PLEASE READ BEFORE COMMENTING! INCLUDES NOTES ON "LIGHT COMPASS" EXPERIMENT First, I want to say “thank you” to all of you who have encouraged, if not prodded, me to keep going. I learned a lot from my last video, so I hope you all enjoy this iteration that is MUCH longer and nerdier. We worked very hard on each concept to make them as accessible, clear, and verifiable as possible. As with my last video, as you all find mistakes (as I'm sure you will), I will note any corrections in this pinned comment. As much as we tried to cover this thing from as many angles as possible, I know there will still be questions. I do plan to do a follow-up, and I am considering something more interactive like a live stream. As many of you have offered support ideas, like Patreon, it is appreciated, but not time yet. I need a lot more momentum before I can jump into this full steam. The best way to help us out is to “spread the word.” Share these videos on your science forums, Reddit, or past college professors. Reach out to your favorite science content creators and challenge them to debunk them or review them. I’m just not comfortable taking anyone’s money (except KZread’s) until I feel I can offer a consistent service in return. Issues: Ok, so we got our first big "hang up," and it's from the LIGHT COMPASS experiment. First, I will do a follow up video focus on just this experiment. In the meantime, here are some points: 1. No, this is not the same as the Michelson-Morley experiment. This is not testing the "aether" - just Relativity. 2. Any test that reflects light will not work. You can only test this in one direction (per sensor) as reflection cancels out any relative and measurable offset. 3. The bursts of light would have to be on a set timer preprogrammed into all clocks/sensor data 4. The clocks don't have to be 100% synced (just synced to a smaller margin of error than the predicted light difference) as any disagreement would be a consistent pattern that could be identified. 5. The results only work by collecting lots of data and running Fourier Transformations which compares the data to the sphere. The sphere is necessary as a reference shape to normalize the data. 6. If you feel like I don't "understand relativity" and this won't work, read about this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope (Yes, it's real. NASA uses it.) 7. YES, there are a lot of engineering challenges. That doesn't mean it's not doable. Space shuttles have lots of engineering challenges.... 8. In hindsight, the experiment seemed obvious to me after going through this process. However, collecting the concerns/objections/questions from everyone, I see now why it seems so impossible. I have checked, double checked, and ruminated on this cud ad-nauseum. As of now, I am still convinced it is possible. But please subscribe and stay tuned for my follow-up video where I will either validate the concept or further humiliate myself. I am sure it will be entertaining and a good mental exercise either way. On another note, technically there is another word for "contradicular" - The preferred term is "orthogonal," but I don't like it because it has several meanings. This is demonstrated by the fact it often called "hyperbolic-orthogonal" just to clarify. - A viewer commented that I should call it "pervellicular," and so far that takes the prize. Thanks!

@ultravioletiris6241

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for your efforts!!

@GKRainwater

Жыл бұрын

tyvm

@elysainempire4628

Жыл бұрын

on Inertia, it comes down to frictition. On Earth we have the atmoshpere(basicaly a increadly spare liquid) removing energy from the object in motion. While spare only has a few dozen atoms in a cube meter(excluding the broading of Hawking energy to that it existing everywhere but with event horizons breaking the pairing of anitparticals and particals). An analagy being comparing walking on land and walking in water. You have to move/displace more stuff when walking in water then compared to on land. you said before that motion in space will continue until a force is acted on it, like something hitting it. in the visuals you showed the macro version of this but you forgot about the micro version(friction). Which stays in line with conservation of energy. If nothing is hitting you or pulling against you, you don't lose energy. In a true vacume you can move in one direction at the same speed forever, though the tricky part is that there's no true vacume thanks to Vacume energy. there's also a study in quatum mechanics that demonstrates why time moves forward and why revering it is neigh imposible. I'll post the paper below if i can refind, but it goes over simple systems and how they evolve. link: www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-trace-the-rise-in-entropy-to-quantum-information-20220526/ On why Children and adults experiance time diffrently: scitechdaily.com/time-can-do-tricks-why-children-and-adults-experience-time-differently/ On your argument about time standing still and everything moving perpindicalure along with Time being memory/feelings, How do you explain the physical evidence/consequence of time moving in one dircetion? With time being messured by physical consiquence of it's "moving/passing" , either as motion or relics of the past not just memory. Memory is in fact a consiquence of time moving in a precivable direction. About your black hole argument i'm getting a little confuse on what you mean about things a black hole spits out. you terminology might be what's causing the problem but the Black hole doesn't spit anything out, it only throws the things it doesn't eat around. Gama rays is just matter spun up towards the Black holes magnatic poles and shot out, while Hawking radiation is a black hole eating an antipartiacle from an antipartical/partical pairing virtual particals and tthrowing the other pair into space. which in a new theory Hawking radiation exist everywhere(including past the event horizon), i.e the virtual partical pair popping in and out of existance, its just the Event Horizon of a black Hole captures one half of the virtual partical pair. This would throw your there of time being frozen in a Black hole since motion now exist. you also have vacume energy that would lead to motion and time within the black hole. Also how would the theory of Quantum haired black holes work within you Coalescing/intergration theory. Quantum hair and black hole information; www.goodnewsnetwork.org/stephen-hawking-black-hole-paradox-solved/ paper itself: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269322001290?via%3Dihub for your question at the end, i would like to see these more indepth follow u videos. Edit: video with source links about a new study on Hawking radiation and its effects on the universe: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qHl1rcSFYJfIqLQ.html

