# Feynman's Lost Lecture (ft. 3Blue1Brown)

Show Video

That Me and. Second. Because the sum of these two lengths at every, other point, on that perpendicular bisector. Is larger. Than the radius meaning. The sum of the distances, to the foci from those points is bigger, than, the ellipses focal sum all, other. Points of this line have, to lie outside the ellipse, what. That means and this is going to be important is that, this perpendicular, bisector, the line that we got after our special 90-degree rotation, is tangent. To the ellipse, so. The reason that all of the lines that we drew earlier make this ellipse appear from nothingness is because we're basically drawing a whole bunch of the tangent, lines to that ellipse the. Reason, that that's going to be important as you'll see later is that this tangency, direction, is going to correspond, to the velocity, of an orbiting object, okay. Geometry. Poofiness done on to some actual physics and orbital mechanics. The. First fact is to use Kepler's, very beautiful, second, law which. Says that as an object orbits, around the Sun the, area, it sweeps out during, a given amount of time like one day is going, to be constant no matter where you are in the orbit for. Example maybe you think about a comet, whose orbit is really skewed close. To the Sun it's getting whipped around really quickly so it covers a larger arc length during a given time interval but. Farther away it's moving slower so, it covers a shorter, arc length during, that same time and, this. Trade-off between the radius, and the arc length balances. Out in just such a way that the swept out area is the same a quick way to see why this is true is to leverage conservation. Of angular momentum. For. Any tiny little time step delta-t, the. Area, swept out is, basically. A triangle right in. Principle you should think of this as a very small sliver, for a tiny time step but I'm going to draw it nice and thick so that we can better see all of its parts the. Area, of this triangle is one-half, base times height right that, base is the distance to this and what, about the height this little linked here how do you find that well. It's going to be the component of the object's velocity perpendicular. To, the line of the Sun what I'll call V perp multiplied. By the small duration of time, so. The full area is one-half. Times the radius times, V perp times, delta T now. Conservation, of angular momentum with, respect to a given origin, point like this son tells. Us that this radius times, the component of velocity perpendicular, to, it remains, constant so long as all the forces acting on the object are directed, towards that origin, well. Specifically, it says that this quantity times, the mass of the object stays, constant, but I mean the mass of the orbiting object isn't going to be changing, so. Our, expression, for the area swept out depends. Only on, the amount of time that has passed delta. T, historically. By the way this went the other way around, Kepler's, second law is one of those empirical, facts that led us to an understanding, of angular momentum and I, should emphasize this. Law does, not assume that orbits, are ellipses, heck, it doesn't even assume the inverse square law the, only thing needed for this equal area property, to hold is that the only force acting on an object is, directed, straight towards the Sun this.

Is A fact that Fineman spent a lot more time showing recounting, an argument, by Newton from his Principia but. It kind of distracts, from our main target so I figure assuming, conservation, of angular momentum, is good enough for our purposes here, I'll be it at some loss of element arity. At. This point despite my suggestive, drawings we don't know the shape of an orbit for all we know it's some wonky non elliptical, egg shape the. Inverse square law is going to help us pin down that shape precisely, but, the strategy is a little indirect, before. Showing the shape of the path traced out by the orbiting, object what, we're gonna show is the shape traced out by the velocity, vectors, of that, object, here. Let me show you what I mean by that as the. Object orbits it's velocity, will be changing, right it's, rotating, always tangent, to the curve of the orbit and it's, longer at points where the object is moving quickly and shorter. At points, where it's moving more slowly what. Will show is that if you take all these velocity, vectors and collect. Them together so, that their tails sit, at a single point their. Tips actually. Trace out a perfect, circle now. This is an awesome fact if you ask me the, velocity spins, around getting faster and slower and various angles but, evidently the, laws of physics cook things up just right so, that these trace out a perfect, circle and the. Astute among you might have a little internal light bulb starting to turn on at the sight of this circle with an off-center point. But. Again we have to ask why. On earth should this be true, Fineman. Describes being unable to easily, follow Newton at this point so instead, he comes up with his own elegant line of reasoning to explain where this circle comes from he. Starts by looking at the orbit whose shape we don't know and slicing. It into little pieces which. All cover the same angle, with respect to the Sun all. Right now think about the amount of time that it takes for the orbiting object to traverse one of these equal angle slices, and how that time changes, as you go to a bigger slice, well.

By Kepler's second law that, time is proportional to the area of the slice right, and, because these slices have the same angle, as, you get farther away from the Sun not, only does the radius increase but, the component. Of arc length perpendicular. To that radio line goes, up in proportion. To the radius so. The, area, of one of these slices and hence the time that it takes the object to traverse it is proportional. To the distance away from the Sun squared. In. Principle, by the way we're only going to considering, very small slices so there won't be any ambiguity, in what I mean by the, radius, and the little. Arc length will basically be a little straight line all. Right now think, about how the inverse, square law comes into play at. Any given point the force that the Sun imparts, on the object, is, proportional to one divided by the radius squared but. What does that really mean what. Force is is, the, mass of an object times, its acceleration the. Amount, that its velocity changes, per unit, time this. Is enough to give us a super useful bit of information about, how, the velocity of the orbiting object changes, as it goes from the start of one slice to the start of the next that. Change in velocity is, the acceleration, times, the change in time right, what. That means is that this change to the velocity is proportional, to the change in time divided. By the radius squared, but. Since, the time that it takes to traverse one slice is proportional. To the radius squared these, terms cancel out so. The change in velocity as, it traverses a given slice is actually, some constant, that doesn't, depend on the slice at all here. Unpacking, what I mean by that if you, look at the velocity at the start of a slice and, then you look at the velocity at the end of that slice and directly. Compare, those two vectors by joining their tails and you look, at the difference, between them the little vector joining, their tips this. Difference has the same length no matter which slice of the orbit you were looking at, so. As you, compare these velocity, vectors at the start of each slice they'll, be forming some kind of polygon, whose, side lengths, are all the same, also. Since, the force vector is always, pointing, towards the Sun as, you go from the start of one slice to the next that, force vector and hence the acceleration, vector is turning. By a constant, angle in geometry. Lingo, what, this implies is, that all the external, angles, of our polygon, are, going to be equal to each other. I know. That, this is a little tricky but hang in there remember, all you need to follow along is infinite.

Intelligence, It's. Worth reiterating just, to make sure it's clear what's happening, with this velocity diagram, the. Change from one vector to the next this little difference vector joining. The tip of one to the tip of the next always. Has the same length that was the consequence, of the perfect cancellation, between mixing Kepler's, second law with the inverse square law and because. Those constant, length change vectors rotate. By a constant, angle each time it. Means that they form a regular polygon, and as. We consider finer and finer slices, of the original orbit based, on smaller and smaller angles, for those slices the. Relevant regular polygon defining. The tips of these vectors in the velocity diagram approaches. A perfect, circle isn't, that neat. Hopefully. At this point you're, looking at the circle you're looking at the eccentric point and you're just itchin to see how this gives rise to an ellipse the way that we saw earlier but it's. A little weird right I mean, we're looking at this diagram in velocity. Space so. How do we use that to make conclusions about the actual orbit, what. Follows is tricky. But clever, step. Back and consider what we know we. Don't know the specific shape of the orbit only the shape that the velocity vectors, trace but. More, specifically, than that we, know that once the planet has turned an angle theta degrees, off the horizontal, with respect to the Sun that. Corresponds. To walking theta degrees, around our circle in the velocity diagram since. The acceleration, vectors rotate, just as much as the radius vectors, this. Tells us the tangency, direction, for each point of the orbit, whichever. Vector, from that velocity, diagram touches. The point theta degrees around the circle that's, the velocity vector, of our orbiting, object, and hence, the tangency direction, of the curve in fact. Let me just start drawing all these vectors as lines, since. All we're going to need to use is the information, they carry about the slope of the orbit curve the, specific, magnitude, of each velocity, will not be as important. Notice. What, I'm not saying is that the angle, of the velocity, vector at this point is Theta degrees, off, vertical, no no no the angle I'm referencing in the velocity diagram is, with, respect to the circles, Center, which, is almost certainly a little different from where the velocity, vectors are all rooted so. The question is what. Special, curve satisfies. The property that, the tangency, Direction the slope for, a point theta, radians, off the horizontal, is given.

