drink. Why? Cause he was virtual
@enriquea.fonolla4495
@enriquea.fonolla4495 2 місяці тому
that is a very good nerd joke.
@bradysmith4405
@bradysmith4405 Місяць тому
Did he walk in after because they go back in time?
@MariosPOS
@MariosPOS 24 дні тому
lmfaooo
@DeadlyKiss000
@DeadlyKiss000 10 днів тому
Are Tachyons related to Klingons? Because if they are, then that is a sure fire recipe for a bar brawl! Tachyons ain't gonna take that, not being served!
@nickhartwell6889
@nickhartwell6889 24 дні тому
I really appreciate your pause in discussion at around 18 minutes to recap the present topic. You knew right when my head was starting to lag while absorbing this information. Phenomenal teaching.
@lobojk
@lobojk 2 місяці тому
Sabine, this is fantastic and funny. I'm not sure I could answer any of the quiz questions... but I will watch you again. This presentation is crazy cool.
@sriharsha5036
@sriharsha5036 Рік тому
Clicked on this one faster than speed of light.
@michaelfried3123
@michaelfried3123 Рік тому
clicking on clickbait gets slow rolled by those of us who know better. this video is for the dummies out there...
@faeancestor
@faeancestor Рік тому
man
@nonsequitor
@nonsequitor Рік тому
In what medium? 😉
@Lilliathi
@Lilliathi Рік тому
@@michaelfried3123 Oh, I'm sorry superior being who likes his own posts. I bow to you.
@MrYobII
@MrYobII Рік тому
Not while your thumb was traveling through a medium
@SabineHossenfelder
@SabineHossenfelder Рік тому
Hi All, I realized too late I should have added a word about quantum mechanics: Quantum mechanics has the same speed limit (barrier!) as special relativity, and special relativity is where this barrier comes from. Therefore, quantum physics doesn't change anything about what I explained here. (Which is why I forgot to even mention it...)
@eonasjohn
@eonasjohn Рік тому
Thank you for elaborating.
@jewelrybag4557
@jewelrybag4557 Рік тому
Why would an advanced civilization use clunky spaceships to visit us? Won't they have perfected nanotechnology or quantum technology to achieve their goals?
@tomcan48
@tomcan48 Рік тому
Sorry again, if we are looking ONLY at physical manifestations, then YES. But the speed-of-light can easily be exceeded through thought. Even those little Greys use that technology and even our relatives from the constellation, Lyra, which we originate from, use consciousness as the base means ships, similar to what we see on Star Trek. Unfortunately, outside the SSP, we are restricted to consider such things as impossible, due to our programmed viewpoint. Maybe someday we will be able to break through this forced programming.
@jagpreetbatra5084
@jagpreetbatra5084 Рік тому
Beautifully explained we need new mathematics to first work out in theory behind Ftl then Do some experimental work
@eewls
@eewls Рік тому
Thank you for this fantastic philosophy video, Sabine
@RobertTowell
@RobertTowell Місяць тому
I do not know why youtube decided to start putting these videos in my feed. But I am loving them. She does an excellent job of explaining things in a way I can follow. Great channel!
@user-gx1rk8yw6l
@user-gx1rk8yw6l Місяць тому
Of course understanding an explanation is no guarantee of the explanation's validity... FYI: Whether Sabine is wright or rong is a totally-different issue.
@JerryHoward88
@JerryHoward88 День тому
I'm pretty sure the aliens have put Sabine's videos on your feed. Grooming us to accept that they traveled here at faster than light speed.
@RobertTowell
@RobertTowell День тому
@@JerryHoward88 lol
@simply-ericcole8201
@simply-ericcole8201 Місяць тому
Love this channel and Sabine's explanations, even of stuff I already know. Keep up the good work !!
@onthefive5615
@onthefive5615 3 місяці тому
Not understanding physics has been a drag all my life. For instance, I've been all into plate tectonics theory since the late 60s, and while I seemed to excel at logic, physics was a brick wall halting my ability to explain and argue my reasoning. That brick wall (my thick skull - or being lefthanded -according to teachers and parents) later interfered with my passion for studying oceanography and geology as deeply as I wanted to in the 80s and 90s. So my college degrees were light om math studies. I'm telling you this because watching your videos, the way you describe and explain things led me to discover how physics works. I can now say, at 74 years old, that I get it!!! I'm so grateful, thank you!
@Levon9404
@Levon9404 2 місяці тому
You know the good saying, old man, better late than never, finally you can consider you were able achieve something in your life
@DarkKnight_
@DarkKnight_ 2 місяці тому
Never stop learning then your curiosity and wonder will never leave you.
@MichaelJones-rg3hv
@MichaelJones-rg3hv 2 місяці тому
Congrats! Always good to learn new and wonderful things.
@sunbeam9222
@sunbeam9222 Місяць тому
I experienced the same thing ( and also left handed ;)
@Levon9404
@Levon9404 Місяць тому
@@sunbeam9222 Physics is something, you have to have certain attractions to physical things, to understand how to find key to understand secrets they fundamentally exist and function.
@Termini_Man
@Termini_Man 3 місяці тому
Thank you for having a full transcript for the close captions. You have no idea how much I appreciate. So many channels don't, so the subtitles aren't accurate, or maybe they don't even have any. I have auditory processing disorder, so I have issues understanding talking sometimes.
@bazem
@bazem 3 місяці тому
It's also very useful to people who can read in English but are still learning the listening part. It can be hard to follow different accents and speeds while still learning. The subtitles help a lot with understanding the content and also training your ears.
@SPQSpartacus
@SPQSpartacus 2 місяці тому
8:20 You’re almost entirely made of Pure Energy. Though when I see how much time you spend watching UKposts I find that hard to believe. My new favourite quote.
@TheTonyMcD
@TheTonyMcD 3 місяці тому
Thank you for covering that supposed ftl time travel paradox. I never understood the argument. I could follow it, but it never made any sense to me how bob's perception of something traveling backwards in time could somehow be used to give his past-self a message. I'd always assumed that I just couldn't grasp what was actually going on, or that I was missing something. You've renewed some confidence in my own intelligence.
@busteraycan
@busteraycan 25 днів тому
To me it seems like if supersonic aircraft don't break causality faster than light space ships also shouldn't. But of course I don't have any formal education on relativity so I always assumed I just wouldn't understand the reasoning without the mathematical groundwork behind it. (tbf I still don't understand why some scientists believe FTL would break causality))
@tayzonday
@tayzonday Рік тому
Isn’t speed always infinite from the perspective of the photon? Like, a photon from the early universe might take 13 billion years to reach us from our viewpoint- but from the photon’s view, the journey is instantaneous. Thus, our perception of “speed” (distance over time) is just an artifact of our motion experience.
@Zalemones1
@Zalemones1 Рік тому
Time is meaningless at the speed of light. The very idea of time passing does not even make sense at the speed of light.
@robertanderson5092
@robertanderson5092 Рік тому
Isn't distance also meaningless?
@VivekPatel-ze6jy
@VivekPatel-ze6jy Рік тому
I think so... Time dilation really messes with my brain lmao
@Chimwizlet
@Chimwizlet Рік тому
As Zalemones1 said, time is meaningless at that point. The misconception comes from the maths which suggests that as speed approaches c the length contraction approaches the point where distance is 0 and so the journey is instant. But that doesn't mean it actually is 0 at c, at that point the equation is no longer valid in the same way 1/x has no value when x=0.
@jitteryjet7525
@jitteryjet7525 Рік тому
Exactly! Something travelling near the speed of light can cross the known universe almost instantaneously, from their point of view.
@prodiver7
@prodiver7 Рік тому
There was a time-traveller named Wright who travelled much faster than light. He set off one day in a relative way, and arrived on the previous night.
@audiodead7302
@audiodead7302 Рік тому
I just asked ChatGPT to write a limerick about travelling faster than light and time travel. I like yours better!: There once was a physicist quite bright, Who dreamed of a journey through light. With a machine that could time travel too, He set off on an adventure anew. He broke the light barrier with ease, Zipped through the cosmos with such great sleaze. But when he arrived at his destination, He found himself in an odd situation. His time machine had worked too well, And sent him back to a time he couldn't tell. He realized with a start and a fright, That he was stuck in a time-loop of light. So, if you ever think to travel so fast, And attempt to journey through the past, Just remember this limerick quite well, Or you might end up trapped in a time-cell.
@alextw1488
@alextw1488 Рік тому
the way the rhyme played I thought you might say something that ended in shi-ne a light
@fairygodmothersdog
@fairygodmothersdog Рік тому
@@audiodead7302 OMG #talesfroma21stcenturyfairygodmother uses through loops to save a place in time and space, but this ai actually touched on a funny notion that eventually all time traveler's get imprisoned and I forget where I read it, a meme or work of sci Fi, but that's so interesting that was generated. "Sleaze" is a bizarre word to use there.
@fairygodmothersdog
@fairygodmothersdog Рік тому
Prodiver7 I really liked yours. Did you write that?
