Comments by "RiteMo LawBks" (@ritemolawbks8012) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

Using "wrong" in the title gets more views.
21
@jeffryphillipsburns That's not in Newton's theory. That's more of a modern interpretation of how Einstein struggled to get gravity to work in Special Relativity. The idea of flat spacetime was from classical relativity with a "universal time" and "absolute space," and 3D vectors to describe mechanics. Newton's own laws of motion indicated that gravity can't be a force (inertial force), and he left it for his readers to research the transmission mechanism and explain why inertial mass and gravity mass appeared to be approximately equal. It took a couple of hundred years before someone came up with a strong equivalence principle and describe curved spacetime. Einstein did get that part, but he struggled to finally get the math to describe the laws of physics in tensor forms and gravity as a geometry.
5
It's doesn't meet the requirements for being a Newtonian Force described by F=ma, and the Newtonian laws of motion. It's still a fundamental interaction, so the hypothetical "graviton" would propagate as waves of spacetime curvature (the apparent force of gravitation).
3
Americans pronounce "Bri - [T]ish," and in the UK, it's "Bri - ish." [ 1:32 ] Love those diminished chords, and they're from American-style jazz, blues, and gospel.
2
I love the click-bait title and when new users come and automatically assume she's a non-physicist introducing her own theory debunking relativity. The best comments are the ones that claim she can't disprove Einstein if she can't even correctly pronounce his German name.
2
Some are very accurate approximations. The problem with Newtonian mechanics and gravity was that it used Galileo's relativity, and it assumed the speed of light and gravity transmitted instantaneously. Both special relativity and the Einstein Field Equations in general relativity reduce back to classical mechanics, when the observations are non-relativistic. Using Newton's theories alone would be appropriate for 99% of physics and engineering problems.
2
Believe it or not she's a singer, too.
2
@stevewilson4321 Being that I originally agreed with your original post, but you read it as a disagreement. I'm beginning to questions 1) whether English is your native language; or 2) whether graduate-level physics, including the Classical Newtonian Dynamics is a field you're competent in. I agree about the accomplishments of Isaac Newton, and the incorrect argument that "Einstein was right, and Newton was wrong." Outside of that, you've taken the alternate extreme by disregarding the last century in physics. There's essentially only two fields: Classical Physics (General Relativity), and Quantum Physics. Astronomy, astrophysics, Newton's Laws of Motion, Gallian Relativity, Special Relativity, Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics, and Maxwell's EM Field Theory, Cosmology, and even Hawking Radiation are considered part of "General Relativity." That's not a controversial statement. If you knew, you'd know General Relativity ("GR") includes all of classical theories. It doesn't matter if it's on the scale of planets or velocities close to "c." The only topics GR can't accurately model are Quantum Field Theory, quantum gravity, and quantum electrodynamics.
2
I still prefer the comments on her first GR & Quantum Gravity video: "How can this liberal-arts major critique Albert Einstein when she can't even pronounce his name correctly?"
2
That sounds a lot like the gravitational waves, which propagates as oscillating spacetime curvature, from Einsteinian gravity. Good idea, but make sure it won't be considered "plagiarism."
2
Yes. The floor is accelerating upward toward your direction and relativity to your inertia frames, which is in"free fall.".
2
Before Einstein had his field equations for curved spacetime, he used acceleration in Special Relativity, the Equivalence principle, and Newtonian Gravity to explain how spacetime affects EM radiation.
1
In your "beam of light" problem, were you asked to calculate and describe the momentum and energy of a photon? There are different ways of presenting the problem, and it's easier to answer if you know the name or topic; e.g., Einstein's photoelectric effect, electrodynamics and classical field theory, or an introductory example in special relativity. A course in special relativity, typically begins with describing Galilean relativity and the problem of combining Newtonian mechanics with Maxwell equations and Lorentz force. Also, general relativity (curved spacetime theory of gravitation) holds at velocities near the speed of light. It was created because there was another conflict between special relativity (flat spacetime) and Newtonian gravity (inverse square force in classical physics). All of the different branches in classical physics and general relativity are linked and correspond with each other. Nearly 99% of the time you can use Newtonian Mechanics and Newtonian Gravity in observation it's been proven to accurately describe. It's not wrong; it's just incomplete and an approximation at speeds near light. I'm not sure about your mathematical background, but the equations of general relativity and special relativity can get very messy. It's a better strategy to only use Einstein's relativity equations when it's an observation that Newtonian Mechanics are known to give the wrong answer.