By This vector, from, a special eccentric, point of the circle to, a point theta degrees, around. That circle from the vertical, okay. Is the question clear well. Here's, the trick first. Rotate. The whole circle set up 90, degrees and then, take, each of those individual. Velocity, directions, and rotate, them 90 degrees, back the other way that way they're oriented just, like they were before it's. Just that they're rooted in a different spot ah-ha, we've, spotted our ellipse but. We still have a little bit of thinking ahead of us to really understand, how this little, emergent, ellipse is related. To the astronomical, orbit. Importantly. I didn't just rotate these lines about any point I rotated, each one of them about its center, which, means we can leverage the geometric, proof we saw a few minutes ago and, this. Is probably the moment where you kind of have to furrow your brow and think back okay wait a minute what was going on in that proof again well. One, of the key points was that when you have two lines one, from the center of the circle and one from the eccentric, point both, to a common, point on the circles circumference, the. Perpendicular. Bisector, to, the eccentric. Line is tangent. To the ellipse and, what's. More the, point of tangency is where, that perpendicular bisector. Intersects. The, radial, line from the center what. That means is, that the point of our little, ellipse which is theta degrees off the horizontal with, respect to the circle center has, a tangent, slope perpendicular. To the eccentric, line and because. Of the whole 90 degree rotation, thing this, means that it's parallel to the velocity vector, that we need it to be so. This. Little emergent curve inside, the velocity, diagram has, exactly, the tangency property, that we need the orbit to have, and hence, the shape of the orbit must be an ellipse QED. Okay. Pat yourself on the back because, there is no small amount of cleverness required, to follow this first. There was this peculiar, way of constructing, an ellipse which requires some geometry savviness, to properly prove and then, there's the pretty clever step of even, thinking to ask the question, about what, shape the velocity, vectors trace out when you move their tails to the same spot and showing. That this as a circle requires, mixing, together the inverse square law with, Kepler's second law in another sly move but. The cleverness doesn't end there showing, how this velocity diagram with, vectors rooted at an off-center point, implies. An elliptical, orbit brings. In this very neat 90 degree rotation, trick I just. Love this watching. Fineman do physics even elementary physics is like watching Bobby Fischer play chess. Thanks. Again to grant and you should definitely go check out his videos on three blue one Brown.

2018-07-25 23:58

Show Video

Did anyone get the video? Like, actually understand the entire thing? Cause that was some real tricky mathematics right there.

At 18:53 the rotation is to the left for the angles BUT for the shape the rotation snould be to the right!!

Outside of of the first ellipse, there are what look like two circles that intersect each other where the lens encompasses the ellipse. What are those? Is there any significance to them?

That link to the feynman lectures doesn't appear to work :'( It's just a cool drawing of a canary

would the moon still orbit in a elliptical pattern if the hot iron core cools below curie temperature inside earths magnetic field

I have watched Feynman Lectures, MinutePhysics, and 3B1B Calc series. Youtube was dying to recommend this to me.

That explanation was SUPER cool:-) I loved it!

is that Robert Hookes inverse square gravitational law

It’s a pity I cant like twice

You make me to feel that i should study math, but i guess i will be down under in this courses... Boy this is hard

@ 5:07 6.61+1.38 = 7.99 not 8

Just some constructive criticism 3 blue 1 brown but all of these “isn’t that neat” things can really detract from what we are trying to learn. If it isn’t necessary try not to mention it, at least not at first because we are trying to learn a difficult new concept and then throwing little “fun facts” that in the end don’t actually matter can make it more difficult to learn because of there being too many things to keep track of and try and remember. Keep it simple.

Don't feel bad if you are having a hard time understanding this. Keplerian physics from first principals is very difficult. The first time you really are brutalized by it is as a first-year physics graduate student. As a grad student, you are required to be able to derive Kepler's laws on the fly and do so during a test; I was required to do it at any rate. By the way, if you think the geometric proof is bad, try the analytic. You end up with something that is, not surprisingly, called an elliptic integral. Most elliptic integrals do not have closed solutions. It just so happens that the one for Keplerian motion, i.e. an inverse square law, is solvable. However, as far as solvable integrals go it is a worst case scenario that is going to take like 10 pages of various substitutions and every other dirty trick in your anti-differentiation arsenal including trig sub. I still have nightmares.

Are we presupposing the collection of tangent lines uniquely determines a curve in this argument, or did I miss the justification in the video? I'm not seeing an easy way to justify this without the uniqueness theorem for solutions to differential equations.

"Very little is required to know ahead of time in order to understand it, except to have an infinite amount of intelligence." Well, that pretty much rules me out.

"minutephysics"

I don’t understand the area of the triangle, if someone could help me on that, I don’t understand how you get the area of the triangle

Nope I can’t understand anything ;D

excellent.... please let me know how to these animations...

Oh my word this is beautiful

I don’t see how any of this is possible when the sun vanished.

Second year calculus:from celestial mechanics to special relativity, by David Bressoud covers this much more clearly for those with interest in a book. It's the first chapter or two, not much calculus needed, and he covers Newton's argument. After having read that book, then seeing this I'm spoiled by the former. Sorry Grant. Keep up the good work.

Loving the content from the two of you! Amazing work guys.

very nice

Wow, fascinating. Concepts are much easier to understand with the diagrams. I have wondered, though, in an planetary orbit, I know the sun is always at one focus of the ellipse. I always thought there must be some significance to the other focus, but I have never heard anything about it.

I made it to 11 min physics before nose picking become more interesting...

Hi grant and Henry, great to see you guys together!

Amazing !!! Thx for sharing

Great video! Very easy to understand! Due to the narration.

In 17:35 did you mean to say velocity vectors and not acceleration vectors?

i feel so stupid now.

obviously your talking about eccentric circles, but it sounded like you were pronouncing eccentric as in not quite normal. #1 is "normal behavior, circular? as in "its normal to go around in circles?" or use circular reasoning? #2 for readers here, do you pronounce the two usages differently?

So what s the conclusion then?

Besides elliptical orbits not really requiring the inverse square law, Feynman also mentions that gravity is not intrinsically an inverse square law. Elliptical orbits result from any centrally directed force. The force doesn't have to vary inversely as the square. Feynman figured out what the force of gravity would be for a plane of constant thickness stretching to infinity. (Instead of limited and spherical.) The force of gravity would then be constant regardless of the distance from the plane. In other words, the apparent law of gravity is really due to the shape and finiteness of masses. That is, it is the result of geometry. More well known is the peculiarity that the force of gravity is zero everywhere inside a spherical shell of constant thickness. And everywhere outside of the sphere, the force is equivalent to some mass located at its center. Gravity becomes less underground, and is zero at the center of the Earth. Newton concealed what became known as calculus (and the fact that he used it) until long after the Principia was published. (Calculus was tacked onto the end of a later book not on gravity.) Instead he gave geometry style demonstrations, similar to the ancient Greeks, a form which Newton thought was better by far. Principia was published in Latin. (Newton's early education was in Latin.) According to people that know Latin, the Latin in Principia is practically incomprehensible. And the approach was also alien to what a normal physicist (a natural philosopher) of the time would know. The first readers only knew that the man had to be some kind of genius to be that difficult. (Newton actually said he changed his mind from at first making it simple to making it difficult.) If Feynman gave up deciphering the original, raw Newton version, he was following in the footsteps of many.

do you know how long did i wait for you guys to talk about feynmann in a video . finally

Kepler's 3rd law was known to Mesopotamian astronomers, raising the period by the fraction 2/3 gives you the distance from the sun in AU ( to a high degree of accuracy ) You should look into Naram-Sin's metrological reformation and his royal gur ( cube ) of water

THIS IS SO BEAUTIFUL!!!

this is soo amazing. I'm trying to get my 10 year old daughter to really, really comprehend the basics of fractions. And the more I give her examples and explain fundamental principles to her, the more I understand why she never has been exposed to the true fundamental principles. Sure, the teacher showed some stuff and explained some tricks on how to solve them, but never, ever was she exposed to what it actually MEANS. Basic, fundamental understanding of things in as many ways as possible, is the root to REAL understanding. I am a failed maths student. But I try to teach my children that the ONLY path to REAL knowledge is truly understanding the things you are investigating. Feynman is a real hero imho. His level of REAL understanding surpasses most of our's. And his ability to teach us his understandings, is a blessing to the world of science. Although I've long since left the world of science (I'm now a humble web developer - pls don't judge) I still find these insights very fascinating at the very least.

Great work! What did use for the simulation at 3:10 please ?

is the spin of an object furthest away from the gravitational pull of another object faster than when it is its closest to the objects gravitational pull?

Fucking BRILLIANT! Thank you!

@Buzzfeed needs to make a video called "Everyday People React To 3b1b Videos"

Aaah,... Geometry proof land, my favorite place!

I probably wouldn't ever get the time to sit down and do these thing, much less understand it (the math, mostly) in a timely fashion. Yet I found the video extremely fascinating to watch.

wow thats math.

I guess I don't have Infinite intelligence.