@subspaceanomaly
@subspaceanomaly Рік тому
@@audiodead7302 I would like to go on a sleazy trip across the cosmos
@hudsonreynolds4349
@hudsonreynolds4349 27 днів тому
Love this video. Very exciting to examine the nuances of these assumptions that everybody hears. I would absolutely love to see some physicists talk about these points
@bombheadgames9565
@bombheadgames9565 Місяць тому
The Lorentz transformations for speed, mass and length go totally nutty as v approaches c which is why you cannot travel AT the speed of light because your mass tends to infinity, so the kinetic energy you need also tends to infinity.. However those same formula say once v > c that mass drops sharply back away from infinity.. What this implies is it could be feasible for particles to tunnel from below light speed to above lightspeed, the same way electrons tunnel through impossible voltage gradients in Zenner diodes.
@TheSourJam
@TheSourJam Місяць тому
Just a small correction: as v approaches c, it’s the total energy that tends to infinity, not the mass, as we abandoned the idea of relativistic mass some time ago. The total energy of course just being the kinetic energy plus the energy from the mass (E=mc^2).
@Henrix1998
@Henrix1998 Місяць тому
Imaginary energy let's go
@HuyV
@HuyV 13 днів тому
So we just try to tunnel each of our atoms to FTL until we manage to do that for all of our 10^28 atoms and then try to sync up all of them travelling with different headstarts so they end up in a human shape again? Sounds like a plan
@supercal333
@supercal333 7 днів тому
So do you end up in a parallel dimension after tunnelling through the singularity?
@bombheadgames9565
@bombheadgames9565 6 днів тому
@@supercal333 I don't think so, your probably still passing through our space-time but the laws are different.. For example just the other side of the barrier if you shed energy you actually go faster!.. Sort of like star Trek subspace!
@imacds
@imacds Рік тому
"if you live in the USA, make that 20" as someone who commutes by train, I felt that.
@neurofiedyamato8763
@neurofiedyamato8763 Рік тому
unfortunately true
@DrorF
@DrorF Рік тому
Now I get it. Thanks.
@GuyFromJupiter
@GuyFromJupiter Рік тому
One of the 5 people here in the States that does!
@HocusPocus6969
@HocusPocus6969 Рік тому
I spit my coffee on that one. Love it.
@luke_fabis
@luke_fabis Рік тому
​@@GuyFromJupiter One of the five people who can. Our rail network is in shambles. Forget high speed rail, I just wish we had a rail and trolley network like we had in the mid-1800s up until the automotive industry poisoned this country.
@MartinBica
@MartinBica 3 місяці тому
This is the most awesome mixture of super high quality information and super dry super funny humor you can experience in this and all 6 parallel univeses. I love the style of Sabine 🙂
@johnself6435
@johnself6435 3 місяці тому
Yes but why is she hot?
@Justin534
@Justin534 3 місяці тому
​@@johnself6435Because of her binding energy!!
@TestGearJunkie.
@TestGearJunkie. 2 місяці тому
Only 6..? I always thought there were an infinite number..?
@Paul-li9hq
@Paul-li9hq 3 місяці тому
This is something that has always fascinated me because I've always wondered if we would even be ABLE to see something that was travelling faster than the speed of light... I read up on the subject as best I could, and explanation goes along the lines of: It wouldn't become scientifically “invisible”, but stationary beings would not be able to see something travelling faster than light because light wouldn't have time to reflect off it and into your eyes.
@mikecronis
@mikecronis Місяць тому
I like how various perturbations are included in some of these examples. I think there might be some solutions by including "the reality" of them as opposed to "perfect vacuum" situations.
@fffffplayer1
@fffffplayer1 Рік тому
Could you elaborate on how General Relativity and a Co-Moving Frame eliminates the closed loop? I feel like this is the main point to showing FTL could be possible, but you went over it really quickly. I think we'd really benefit from understanding how that transition works, rather than just being told it works. Also, could you explain why the Co-Moving Frame can only be defined in GR? Couldn't we just measure the average velocity of all stuff without gravity, too? I feel like this was a good video for introducing the problem, but a second video to give more time to providing the answer would be very useful.
@YuraL88
@YuraL88 Рік тому
I think that closed loops can exist, you can even imagine some "universe" that lives in such a closed loop.
@anywallsocket
@anywallsocket Рік тому
This is all half-cooked theory, built up from isolated models. Ironically she's using these to argue against the half-cooked nature of SM+QM
@Duiker36
@Duiker36 Рік тому
They don't eliminate the closed loop. They make it reasonable to say there wouldn't be one. The closed loop itself is merely a reasonable conclusion to draw from special relativity, so that's the standard of argument she's aiming to meet.
@danielbronsky
@danielbronsky Рік тому
I'm not at all educated in physics, so apologies for any mistakes, and take this with a grain of salt... but here's how I've heard it explained: According to Theory of Relativity, if events A and B are causally disconnected, they don't have a "true" order. Depending on your frame of reference, A may occur before B, or B before A, or they may occur simultaneously. Whether or not events are causally connected depends on the distance between them and the speed of light. For example, if you see two buttons, that are 1 light second apart, and then you see them pressed simultaneously, then they are causally disconnected, and depending on your frame of reference the order in which the buttons are pressed can change. On the other hand, if you see those same buttons, one is pressed, then several seconds pass, and another is pressed, then they *are* causally connected, because light managed to cross the distance from one button to the other in the time between the presses. So now the order the buttons were pressed in is certain and independent from your frame of reference. This behaviour may seem weird, but it doesn't actually cause any problems or paradoxes. If you get into your spaceship and fly from point A to point B, your departure and your arrival are two causally connected events (because you travel at sub-light speed), and so have a definite order. But what happens if you make an FTL jump from A to B? Well, now your departure and your arrival are completely causally disconnected! And in certain frames of reference, arrival *occurs before departure*. Look what can happen now: - Make the jump A --> B - You are currently in the frame of reference where departure occured before arrival (as it should) - Engage your ship's thrusters and accelerate until you are in the frame of reference, where departure hasn't occured yet - Make the jump B --> A - You traveled back in time and broke causality! Crucial point is that breaking causality requires *two* FTL jumps in *different reference frames*. So, could there be some (purely hypothetical) mechanism that would allow FTL, but prevent paradoxes? Yes! There simply must exist a special frame of reference, and all FTL travel must only be possible in this special frame of reference. This special frame could be whatever, but for the purposes of this thought experiment we can pick the Co-Moving Frame (CMF), because it is easier to visualize and is already somewhat "special" (as mentioned in the video). Look what happens now: - Accelerate until your frame of reference matches CMF - Make the jump A --> B - Engage your ship's thrusters and accelerate until you are in the frame of reference, where departure hasn't occured yet (weird, but no paradoxes yet...) - Make the jump B --> A... but wait! You can't make this jump, since in the previous step you left the CMF! - Match the CMF again - Make the jump B --> A. - Since both jumps occured in the same frame of reference, causality is preserved! This is my understanding. You can search "fixed frame FTL" for some more info. see also this FAQ on Relativity which touches on this topic at the very end www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_intro.html
@petermoore900
@petermoore900 Рік тому
I don't think it has anything to do with GR TBH. Rather if you can guarantee that everyone can only move in such a way that everyone's arrow of time always moves in the same direction, then you can zip around faster than light - but still not infinitely fast! - without causing paradoxes. How can you guarantee that while lifting the c limit? Basically you'd have to hypothesize that there is something akin to subspace or hyperspace, that it indeed absolute, and that it is the only medium through which an FTL mechanism could work. Could this actually be true? Well it certainly can't be ruled out. Let's say we did make a warp drive. That would cause spacetime itself to bend and move. The stress energy tensor in GR is Lorentz invariant (meaning everyone agrees on the geometry of spacetime and thus the strength of gravity no matter how fast they're moving). Perhaps that means that all warp drives would indeed be riding waves in the same fixed and absolute medium and thus no paradoxes would be possible. But critically, again, this speed would still be limited - not by a single arbitrary number but by how fast an external observer is moving relative to "subspace". This limit is c^2/v where v is your velocity relative to the absolute frame. Specifically, instantaneous movement in any frame appears to an observer moving at v relative to that frame as c^2/v. So if we assume infinity is the speed limit of subspace, then on earth that speed would equate to roughly 1000c (if we're moving 300kps). Any faster perceived speed would indeed require the traveller to be going back in time in the frame of subspace. This means Voyager's trip home from the Delta Quadrant could've seemed instantaneous to the crew but 70 years would've passed on earth. In other words you can't fully escape time dilation but now it would depend on how fast the third party is moving relative to subspace rather than how fast the ship is going relative to the observer.
@widnyj5561
@widnyj5561 Рік тому
It's the first time I heard the argument about higgs field condensation regarding FTL topic - and presented very clearly with solid hooks to dig deeper around this. Great movie!