1
@markmccullough5873 Sorry for the late response, but I hope I didn't give you the false impression that I have a Ph.D. in physics. I'm nowhere close to being on Einstein's or Dr. Hossenfelder's level of knowledge. I've taken two astronomy and three physics-major undergrad courses: planetary astronomy, stellar astronomy, classical mechanics, electrodynamics, and modern physics. The only commonality between myself and Einstein may be the field of IP/Patent Law, which requires a STEM background. My expertise might be correctly categorizing the different problem sets and solutions to academic questions that are typically asked in introductory and intermediate-level physics. It wasn't that I wanted to correct you. I was interested in finding out what class you were in that addressed photons, lasers, and momentum from massless particles.
1
@markmccullough5873 In most of the physics courses schedules, the next class after electromagnetic radiation and fields would have been Modern Physics. It starts with how Einstein and Lorentz were able to join Newtonian mechanics [ F=ma ], classical relativity, and Maxwell equations. Light doesn't have mass, but it does have momentum and can energize charged particles with rest mass. Without getting into the complexities of Special relativity, the following force law [ F=ma ] can be used for light, lasers, or even airplanes: Lorentz Force Law for Electromagnetic radiation and electrodynamics: F = q( E + v x B ) _________________________ F = force q = electric charge E = external electric field v = velocity B = magnetic field The Newtonian Force Law can also be written in a more general form to determine equations of motion and forces exerted. F = d p /dt = ma = m(d v /dt) ________________________________________ F = force p = momentum vector m = constant mass t = time dt = ∆t (change with respect to time)
1
Did you even watch the video? That's not her personal opinion. General Relativity is incomplete because it can't be quantized, or describe the other fundamental interaction in a high gravity environment.
1
That might be explained better by cosmic inflation, Hubble expansion, dark energy, and the fact that there has to be a differential in the density and distribution of mass/energy to cause a gravitational collapse. Were you assuming that if the Big Bang and time were reversed, the concentration of mass and mathematical singularity would be indistinguishable from happens with black holes?
1
Gravity is not a force in General Relativity because it doesn't exist in all reference frames. It's still an "apparent force," and in strong fields like neutron stars and black holes, it stronger than the EM binding energy, so it must have a quantum theory. Instead of "fundamental forces," just call them "fundamental interactions."
1
Using Newtonian Gravity, how would describe the mechanism that creates the effect of a gravitational force?
1
@Taydris0 Yes. She made a distrack[1] and music video to another physicist, who couldn't keep her name out of his mouth. _____ [1] https://youtu.be/5gmtAeqRs14
1
It sounds like you're on the wrong channel. I doubt you have any kind of scientific background with an ignorant post like yours.
1
@emilefouquet9005 Nothing she said was controversial. She said a quantum theory of gravity is needed to make General Relativity and QTF compatible. General Relativity, and the Newtonian gravity from which it was derived, is only an approximation. None of the classical theories can explain how an electron orbital doesn't radiate gravitational waves, lose energy, and become gravitationally attacked to the nucleus. How that makes her anti-Semitic and critical of a German/Prussian-educated scientist that she's spent her entire academic career studying is beyond me.
1
Are you sure you watched and understood the video? She's an actual physicist and hasn't said anything controversial.
1
One of the many reasons it can't be lost is because energy/mass cannot be created nor destroyed. It should only change from. The energy and matter presently measured in the observable universe should be conserved, and it should also equal to the total energy from regular matter, anti-matter, radiation, dark energy, and dark matter at the beginning of the universe. Any matter or energy that's crosses the event horizon of black creates a paradox because we can never receive a signal from the black hole, and any observer in close proximity of the event horizon could never see anything cross the event horizon and leave the observable universe. From that analogy, energy would be destroyed and causally disconnected from the observable universe rather than converted to a different form, e.g., when the sun fuses hydrogen atoms to become helium. The residual energy from nuclear fusion becomes photons and neutrinos.