Knowledge-gasm indeed, Sebastian. Re the origin of the word "focus": I thought it was because the fireplace was always in the middle or in some significant spot of the cave/tent/yurt/room/cabin... Let's re-view the dictionary: 1644, from Latin focus "hearth, fireplace", of unknown origin, used in post-classical times for "fire" itself, taken by Kepler (1604) in a mathematical sense for *"point of convergence", perhaps on analogy of the burning point of a lens* [:-)] (the purely optical sense of the word may have existed before 1604, but it is not recorded). Introduced into Eng. 1656 by Hobbes. Sense transfer to "center of activity or energy" is first recorded 1796. The verb is first attested 1814 in the literal sense; the fig. sense is recorded earlier (1807).

I wonder if the precession of an orbit over thousands of years doesn't scribe a spiral wearing the ellipse eventually down to a circular orbit over time. (The original eccentricity, ellipse , being a result of the planetary formation dynamics.) Also, I can't help wondering what would happen in a binary system. If the conditions were right could a figure eight orbit emerge? Thanks so much for making such complex topics visually accessible to the general public! You are awesome Grant!

phew

Yo, Feynman, Minute Physics, and 3Blue1Brown...? Yeah, I’m not gonna watch this video at all or anything... ❤️

Why craks form in soils when it is exposed to water?#minutephysics

Loved it...

I have learn that I don't have infinite intelligence

That "QED"

Great topic... but damn, was this a hard lecture. I'll have to rewatch it again and slowly.

and if alive today, he'd be an adversary of the #metoo movement.

so what was the question? why planets orbit in ellipses or prove that all orbits are ellipses? I could just prove that circle is a special case of an ellipse, so naturally it will occur less often.

ps: Amazing to see these relations! I wonder what kind of physical properties this virtual second point has if any. Regarding orbital mechanics ...

Darn! That was way too many minutes for this channel :D

just kidding! I love it!

I'm stupid when it comes to math. But this guy makes me want to learn, and already did it a few times. Just have to watch it again and again until you get it, and practice... 3Bue1Brown, I wish you were my teacher... You are the best!!!!

Youtube compression makes some REAL NEAT patterns out of the lines at 0:47 (I assume it's the compression doing moiree-like stuff)

22 minutes physics. Love it

I wonder about the other focus point (for example at 19:50) I mean if the first is the sun then where is the second one?

Great watch - thank you

Half an hour physics.. Love it!

3blue1brown is my favourite channel.

It's four in the morning, I barely have any knowledge of physics, and I've worked all day, and I'm tired. I only catch every other word, but your voice is beautiful

This is brilliant! a prove using just geometry! wow

Spectacular!

So that why the earth is round.

Why draw the line at the midpoint, instead of the golden ratio?

omg that team; 3Blue1Brown and minutephysics

20:30 Like 10 seconds of "aaaaaaaahhhh coooool that makes seeeenseeee"

I am in tears, I really am. This video made my day!

Bobby Fischer reference- A+

3m16s I have done the solution of the differential equations. There is some error in my work which implies I'm getting an empty set of real values (x,y). Nevertheless, I get an ellipse-like equation (but, the sign is wrong on one of the terms). But, I (and I believe, Newton) never actually get an explicit function for x(t) and y(t). You get t = (an elliptic function) integral of r*dr/sqrt(quadratic in r). But, one would need to compute the integral explicitly (which is do-able) then use Lagrange Inversion to get r as a function of t. That is the challenge that every physicist & mathematician stops short of. But, that's where I begin my work.

AAAARRRRGGHHHH MY BRAIN FEELS LIKE ITS GETTING ALL CRUNCHED UP!

Wow, hes amazing, also this channel is amazing

158 people had no »infinite intelligence«

This made total sense. Super easy to follow. Thank you!

You must be the Modern Feynman, 3B1B. I am watching your works and definitely loving it! Make more videos. :)))

*How does he make the animations with the changing numbers?* I doubt he does the math for each frame and types it in. Is there a computer program that does this?

I’m here because of Feynman

I would like to know who animated this and how plus really good job on explaining this

Well I completely forgot what tangent means so I got lost in the first minute

great video!

Oh man, this is difficult! Infinite intelligence? More like infinite attention span. Fun though.

I think I understand all the steps but I don't understand exactly what it is proving? Really! (I understand the different relations/correlations but not the point.) Is it that the mass, speed and direction/vector of the object determines the path?

Infinite inteligence. He is talking about the emergence of the universe from nothing. The universe is self contained. By definition. You understand because you are standing in the midst of it. Who could you be?

Speaking of science, planets don't revolve around the sun , sun and planets move together on relative motion. Sun moves too due to the Planet. So if you keep the sun stable and observe the motion of would be and ellipse.

I discovered this on accident when creating a level in geometry dash

This proof is a good one, except for the fact: everything would work out the same way if had just picked the center point at the very beginning and instead of a ellipse got a smaller circle. Try it)))

Yup. All that makes sense.

I always get annoyed and irritated when I watch 3blue, because I don't understand anything... I guess I dont have an infinite intelligence

2 of the best

I can draw elipse by single thumbtack !!

i like 'gravity

what if you pick the second po int outside the circle? AFAIU not every orbit around the sun is elliptical.

3blue1brown and Feynman belong in one set regarding their ability to explain.

Nice use of QED ;)

So if the sun is one of the earths foci then what is the other focus?

Sorry. Between the F#%^ commercials and your intro I lost interest. But not enough to let you know

I am crying with tears of joy at the beauty...

Wow, I would love it if you would please DESTROY flat-earthers!

I think I'll have to watch this one a couple more times. But one things for certain, I wouldn't stand a chance of wrapping my head around it without your excellent animations.

nice

it's not lost anymore, right? :)

joli!

My infinite intelligence is not on point today

21minutephysics

Weird recommendation, luckily I was smart enough to kinda understand that someone is trying to explain why our planet orbits perfectly on an eclipse somehow despite how eccentric it is. Also I am appreciative of another way to make perfect circles. Well I guess I might just keep this fact in mind when I'm somehow meeting a Physics nerd and could actually start a conversation with this. Thanks.

I subscribed to his channel a few years ago hoping to learn something and get some knowledge but all I'm realizing is I understand nothing and I think I'm getting dummer

The bestway to watch 3Blue1Brown videos if you lack infinite intelligence is to keep your thumb on the spacebar and pause when you don't understand what's being said. Or rewind the entire video I don't know.

PLEASE CAN YOU DO VIDEOS ON-1.WHY INTERNAL CONSTITUENTS OF A SYSTEM CANT AFFECT IT EXTERNALLY?( ie a person inside a box cant cause the box to move by hitting against the wall of the box from inside...I think this is also reason why we doubt emdrive cant work)2.WHY WE NEED FORCE CARRIER PARTICLES TO DESCRIBE FORCE?3.CAN WE EVER CHANGE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS INTO WHAT WE LIKE?

This is some analytical geometry bullshit! J/K, great video.

"To a very good approximation [an ellipse] is the shape of an orbit." Mr. Sanderson, I am a big fan of yours. This is one of the first times I feel compelled to point out that you're wrong (because you usually aren't). Planetary orbits are not elliptical, they are a non-symmetrical ellipse-like shape called a hypotrochoid (looks like a flower -- think of a spirograph). I thought this was common knowledge at this point but I stand corrected. https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/the-flowering-of-celestial-mechanics/

By 6:18 I suddenly understood all of it! It was a great feeling

This basically a normal 3blue1Brown video, so what was the point of hosting it on the Minutephysics channel?

So does this mean that any orbit that is circular (put in that orbit due to, for example, rocket propulsion) will eventually work its way to becoming elliptical? If this is the natural way objects orbit due to gravity without adding any energy to the system, that means the only way to maintain a circular orbit is to constantly use some form of propulsion. Right?

That's sheer genius and the visual explanation is brilliant! The graphics are beautiful and made the understanding much easier, wish I had that back in college! If I may, for clarity, I think the sentence at the 7:34 mark could be changed (perhaps in the subtitles) from: "So, that means adding the distance to each focus is the same as adding the distances from the center to Q, then Q to P" to: "So, that means adding the distance *from Q* to each focus is the same as adding the distances from the center to Q, then Q to P". I cannot believe I did not know the @3Blue1Brown channel until today, thanks @minutephysics!

Question: in the geometry proof, will the rotated line from the eccentric point always cross the radial line from the center? If so (which I assume), how do you prove this?

Do u ever cry cuz ur so stupid?

You remind me of a spirograph!

3b1b não é muito humilde, deveria ensinar a fazer animações

Great video. and the snapshot from the game of the century is spot on

i think we need another channel to analyze 3b1b videos to make it more detailed

I wonder how this could describe the complex magnetic soup of ions we live in and their connection to the sun.