@gregmark1688
@gregmark1688 Рік тому
I'm pretty sure " presented very clearly with solid hooks to dig deeper around" describes every one of Dr Hossenfelder's videos
@natevanderw
@natevanderw Рік тому
@@gregmark1688 Meh. Most. There is a few videos that I think weren't done well. Like her video on Elon Musk's "Population of Humans are too low video" and her conclusions at the end.
@oiuyuioiuyuio
@oiuyuioiuyuio Рік тому
@@gregmark1688 no
@123Shel12
@123Shel12 Рік тому
Also my first time to hear about Higgs field condensation. I agree with you that Dr. H's explanation was clearly presented! She impresses the daylights out of me!
@gregmark1688
@gregmark1688 Рік тому
@@123Shel12 Me too! I feel kinda sad for all those losers who can't tolerate an intelligent woman and have convince themselves they're smarter than she is or whatever. Misogyny must be a miserable way to be.
@user-bi2cb4hb7v
@user-bi2cb4hb7v Місяць тому
Sabine, you've provided an awesome explanation! Superb!
@seppopeuranen345
@seppopeuranen345 25 днів тому
Really love this channel and humor within. I seldom laugh out loud as I did with this
@sciverzero8197
@sciverzero8197 Рік тому
Thank you Sabine for giving a name, the co-moving frame, to the concept I've been trying to explain to someone for a long time.
@captainoates7236
@captainoates7236 Рік тому
Wondering if it's got anything to do with Mach's theorum which I've seen videos about.
@reasonerenlightened2456
@reasonerenlightened2456 Рік тому
There is no use for science if it can not solve the issue of distribution of Wealth and Power among the citizens.
@spoiler321
@spoiler321 Рік тому
I'm always amazed at how slow the speed of light is
@edcunion
@edcunion Рік тому
Certainly to us sub light speed observers, but from its view it travels to Andromeda and back, millions of light years, in no time! It orbits black holes and nucleons and can pop out photons when either are disturbed, or capture or absorb them when a photon gets too close?!
@j7m7f
@j7m7f Рік тому
It is as meaningfull as saying that you are amazed at how small pi is. C is not small or big. It just is. If you think it is small then you are probably rather amazed at how big YOU are. Or Earth, or Solar system, or Milky Way...
@ianokay
@ianokay Рік тому
Yeah, especially given the size of the universe. It's slow to us just getting from the sun to the earth... let alone anywhere else! It's even slow inter-planetary; slow enough we can notice the slowness just trying to send data from LA to London. It's abysmally and impractically slow. ​ @edcunion @Jarek F
@kiefermattern917
@kiefermattern917 Рік тому
@@edcunion The nature of light means it has no rest frame. There is no photon's view.
@mreese8764
@mreese8764 Рік тому
@@kiefermattern917 For the photond the speed of light is infinite. They are created and destroyed simultaneously. A photon that travel 10 billion light years and is absorbed on an earth based camera, the emission and absorption together are just one instantaneous process happening at the very same location in space. The photon didn't even travel at all. 🤯
@TomasSab3D
@TomasSab3D 3 місяці тому
Mass is compressed higghs field... If you can compress the higgs field "in front" of you, you will create mass to put behind of you, where it can expand back into higgs field. Push the condensate from in front - to behind you? or... push enough light together (no mass forward) to create unstable mass in front of you... and get pulled forward?
@brianmucha6426
@brianmucha6426 3 місяці тому
Thanks Sabine for a very very enlightening video!❤
@shelley-anneharrisberg7409
@shelley-anneharrisberg7409 Рік тому
One of the best yet! Really well explained, especially the Higgs Field Condensate and the time paradox! Guest appearance by Columbo with "Just one more thing" just really topped it off! (As did the socks in the washing machine - I like to think mine are in a state of superposition: they exist and don't exist at the same time. When I open the machine, their wave function collapses and I find they are there, or not - sorry Schrödinger, I just couldn't resist ;) ).
@BlueGiant69202
@BlueGiant69202 Рік тому
ukposts.info/have/v-deo/faOih4-PaayTmKc.html
@DalbyJoakim
@DalbyJoakim Рік тому
Yes this got somewhere very new! But there is no condensation for a scalar potential field! The condensation only happens when the field can form a sufficient density of sufficiently similar structures within that field: Higgs bosons or something even more simple, arranging themselves as a single entity of space-time. Or four space-times really, but three of them flow superluminally within ours - so I guess they are light invisible but gravity visible. Can information be harvested somehow about superluminal structures? Is there a before and after to us for superluminal structures, when they have an ortogonal time within them compared to the time within our structures?
@antonystringfellow5152
@antonystringfellow5152 Рік тому
So that's how I end up with an odd number when I always buy them in pairs!
@levybenathome
@levybenathome Рік тому
Socks are explained by multiverse theory. Somewhere there is a universe with all of our socks.
@GuinessOriginal
@GuinessOriginal Рік тому
I always find one is and one isn’t
@ericpeterson6520
@ericpeterson6520 4 місяці тому
This reminds me of my favorite fictional justification for FTL travel, which comes from the book Way Station by Clifford Simak. It boils down to "Humans think that it's impossible to travel faster than light. Turns out they're wrong" And that's it. No further scifi technobabble needed, the "cosmic speed limit" was just an artifact of incomplete physics the whole time and you can just break it (in this universe)
@onastick2411
@onastick2411 3 місяці тому
Good read as well.
@trazyntheinfinite9895
@trazyntheinfinite9895 3 місяці тому
Funny thing is: we might be wrong. noone knows.
@alessandrofregoso740
@alessandrofregoso740 3 місяці тому
and it works for unicorns end elves too!
@defender399
@defender399 3 місяці тому
Speaking of sci-fi and its postulations, I rather like a Doctor Who explanation for apparent aberrations in the space-time continuum. “It’s a wibbly wobbly timey wimey thing.”
@jamesh1758
@jamesh1758 2 місяці тому
Sort of like how we used to think that heavier than air flight was practically impossible and that birds and insects had some magic or animal science we wouldn’t get. We figured it out for sure, but in a unique way. I suppose the problem is we’ve got 0 examples that this rule can be broken so we think it’s impossible but who’d have guessed we could see inside people’s body’s with x-rays and brains with MRIs before it was discovered.
@snnwstt
@snnwstt Місяць тому
Around 15:00 (the time loop): Incorrect. The perception is NOT the thing. The Sun is not here, but 8 minutes away, Betelgeuse is not here, but far-far away, the fast ship won't be there, it will only be its appearance that will be there, like the Betelgeuse appearance to us, like our Sun appearance to us. So, the slow mo ship won't be able to give a signal to the fast ship, neither can we to Betelgeuse appearance. Making the difference between the appearance and the real thing kill that Hollywoodian paradox, no more esoterism required.
@deydraniasmith615
@deydraniasmith615 12 днів тому
And traveling to Betelgeuse wouldn't be possible even at faster than light speed. As you get closer, it'll begin to move closer to its actual position and then, when you get closer still, it'll very likely explode in a super nova and become a nebula.
@Bertrand146
@Bertrand146 7 днів тому
@@deydraniasmith615 If you travel faster than light then as you distance away from where Betelgeuse was you'll see the nebula, the super nova and Betelgeuse again.
@moosewild4239
@moosewild4239 Рік тому
This conversation is way above my pay grade but I find myself listening anyway. Your knowledge and ability to share it is appreciated. Subscribed since it is never too late to learn.
@andrewrohde2373
@andrewrohde2373 Рік тому
I watch Dr. Hossenfelder's videos in the same way that I read "A Brief History of Time." In the hope that I'll learn something, definitely not all, but something. And I usually do. Thanks Doc.
@tinymud3324
@tinymud3324 2 місяці тому
I'm 76 and enjoy your lectures very much; however, I have a hypothesis. Would two space ships traveling at in opposite directions at 1\2 the speed of light be able to communicate with each other?
@bandongogogo
@bandongogogo 27 днів тому
Dr Sabine's humor is so clever haha!!! boi you gotta love her!!! Keep it up!
@wefinishthisnow3883
@wefinishthisnow3883 Рік тому
That morning condensation analogy was perfect for a layperson like me to understand. Great stuff Sabine!
@antonystringfellow5152
@antonystringfellow5152 Рік тому
I liked that too, though it wasn't quite correct. Hope this won't spoil the anaology as it's generally a good one, but here goes.... If you observe an area of grass or plants that has an object above it, a tree, a roof or whatever, on a morning with dew, you'll notice an absence in that area. This is a clue as to how dew actually forms. When air cools down so much that it can no longer hold all the water vapour, it condenses into mist but mist is not necessary for dew to form. What happens is that opaque media (in this case grass) radiate heat away faster than transparent media (the air). So, grass exposed to the sky loses heat faster than the air around it. During a windless night, all solid surfaces become colder than the surrounding air. The surrounding air may still be warm enough to hold the water vapour but not once it comes into contact with these surfaces. So, the water condenses on these surfaces. Any opaque objects between the grass and the sky prevent the radiated heat escaping into space, so here, the grass loses less heat and may remain dry.