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

@@elysainempire4628 Oof, there is a lot there. Let me just throw out two things. First, black holes throw out far more gamma radiation than even Hawking radiation predicts. Second, on this: "How do you explain the physical evidence/consequence of time moving in one dircetion? " - you might try watching one more time. The point is that this is an interpretation based on our cultural biases and perception. "c" doesn't move, it's a geometric dimension we move (accelerate) on. To clarify: Hawking radiation is fine, and I support the "fuzzy black hole" theory. It just doesn't account for everything.

@timjohnson3913

Жыл бұрын

You said Arvin Ash was wrong in his example ~ @1:28:00 . Arvin is describing special relativity correctly here. You can say this is how your theory departs from special relativity, but Arvin is giving a correct result of special relativity. If you don’t understand why what he is saying is correct, have the observer perform the exact same experiment in his rest frame. If the observer says light reached both detectors simultaneously for his experiment that is at rest to him, then for him to make sense of the moving experiment, it cannot be compatible to say the light also reached both detectors simultaneously, according to special relativity.

You have a unique skill set as a science communicator Chris. Keep going man

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thank you!

@Jason-fp7vi

Жыл бұрын

@@bosnbruce5837 what's wrong with the ideas presented? I'm curious

@sethrenville798

Жыл бұрын

Tamara Munzer's channel has a ton of super useful videos and animations that help to explain the whole concept of hyperbolic spacetime and the various reference frames contained within. Having said that, I also think hyperbolic reference frames are actually much easier to understand than you may think, as that is exactly what we have, as computationally bounded observers, in that when we are moving, objects that are farther away seem to move more slowly than objects that are closer, and objects that are getting closer to us appear to expand exponentially as they get closer and closer to us, both of which are Qualia that exist exclusively within a hyperbolic frame of reference.

@kayakMike1000

11 ай бұрын

​@@ChrisTheBrainhere's a quicker answer. Time is that which separates events. The separation of events tends to make cause precede effect. Without time, either nothing happens, or perhaps, everything happens at once.

It cracked me up when you roasted the PBS spacetime video because I can never understand a goddamn thing that man says. I follow a lot of physics/science channels and I ultimately unfollowed that one. He's just not an engaging or accessible science communicator. Please keep up the good work! I have no advanced physics education, yet I have been absolutely fascinated by your videos. They make these complex physics concepts so much more intuitive than the way they are explained in textbooks.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Some people wondered why I didn't link to PBS spacetime in my first video. All this is why. I feel like that guy only covers the most extreme crazy shit out there, and wraps it in vaguely explained buzzwords to make it sound plausible. I love PBS as a whole, but that channel definitely works hard to make science seem like it can only be done by wizards.

For those of us who don’t need visuals, could you please post your mathematical theorems?

Chris, there is so much I want to say about these videos. I am floored, by how much everything about your demonstration style has made physics as a whole “register” for me in ways I’ve never been able to grasp before. I could write a whole essay thanking you for that alone. Coincidentally, I’ve also been revisiting learning materials, videos, lectures, and fundamentals of physics, over the past few months, it’s how I stumbled across your content. At your request in the video, I’ve spent a LOT of time going back over yours, and other, more mainstream applications of our understandings of time, black holes, dimensions, and the properties of light. I have no doubt in my mind that you are onto something COLOSSAL with this pursuit. Your dissatisfaction with the current standard for scientific discourse is inspiring. Curiosity that lies “beyond the graph” is all but DEAD in this space. I feel like when I grew up trying to learn physics in middle/high school, I struggled because I was only shown the units and the numbers, the graphs and the lines. Nobody explained the “why”, or the applications and consequences of the real world, and the problems that come up. It felt weird, and incomplete. A lot of people get seriously moved when thinking about black holes. Personally, it was your questioning of INERTIA, and WHY the speed of light is what it is, that seriously had me almost jumping out of my couch, watching this on my tv. Damn near tearing up at how much sense your theories make, and how, for the first time, NOT in a classroom, I feel like MY questions and personal issues with this material have been directly answered and that I can actually move forward, and feel successful in learning more. Thank you. Please, do everything in your power to push this as far as it can go. The amount of change you can make here is immeasurable. I’m so happy to be able to join this ride.