Reminds me of lens law in electrical engineering. Stars and planet's gain and lose mass so their orbits would change as well. Consider the expanding earth theory, multiple suns theory as well.

the eccentric point at 00:40 is the top of an inclined cone coming out of the screen,the radiating lines are along the direction of gradient ,after the 90 degree rotation they become vertical to their original direction and what is vertical to the gradient?...the contours of the inclined cone which are all ellipses and we are back to the old conic sections geometry

I have once asked my physics teacher this question, why do planets orbits around sun elliptically

Wow, how did this NOT show up in my subscriptions?

Basically the base is the Radius right then in order to figure out the height of the triangle he took one of the components of the velocity. Now you may ask where does the component of the velocity arise from well think about this way the velocity of the object is moving in two dimensions the x and y dimension. So from this we know that the main velocity is a combination of these two x and y component velocity. So he took one of the component but now you may think where does the change in time come from well that's easy the formula for the magnitude of the velocity is v = change in distance / change in time . Since we want to known how much distance the velocity component traveled in given amount of time we just multiply v with change of time which gives us the distance it travel hence leading to the height of the triangle. Hope that helps

I can follow the walk through but I never could initiate any of this. I do not see patterns this easily. I just marvel at Feynman’s insights.

5:14 btw, the german name for the fokus in an ellipse is "Brennpunkt" (burning point in english)

Nice droste effect at 1:01

Hm, I see a problem: you proved that both ellipse and the trace of the planet have the same property (will have same direction of the speed vector for any angle theta). That doesn't mean thought that these two shapes are the same.

How did you get the velocity vectors for the orbit when you don't have to orbit to calculate the vector?

Hi, what software do you use to create such brilliant videos? Would be great if you could share. They are absolutely fantastic.

I'm going to have to be a little odd here and say the "surprise ellipse" isn't really a surprise, it's pretty obvious...

The velocity bit though, that might be one of the coolest things I've seen, that's amazing

Wouw I thought lol I’ll never get that stuff it sounds too complicated

THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST PHYSICS VIDEO I'VE EVER SEEN

Feels good when all that high school physics finally make sense.

"To a very good approximation [an ellipse] is the shape of an orbit." Wanted to point out to those who want to scratch their heads even further over this.. planetary orbits are strangely not elliptical in observation, they are a non-symmetrical ellipse-like shape called a hypotrochoid (looks like a flower -- think of a spirograph). It's super fascinating why and this guy did a decent job at explaining some of the reasoning. https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/the-flowering-of-celestial-mechanics/

Does this mean we fully understand the dynamics between gravity, velocity and mass? And there is no such a thing as curved space-time, but only simple mechanical relations?

Not to sound ignorant, but... Can someone please explain how having this knowledge is beneficial? Please?

Holy shit my head hurts Why I even watch these. It just physicaly hurts me.

This assumes space is flat, whereas the space is curved!

All I can say is ... WOW Who are the over 200 idiots that gave this a thumbs down ? I notice that none of them had the courage to post comments, instead they just do a drive by thumbs down, oh well, the loser idiot at the back of the class who is failing has to make his mark someway ..LOL ...

Hun?

This is beautiful! What software did you use to animate this video?

there is a myth going around that says 3Blue1Brown is keeping Feynman in the basement after this video, I believe it

Relating the unknown [the ellipse] to a well known [the circle], is a process of seeding that effectively adds a 2nd deck of cards. It inserts a wedge between some related variables & adds relations to other known ones. Its the same problem we face when we have 2 eqns & 3 unknowns. Additional relations must be added. From there we follow the questions that arise while always having the target in focus. In this case here, Feynman added a twist of sorcery, at a crucial point of discovery he retraced his initial steps endeavoring to find a problem that yields his solution. The genius makes a crucial stop, backs up & asks how did I get here, answering that question reveals the dynamics of going from a to b, inside the new problem he has created. I remember seeing a vid on this strategy in some advanced Math course. Whats crucial to solving a stubborn problem is recognizing that there is not enough info, & the problem itself must be changed to a form that has enough info. There are multiple possible cause to an effect & thats usually the source of extra info

no i'm not crying :')

brain.exe stopped working,am I right

MIND BLOWN

and why the aceleration space for very excentric orbits draw a cardioid?

I actually understood this to some degree. Neat

I have infinite intelligence.

Its like our “ellipse” is just a perfect circle written over the spacetime warping caused by effect and our physical laws are a differential gradient supported by our point of view. Heady.. Shooting in the dark isnt what i like but this is evidence of mathematical homeostasis despite some disruption. Blown away as usual!

do perfect circles exist in nature?

*NICE AND THICC*

Grant is the only guy I would go gay for

I just realised again why I hate maths.

thank you 3Blue1Brown... now i have to sweep my brain off the floor cause it leaked through my ears

The one thing that still isn't clear to me is why you're allowed to rotate all the velocity vectors about their center to conclude that the path is an ellipse. One could just as easily rotate the vectors about any other point and come to a different conclusion.

A big like for Grant presenting this beautiful marriage of maths and physics.

Perhaps the circle is a pictorial representation of the power displacement of the system and the ellipse is the pictorial representation of the displacement of the planet in the system. Used for beings in higher dimensions to understand whats happening with the sun and that planet. just a thought haha.

Who else tried to wipe off the black spot at 1:43

This was incredible... elementary but the way it was explained was just great...

This video shows that the tangential line at the intersection of the ray starting from the center of the velocity circle and the ellipse at the velocity diagram is parallel to the velocity direction at the intersection of the ray and the orbit of the star. This indicates that the ellipse can simulate the orbit, or the orbit may be an ellipse, but it does not mean that the orbit must be an ellipse. My question is: when we know the tangential direction at the intersection of each ray starting from a fixed point in the graph and this graph,is there a theorem that can determine the shape of the graph ?

4:14 omg 3b1b hand reveal!!

Day 3: I have used the concepts in this video to clear up 4 of my doubts, again.

In fact there is a generalization of the ellipse 'problem ' to 3 , 4,5, or n dimensions. And by the time you work in 5 or more dimensions you are solving the {approximate} gravity wave equation --- Poisson's Wave Equation. I am working on this problem in n dimensions. By the way it {this problem -- Kepler Feynman problem?} has some connection with the factorizing of integers. Can you imagine !

Henry only agreed to this so he could watch a new 3Blue1Brown video before the rest of us! D:

Awesome presentation!

This also explains why large masses in any system such as the solar system are round...dosent it?

If the ellipse satisfy the tangentsy it means the orbit could be an ellipse, that I understood (more or less). But why dose the orbit MUST be an ellipse? Couldn't the orbit be a different curve that satisfies the same conditions ?

Amazing! I just love 3Blue1Brown! And of course I love minutephysics, too. ;)

There is nothing ignorant about your question it is an understandable one. Aside from the obvious and its implications It teaches you profound truths if you can see them. The ellipse is an Archetypal pattern that engenders forces that manifest the nature of reality. So it's not JUST allot of spacetime geometry - if you can see it , there are keys to understanding life and death within it. For instance the forces generated towards a point in space exhibit how forms become manifested out of an unmanifested aspect of a unified duality. It shows the relations between creation and destruction and how those forces are joined together in a symbiotic relationship in an eternal state. So seeing that you can therefore apply it to every form in the manifested Universe, including your own individual existence.

I see a great amount of work was put into this video! What software did you use to create all these animations?

Imo this is not a very elegant proof, it requires way more steps and is much more convoluted than the algebraic derivation. Also, the whole thing is backwards, the observational evidence already gave us the fact that orbits are ellipses and kepler's second law. The real trick was figuring out from these a) conservation of angular momentum and b) and most importantly, the inverse square law. You're supposed to start at ellipses at arrive at inverse square law not the other way around. The other way around is easy with a bit of algebra.

So amazing, so incredible!

Please, don't try to speak Latin. You mispronounce every single word. Stick to English.

I would immediately commend all viewers to enjoy "The Mechanical Universe" where Dr. David Goodstein is the presenting introductory lecturer. All of the series to be found on Youtube, and is a great touchstone of entertaining physics learning, featuring what was (for the time) cutting edge 3D graphics, decent even today, decades later.

KSP will never be the same :)

I obviously do NOT have infinite intelligence

I always thought it was bc a force is always felt most 90 degrees in the orbit ahead

Something tells me calculus (using small slices of curves) and Fourier transform (velocity and position diagrams) we're used in this proof somehow, but I am not sharp enough to unveil it.

Did anyone else get bothered by the multiplication sign he used and kept thinking it was a cross-product?

The entire time in the end I was just waiting for them to move the right ellipse into the left hole, but they never did ;_;

Thanks for this excellent video, really enjoyed it, and actually used it as an aid whilst discussing orbits with my kids. Much appreciated

I'll have to rewatch that several times lol

He really meant by "infinite intelligence" an infinite tenaciousness in applying a small unit of intelligence along a program that over time will solve the problem.

13:57 why is the area proportional to the radius squared?