@londen3547
@londen3547 Рік тому
Agreed, but I think her analogy might make better case for ether rather than the higgs theory.
@fruitbatcat
@fruitbatcat Рік тому
I don't know how u do it, but often during ur vods I find myself thinking I'm not sure I'm really following this or just think I am, then u drag me back in, you seem to know when those moments are and clarify the point. It's a real talent. Wish more lecturers had it. Just wanted to say :)
@ignaciosavi7739
@ignaciosavi7739 Рік тому
She is probably full of shit and trying to sell books or something
@ignaciosavi7739
@ignaciosavi7739 Рік тому
I was right
@MIck-M
@MIck-M Рік тому
She somehow 'brings me back in' with her quirky lil jokes which I like a lot. Mind like a steel trap and rapier wit this lady has.
@jamesmeppler6375
@jamesmeppler6375 Рік тому
Just wanted to say smile face? LOL thats a lot of words for just :) I don't think you get it but at least you can understand you don't get it. Peoples intelligence can be measured by how others write or type. You can use commas but still using U for you and ur for your is either lazy or shows you're still very young. Understanding and being able to use real words is part of understanding what she's saying here. If you read 20 min a day for 10 years you will have a high IQ, maybe even genius level. Your reading comprehension will be maxed out so you'd know every word she said even if you don't get science. Umderstanding is the beginning of science. And if you understand the words the you can understand science
@mattlambert3118
@mattlambert3118 Рік тому
You're not following her. You think you're not following because she says stuff that doesn't make any sense to you and then she "clarifies" by telling you the conclusion she draws from the stuff she said that didn't make any sense to you. That makes you feel like you're following because you understand the practical upshot of how she's saying things work, but you don't really understand why she she's saying things work that way. If you understood her reasoning for thinking things work that way, you'd understand that she's spouting nonsense.
@BuildTimeMC
@BuildTimeMC 2 місяці тому
16:47 so, lets say a message is sent using a vehicle that can travel faster than light. As the message is transmitted, the event of its transmission creates a ‘time wave’ that propagates through time in all directions equally. Now, the Faster than light vehicle starts its return journey. As it travels back, it intersects with the ‘time wave’ created by its own departure. This intersection happens on the way back because the vehicle is moving faster than the speed of light, and thus, faster than the ‘time wave’ itself. However, due to the nature of this interaction, the vehicle doesn’t instantaneously arrive at its starting point. Instead, it arrives slightly after the moment it was initially sent. This delay represents the time it takes for the ‘time wave’ to propagate and for the vehicle to intersect with it.
@RyanHarris77
@RyanHarris77 Місяць тому
I don’t have time to watch this at the moment, but my interest in cosmology has taught me that spacetime can and did expand at a rate greater than the speed of light. The analogy I recall is a balloon with dots all over it being inflated, where the air going into the balloon represents the Big Bang and the dots represent space. The speed limit between the dots is still the speed of light. Does this mean than the speed of light changes depending on the density of the fabric of spacetime for a given universe? I don’t know, I’m not a physicist.
@mind_of_a_darkhorse
@mind_of_a_darkhorse Рік тому
I love how you infuse humor into your explanations! It makes learning more enjoyable! Keep up the great work!
@vickmackey24
@vickmackey24 Рік тому
Do you actually laugh at her dry, corny jokes? Or do you just find them cute and endearing?
@kszilvi86
@kszilvi86 Рік тому
@@vickmackey24 Don't you happen to mix up "humor" with "laugh" tho? 2 verrrry different things...
@mind_of_a_darkhorse
@mind_of_a_darkhorse Рік тому
@@vickmackey24 I find them endearing.
@stevenbrown9185
@stevenbrown9185 Рік тому
She is the absolute Queen of Deadpan
@theprogram863
@theprogram863 Рік тому
@@vickmackey24 A little of both. Some are funny because they land, and some are funny because they _don't_ land. Her humor was much more hit-or-miss when the channel was new, but I'm really enjoying it now.
@tzerpa9446
@tzerpa9446 Рік тому
A train at 200 km/h. "If you live in the United States, make that 20" 😂 So funny, and so true.
@stargazer7644
@stargazer7644 Рік тому
We have trains in the US?
@Thomas-gk42
@Thomas-gk42 Рік тому
You have to work on it
@jamiegagnon6390
@jamiegagnon6390 Рік тому
@@stargazer7644 I think they all crashed somewhere...
@word6344
@word6344 Рік тому
rip any transport that isn't cars
@jimbryce6982
@jimbryce6982 Місяць тому
@@stargazer7644 Yes, but no Kilo Metres.
@MOSMASTERING
@MOSMASTERING 3 місяці тому
My entire life, ever since I was very young, I always wanted or imagined a future version of myself to come back and just give me one or two pieces of advice that could alter or improve my life. I also thought what the smallest message could be. Instead of a book of instructions, just the fewest amount of words I would need. I'm now 42 and there are just two things I would tell myself with just 2 to 4 words that would entirely change my life and avoid so much pain and mistakes.
@Tnker69
@Tnker69 Місяць тому
Can't just say that without saying what you would say
@Blindingsun
@Blindingsun 11 днів тому
“Don’t fuck Martha”. Or something along those lines?
@Bob-fj7lr
@Bob-fj7lr 3 дні тому
I love how at 16 I hated physics and at 29 I now study it for curiosity by myself
@javiej
@javiej Рік тому
This is the best video from Sabine, by far. Telling us her (very innovative) scientific opinion on a polemic subject like "faster than light travel", and doing it in a public UKposts video rather than writing an obscure paper she puts her prestige at risk. So thank you Sabine, only the brave change the world.
@TheChzoronzon
@TheChzoronzon Рік тому
Au contraire, writing a serious paper will be the ballsy move... a YT vid is irrelevant crap
@eekee6034
@eekee6034 Рік тому
Such a paper could never stay obscure for long, I don't think. Basically all the science UKpostsrs would jump on it the moment they heard about it. There was a time I would have worried it might not get published, but now I can't imagine it being ignored in the prepublication paper exchange. Maybe if the title or synopsis were poor, but I'm pretty sure Sabine of all people could write those well.
@berniv7375
@berniv7375 Рік тому
@@TheChzoronzon Few people read a serious paper and in that way the general public remain indifferent to physics. Many people watch UKposts videos and if complex subjects can be explained with clarity and relative simplicity then our collective intelligence is raised.🌱
@Madrrrrrrrrrrr
@Madrrrrrrrrrrr Рік тому
@@TheChzoronzon yep but the theory is not new. The big bang went faster than the speed of light.
@RobOfTheNorth2001
@RobOfTheNorth2001 Рік тому
@@Madrrrrrrrrrrr space expanded fast than light. Not the matter within it.
@josephnwilson
@josephnwilson Рік тому
“If you wanted to be at rest with the universe you’d have to run at 300 kilometers per second” I sure feel that. Ain’t never fast enough is it.
@chrisdonnell7200
@chrisdonnell7200 Рік тому
POV: you're Sonic The Hedgehog
@dylanwight5764
@dylanwight5764 Рік тому
@@chrisdonnell7200 The problem with being faster than light is living in eternal darkness. Sad Sonic noises.
@scipug3048
@scipug3048 Рік тому
@@dylanwight5764 actually not sure if it does... if you move towards a lightsource at exactly the speed of light, the wavelenth will be squished to 0, which leads to photons with infinite energy... but if you are OVER the speed of light, the wave should just be inverted right? if i turned the light on and off making pauses of: 1sec 2 sec 3sec and 4sec at some exact "over lightspeed"-speed you would recieve: 4sec 3sec 2sec 1sec pauses. in the same way the interval between wave peaks should change from 1ns below lightspeed, 0ns at lightspeed, to 1ns again just in the oposite direction for over lightspeed.
@ananthan8951
@ananthan8951 Рік тому
Don't carry the head for all this. With the bulk unexplored, the space expanding. Have nowhere to go travelling FTL or even supersonically. Metaphysics appears, delusively perhaps, more real. "The manifest universe is a mental construction". Existence - Consciousness is the fundamental reality, all else is dependent reality; appearances in Consciousness. It is that which underlies and pervades wakefulness, dream and deep sleep (and like states of experience of absence).
@michaellowe3665
@michaellowe3665 Рік тому
Officer, I wasn't speeding. I was attempting to reduce my speed relative to the universe.
@DarkwinggDuck
@DarkwinggDuck 25 днів тому
For me the only way is to consider negative mass in GR like in Bondi extension of GR or like in bimetric gravity. Negative mass does not exist but it can be substituted by negative energy. Negative energy exists. Casimir effect has negative energy, two opposite charges also, two masses interacting gravitationally also. In Italy there is an ongoing experiment aimed at measuring the tiny repulsive gravitational effect of 2 Casimir plates. It is called 'Archimedes' experiement and it's done by INFN and CNR.