1
There's probably not many people who know the Einstein Field Equations well enough to know that Newtonian Gravity, Special Relativity, and all of classical mechanics are incorporated and embedded within General Relativity; but I agree it's disappointing hearing people claim Newtonian Mechanics are "wrong" rather than "incomplete." General Relativity is a beautiful and elegant theory, but it didn't create new physics. It used more precise measurements, data, and differential geometry to explain observations that deviated from Newtonian Mechanics and Law of Gravity.
1
@stevewilson4321 Are you deriving the stress-energy tensor that causes the curvature in General Relativity from Bernoulli equation? Are you asking me to explain how it's wrong because that wasn't my position? The deviations from Newtonian Mechanics aren't significant, but the requirement of 4D spacetime and tensors makes the laws of physics the same in all reference frames.
1
@stevewilson4321 No. That's not the interpretation. Gravity isn't a force in general relativity because the Newtonian Laws of Motion alone say's it can't be a force; it doesn't exist in all inertial reference frames, so it's a pseudo-force or fictional force. The mistake is Newton's use of the relativity of Galileo and assumed spacetime is flat. Newton's laws explained all of the observations available to him at the time. It took centuries to notice deviations in Mercury's obit to know that his law of gravity is "incomplete." The better word is Newton's laws of mechanics aren't wrong; they're "incomplete." If a graviton is ever discovered it wouldn't matter if you called gravity a "force" or "spacetime curvature." We can see the same deviations from Einstein's theory of gravity, too. When there is a theory of quantum gravity, there's a great chance we'll go back to calling gravity a force once again.
1
@stevewilson4321 In physics they use something called "the correspondence principle," and it explains that when there is a new theory, it should be able to reduce to the previous theory in conditions where it was known to correctly describe the observations. In General Relativity, the Einstein Field Equations will reduce to either flat spacetime of Special Relativity, Gallean Relativity, or Newton's inverse-square law of gravity if the observations or part of the nearly 99% of the typical physics problems accurately describe by Newtonian Physics.
1
@stevewilson4321 I want to make sure I understand the example, and find out how you've come to the conclusion that I've contradicted myself with something I've posted. This following is the only example you've referenced: "Understand that ppl now claim that if I stand on the North pole and you stand on south and we both jump up at the same time to same height, that Newtons laws dont explain how we both arrive back on earth at the same time... They claim its a phenomena of spacetime... They say Newton was just wrong and now we understand Einstein's work better... BTW Im not talking about just uneducated ppl look at Veritasium youtube videos..." 1. Personally, I've never heard someone make the argument that a physical example in Earth's gravity can't be explained by Newtonian Mechanics; and 2. In my previous remark, I referenced "The Correspondence Principle," which covers how General Relativity and Modern Physics must be able to reduce back to Newtonian Gravity and Classical Mechanics in observational problems; so 3. I haven't heard of the example from Derek Mueller (Veritasium's Host) claiming that Newton's Laws of Motion wouldn't be able to describe your "North Pole" example. If anyone made that claim regarding Newton's Laws of Motion, I would share the opinion of you. Isaac Newton was the greatest scientist and mathematician, and possibly the most intelligent human to exist in the past 1,000 years. Einstein stood on the shoulders of Newton, and he would never claim that the minor changes and corrections to Newtonian Mechanics makes him comparable to the creator of physics, calculus, and the fundamental theories and enlightenment that made modern science, technology, engineering, and mathematics possible.
1
@stevewilson4321 I've read the English translations of most of Einstein's publications of regarding his Equivalence Principle and how he tried to integrate gravitation into Special Relativity. This was before he had the final Field Equations he published he published with General Relativity. He had a greater understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion, Gravity, and Relativity. There are plenty of people who've not mastered Newtonian Mechanics before learning Einstein's Relativity. It's apparent when frames of references are not properly described. In your "North Pole" example, it sounds like you've assumed the frame on Earth is inertial. That's one of the problems I'm having trying to determine the wording, and in which reference frame you're describing in the "North Pole" example.