QED!!! LOL Good pun

i guess everyone sees he resembles Cornell Wilde (most handsome hollywood star).

Well THAT was clear as mud. Picture some mud. What is it? It's tiny particulate entities, usually towards the opaquence(?!?) end of the transparence/translucence/opaquence(?!?) continuum, suspended in some volume of water. So, I've got a circle of mud on my living room floor. Don't ask why it's a circle. It has to do with surface tension, and the second law of thermodynamics, as applied to, well, mud on my living room floor. The COOL thing is, the more of these videos, in this channel, that I watch, the more WATER the authors are pouring into the circle of mud on my living room floor. And what does THAT do? INCREASES the SIZE of my mudcircle, (that's my 'collection of knowledge'), and CLARIFIES the overall APPEARANCE of my mudcircle. To put it another way, if I keep watching these things, I might finally get the education in Mathematics that I somehow failed to absorb back in my school days. I THINK I CAN LIVE WITH THAT!!! Thanx guys...

This is so much more convoluted and difficult to understand than just deriving using calculus. You even went most of the way to “inventing” calculus with your differential velocities.

Personally, I think solving the differential equations is a far more satisfying experience.

The ellipse has all the properties we want but is it the only shape that satisfies those properties ?

Please, don't try to speak Latin. You mispronounce every single word. Stick to English. Also, you just proved that the tangents to the curve must have the same orientation as those of an ellipse. You (as well as the lowest-IQ Nobel-prize winner) still need to prove that the ellipse is the only curve with such property, which is intuitively true but not elementary.

There is always someone who treats great explanations like this as an opportunity to pretend they have a superior intellect. I recommend you take a chill pill.

Feynman didn't claim it was an elegant proof nor that it was an easy proof. He claimed it was an _elementary_ proof. Elementary means that you don't have to know very much information about the subject to follow it. An elementary proof pretty much only relies on very basic facts. Often, elementary proofs are inelegant since there's much to say. Often, elementary proofs can be difficult, since you need to connect the basic facts. (Also the whole inverse square law thing is _also_ mentioned in the video.)

fosi

Hey 3Blue1Brown!!! You said mass of sun wouldn't change at 11:01 in angular momentum conservation But it is changing as sun is constantly using hydrogen atoms to make helium atoms and some heat and light energy which escapes the sun therefore mass escapes the sun as E =mc*c So that means the mass changes. Can you explain on this query

@18:55 What shape do you get for this *if you had chosen a point actually on the edge of the circle as the second focal point?* I know that might sound ridiculous, because "how could an object orbit about a point that it would collide with?" but don't forget that neutrinos can pass through the Earth. Lastly, compare that shape to an electromagnetic field. Do electromagnetic fields arise from electromagnetism or are they the orbit of very small particles that can pass through the object they orbit? i.e. are they caused by gravity??? http://vixra.org/abs/1807.0364

You're wrong about Fischer. It's like watching Mikhail Tal play chess. Making stuff out of nothing.

It's amazing how if you watch enough videos by 3blue1brown you begin to get used to his explanations and it feels like you can understand anything easily (well, so long as it is explained by 3blue1brown)

Holy mother of all that is super and pure! This is AWESOME!!!!

sometimes in the focal sum it doesnt add up only 7.99

Why does every curve with the "ellipse tangency property" need to be an ellipse?

for proof takes velocity vector tangent to ellipse draws a circle turns the tangents back into normal getting back the same ellipse

Its a shame you skipped why the kepler's second law doesnt half to be an elipse. It made the video lose some of its magic for me. Feynman's tangent stories are always the best.

+Khaled Ratul *without a balance

As it loses mass, the orbits around keep loosening. Not sure by how much, that'll require calculation, but with a balance between centripetal-centrifugal forces, the orbits are not as stable as we think they are.

Thanks. That helps.

This video is really awesome. Thank you so much for your effort.

1:21 Bongo Playing? You mean **STRIP CLUB BONGO PLAYER**

My infinite intelligence is not up to par...

I see why orbit must be an ellipse from this video. But where does it explain why orbit can sometimes not be a circle (it seemed to me the general case of an ellipse was reached only by applying kepler's 2nd law to an unknown, non circular orbit (but what if orbit was circular , which it sometimes is so why not always?).

Lovely.

feynman was an artist

Cool

I think you did a grave injustice by not proving Keplar's law, I don't see how it even follows from angular momentum just from the video. Claiming the law is empirical is insufficient as one could also empirically conclude the orbits makes ellipses. I could follow all the rest, I just kinda a zoned out at the very end because too much angle tricks.

What a coincidence I start reading Newton's principia and then this, btw this is childsplay compared to the Principia

Elementary dear Watson...

3Blue1Brown works for the surface of the earth.

can U explain quantum gravity

Which software did he use to do math visuals?

I can argue that having a brain allows one to have infinite intelligence, human insight is derived by the completely random nuerosynaptic connections that are formed in our day to day lives. The connections between neurons and the pattern they form is completely random and can become infinitely complex with one neuron stimulating another and causing a chain reaction, since the randomness of this mechanism can become infinitely complex I stand to argue that carbon based brains have the ability to become infinitely intelligent.

Followed everything up untill the question at 18:27, can someone rephrase it maybe so I could fully understand? Seems to be very convoluted, with terms that weren't discussed in detail

You should add that Newton was the first to prove that the rule of inverse squares implies the elliptic form of planet trajectories.

Thanks for posting I actually enjoyed this. OK trying to figure out how you figured out "V perp" it's really blowing my mind that you can figure out the height of that triangle. Can anyone maybe explain to me? He kinda brushed over that part. I'm talking about 10:05 - 10:30 in this video. Vperp = 'speed' relative to sun?? what's the white V then? [disclaimer: I understand basic geometry. OK I got kicked out of highschool physics but I'm alright at pre-calculus and astronomy.]

If you're going to draw parallels between the velocity space and the position space, please don't flip the circle-ellipse image in the second half of the video while you're keeping the sun on the same focus of the elliptical orbit throughout the video. If you're making separate circle-ellipse images for velocity and position spaces, please label them as such. Have them side-by-side. I was reading physics books when I was 14, and this video still gave me a headache!

yoy should do some electricity vida

Took me multiple watches (Feynman learning technique? :P) to get through this, but I think it's safe to say I get its main points in interpreting the constant velocity change derived from simplifications of the 2 laws to construct an ellipse using the geometric proof, mid and eccentric point, and a simple 90 degree rotation on the velocity circle diagram and mid-point of the vectors to construct tangents along the ellipse x) Awesome vid :)

It's unlikely (impossible), but the eccentric point can be the same as the circles center, which would make a perfect circle orbit. All the properties that were mentioned would still hold, no?

Probably the hardest part for me was realizing the amount of rotation of the radius is the same as the amount of rotation from one initial velocity vector to the next in the theta divisions which is the same amount of rotation from one force/acceleration vector to the next

I feel that there is a big hole in this argument, namely that the orbit forms a closed path at all. A priori, the path might get further and further away, or never quite meet back up with where it started. Obviously it doesn't, but this doesn't seem to have been covered in the argument unless it's in there subtley.

This is so satisfying!

Don't think we didn't notice that QED joke at the end. Smh

And to make it perfect, apply all this diagrams to curvature of space-time.

10:26 please don't call it v-perp. It sounds so wrong.

Nice and thicc

Aaaa sou desu ka

wow.. i actually understood a fair bit of this :) Thanks!

Differential math, that's why.

this is how you should learn in school

Thanks for this vid. Great stuff!

For me, this was the worst 1B3B video ever. They usually are clear, incredibly neat and make concepts much understandable. However, this one was an opposite..

Why does this narrator sound exactly like Dave Rubin?

Nice optical illusion in thumbnail :')

The title of this video is misleading.

So how much of the cleverness of the proof is Feynman, and how much is Newton? In other words, some of the proof comes from the Principia, right? What did Feynman change?

Why is that perpendicular bisector tangent to the ellipse in the first place?

A planet and its moons/asteroids/dust/gas is a collective of its gravity. Am I the only person who knows this?

I found that watching this at 3/4 speed helps a lot. At 1/2 speed it helps too but the sound quality is not so good.

I have infinite intelligence of course, and the actual answer to this is that gravity is a linear propagator, and the important lengths of the lines are two directions of linear propagation which don't really need to be combined together to get a result. Gravity is a flow force, not a pull force, and the points at the centre of mass are actually a combination of the quantum holes that gravity is flowing towards. The quantum holes are all pushed together by gravity like parachutes, and that push force into quantum holes builds stars, and planets. That's the real answer to the video. Pincho paxton

Yeah...

I dont know what they are talking about, but dang those animations are pretty!

Really poor explanation for anyone not used to physics. You've created an educational video where the only people who could understand already likely know it...