@cristiansandor4435
@cristiansandor4435 13 днів тому
The thing with the smashed eg is interesting. And indeed if a plane comes in your direction faster then sound, you hear nothing until the plane reaches you ( in 3D space ) and after that you can hear ( observe ) the sound created by the plane in reverse. The big BUT with this "travel back in time" is that events ( generated sounds ) it did happened in the past and you can only observe as they were ( still in past) and not able to "go back" and phisically interact with that event. The same happens with light, if faster than light, one can see events in reverse ( back in time ) but they are allready past events so only possible to see them ( and in reverse). So, with the Einstein theory even Tenet is not possible.
@tonywarren7940
@tonywarren7940 Рік тому
I would be very interested in a future video in which you say more about how mass is "created" by the condensed Higgs Field and the implications for how we think about the world
@tylermacdonald8924
@tylermacdonald8924 Рік тому
Yeah this sounds kinda crazy
@rainerzufall42
@rainerzufall42 Рік тому
Can you imagine a world only filled with plasma and energy? No protons, no neutrons, just quarks or even less "condensed" things? Because all the energy makes it so hot, that high level structures cease to exist? Think about it!
@davisongeorge
@davisongeorge Рік тому
@@tylermacdonald8924 because it is, the binding energy of matter is actually negative, it was released when the matter was bound together into matter (at least for all non-transuranic stable matter) Now it's just negative potential energy. eg: it takes a huge amount of energy to unbind matter into it's constituent subatomic particles and even more energy to separate it into even smaller quantum particles like the higgs. That negative potential energy actually DECREASES the mass of matter, it doesn't create it, it's called the "mass defect". And honestly it seems like she switched the sign somewhere because if you plug that into the force equation, it takes more energy to accelerate to the speed of light, not less.
@expelledangel
@expelledangel 19 днів тому
I came here for the science and stayed for the dry German humor. 10/10
@DoctyrEvil
@DoctyrEvil 3 місяці тому
Sabine's savage burn on the American rail system are truly devastating.
@petermainwaringsx
@petermainwaringsx Рік тому
A quite unique way of presenting a scientific explanation. So much information mixed with some great humorous interludes. Thank you Sabine.
@ilicdjo
@ilicdjo Рік тому
Very nice. I has a q; Is Bob Turkish Arab because of German collective guilt or of need for YT algorithm multicultural video?
@DaCarnival
@DaCarnival Рік тому
@@ilicdjo Or because the average male on Earth is brown? Or because why default white to appease paranoid culture warriors like you?
@reasonerenlightened2456
@reasonerenlightened2456 Рік тому
There is no use for science if it can not solve the issue of distribution of Wealth and Power among the citizens.
@kakistocracyusa
@kakistocracyusa 7 місяців тому
No actual, competent, physicists would agree with you. If so many people actually think this channel's hand-waving, sophomoric and often false narratives qualify as an "explanation" , much less as competently presented hypotheses for creating new physics, then the human race is in trouble.
@dichebach
@dichebach Рік тому
You're crossed an important threshold in the quality and value of your presentations Professor Hossenfelder! A few more videos like this and I suspect your channel is going to explode . . . metaphorically speaking of course!
@sf4137
@sf4137 Рік тому
This is still a little too dry for the majority of humanity. Stepping stones.
@dsmb9296
@dsmb9296 Рік тому
@@sf4137 Maybe, but I bet a lot of those people would not be interested in the content anyway. Additionally, this "dry" method of presenting can be a good thing in itself and it seems her current subscribers really like it. She wouldn't be the only UKpostsr to gain a huge subscriber count with minimal flair. Look at penguinz0. Besides, she has over 800k subscribers. That's pretty huge already.
@rhondaeverett8284
@rhondaeverett8284 Рік тому
271,000 views on this so far!
@andcheck
@andcheck Рік тому
@@rhondaeverett8284 I see 266,473 views right now. Am I moving backwards in time? Na, probably just the UKposts algorithm.
@2ndfloorsongs
@2ndfloorsongs Рік тому
@@andcheck I think you're right, the algorithm probably incorporates negative views, just like some physicists use negative energy.
@ShannonPopMusic
@ShannonPopMusic 13 днів тому
To understand the ideas in this video, it may require going back in time in a time loop rewatching this video an infinite number of times.
@dashnarayana
@dashnarayana 9 днів тому
Great endeavour. Harbinger of disruptive change in knowledge of light, time, gravity, mass , velocity and all such related stuff . Kudos to Sabine
@philippschwartzerdt3431
@philippschwartzerdt3431 8 місяців тому
It’s great to listen to you and I love your dry sense of humor. I believe that I am learning a lot from your videos based on real knowledge. What’s even better, I am learning to question my position on many matters I took for granted without having to disappear in a rabbit hole. Thank you for making your community a little smarter with every video you post. 🙏🏻
@jeechun
@jeechun 6 місяців тому
"If you live in hte US..." hilarious. 😄
@Axiomatic75
@Axiomatic75 4 місяці тому
Questioning one's beliefs is a rare trait
@CARBON10
@CARBON10 4 місяці тому
You are the perfect person to subscribe to brilliant according to her
@empireempire3545
@empireempire3545 Рік тому
I love this video Sabine. You've actually answered some of the questions and thoughts which i've been coalescing for a few years now but didnt have nearly as clearly posed as You did here! Thanks so much
@YvngHomieRyan
@YvngHomieRyan 2 дні тому
I feel like self-replicating craft, and the manufacturing of androids (whether entirely mechanical or with a biological component) would be the most plausible thing we will encounter in the near future as far as extraterrestrial contact. This way we don’t have to desperately fathom the possibility of the light speed barrier being broken
@Babesinthewood97
@Babesinthewood97 18 днів тому
I’m gonna say something slightly unrelated and strange and I apologise in advance. But this reminds me of something I saw. 24 years ago I saw what I’d probably call a technologically advanced vehicle fly right over my head, completely silent, just above the roof tops and heading towards the sea. But, I couldn’t see the object itself but I only saw the light coming from it. It was super bright and it moved so fast that the light appeared like a wide “stripe “ of light in the sky just above me. About 20 meters wide. It took about two or three seconds to disappear from my view. Clearly it wasn’t the speed of light, but it was definitely faster than the speed of sound. I’ve always wondered what it was. It wasn’t a meteorite.
@danielrutschman4618
@danielrutschman4618 11 днів тому
Maybe it was a beam of light. Light travels much faster than any aircraft, and is completely silent. It may have looked 20 meters wide to you, but you had no way of actually measuring it, did you? It could have been 2 millimeters wide but very close to you eye or it could have been 2000 kilometers wide but very far away, The one thing we know for sure is that it wasn't an alien spacecraft, because if it was they would have abducted you and you'd be famous now.
@ambition112
@ambition112 9 місяців тому
0:00: 🚀 The possibility of faster-than-light travel and communication is explored in relation to the existence of extraterrestrial life. 3:33: 🚂 The speed of light is constant and cannot be surpassed, requiring infinite energy to reach it. 6:16: 🔬 The theory of relativity allows for faster-than-light travel, but it is difficult to accelerate from a speed slower than light to a speed faster than light. The concept of infinity in physics is often seen as a mathematical artifact, but in this case, it is not. Most of the mass in objects comes from the binding energy of particles, rather than the actual mass of the particles themselves. The remaining mass comes from the Higgs field, which is different from the concept of ether in the 19th century. 9:53: 🌌 The Higgs field condensate and the ether are different in that the Higgs condensate is the same for everyone, while the ether was considered a fluid with different perspectives. 12:49: 🚀 The argument that traveling faster than the speed of light would cause time travel paradoxes is not technically correct. 15:47: ! The argument against faster-than-light travel causing time paradoxes is flawed in the context of general relativity. 18:56: 🚀 Traveling faster than the speed of light does not necessarily imply time travel, and physicists should consider the possibility further. 22:11: 📚 Passively watching UKposts videos won't get you far, but actively engaging with Brilliant's interactive courses on science and math can help you learn and understand complex concepts. Recap by Tammy AI
@101perspective
@101perspective 8 місяців тому
16:37... Isn't her time diagram flawed anyway? She shows the first traveler flying on a negative slope. For that to happen they would have to travel faster than infinity... right? I mean, infinite speed (instantaneous) speed would be a line parallel with the X axis. Or do I have that wrong? If that is correct then the information would get to the other ship in zero time... then that ship would bring the info back in zero time. Meaning it wouldn't arrive in the past but at the same time you sent it... assuming there is no transmission delay.
@Patatmetmayo
@Patatmetmayo 8 місяців тому
@@101perspective From an outside observer's perspective the speed is not infinite, the speed is actually the same as the speed of light when the line is parallel with the X axis. So the one in the ship flying at that speed will feel like zero time has past until they arrive at the other ship, while for the other ship it took as much time for the ship to arrive as normal light would travelling that distance.
@kakistocracyusa
@kakistocracyusa 7 місяців тому
How about 22 minutes of vague, hand-waving flim-flam using diagrams from a sophomore-level modern physics course.
