Common Physics Misconceptions
What if you thought the earth was flat? And then you found out it isn’t? MinutePhysics is on Google+ – http://bit.ly/qzEwc6 And facebook – http://facebook.co…
What are careers in physics? what are the job prospects in physics? Can a Physics major transfer over to software or engineering? What is Physics? What indus…
Video Rating: 4 / 5
The Earth is flat. All this milarky about space travel is nonsence. And you
need a physics digree to understand the formulas you putt forth. What 8th
grader has a physics digree. Teach them the basics and that is fine unless
they want to pursue the study more in depth. That is what collage is for.
“Cosmic Speed Limit” eh? Well I guess we will see who gives the speeding
tickets for that out since NASA successfully tested a small sale FTL drive.
That worked.
MUST READ HENRY: Light does not have momentum because momentum is the
product of mass and velocity. Light can have velocity but no mass, as you
said in your video. m=0
u just said there was no “cosmic speed limit” in a previous video !!!!!!
do not confuse us
Hmmm, Doesn’t light travel in the fabric of spacetime and it is this fabric
that is curved by the influence of mass? If this is the case then light is
not actually attracted by gravity at all, rather it is just following the
curved line in the spacetime continuum.
My science teacher said that mass caused gravity. :'(
All sorts of things about physiscs are misrepresented in primary and
secondary school. We have generations of people who have beeen taught that
“nothing in the universe can move faster than light.” It’s a good faith
attempt at teaching Special Relativity, but it’s basically wrong….or at
least incomplete, when considering the expansion of space itself described
by GENERAL Relativity. So people don’t understand how it can be that the
high redshift objects in the Hubble Deep Field pictures for example can be
moving with recession speeds far beyond the speed of light in proper
coordinates (taking into acoount the metric expansion rate of space.) Or
how an object whose light has a measured redshift of 8 traveled for about
13 billion years to reach the earth, but came from a galaxy that was only a
little more than 3 billion Light Years distant when the light was emitted,
and is about 30 billion Light Years distant now.
I don’t like the sheep example and can think of a better explanation as to
why the sheep moving at 2 mph and train moving is moving 2 mph does not
equal the sheep moving at 4 mph relative to the ground. In order for the
sheep to accelerate to 2 mph its legs have to push in the opposite
direction on the trains floor. The train is slowed down by this even if it
is a very small amount so the train is not moving at 2 mph so the sheep is
not moving at 4 mph relative to the ground. How much the train is slowed
down depends on the relative difference between the mass of the sheep and
the mass of the train. The sheep mass being so much smaller than the train
the amount the train is slowed by is very small. If the sheep’s mass was
equal to the train’s and the sheep accelerated to 2 mph the train would be
slowed down by 2 mph or in this case would stop in its tracks and the sheep
would be moving at 4 mph or would the train stop and the sheep just walk
off the end of the front of the train at 2 mph? Be an interesting physics
experiment.
NOPE MINUTEPHYSICS THERE IS NO COSMIC SPEED LIMIT U’VE CONTRADICTED
YOURSELF ONCE AGAIN. WATCH YOUR OWN VID ON HOW TO BREAK THE “UNIVERSAL
SPEED LIMIT” PLEASE.
+MinutePhysics Can I ask you a serious question? you will probably never
see this but here goes:
If you fire a potato cannon (with a muzzle velocity of 50 mph) on a level
trajectory out of the back of a truck going 50 mph in the opposite
direction does that mean that the potato will actually be going the same
direction as the truck but only a tiny tiny amount?
well according to significant figures the 2+2 is 4.
3.99999999999999999999999999999 to one sig fig is 4 making that point
irrelevant.
I’m not convinced that one is doing something so terribly wrong in teaching
some of these things at school, even though they are indeed strictly
misconceptions. Frankly, shouldn’t it depend upon the misconception? To
teach, say, a twelve year old that the Earth is flat (perhaps just because
it ordinarily looks flat) would indeed be wrong. Why? Because such a
youngster would have the concepts available to understand the truth that
the Earth is really (pretty well) spherical. Here, the there is no
educational need for the misconception. On the matter of adding ordinary
velocities without taking into account Special Relativity, however, such a
youngster would not normally have or even be capable of acquiring, such
concepts as to understand the larger, more accurate, truth. Given that the
approximate truth is near enough for most practical purposes, I see no
reason for for turning into the scientific equivalent of Woody Allen simply
because it is the approximate truth that is taught at school. The nuancing
towards the more accurate truth can, quite legitimately, come later.
(Perhaps one just has to learn the approximate truths before bone can
swallow the larger truths.) Perhaps science can only ever issue (ever more
accurate) approximate truths in any case. Scientists would do well not to
take on an air of righteous strictness that science itself simply does not
own. Perhaps the otherwise quite excellent ‘Minute Physics’ could therefore
take what I believe is called a ‘chill pill’ on this one. Many at school
(including myself at that age) learned better by being taught some
approximate truths first and being allowed to graduate with the richer
truths later. So, calm down Minute Physics and just get on with your
first-class teaching.
you you understand, only the people who appreciates physics watch these
videos, so other kids will never see this and understand Einstein
Is C^2= Speed of light^2?
So, if I set up a system with a plane, a cat, and a train, and the train
moved 20 mph relative to the plane, and the cat ran 20 mph relative to the
train, removing the train from the system would increase the velocity of
the cat and thus increasing its energy and in turn mass and density,
because it has the same volume, meaning sound moves faster through a cat
that is not on a train than one that is on a train, meaning cats not on
trains are better things to transmit speech through than cats on trains.
The only explanation is aliens.
The aliens part was sarcastic.