Instead of 20 minutes of "talk" say simply that ellipsoid orbits are results of two bodies circling each other (plus influence of rest of the planets. Richard woul say it in 2 seconds.

Well, but WHY orbits are elipsoids?

You might also conclude there is a Dark Matter black sun in our solar system as well to balance out the ellipse.

Bob Trenwith And while you're at it, don't forget to mention at least one Latin word that this guy didn't mispronounce. Otherwise aa's remark remains valid, and you are only displaying your lack of culture by criticizing it without making any actually relevant point whatsoever.

Bob Trenwith Either prove that the ellipse is the unique curve with that property, or do everyone a favor and kindly shut up. You are just spreading hate here.

The hater was vanquished.

Conversation?? I wasn't attempting to have a conversation with a hater ... merely let them know that they have nothing worth listening to. And ... unless you intend deleting your original comment, or are intimate with the owner of the channel, 'silencing' me will not prevent others from reading my response. But thanks for displaying your insecurity.

The video currently has 467,294 views including my 467,200 views to understand it That too at 0.5X speed

Hahaha .... all the sock puppet accounts arrive within minutes. How sad.

lol i clearly do not have infinite intelligence

there is a simpler way to conceptualize this: think of a transparent cone. From top dead center, the base of the cone would look like a circle and the tip as well as the center of the base would be seen as one, superimposed point - the center or focus of a circle. As your view drifts away from the top, the two point separate, and the circle deforms into an ellipse. I always found that to be the principal insight of Newton"s Principia. He did not venture a guess as to why. It is a very interesting question. One focus is the sun, and the other is empty. But once you assume the 3d view, you realize it paints a picture of the source from which our expansion motion began . If you think of the location of the big bang as an emitter, and the sun as an emitted particle, the cone shape seems simply the process of the emission itself .Calculating the angular deviation tat accounts for our "slice of the cone" will point us to the other attractor point that is causing the angle (maybe galaxy center)

Infinite "picture fractal" in the top frame second from left at 0:59

dude get to the point already i felt like you are teaching monkeys alphabet before teaching them how to write poetry, you think people watching these video s don't understand conservation of moment

The key insight is to leverage Kepler's FIRST Law, which states that the planets orbit the Sun in ellipses, with the Sun at one focus.

Showing that the change in velocity over the same area is constant can actually actually be done much easier. What you are looking for is dv/dA. We know that dv/dt = a (Newtons second law). Also, we know that dA/dt = const (Keplers second law). So, dv/dA = (dv/dt)/(dA/dt) = a/c = const.

18:25 why is it that the angle traced by radius vector is equal to the angle in velocity diagram about the centre of the circle and not the point where all velocity vectors are rooted.

21:21 , rightly said Feynman's elementary physics is equivalent to Fischer or Tal's game.

yeaaah so it just sounds like you're saying a bunch of words.. I guess this illustrates the importance of recording a successful lecturers lectures and not changing them in any way is.... the fact the math they describe never changes... so the talent is in not making words sound like blahblah. I literally understood what you were saying with the image.. as soon as you started using known math words... it became verbal garbage (because they seem completely unnecessary, when you have images to describe them you don't need unique language, so it becomes a language lesson not a lesson about orbits and the words you use aren't explained so why would I want to know them), and you spend some time explaining not the problem or illustration but why you were making a conjecture (to save time I guess). you only demonstrated turning the halfway point of the line 90degrees once so im still confused about how it makes an ellipsis because you didn't continue to demonstrate it... so without continuity I only know you do it once then walla ellipsis.. i'm halfway through and only understanding/remembering why school was so confusing for me.

Bob Trenwith I beg your pardon, but I happen to be a University Professor, not a sock puppet. And you keep being off topic.

With infinite intelegence comes infinite understanding, indirectly meaning infinite knowledge with no need to learn

I see you first deleted your initial "aa" post before responding so the identical language would not be seen. Luckily I kept a screen shot.

Could someone tell me how you would solve the relevant differential equations if you wanted to prove that they orbit in ellipses analytically.

The more I learn about Feynman, the more I realize a kindred soul once walked the halls of academia. The importance of elementary arguments can't be overstated. The power of simple geometric relationships is simply not a key component of education, these days. The same principles the ancients used to navigate and chart time on a nearly geologic scale has been lost despite the enlightenment.

Who else likes chess

i must be wrong but doesn't it just explain the geometry of orbits , not why the orbit is an ellipse ?

ellipsoids are 3d

11:25 here he made a mistake, what he should've said is that the equal areas law only applies when the force always goes directly to, or away from a point, in our case the Sun.

Good he had a thicc triangle

How do You get infinite intelligence?

Peter Ciurea pretty sure Newton didn't mention cones in such a way in the principia

Michael Weiss nothing but the geometric approach comes from the Principia, trust me I checked

Onais elaborate

jamma246 been thinking about it aswell, now I think that this proof shows for certain that an ellipse is possible, but so are also parabolas and hyperbolas, maybe you could derive a similar proof for those conic sections too

ganondorfchampin it's somewhere at the beginning of Newton's Principia, you should read it, it is very elementar

Lowest IQ nobel prize winner?, or did you mean lowest IQ Nobel prize winner in physics?

It just shows how useless IQ is as a measure of intelligence.

Trouble is there is no 'Gravity' nor is there any 'T' . So this is false. To start to understand the Universe...3,6,9. The orbits are defined by energy transfer.

W.O.W.

You shouldn't show that diagram of the complex orbit, as it is impossible without an external force acting on the planet. Ellipses and perfect circles are the only possible orbits without external interactions. Because perfect circles are just special cases for an ellipse, the theory does in fact require that the orbit is an ellipse.

Spilled my coffee at 19:23

Holy crap this video is like an elephant tranquilizer ...

I was expecting an explanation on what in space creates the foci .

Starting now, going to watch every video that these 2 people made

next time you want to learn something ask a kid. they dont pretend they know nothing.

you genius' finally figured out there is millions of stars in the sky yet admit you know little about it. that is a good starting poont.

Elegant!

To those of us who learned Latin, the plural of focus, foci, is pronounced Foe Kye. There is no rule that softens the c in the plural form. Same applies to locus/loci.

hm. when you say elypse i cant stop thinking cone/plane intersection, as you (#3Blue1Brown) mentioned in a recent video. because now i see planar constraints or collision detection for objects rotating around a joint. like a limb. or rays of light reflecting/refracting from a surface..... what could be done if i know the position of the inscribed convex polygon, the polar angle, the velocity vector... now i want to do this: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8670/18b805b59faba60b9f01854ff72ba91d008a.pdf

I was not prepare for this video. I think that I got some permanent brain abuse, that is irreversible. So, I´m going to watch it again just to see if the permanent brain abuse is cancel.

Finding out about elipses was so not worth it. Like I'll remember any of that.

Focuses.

Squid:A prefect circle? Do it again, show me the process. 3b1b: First I draw an orbit...

beautifully intuitive explanation, thanks

Where is the original audio of this lost lecture?

Mind blowing explanation....

so orbit path is a function of the change in the velocity? Does that properly sum it up? That seems to make sense physically

your drawing is incorrect, it makes it very difficult to understand the oral explanations that are correct. So it's like you're just repeating things you didn't understand

Thanks again for this. I remember doing this proof. Now i feel a little dumb 'cause it would have taken me a lot of hours to do this on my own again. Thanks for keeping me sharp.

2000 years later: The physics/maths behind creating level II universes. Animated and taught by 3b1b the 500th.

Thanks for the very detailed explanation. You start with the premises that the orbit is an ellipse and the velocity is not constant (one implies the other) , then at 20:30 you simply state the shape of the orbit "must be an ellipse". You don't have me quite convinced yet :) Going through a similar example with the orbit being a circle, and showing why it can't happen... would of been a better ending to this since a lot of us can't imagine what that would look like on our own.

Good stuff. I feel like I need to watch it a few more times though....

Hey, you guys grazed right by that "odd way" to draw an ellipse... but did you notice the earth equatorial angle flips in precession kinda like that weird way you got there. The wobble cycle is every 20,000 years. When it flips the Sahara Desert becomes an oasis.

Would that make it the weird way or the right way?

what is the shape you get with a string around three tacks? does that shape describe the orbit of a planet around a binary star? If we increase the distance between the binaries, at some point the planet will 'prefer' one star and the string trick does not work.

The cicle is the director circle to the ellipse

You didn't factor in the the heliocentric model the sun is moving away from the planets so in fact they corkscrew to catch the sun up. Not really orbiting, just catch up. Personally I don't by that model of a ball earth whizzing about.

Im 14 and i struggle to understand this im pretty sure 1000s of 13 year olds will be laughing at this comment

I think Feynman would be proud of your explanation. He did say "if you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough". Maybe paraphrasing a bit, but you clearly understand it and made it easy to follow!