@MrConformation
@MrConformation 7 місяців тому
Light speed cannot be surpassed? ........Only on the grounds as we limited humans think we know.
@kakistocracyusa
@kakistocracyusa 7 місяців тому
@@MrConformation We gotta keep this stupid UFO hoax alive, physics be damned.
@wills.9807
@wills.9807 Рік тому
This is such an excellent video. I've watched it 3 times now, and the concepts are so counterintuitive that to say I understand them wouldn't be honest. I thought your analogy to the formation of dew - condensing out of air as the carrying capacity decreases with lower temperature - to the Higgs condensate, the best I've heard yet. Great work!
@edwardlulofs444
@edwardlulofs444 Рік тому
They are easy to understand when you have had 4 years of graduate physics classes. After faster than light travel becomes routine, then, as an everyday experience for everyone, even children will understand it. Just as children now understand driving 70 miles an hour on the freeways.
@inthefade
@inthefade Рік тому
I fully expect to listen to this 10x.
@rodschmidt8952
@rodschmidt8952 Рік тому
I would say: After video games showing faster than light travel become routine...
@edwardlulofs444
@edwardlulofs444 Рік тому
@@rodschmidt8952 I hadn't thought of that. People learn a lot from games. Thanks for your comment.
@paulrockatansky77
@paulrockatansky77 Рік тому
After first viewing, the only two things I understood about this lecture was the photo of Colombo and Sabine's summation how general relativity may present an incomplete picture until smarter brains have figured out the theory of quantum gravity.
@AverageSpaceJoe
@AverageSpaceJoe 11 днів тому
Your sense of humour is very refreshing...and drying at the same time...very confusing sensation 😊
@andreweppink4498
@andreweppink4498 Місяць тому
Dang. I'd think using Miguel Alcubierre's v>c Warp Factor 9 drive (somehow) would be a no brainer.
@kraahk1928
@kraahk1928 Рік тому
I'm German, so arguably I may not be adequately fit to make any judgement in these regards...but within my personal frame of reference, the amount and quality of jokes in this video was beyond outstanding. Making it both more digestible for amateurs and more funny for (semi -)professionals. Awesome job and thanks. :)
@mirage4014
@mirage4014 Рік тому
As an English Man living in Germany! It's the first time I realised German people have a sense of humour 😂 Sorry just joking! Sabine is wonderful
@gottrekk5798
@gottrekk5798 Рік тому
I am not German but I think in the last 100 years Germans made more scientific discoveries then all other nations combine.
@creos42
@creos42 Рік тому
I'm from the US and love her humor. German ancestry may be to blame though
@waen606
@waen606 Рік тому
I'm only part German ...its hard to know what I can say confidently and what I can't...
@jimstewart3017
@jimstewart3017 Рік тому
As the old Beck's beer commercial goes, German's don't comedy, they do beer. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/sKeJoJyrbaqA0mQ.html
@lowballa2861
@lowballa2861 7 місяців тому
First time watching any of your videos and I gotta say thank you for the effort and knowledge you bring with balance of thoughts/arguments. It really show through the videos! Can’t wait to learn more on what you offer.
@Notivarg
@Notivarg 16 днів тому
I think that the Aether and the Higgs-field might be more similar than you assume, especially in that first difference. Think about the question: why does light always travel with the same speed through a vacuum? Sure, c is its maximum velocity, but why can't it travel slower? Why can't it stop altogether like other particles? I think the answer lies in its wave nature more than its lack of mass. Waves need a medium to travel through and it's the medium that sets the wave's speed limit, and the Higgs-field might be that medium. A fish doesn't really experience water the same way we do. To us, the pressure at the bottom of the ocean is immense, but to the organisms that live there it's normal, neutral. Likewise, the air pressure at sea level is quite high in absolute terms (14 pounds per square inch is a LOT), yet we don't really feel it at all. So what's the pressure of vacuum? Not the pressure of particles in a vacuum, but of the vacuum itself? Gravity is described as curvature of space, but what is 'space' really? Imagine a black hole going at 10% the speed of light. At the center, the space distortion is supposed to be near-infinite. Within the schwarzschild radius nothing should be able to escape. Yet, the space behind the path of the black hole is restored to normal almost instantly - there are no 'space ruts' or long trails you can track the path of a black hole with. Is that not a sign of how high the pressure of space itself/the Higgs-field is? So what if the second difference isn't a difference either? What if the Higgs-field also moves, it just reaches a pressure equilibrium much faster than we can observe? What if the speed of light is the 'speed of sound' of the Higgs-field?
@bobross7005
@bobross7005 Місяць тому
What about an entity that moves at FTL without any Lorenz transformations - via “warp” or whatever - but who then moves very fast conventionally, so the coordinates transform so that the point of origin in the spacetime diagram is now in that entity’s “future”. This would seem to let the entity return to his past self and convince him not to go - just to see what happens. This is the example that springs to my mind when I think of FTL, space time diagrams, and time paradoxes. Does the co-moving frame and general relativity aspect come into the picture and make this non-paradoxical?
@justinhaines7083
@justinhaines7083 7 місяців тому
UKposts randomly brought me to your channel. I suspect my phone was listening to a theoretical conversation I was having the other day. It’s been a couple of decades since I learned about some of the basic stuff you talked about in this video, but you made it really easy to understand even after all this time. Subscribed!
@justinhaines7083
@justinhaines7083 7 місяців тому
Also.. loved the Columbo reference!
@stephencummins7589
@stephencummins7589 Рік тому
I got to 8’ and said: I am so glad you made this new video, it makes everything so much easier to understand, thank you Sabine, I love your videos.
@LyraHooves
@LyraHooves 2 місяці тому
I'd be quite curious about sending information at faster-than-light speeds because you can use massless stuff like light to transmit it. It doesn't have to be carried by someone on a massive ship. Or is that impossible?
@sergeyromanov5560
@sergeyromanov5560 Місяць тому
Your explanation of the ship's direction of travel is completely incomprehensible.
@neilbhatt7771
@neilbhatt7771 Місяць тому
The light from the egg hitting the ground gets to you sooner than the light from the intact egg
@traumflug
@traumflug Рік тому
Fascinating. You not only manage to find cracks in currently popular physics arguments and can explain that with math, you also manage to explain this with graphics for non-physicists.
@ItsEverythingElse
@ItsEverythingElse Рік тому
Where is her math that explains how mass could even reach the speed of light, let alone exceed it?
@traumflug
@traumflug Рік тому
@@ItsEverythingElse Please watch 5:52 closely again: _"the only way you can move at the speed of light is when your mass is zero"._ And then she explains why the stuff we know as matter might have states with no mass.
@alant383
@alant383 3 місяці тому
I just absolutely love the 'simple' way Sabine explains everything and then makes a Segway into the mundane. Just love it! Surprisingly I followed most of everything she said. And I love her accent too :-) Sabine, you make me want to learn more and go back to school to learn something different. And yes, I will sign up for Brilliant (did already) - or was that a time-space loop??
@xue1379
@xue1379 28 днів тому
Segue
@MuggsMcGinnis
@MuggsMcGinnis 2 місяці тому
At 17:35 it's asked which direction time on the FTL ship is going. It has to progress forward as the ship goes from Earth to Andromeda and continue in the same direction for the return trip. Otherwise, the entropy of the outward trip must be erased in the return trip. There's really no way to get the causality to work properly. Time travel inevitably produces paradoxes if we exist in a block spacetime universe. Such a spacetime would have past events that can be traveled to and altered.
@paratracker
@paratracker 29 днів тому
Sabine, much love (HUGE fan)... Please get Google search to help with the pronunciation of paradoxes - Google AI sounds artificial, but is essentially correct. Note that the second 'a' doesn't get emphasis as you pronounce it. Isabella Saying is heavy on the 'd' and flat out incorrect; Emma Saying is a little heavy on the first syllable, but the rest is great.
@MindRebelion
@MindRebelion Рік тому
I love the way you carry a conversation and your demeanor, and your confidence is off the chart's admirable qualities of a scientist, thank you!
@norfolknchance657
@norfolknchance657 Рік тому
why is the word "charts" possessive?
@hailynewma9122
@hailynewma9122 Рік тому
Gonna watch this over and over again just to hear that I am not mass but pure energy … and today is not even my b-day .. thanks Sabine :)
@velocity1238
@velocity1238 18 днів тому
I've said before that if we have observed particles near the speed of light and had to either stop for safety or just lost track of the particle then it makes me wonder if that particles kept on going beyond our observation.
@alexanderhemming6148
@alexanderhemming6148 Місяць тому
so the idea in original maths was: if we are made of sound we make a sound black hole when we move faster than sound, and everything that is made of sound can only move in one direction because its all made of sound and cant move faster than sound, so then we make an infinite sonic boom. as we are made of sound we think its the point at which nothing can move faster. How would we peassure things faster if we can only use things made of sound?