@ChrisTheBrain

11 ай бұрын

This touched my heart and I shared it with my daughter, thank you. Knowing people are sharing that "ah ha!" spark is what keeps me going.

@frankdimeglio8216

6 ай бұрын

​@@ChrisTheBrainWHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE (ON BALANCE). TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY proves the fourth dimension, AND this solves what is the coronal heating “problem”. Indeed, this explains the cosmological redshift. Great. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Consider what is complete combustion. Magnificent. Indeed, consider what is lightning. Great. It is proven. By Frank Martin DiMeglio

As a subscriber to many science channels, this is one of the most important to me because everything always gets lost in assumed terminology and "wrong" metaphors and analogies that is supposed to make things easier, but that actually makes things more paradoxical and difficult. I can't even keep up with the amount of videos out there that still visualize gravity as a ball on a trampoline, which drives me nuts ....P.S. Cute ant 🐜

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thank you!

@kca698

7 ай бұрын

but this video is mostly analogies and metaphors, thats the thought process to further this line of reasoning, rather than equations/experiments/data. this can be articulated in precisely specific terms for most topics mentioned, but i will not type them out

I totally agree with the concept about our use of language. Language is our operating system. If we desire to have thought that is more complex, we need to have a wider understanding of language. The best teacher that I ever had was my geometry teacher in high school. Before he even passed out our text books for the year, he had a list of about 100 words that we were to define. Not only did he make us define them, but he made us come to the board and teach him that we truly understood the meaning of the words. After we learned the words, he told us, "Now that you understand the terminology of this course, we can have an actual discussion, and I can teach it to you. Math and science can be a foreign country that we can get lost in if we don't speak the language."

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

That's a damn good math teacher!

@jl12781

Жыл бұрын

​@@ChrisTheBrain He literally became like a father to me. I started that year off as an average student in math. And because of him, I literally got straight A's from there on out. I fell in love with math and science. He basically showed me that math was not something that was too complex. Instead, it allowed me to see that most of it is common sense. i.e., a simple term like integer used to confuse the f*** out of me. I particularly remember a homework assignment in algebra the previous year. That teacher said to us, "For the homework I've given you tonight, all the correct answers will be integers. So if you don't get an integer, then go back and check your steps.") I was literally so confused. But after learning the meaning of the word, I realized that he was giving us homework that we would somewhat be able to grade ourselves on. Now granted, you could solve incorrectly and still end up with a whole number. But had I understood that, then I wouldn't have felt like he was speaking a foreign language to me. Apologies, I digress. But as for the teacher that taught me the language of math, he came to my college graduations, and we stayed in touch and maintained a close family like relationship all the way up until he passed away a little less than 5 years ago now. I never knew my father, and I considered him to be my father. He literally changed me as a person, and I still have an intense passion for all science and math because of him. But I love your theory. Especially since your basing most of your ideas on phenomena 🎵🎶 that have already been observed and understood in other realms of reality. I know that the universe does not care whether or not we can comprehend its secrets. But we ourselves come from the universe. Therefore I feel that we must have the capacity to comprehend it. Anyway the name is Joe. Take care Chris, and sorry for the reading assignment.

@jl12781

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain Oh yeah, by the way, I love your idea of the light sphere. I know that all physics is understood in inertial reference frames. But I too have always wondered what would happen if we could "counter our absolute velocity". I've also always wondered if gravity itself was just a consequence of our movement. If everything were at "initial zero", would mass still attract mass, or would everything just stay in its place, unaffected by other mass? Just a thought. But the light sphere has got to be done. Because the data that would be gathered over time would solve so many things.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

@@jl12781 no worries! There is a philosophy behind this like what you just said. Newton and Einstein believed the Universe was "Infinite but Knowable" - Meaning we can understand anything, but each new understanding brings new things to discover. In contrast, modern science portrays a Universe that is "Finite but Unknowable" - That we have everything "almost figured out" and the things we can't figure out are just "because they are." It's elitist and prohibitive. I want everyone to feel like they can participate in science and that we have plenty left to discover.

@jl12781

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain 100% We need to awaken our minds as a society again. We don't need conspiracy theories to be excited about. The universe is already fascinating and mesmerizing just as it is. We basically live in a fairy tale. And it encapsulates all of the emotion to go with it. Amazement, wonder, curiosity, fear, and confusion. Even if we're just a Boltzmann brain in the dark and all this is being imagined in order to make sense of our own existence, WE EXIST! HOW AWESOME IS THAT! Thanks again man.

Been telling people this for years. Great video. People think I'm being pedantic, obtuse, unimaginative and closed minded because I've tried to explain that what they're thinking of isn't physics. Its physics+imagination/religious thinking. (The sophistry of science)

@guitarizard

28 күн бұрын

Maybe that's why it seems SOPHISTicated to some people.