22 minute physics

Does anybody knows how to make animations like this or similar?

says "full story", shows all slides of a video including this one. that just blew my mind.

Makes me want to apply that method to analysing the 'orbit' of a pendulum when the pendulum is given a bit of rotational momentum. - fun bit of applied maths! - did that 50 years ago!

What is this, a crossover episode?

WTH!!! Wait!!?? I was in minute physics channel ??!!?

I can't skip ur videos. Really really interesting.

The animations are fantastic

wow!! I really get it, now!

That moment of "NO DON'T TELL ME THAT.... WOOOW" at 8:58

beautiful

I wish if you both start online courses in mathematics and physics .

This channel is a great one today....

I love math!

Damn I loved this masterpiece so much

How could anyone determine an orbit of an object where there are other outside forces involved in different times? Meaning, different times subject-matter may take billions of years to establish. Furthermore, no accurate calculation could take Reality where the imaginary quantity of Pi, π *≈* 3.141592653589793238462643383279→∞ (Google, piday.org).

reminds me of relativity

My brain hurts. This type of video makes me rethink if i really like studying science or not.

@3:05 you say "all the comets and planets and stuff mean no orbit is a perfect ellipse but cmon"......*shows 4 circles that would have to be measured to prove eccentricity*. yes folks, our solar system is creepy, and does not jive with theory

When I was in the military stuck in the middle of Iraq, I found a copy of the book "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman." It's an interesting account of Richard Feynman's experiences at Los Alamos as part of the skunkworks team that developed the first atomic bomb. I recommend the book to anyone who enjoys science, physics, and humor.

It never explains why planets orbit in an ellipse. I didn't see anything preventing a perfect circle orbit only, that orbits may be most probably ellipses and this beautifully shows how elliptical orbits relate to circles. Really not hard to see it if you have played with a spiral graph, but the math will burn your brain out.

Feynman was too arrogant.

♥️ I need more.. M O R E !

Im not sure we will ever have a mind quite like Feynmans. maybe just as smart, or smarter, but not in the same ways.

Thanks. I miss Dick. He was the Einstein of our time. I often think of what direction he would have taken us with some of today's problems and discoveries.

Se tu colocar o eccentric point fora do círculo e estender a reta que parte do centro do círculo, tu obtém uma hipérbole, que também é uma solução do problema dependendo das condições inicias. Please do a video on Hamilton's proof.

http://www.emis.de/classics/Hamilton/Hodo.pdf

physics explaining physics, not explaining why objects orbit elips, not explaining if indeed they orbit like that

I understood every thing Feynman would explain clearly... until I went back to my room and tried to duplicate the argument on my own. He is missed.

Euuuuuuuuuuh........... yeah. :)

Got me a headache at the 15min mark. Gotta find videos of cats stuck in boxes to clear it out.

Tangent , great stuff , Feynams great lecture , is a Tangent lecture , that is known since before time exists as we know it , Car mechanic does this to fix a bad tire . Just a lot of numbers , no deeper insight , or satisfactory result , you are better off not knowing this . You will think you know something , when indeed you have no use for it , except if you are paid mathematician . And that is hardly the case .

Goddamn, everything is a circle, even the velocity vectors.

Those accurate animations were so helpful. I'd love to know how they were made

Thanks...this old dog new tricks etc

great graphics makes it easy as 3.1515926535

That vector based dodecagon looks like the shape of a weed leaf.

Wait, how would the suns gravity effect the earth in that manner in our Heliocentric solar system???

with videos like the above we can forgive the entire internet for the crap that contains. Thank you minute physics, thank you 3b1b.

So if you think about orbits in terms of velocities that gravitational forces give then it'll get a circle but if you think of it in terms of momentum you'll get an ellipse? That's what I got out of it to summarize in one sentence.

Everything makes perfect sense but if you ask me explain it to you... well I'm afraid it's like I've never watched this.

Nah. Nice animations tho.

clickbait -_____-

I admit I'll need to watch this many times before I might have a decent grasp of it. I'm in my 60's & was a high-school dropout. I went on to get a modest amount of formal education & training in a limited variety of subjects. I did okay with electronics algebra & basic trig, but then I hit a plateau. It took me a good decade to recover from that setback, and begin to realize that math can be awesome, beautiful, and even entertaining. I became a person who wished they could have been an astrophysicist. Part of that desire came from finding my way back to a youthful obsession with the nature of the universe, of which I'd all but forgotten. Later, I began to see how impressive were the skill sets of many of the world's physics giants. In the last several years, while I mainly do more-mundane, day-to-day achievements of a kind, I spend a lot of time examining everything I can find on the laws of nature & the stories of science. I can't seem to get enough of it. But I'm too often struggling with concepts that are way over my head, and I've wished to find an easy way to learn some of the fundamentals. Meanwhile, I've tried hard to acquaint myself with every existing variety of fields in which the highest math skills are put to work. I've gotten some great books from the library, and have devoured countless, thrilling stories of the history of science. I've been given or purchased several of my own, too, and have read all the magazines for the last 15 years.. I've learned about the important breakthroughs of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Newton, Brahe, Copernicus, and quite a few others, including Johannes Kepler. I have an awareness of a good number of modern-day achievements, along with today's heavy hitters. too. I can't entirely explain this fascination I've developed. It has a grip on me, and sometimes I think life would just be a lot easier, if I dropped the whole thing, but but just won't go away. Fortunately, like Ron Burgundy once said, that is in no way depressing. For all these reasons, I found a great deal of enjoyment in your fantastic video presentation. It's one of the most helpful demonstrations I've yet come across. You are to be commended, for providing the layman with such a near-intuitive overview of this sort of topic. I'm anxious to see what else you've posted. excellent job!

I think this was a very convoluted explanation. The earth could revolve around the sun in a circle under a very specific initial condition, namely if its instantaneous velocity is perpendicular to the radial vector of the its distance from the sun. Such an initial condition is remote and even if it had occured in the past could be perturbed. A lower velocity than a certain critical level would cause earth to fall into the sun's gravitational pull and a higher velocity will always form a bounded path which geometrically will be an ellipse if the nature of the interaction is inverse square. You just need the inverse square law to pull that geometric shape out in the calculations.

Do you ever get so mindblown, you just want to hop and dance around?

@17:35 I FEEL EUPHORIC Whohohohohohooow

T H I CC

That thumbnail...

So he used an ellipse to derive another ellipse? Brilliant. No wonder this lecture was lost.

You fail to explain how the center point of the circle becomes the second focus point. Is that a coincidence? Does that happen every time no matter where the first point is located? If so, How does that happen? It is not a "reasonable guess" That is the cornerstone of the explanation and you blew through it like it was not important. I quit watching a few minutes later.

?????????

So much for not needing to know fancy calculus terms

its amazing !! Also can u make video on Least action principle

Dr Sheldon Cooper brought me here

Boring

scientist have become much more emotional than they used to be.

I lost in Feyman's lost lecture

Hi, I hope @minutephysics gets to read this: What happens if you bring the center of the velocity vectors (in the velocity space, as you named it) to the edge of the circle, resulting in exactly one zero vector? Like a true fan with a circle shaped "leaf". What about taking the centre outside of the circle, resulting in exactly two vectors that are going in the same direction but one is just a lot longer? Looking at what happens to the orbit when you bring the centre of velocities towards one side makes the resulting orbit more and more elliptic. Having the centre of velocities sit at the circle would then probably correspond to having exactly escape velocity, as in an orbit that has barely too much energy to close into an ellipse. There's exactly one zero velocity vector which to my understanding would be located at infinity. However, I can't trace this on the paper, because the resulting shape isn't a smooth curve. What seems to happen when you bring the centre of velocities outside the circle results in a really weird shape. It's like a round object, possibly a circle, but sitting away from the centre of the "orbit" and the velocity is at its highest at the point that is furthest away from the centre of the "orbit". I have no explanation for this and I have no idea what I've created in terms of mathematics. From an energy point of view my guess is a flyby (hyperbola) but I have no idea how that relates to what I drew, the tiny circle sitting away from the orbit with weird, inverted magnitudes of velocity.

Then again... A hyperbola consists of two parts. I've drawn two (rotated) parallel lines that sit some distance apart, between the centre of velocities and the centre of the circle traced by the tips of those velocities. Hyperbolas have two parts defined by two different directrixes. It could be that I've either drawn out the two tangents at the bottom or the two directrixes themselves or one directrix and one tangent. Considering we're trying to trace the actual shape of the orbit, I'd wager we're tracing the two tangents.