@glomerol8300
@glomerol8300 Рік тому
On the rare occasion when I read something more complex than usual that I wrote some time ago, sometimes I might not get what I was talking about, or at least not right away if I bother to try, so I can appreciate and empathize with that sort of case, Sabine. Great video... that I have a hard time understanding... But then again, I'm just a layperson WRT to the subject matter.
@Nevermore144
@Nevermore144 11 місяців тому
I just found this page a week ago. Amazing work! I love the monotone deliverance of your jokes. Keep up the great work.
@bobjones7908
@bobjones7908 Місяць тому
I thought the 3K background radiation provides a preferred frame: it is where it appears isotropic (w/o red or blue shift). Is that the same as the comoving frame you described?
@Excaliburhope
@Excaliburhope Місяць тому
There was an element found in the Roswell crash that allows for gravitational waves to become excitable and manipulated by weaker forces such as the electromagnetic force. By doing so, it is possible to bend space around itself.
@_mb_2617
@_mb_2617 Рік тому
2 objections: 1) From about 9:00 onwards you say that the Higgs condesate was not present in early universe and the particles were massless, thus luminal. Then the simultanesous kick in of higgs effect and deceleration allowed particles to acquire mass while releasing finite amount of energy and slowing to become subluminal. But how does that prove that you can accelerate current massive particles to the speed of light (SoL) with finite energy. Obviously if you manipulate the mass of a particle, the energy it needs to acquire the speed of light is not given by the equation you show. That equation only applies to particles of constant rest mass. Which Higgs condensation violated in the early universe but which is true now. So you did not show that accelerating massive particles to SoL requires infinite energy, but only that at some point some particles decelareted from luminal speeds while simultaneously acquiring rest mass (in some rather specifing way). I still believe that while you can accelerate a these days electron very close to SoL, you cant get it exactly luminal. 2) At about 19:00 you speak about averaging over the whole universe and it seems to be one of the cornerstones in your overall argument, since based on it you disregard special relativity objections to some cases of superluminal travel. I can hardly belive you know how to do something like that properly. How do you actually compare local effects of distant stellar bodies in some point of spacetime? I believe that you can hardly support this argument, since this is pretty impossible to define reasonably and consistently in general curved spacetime. If you had something as FLRW universe on mind, sure you can do the described experiment far below the resolution on which the matter in the universe behaves as a perfect fluid and so I do not think that the argument applies. It seems to me you could in theory do the described experiment even very localy, like in a lab, and if you do not think Special Relativity would apply in that case, you are undermining one of the basic concepts of GR and making up a new theory. Please prove that your new theory describes everything better or equally to GR, until than i will stick with it. If anyone made it here note that I liked the interesting ideas in the video, I just had to rise the important objections so that the content is not automatically assumed to be true. I believe this is how sience should be done.
@themysticalcolby
@themysticalcolby Рік тому
Well said, thank you for your input.
@HeadLikeARock
@HeadLikeARock Рік тому
"I'll even let you leave the toilet seat up". Not only have you got me thinking and educated me today, you also made me laugh out loud. Thanks Sabine! 😂👏
@BlueGiant69202
@BlueGiant69202 Рік тому
ukposts.info/have/v-deo/sGOZa66xbGtppo0.html
@AndyThomasStaff
@AndyThomasStaff Місяць тому
I don't understand 11:50. Massless particles moving at the speed of light (fine) gained some mass - they released some energy - finite - I don't understand why this violates E=mc2.
@Tommy-he7dx
@Tommy-he7dx 2 місяці тому
If there are parallel planes going left to right You place one laser pointer on on plane facing left and another on the other plane facing right You then turn the pointers on and off simultaneously generating two "beams" of light traveling in opposite directions, in a vacuum of course. How fast will the gap between these "Beams" grow? In my head the gap has to grow at twice the speed of light
@colingallagher1648
@colingallagher1648 Рік тому
this topic has fascinated me for the past few years especially with black holes and ideas of warping space time thanks for the video and all of your videos your uniqe voice is much appreciated.
@dustinsoodak6238
@dustinsoodak6238 Рік тому
Thank you for pointing this out! This is exactly how i always thought about it. You only get time travel paradoxes if you have multiple FTL reference frames that you define to be indistinguishable in the same way that you can’t differentiate between reference frames in SR.
@nosuchthing8
@nosuchthing8 Рік тому
Huh?
@ananthan8951
@ananthan8951 Рік тому
Why travel ftl, where you headed, when (and where)) y'r back?
@viperswhip
@viperswhip Рік тому
I think the whole time travel thing is stupid, the only difference if the information came to us faster than light is less lag, it does not mean the information at the origin source changed in any way, and it doesn't allow you to act on the origin either.
@fiftyIceStates
@fiftyIceStates Рік тому
​@@viperswhip Neither you nor Dustin are making sense.
@everythingisalllies2141
@everythingisalllies2141 Рік тому
@@viperswhip Not only is time travel nonsense , but every one of Einstein's theories is also nonsense, as well as quantum physics. its all BS. Most of cosmology is also BS. There is more BS on the list, but that enough for now.
@markgarin6355
@markgarin6355 Місяць тому
But two problems....1) if one was going faster or even at the speed of light....how would you know where you were, or when to stop/slow down? 2). If c is constant...then how can we use red shifts to explain how we tell that objects in space are moving towards or away from us?
@danielgriffiths845
@danielgriffiths845 2 місяці тому
Your suggestion that faster than light travel doesn't mean visiting the past echos my limited understanding from when I was very young. I had never thought about how it would look if something did travel past you relatively close, faster than light. Presumably, if you could see it in passing, it would blurred and faded, and the further the light had to travel the more clear it would be and yes, would appear to moving away from you in reserve and away from you in the other direction, or may not... When the object is moving away, how would light bounce off of it from the rear if it can not catch up to it? Would the object be a void of light? Similarly, you could argue that as the object is coming towards you, the light wouldn't be blocked by the object after reflection, but how could the light reflect in the direction of travel if it could never leave the front... It's not like the light passes through the object and continues to follow? I'd hypothesise that you wouldn't be able to see the object, or at best, some very distorted reflection of parts of the object.
@jab-gn3sw
@jab-gn3sw 11 місяців тому
Her humour is always good as her explanations are 😁
@garytyme9384
@garytyme9384 11 місяців тому
That, and she is completely wrong.
@rekik2936
@rekik2936 11 місяців тому
@@garytyme9384 Enlighten us then🙄
@garytyme9384
@garytyme9384 11 місяців тому
@@rekik2936 Light does not have a speed, it has a rate of induction i.e., hysteresis of the medium. Take Red Shift as an example of Hysteresis of the medium.
@neurotic3015
@neurotic3015 11 місяців тому
@@garytyme9384 Dude, even if you believe that you can't just say she's wrong- Light having speed is so widely believed by people and scientists that you can't simply say everybody is incorrect without an extremely extremely good argument with paragraphs of wording and elaboration and good papers with variety to back the claims. We have far more reason to believe that light has speed than we do to believe it doesn't. For example- If light is simply inducted, than why do we get afterimages? Afterimages are produced because light from where something was and is hits your eyes at the same time, causing an effect of seeing an afterimage, but if we simply induct light, then we'd not see afterimages and instead we'd see everything perfectly as it moves.
@garytyme9384
@garytyme9384 11 місяців тому
​@@neurotic3015 Oh dear. I am chatting to a moron. Actually, you see the attribution of light i.e., illumination, and even then you are seeing the reflection of that illumination of the surface of the object you are looking at i.e., the illumination the object did no absorb. Hence, the after effect you are talking about is to do with the over stimulation of the eye. An afterimage is an image that continues to appear in the eyes after a period of exposure to the original image. These can be either negative or positive afterimages. In most cases, this is an eye-related phenomenon, although there are some cases in which it is related to an issue called palinopsia. Negative afterimages occur when the rods and cones, which are part of the retina, are overstimulated and become desensitized. This desensitization is strongest for cells viewing the brightest part of the image, but is weakest for those viewing the darkest. When you look away, the least depleted cells react strongest, and vice versa, and you see an image with colours that are the reverse of how the image originally appeared. Many optical illusions take advantage of negative afterimages. For example, if you stare at a yellow, green, and black American flag for 60 seconds, then look at a white background, you will see the flag with its correct colours. A positive afterimage is when you see the image, but it is the same colours as the original. Unlike with negative afterimages, it is believed positive afterimages are caused when your rods and cones have no stimulation, such as when the illumination abruptly go out. BTW: Answer me this Einstein - without breaking the law of conservation of energy. If illumination has a speed then explain how illumination returns to the same rate of "speed" after it exits glass or water? Bet you can't, lol,.. well not unless you factor in the hysteresis of the medium and illumination not being a particle, wave, or wave-particle duality. I say this as Nature does not work the way the mathematicians have tried to convince you of. I bet next you will say the quantum realm is a real thing and pigs can fly.