What a joke. Do you REALLY expect little Timmy to be able to understand
Special Relativity? Most kids can’t even grasp a concept like density until
they get taught unit analysis in high school physics. It’s not practical,
there’s NO point in teaching special relativity in any more depth than
“just so you know, there’s a .0000001% deviation from what you think do to
science mumbo jumbo” unless you plan on doing astrophysics or nuclear
physics.
Wait! So the Earth isn’t flat? :OO
Nasa says gravity is because of mass and light gets bent by it because
gravity bends space and time and some other stuff so which one is correct?
Can someone explain this?
Honestly I don’t think this is misleading. Adding and substracting speeds
of trains or so in elementary school is simply the first step. Babies and
children are used to absolutes and slowly but surely they need to learn,
that in the world everything is relative.
Instead of pushing hard formulas on elementary kids it is much more fun to
discuss the first implications of relativity when you look with them up to
the stars. That now on Earth is not the same now on Mars and little Jonny
will have to deal with this, when he is grown and will travel as an
astronaut to Mars.
Growing up i was always taught that, say, “1.3” was equal to “1.30” even if
it felt counter-intuitive. And of course, as i learned higher math, 1.30 is
more precise since 1.3 has unknown second decimal which may have been
rounded down.
I don’t want to bash Engineering fields as they are the one who puts Theory
on the ground but Physics or Mathematics Majors are usually way beyond
Engineering Majors when it comes to intelligence and thinking. After all,
Engineering fields usually are sub-fields of Experimental Physics or
Chemistry and Experimental comes after Theoretical (Mostly). So dude i hear
the tone in your video like ” pfft Engineering is the way to go, natural
sciences are nothing” Well, it’s not all about money you talk about. If
wasn’t for the discoveries in Physics or Chemistry, Engineering fields
would die within few years….and on the side note, ANY engineering field
is no where near as complex as Upper level Physics or Chemistry….and I am
not even talking about Mother of all yet, MATHEMATICS
Classic awkward advertisement in the intro. Watch 0:00 – 0:25 for a laugh.
Since all engineering really is, is applied physics, I am having a hard
time understanding how you think it isn’t a viable major. I feel like you
are not taking into account genuine human intuition (i.e. people learning
on the job/figuring out how to apply things). A person who gets a PHD in
Physics is just as capable as an engineer if said PHD in Physics went into
the private sector. I just think that you are oversimplifying the field.
Could you make a video on making yourself marketable for any job? I majored
in Business (Supply Chain) but am looking for a government contracting job.
Any tips on making a resume that can be used for any industry? Thanks.
Great videos man much props…I am currently a nursing major but I am
thinking of switching to mechanical engineering, my dilemma is am I willing
to start from scratch basically. Can you do a Nursing major video?
Is computer science still a good major ’cause i recently saw on yahoo that
Tech careers like information systems has a high employment rate bc there
aren’t many spots to fill and there are lots of applications;
competitive…..
Can you do an in-depth video about chemistry majors and stuff like that?
That would be awesome :)
Do you think becoming a Veterinarian is a good idea?
I know this question is not related to this video, but It figured it might
be answered more easily because of less comments and newer video. What
should I minor in if my major is computer science? I know that minors don’t
matter much but what would be the most helpful minor to the major that
would help in my career. Would graphic design be the best minor? Also,
should I join two or more campus clubs or just join 1 that is closely
related to my major?
Can you do a video about Math-Computer Science major?
could you make a video about architects?
Would a CS major with a Physics or Math minor be useful? Or are minors of
any use?
People who major in physics normally don’t do it for the money, they just
truly love the subject
Life isn’t all about money, and you don’t apply physics? Really?
A lot of this information is completely wrong, especially regarding quantum
physics. First of all, the study of light is a branch of physics called
optics, and is not what quantum physics focuses on. Sound is also not
quantum physics, as sound is solely the movement of energy as a mechanical
wave of pressure and displacement through a medium such as air, water,
rock, etc., and would fall under the subcategory of wave mechanics, a
branch of mechanics. Quantum Physics is the study of phenomena of a
nanoscopic scale, such as the uncertainty principle, particle entanglement,
wave-particle duality, and the behavior of many subatomic particles such as
electrons and neutrinos. It is useful in studying chemical reactions and
bonds, and also in explaining many macroscopic phenomena that had been
previously inexplicable. Since the majority of the things you mentioned are
not specifically — and only loosely related to — quantum physics, I would
suggest you take your own advice and not “throw the term around” like you
know what you are talking about. Also, as for job prospects, the largest
employment status of physicists is academic research, at colleges and
universities. The claim that the two most popular fields are medical and
optical physics is unsupported and frankly wrong. I have know idea where
you gathered the majority of the information in this video.
im suprise that most video game developers dont use physic majors because
most of the games now a days have physic engine.
thank you for the vid. Exaclt what i was looking for.
Some good jobs for physics majors: embedded software engineering and game
programming
what would you say about environmental engineering? Do you know anyone in
that field?
My good sir. You don’t know what Quantum Physics is…
Hahahaha. This is hilarious
Is this about physics or engineer? What a loser you engineer
I wanted to be a physicist till I saw that it needs a PhD for a job,and how
unbiased you need to be, engineering for now,till I can afford a physics
degree, or go into engineering physics.
The big difference imho is that engineers are very product oriented. They
are given the conditions and criteria. The science they deal with is
usually well understood. Physics majors have a different way of thinking
they do not have well defined problems (initially) and do not have anything
except analytical ability and what ever laws of physics that may apply. It
is the difference between being given F=ma and just a blank sheet of paper
and figuring out F=ma.
You could also do a physics degree and take the classes for med school. I
love physics but I might what to work in the medical field some day so that
way its a win for me. There’s also a study that showed physics students did
better on the MCAT. I want to learn about physics and if my GPA is high
then i’ll apply to medical school.