No wait, I'm wrong. Escape velocity is the minimum velocity needed to reach infinity at zero velocity remaining. The path we trace out should hence be a straight line, starting from the body itself. Now that I look at my very roughly drawn diagram I can see that all the segments are aligned through a single point - the centre of the "orbit" i.e. the body we're escaping from. This probably means that whichever direction we pick, we'll travel in a straight line away from the central body until we reach "a full revolution" in terms of orbital speeds and reach infinity and the very last velocity vector we'll encounter is a zero vector. So what I'm tracing out is just two lines on top of each other, where the two halves or lines correspond to taking an object from infinity to the surface of the body and its inverse: escaping said object to infinity. Getting the hyperbola out of the small circle is still a mystery to me.

So if the mass of the solar system (the sun for practical purposes) is at the one focus what is the significance of the other focus?

Thanks a lot Henry and Grant. You guys are doing a great job, really appreciate it. The velocity space rotation part was especially tricky, but watching it a couple times made it pretty clear.

I think it is appropriate to post how to describe an ellipsis acording to the great Isaac Newton, as it was found in one of his notebooks. "To describe an ellipsis Let fe & gc be two lines ef make right angles with gc. let a point be taken in bd as at a & let that point move along the line gc. & d the one end of the line db move on the line ef & the other end b shall describe the Ellipsis gbc. f. Let c & a be two fixed points about which let a loose cord be put haveing both ends tyed together. as is signified by the 3 lines cb. ba. ac. Strech it out with another point as b. & keeping it so streched out draw the point b about & it shall describe the Ellipsis bd. Chartesij Dioptr Let the line ae be infinitely extended in it take the point o about the line oc shall turne at the point c in oc let the point c in the line ab be fastened & let a the end of the line ab move on the line ae & oc turning round, each point of the line ab betwixt ac will describe an Ellipsis whose transvers axis is equall to oc & parallell to ae but each point on the other side c describes Ellipsis whose right axis is equall to oc & parallell to ae Extend de both ways take the lines ca & ab equall to one another fasten together at one end as at a. set the other end of ca at the point c in db. & let the other end of ab slide on db. yn take a point in ab as o & turne ac about & it shall describe the ellipsis dgoe Shooten in lib. 2d Cartesij Geometria: Cut the cone abc so that the diam of the section ed produced cute the base of the triangle ac produced without the cone as at r & makes right angles with gh the base of the section If eg be moved twixt the lines ed & gd. a point in it as (θ) shall describe an ellipsis whose semi-axis ad is equall to bd & semiaxis dc = eb If dc revolve abute the center d. & to the other end b be fastend a triangle bca & db = ba = bc & the angle a moves on the line ad the other end c will describe the streight line cd & the angle cba = 2cda & a point in the line (ca) as (e) shall describe an Ellipsis ehg whose diam 2dh =2dg = 2ec & the other diameter conjugated to it is od & od = 4db x db − ec x ec − 2 ec x ea −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−√ for op = ec. oq = ea. dp = 2db. & if in the line bc be taken a point as s, it shall describe an ellipsis the one diam: being 2ab + 2bs, the other diam = 2cs. If o & a be the foci & cp = oa & ca = op = it theire section in s shall describe an ellipsis If ab = bc = ci = ai = if or greater yn (if) & bh = fp & ac bisects the angles bai. bci. yn if bh turne round the intersections of bh & ac shall describ{e} an Ellipsis. & hi & i are the foci." Fitzwilliam Notebook Author: Isaac Newton Source: Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, UK

01:54 annotation faker

@3:00 how is that acceleration not felt by us baby ants?

Kepler, Newton, Galileo all knew the truth... Do you?

I understood perhaps 5% of what was said, but it was beautiful!

Hi.Please excuse me.you are explain best of you but I think your concept wrong. I don't say like this with out other concept. I have answers for why all planet rotate the sun elliptical path and all orbits how got the particular moving path and position then why moving speed change.again excuse for my English. Really l have answers I will update my explanation very soon.

Infinite intelligence? I have seen this before, its called magic.

This video is great info for the points of geometry. Generic application is valuable. However mixing solid math proofs in with a thing as questionable as gravity from a heliocentric model is just absurd IMO. The math disproves gravity to my humble mind

@15:00 - 16Ok so it acceleration averages out? Yet it still changes correct? Again should we not feel this on the orbiting body? Even if to scale a human cannot but possibly a mountain could measure or the tides?

OOOOOOhhhh @11:00 cart before the horse theories religisized as law never to be challenged or may ye be struck down by almighty rule of consensus?

@9:30 We never feel this? Seems illogical, plz elaborate ty

Sweet!

Its found now right

I forgot that I was watching minute physics until I reached the end.

is it weird that i didn't really understand this

not a physical explanation though

i'm a little shy of infinite intelligence. Ima watch this agian.

I didn't have enough attention span to finish and understand this video this time though.

which software is used for this type of mathematical animation?

Awesome - how did you make the video?

349 people only have finite intelligence.

Machine gun nests.

so verrückt....

i came in with no knowledge. i left with confusion.

I am lost with my very finite amount of intelligence.

OMG, my head hurts. I need a drink.

It was satisfying to see how we ended up with a oval orbit simply from that geometry proof actually!

*BOUNCER*

Cool math, but *why* is it that planets follow this type of orbit? I think this is why the lecture isn't very famous. It's a fairly basic bit of info useful to astrophysics, and it's not on the level of most of Feynman's work. To understand *why* these orbits happen to match up with this math, you need to get into relativity theory, which will only begin to satisfy the question "why?"

Dude, you HAVE to start making this stuff interactive

What do you do with an endless pendulum at break. Use wild card.

I was watching his video on what they don’t teach you in calculus before you made this video. Such a wonderful coincidence I love both your channel and 3 Blue 1 Brown

Slow it down to one rotation per year. Then you understand why we don't feel it.

Superb That's all

nice and thick :)

I hate to say it but as someone who used to be very good at math, the maths didn't exactly come easily to me. Despite that fact I completely understand what is going on and why. I look at it from an angular momentum perspective, the elliptical object is constantly trying to go in a straight line while the star or what have you is constantly trying to pull it into itself. The two forces create a right angle in which the orbital body is forced to follow if no outside forces interact with the two bodies. The two forces lead to an oblong circular pattern as the body, which is experiencing increasing gravitational pressure, speeds up as it nears the object it's orbiting increasing the angle from which the velocity of the orbital body is forcing it to escape from. I hope thay anyone who reads this can understand what I meant... lol I'm not sure I worded that correctly at all and was actually successful in confusing myself at one point but it makes perfect sense in my mind even if it may or may not be a little damaged from poor choices in recreational activities... Lmao

Sorry, American pronunciation is awful . Latin "c" is hard. It's ˈfəʊ.kaɪ/ - foe-kai. Now, go on.

The reason it's called "focus" is if you make a mirror in the shape of an ellipse, put a fire at one focus, all the radiation will reflect to the other focus, cooking your meat because the light coming off the fire will reflect and focus at the other focus. Also, Feynman is following Newton's demonstration in the Principia religiously in this lecture, you should thank Newton for this, not Feynman.

10:03 - "Nice and THICK!" ~ Grant, 2018

Got it. Oh wait, lost it again. You had me at "hello", but lost me at "radius squared times velocity divided by blah blah blah blah".

12:40 Sooo every other planets than Venus are turning Eastward, because only Venus has different direction of orbit?

5black1white , the white being my brain , and black is geometry

the shape traced out by an orbit is still a circle for parabolic and hyperbolic "orbits", its just that the center of the velocity vectors lies on the circle or outside the circle, respectively.

Fosee for Foci ??? You don't say sursle, its surkle (Circle). Latin pronounced C as K ( Caeser was Kaiser ). You are saying surkel (Circle) but pronouncing Foci as Fosee. urgh.

Nicely Done. Thanks.

15:40

This is the future of education.

How do you find the length and angle of a velocity vector? I keep rewatching this, and I can’t figure this part out.

Where do I go to suggest video topics? You all should do an analysis of sacred geometry/ the seed of life. All the videos of it focus on spiritual implications of the geometry but there aren't a lot of purely mathematical

Does anyone know which software 3B1B uses for mathematical animation? Any help would be appreciated.

Shiiiiiiiiiiiitt! For someone that´s so damn fascinated with logic and maths as me this is one of the coolest things i´ve ever seen. But... english is my second language and i guess i´ll watch this five more times before I understand all of it.

Great video !

Super Cool!

There is a illusion in the cover photo of this video. See it when you scroll it down.

Guilty confessions: I use this channel to fall asleep.

In reality this is not true...in no place in the known universe is this exactly accurate. The reason is that the velocity vector is actually changing...one way or the other....things are always falling into or shooting away from other things. Otherwise the universe would be in perfect equilibrium and we all know how that turns out....ok, some of us know...!

The thumb tack analogy for drawing an ellipse is very nice. I believe it has intimations in Thales's theorem.

Think I fought one of those in Kirby.