Einstein's General Relativity Explained VISUALLY and SIMPLY for BEGINNERS

↓↓↓ Links and more in full description below ↓↓↓

General relativity is probably Einstein's most important and famous contribution to physics. In this video, we'll look at this theory and what it actually tells us. We'll do this without any equations or maths or complicated theories, but rather we'll just use intuition and demonstrations to try and understand how gravity works. We'll cover the caveats of thinking about it in this way, and the ways in which we still need to expand of general relativity too.

The thumbnail for this video was made by the talented Sergi, who makes videos interviewing physicists over @fieldof_view.

Thanks to James and Portsmouth's Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation for letting me use their sheet and stand for the spacetime demo!

Hey team!

If there is some other cool topic in physics you think we should learn about together, leave a comment down below!

Until next time, stay safe.

Chapters:
00:00 - Intro
00:34 - What is General Relativity?
01:43 - The Popular Analogy
03:15 - Black Holes
04:27 - Problems with the Popular Analogy
07:03 - Gravitational Waves
08:22 - Gravitational Lensing
11:52 - The big Problem with GR
12:27 - Gravity is Different to Other Forces
14:20 - Summary
14:53 - Outro

Please consider subscribing if you enjoyed the video, and you can also find me on Twitter and Instagram:

[susanjane]

I had not seen the wine glass one -- that just nails for me. The wire work is fine. But I didn't get gravitational lensing until now. One of the reasons why I really like the channel.

[davidpescod]

Simple, maybe, but a brilliant exposition of General Relativity, Chris, and with excellent graphics. Definitely a Yes for part 2. Many thanks, as always

[PADARM]

As someone who is obsessed with GR you gave an excellent explanation that I have not seen in other videos. for example at 2:33 I had never realized that this analogy also explains why the more massive object is also affected by the less massive one. and I also did not know that this analogy is not so good due to the friction of the fabric.

[fb]

Great video. Ans gotta say the wine glass: GENIUS!! It really makes the point in an elegant way. I'm surprised this channel doesn't have more followers and view, you really deserve them. I just discovered you today and am really liking your content!

[sharmisthatralalala]

Please do a part 2 as well. I am sure you would put the equational concept in a simpler way too. Thank you though

[rebuznardo]

The Robot brought me to your channel. Lucky me. Nice work.

Thanks a lot!

[johnholme]

Yes, i see, the bending of time causes space to flow to the gravitating mass. So the curvature of a trajectory close to a very large mass is curved both by the curvature of space and the flow of space towards the huge mass!

[eraymonds]

Finally, someone who grasps the concept that a smaller ball rolling toward a larger ball on a sheet speaks only to the fact that both balls are being acted upon by earth's gravity. It always amazes me when I see this "experiment" being passed off as some intuitively simple explanation of something so complex as 4-dimensional spacetime.

[barashimotty]

Great video, can't wait for part 2

[ChrisPattisonCosmo]

Was Einstein's theory good? Relatively.

[phuocle]

A planet is held in its orbit by some concrete force, the centripetal force, not by some warping form – the warping space as a form, no more and no less, can definitely not affect the pathway of an object . One sees that it’s the warping of space that causes gravity but actually it's the gravity that causes the warping of space, not the reverse which is not realistic at all.
That is why not every scientist rejects the Newtonian 's theory on gravity.
Specifically speaking of these 2 contrasting theories on gravity, each one has its own MERIT.

[MrRedeyedJedi]

String theory combines well with relativity

[NoNameAtAll]

will you make a video about meteor above France?

[phuocle]

Gravity according to Einstein’s theory, applies to the abstract ...
Einstein is a genius, that doesn't mean his theory about gravity is perfect because it still can't be applied to all situations, just like Newton's theory. Which means each one has its own value.
(That is why the scientific world is still working on a universal theory).
But Newton’s theory is realistic while the one of Einstein is abstract. Why?
Check this :
Let’s first be clear that Geometry is a branch of science that deals with the physical world; it’s not a physical element of this world.
In a systemic cosmos one realizes that objects orbit smoothly which clearly shows that there must be an obvious force that holds them together at such or such distance; definitely not the spatial geometry between them that does that.
It must be an obvious force, not the warping of space (and of course time [as time is naturally connected to space; speed and distance are connected]) that can act in place of a force. This is because the warping describes the look of a form – a warping form is itself not a physical thing.
Let’s say, a round form, a triangular form, a pointed form, a convex form, a concave form, and so on… How can the form of an object causes any other object in its environment to move?
Let’s say a marble on the surface border of a funnel glides down; this is not due to the warping space near that surface which has a concave form shaped by the mouth of the funnel.
When one lifts an object, one feels a downward force applying to one’s hand; this is not due to the form of the near space, the warping space, caused by one’s hand.
In the same vein, planets orbiting around any star, this is not because the space being distorted by the star. How can the warping form of the space around a star causes planets to move while the space is itself a nothingness? In other words, it does not make sense at all to say that because the space around a star is shaped by its surface area, so, any planets near it can move around it.
A planet is held in its orbit by some concrete force, the centripetal force, not by some warping form – the warping space as a form, no more and no less, can definitely not affect the pathway of an object.
One sees that it’s the warping of space that causes gravity but actually it's the gravity that causes the warping of space, not the reverse which is not realistic at all.
Planets are formed because of the warping of space brought on by their primordial elements? Definitely not. It's because the force of attraction between them; if there is no such force they will drift forever in space.
It’s very obvious that an object, moving at whatever directional angle, has to have recourse to energy from some source. No energy, no moving, period. Can you move if you are deprived of food for say, a whole ... month (!) ?? And will one see you on this earth after one year without taking any food?? All need energy to move, to survive, living in a space warping into whatever form.
* Inside the Black hole no one ever sees any planets orbiting; even that near the Black hole, the measurement of any orbits are correct just as predicted by the Einstein theory. And any planets near this celestial hole get sucked in by it – only a phenomenal, concrete, drawing force can do it – the Newtonian gravity.
* Let's say 2 magnets attract each other; this is not due to the deformation space caused by each other !
A form has nothing to do with a move. Anyone realizes this fact.

In brief, the theory on gravity, notwithstanding the fact that it covers facts predicted or proved by these 2 super bright scientists, is still flawed on some aspect.
That is why not every scientist rejects or adopts one theory or other.
By the way, who creates planets and scientists? Scientists, however brilliant they are, need food to survive to ... satisfy their desire in doing research (this is exactly the desire of most of them) ! And so, food comes from who, if not from GOD, as scientists never can find out who created the cosmos at its very origin, not to mention humans. Why? It's because everyone has predecessor ...

** "When one drinks water, think about the source"

[physicslover]

Please make a video on JWST pandora Cluster

[antithese]

I still don't intuitively understand how time "makes" gravity, or how when you're close to a heavy object then time slows down. That relationship is very confusing for me

[iwill]

9:33 correct me if I'm wrong here. This is slightly inaccurate, especially for someone who's a beginner, it could potentially set them off the wrong path. The "straight - lined" light will actually be absorbed by massive object. It's the light that's traveling at a slight angle away from the object that will be bent.

[Rbksmn]

Maybe the secret to a more advanced theory is discovering why mass and energy bend spacetime?

[Loooppp]

Mignature was interesting, where is the explication ? 😫

[mikev]

Isn't Relativity what Newton would have got if he had used non Euclidian geometry?