@setorious
@setorious 10 місяців тому
I wasn't blessed with the processing skills in my brain to understand things like you do but i really like these attempts to break stuff down and bring me along. Even with my limited capacity i am exposed to so much information and able to build on shoulders of giants without realizing it. Kings and everyone in past can only dream of knowledge and insights i've gotten so easily.
9 місяців тому
I often get the impression that being, feeling or appearing smart is mostly about cutting through all the bullshit others put around things to make them look difficult - so it's more about perseverance than genetics.
@SevenTheMisgiven
@SevenTheMisgiven 9 місяців тому
@ This is a really excellent approach. Never change! :)
9 місяців тому
@@SevenTheMisgiven Thanks ❤️
@geosynchronous4386
@geosynchronous4386 6 днів тому
Nothing more awesome that an academic admitting their flaws or at least questioning their own thoughts. A+
@Tapecutter59
@Tapecutter59 4 дні тому
You won't get far in in the 'hard scienes' if you don't have a voice in your head merilessly attacking your pet theory. As someone recently put it: "Scientists work from the known toward the unknown". From what I see scrolling thru social media, the vast majority of laymen work in the opposite direction
@staticgrass
@staticgrass Місяць тому
Very interesting and refreshing to see a take down on the “sacred timeline” argument against FTL travel.
@benruniko
@benruniko Рік тому
Thank you, that makes a lot of sense! I always wondered why these questions were never asked in the “why FTL is impossible” lectures and videos.
@darrennew8211
@darrennew8211 Рік тому
It's mainly, I think, because physicists are convinced paradoxes are impossible. Cause and effect has to hold. On the other hand, there's various math that shows any quantum-level closed-timelike-curve can be solved with a consistent result. I.e., there's always a consistent loop. And I'd think that if one could go back in time, you'd keep "going around the loop" until you settled into a pattern in which everything is consistent, or it would change next time around. There's a sci-fi novel called Thrice Upon a Time (James Hogan) where the protagonist invents a machine that can send info back in time. And it causes sort of paradoxes. And ... yes? So? You receive messages that were never sent. So? It's treated as "this is the experimental reality."
@totalermist
@totalermist Рік тому
Oh, they get asked alright, but the lecturer can't point at a theory that doesn't exist yet, so they stick with the current and incomplete one. Maybe it would be best to always add the disclaimer "according to our current and known to be incomplete models" to all of these.
@darlenesmith5690
@darlenesmith5690 Рік тому
It makes less sense than most people realize. As a simple example: E = mc^2 (1 / (1 - (v/c)^2)^0.5 - 1) Assuming that she is correct, the equation for this with values of v greater than c introduces an imaginary number into the equation. This would mean E = iE' where E' would be some finite energy amount. But what does i do here? How can a measurement of energy have an imaginary number in it? Worse than that, E' would be a small negative value as well. So the faster one goes beyond the speed of light, the less "negative energy" it takes assuming a positive mass. What would negative energy be? If E is positive energy, that in turn would require negative (imaginary) mass in order for E to be positive. It sounds nonsensical mathematically when discussing reality. At best, one would need to describe this as something like "using another dimension", assuming that other dimensions exist. Granted, the equation for energy above the speed of light might have a different equation completely. But typically, that is not the case in physics. At best, the equation has some more factors that zero out or some such at one extreme or another. For example, MOND. There are mathematical reasons why most scientists do not buy into unorthodox theories. Mostly, the math falls apart or other well proven theories have a conflict.
@benruniko
@benruniko Рік тому
@@darlenesmith5690 you may find that simply because math has an imaginary number in it, that does not preclude it’s existence in reality. It is simply a two dimensional numberline with sqrt(1) on one axis and sqrt(-1) on another. You may not be able to hold i apples, but you cant hold pi apples either. But both are a part of the real world.
@darlenesmith5690
@darlenesmith5690 Рік тому
@@benruniko I think you missed the point. I agree with what you just wrote. Best that we know, infinity never exists in nature either, but it does show up in equations. Think of it this way. The energy for low velocities is low. The energy for high velocities near the speed of light is really high, but still finite. The energy for velocity at the speed of light is infinite (hence, not achievable). The energy for velocity beyond the speed of light is negative and/or imaginary, and/or the mass is negative and/or imaginary. The equation tells us that. How can these be negative, let alone imaginary, and how can the energy decrease the faster one goes? Another way of saying this is that the energy for velocity beyond the speed of light is undefined and a bit nonsensical. No known or even theorized energy or mass has those properties. The final value of E has to be a type of energy. Let me put it another way. When Voyager 2 went to the outer planets, scientists at the time thought that Neptune did not get enough heat radiation from the Sun in order to have any type of wind. It turns out that Neptune has the fastest winds in the solar system at about 1000 MPH. It took scientists nearly a decade to figure out how that was happening. My point? Whenever scientists guess at what is possible without solid facts to back it up, they are usually wrong. Nearly 100% of the time unless there is previous proven (relatively speaking) science that will practically force a given prediction. Science is based on observations, not guessing. The theory here is not based on observations, it is based on a series of unrelated ideas. In this video, she is throwing darts at a dart board in the dark where not only the distance and direction to the dart board is not known, but whether the dart board exists at all is not known.
@mememealsome
@mememealsome Рік тому
I would have liked to see more about your solution to the time paradoxes. It seems that you say a spaceship can travel backward in time relative to bob, but then any space ship that visited bob’s past self would have been traveling forward in time. If they can travel backwards from “current” bob, what prevents them visiting past bob?
@Athropod101
@Athropod101 Рік тому
You wouldn’t go back in time, but into ‘complex’ time. The term with the speed of light is a square root ( sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) ). If your speed surpasses the speed of light, you end up with a negative inside a square root, leading to a complex number. Not a shred of a clue what complex time is, though.
@rylandavis2976
@rylandavis2976 Рік тому
​@@Athropod101 yikes
@jetison333
@jetison333 Рік тому
Her solution is basically, hey if you allow faster than light travel in all reference frames, then it allows spaceships to travel backwards in time, so instead, lets just not allow faster than light travel in all reference frames, and just allow it in the comoving reference frame.
@noneedtoknow5315
@noneedtoknow5315 Рік тому
@@Athropod101 the shoreline of the river were you can choose wich directon you go... theres more tan back and forth. you know that if you've astrally projected... that's "complex time".
@GlanderBrondurg
@GlanderBrondurg Рік тому
The solution to a time paradox is simply that they don't happen, at least on a practical level.
@Timberius
@Timberius Місяць тому
On your simplified graph, where Bob drops the egg, shouldn't the egg impacting the ground be above him (later), not below hin (before), on the time scale?
@Timberius
@Timberius Місяць тому
Yes I know eggs can't fly (yet, before they hatch), but in the time scale the impact happens after (above).
@craiganthony6532
@craiganthony6532 17 днів тому
If the speed of light is always fixed, and doesn't change with the movement of its point of origin, then at what fixed point is that speed based upon?
@Li.Siyuan
@Li.Siyuan Рік тому
One of your most thought-provoking episodes. Thank you, Sabine!
@brianrajala7671
@brianrajala7671 Рік тому
Above my pay grade too. Either I was not born with enough of the right brain cells, or fed them the wrong foods, or else I slept through class the day these principles were discussed ... but I still find your lectures very interesting.
Why is quantum mechanics non-local? (I wish someone had told me this 20 years ago.)
25:09
Why Going Faster-Than-Light Leads to Time Paradoxes
25:08
Cool Worlds
Переглядів 7 млн
Nemo - The Code (LIVE) | Switzerland🇨🇭| Grand Final | Eurovision 2024
03:28
Eurovision Song Contest
Переглядів 12 млн
Nuclear waste is not the problem you've been made to believe it is
21:49
Sabine Hossenfelder
Переглядів 805 тис.
My dream died, and now I'm here
13:41
Sabine Hossenfelder
Переглядів 2,3 млн
What's Going Wrong in Particle Physics?  (This is why I lost faith in science.)
21:45
Why is everyone suddenly neurodivergent?
23:25
Sabine Hossenfelder
Переглядів 1,6 млн
The Big Misconception About Electricity
14:48
Veritasium
Переглядів 22 млн
Gravity is not a force. But what does that mean?
15:35
Sabine Hossenfelder
Переглядів 765 тис.
Nuclear Fusion: Who'll Be First To Make It Work?
30:01
Sabine Hossenfelder
Переглядів 529 тис.
What's Stopping Us From Building a Warp Drive?
24:12
Cool Worlds
Переглядів 1,8 млн
I don't believe in free will. This is why.
19:59
Sabine Hossenfelder
Переглядів 984 тис.
Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics: How are they related?
17:38
Sabine Hossenfelder
Переглядів 659 тис.
Этот смартфон ЗАМЕНИТ Samsung в 2024 Году! Надо брать…
11:46
Thebox - о технике и гаджетах
Переглядів 34 тис.
Я Создал Новый Айфон!
0:59
FLV
Переглядів 2,8 млн
Как установить Windows 10/11?
0:56
Construct PC
Переглядів 1,9 млн