1
@yingyang1008 That's blasphemy. If you have a publication from Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein discussing a Theory of Dark Matter, I'd pay some good money to review it. We don't need to hear much science to already presume you're about to start reciting some theory about Flat-Earth, Electric Universe, Plasma cosmology, quantized inertia, "Tesla was right," or "the luminiferous aether was real" claims. It's fine to have an imagination, but this is a science channel, so why be rude and start preaching about pseudoscience in the comments? Even Tesla would have better internet etiquette than you and your fellow cult members. I'll leave you to your devices so that you can pretend the last century and a half in scientific progress never happened.
1
@yingyang1008 Whenever you decide to release your own testable "theory of everything," and the mathematical support, I'll be glad to test it against observations and predications that Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity explain well enough to still be valid centuries later. Who knows? It may turn you that you're a genius and 100% correct; but usually when I hear people critiquing relativity, it's because don't understand it. When you master classical physics, you'll know it must be right.
1
@yingyang1008 I've given you every chance to use science to make an argument, and end the discussion, without your credibility in science being challenged because it's very awkward. Are you comfortable enough using your modern-science theories because I can show the problem?
1
Nothing would really change. Despite theoretical physicist searching for a "theory of everything," astrophysics, gravitation, and cosmology are already well explained by our current theories. It could turnout that the fundamental question of why the energy, momentum, and density of matter fields distort spacetime and manifests as gravity and tidal accelerations is unknowable and unobservable.
1
She's correct and not debunking relativity with her own quantum theory of gravity. Also, had Isaac Newton not existed, I'd definitely agree that Einstein was the greatest genius to ever exist.
1
Do you have time stamp for it? I must have missed that because the typical example of classical physics, which includes General Relativity ("GR"), failing to explain a quantum system deals with the electron orbitals and discrete energy levels. GR predict that an accelerated electron would radiate out gravitational waves and eventually collide with the nucleus of an atom. There's a much more complex incompatibility that happens when quantum field theory is used in curved spacetime and a process called, "renormalization." Other than those examples, observations on the macro scales are completely explained by Newtonian physics. The exceptions being due to relativistic velocities, cosmological evolution; e.g., dark energy, Hubble expansion, and dark matter, and in ultra-high-density gravitational fields (like Black holes and neutron stars). GR and Newtonian gravity diverge significantly in highly curved spacetime. Depending on the scenario, GR, Special Relativity, dark-matter gravitation, or quantum field theory are required.
1
@buddysnackit1758 True. Don't blame that on Einstein and the expanding universe.
1
I see what you did there 😁😆.
1
Thanks for the "masochist" part!
1
It passes all experiments and predictions, but it can't be complete. In General Relativity ("GR"), the source of the curvature is the local distribution of matter, energy, and momentum. They assume spacetime should be quantized, not have mathematical singularities, and have a correspondence principle connecting gravity and quantum fields (aka "renormalization"). It's similar to how GR is able to reduce back to Newtonian Mechanics and Gravity in "non-relativistic" observations.
1
@joaquinmatacastillo7554 Okay. That makes sense. I first learned about the channel because of the "trap" title. I thought she was another flat-earth YouTuber who claims to be able to disprove relativity. The title might be a trap, but I think her intention was to explain why a quantum theory of gravity is needed.
1
You could be overthinking it because this is one of the easier concepts of relativity. The time axis is labelled (ct) to keep the spacetime (t,x,y,z) units and intervals as measurements of length and typically in meters. A light year is the most popular example of using a measurement of length for a time interval. The "c" constant is the only invariant that will never change and all observers will get the same value.
1
Do one on languages of Austria, Germany, and Prussia.
1
That's a hard question. Wouldn't the "gravitational field" and "waves" in GR be measured as the propagation of spacetime curvature? If that doesn't make sense, another way would be to ask that since we're on Earth, wouldn't it mostly be measured by clocks ticking different rates, and the measurement device we use at LIGO to detect when a gravitational wave event has occurred?
1
Einstein was only human. He could definitely be proven "wrong" or his theory "incomplete," but the reason it survived was its ability to incorporate all of classical physics into one theory with some nightmarish mathematics and geometry.
1