I love how you acknowledge just how subjective specific words/ideas seem to be. I also love the idea of someone in marketing genuinely studying and understanding how language shapes thought....it makes perfect sense. And how that same dilemma applies to science. Your brain is pretty nifty, thanks for sharing it.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thanks so much! 😊

Chris, you are doing an amazing job! These videos have just been getting better and better. A friend of mine is an astrophysics professor and I am definitely sending your videos his way. I can't wait to see what's next! 2:01:33 To be honest, I just want more videos. You've got a great thing going on here and I just want to see where you'll go next.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thanks so much!

Keep the videos going in this direction and do the other videos later

Instead of contradicular, I would suggest pervellicular. It mimicks the etymology of perpendicular, it goes through a reference (per), but instead of hanging something down (pend-) like a plumb line, it pulls it up (velli-). As you can only pull through what was already hanging down, it kinda preserves the bound of the dimension as you describe it. "Contradicular" is too close to "contradict" which can have some connotational side effects, a little bit like with "imaginary" in imaginary numbers.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

I like it! I'll consider that change as I move forward. Thanks!

@ethandandu

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain is this all related to sqrt(-1)? meaning how there are the positive numbers and negative numbers and then there are these perpendicular numbers to the +1/-1 line which is the space hidden inside sqrt(-1) as an extra "imaginary" plane. is the mandelbrot set related to that? 🙂 edit: "imaginary" numbers are *lateral* perpendicular axis to the +1/-1 axis ~ there's a youtube video of a dude explaining complex numbers with graphics which is a great mini episodes series

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

@@ethandandu sqrt(-1) represents a lot more than this. IMO, it is duct tape over a problem with math that has a rather interesting and drama filled history. But, this "contradicular" relationship definitely helped force its adoption, along with a lot of needs in quantum mechanics. As far as fractals go, trying to visualize these relationships does produce these kind of Mandelbrot effects. However, I am not sure if this is just a result of trying to force them into 2D, or a real representation of reality.

1:22:25 You've turned Space-time into Time-space. *applause*

This is the the clearest understanding of a complex metaphysical idea I've ever had. You sir are a genius at communication and I'd say a yet undiscovered physics genius too.

@ChrisTheBrain

11 ай бұрын

Much appreciated!

Soooo hype to see this finally out! Can't wait to hear more

Dude you should on the cover of every science publication. I think you have stumbled onto the answers that everyone since Einstein has been working to find. Your 4+1 dimension theory and beautiful explanation will eventually prove correct This presentation on time is another example of how you conceptually understand understand what experiments are really describing

@ChrisTheBrain

11 ай бұрын

Thank you! I am afraid, however, my first "cover appearance" will probably be under a headline like "Genius or conman? We ask real scientists what they think." 😜

Can't wait for the EM tie-in! So fascinating.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thank you!

The more I consider the concept of higher dimensional objects causing the non-local effects of quantum mechanics, the more I like the idea. Like with any higher dimensional thinking, its entirely unintuitive, and I really think you're right in thinking there might be something deeper in the concept applied to our universe. Its very hard to bend the mind into trying to form quantum mechanics as a higher dimensional picture, and if it is correct, our flat land brains are definitely holding us back. Cant wait for your future episodes, hopefully some neat idea come from this, and maybe with luck, a real formulation of quantum mechanics with a way to verify higher dimensional objects.

It is very interesting how chris explain the perception of time. The past and the future don't exist. Exist only a replication of a external rapresentation inside our mind and thanks to a logical connection of the events, we build the concept of time. We could say that time exist only when exist a memory device and a subject that can access to that memory.

As a citizen of the world, I am so glad to have someone outside of academia and “groupthink” that has the intelligence to continue to pursue toward real physics. I am excited learn more and gain more clear understanding of reality.

I suggest an alternative to reduce the volume of the sphere to an half. Instead of have only one light at the center and all the sensors around, you could use one laser for each sensor and sync the emission of all lasers. Thus you can have a radius of at least 0.5 km and not 1. Also instead of have a big sphere in a vacuum, you could use many tunnels in a vacuum that represent the diameter of the sphere, every tunnel in a different direction. Last suggestion is using reflection in a particular way. The reflection delete the difference of the travel time, but you can use a trick. An example if you want to reflect the light ten times in a zig zag travel to reduce the radius of sphere, you can add a laser for each mirror of reflection and sync the emission of the foton of each laser. The sensor should receive a serie of measurements in a pattern where one photon arrives in less time and the next in much time.

@bastisonnenkind

11 ай бұрын

I think even a "cross" aka 4 sensors in tunnels, and the light source in the middle would give the same data over time, BECAUSE a point on earth is moving in so many directions.

That clarification of what time actually means was really eye opening. Great stuff, just like the last time!

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Awesome, thank you!

3:00 Dude you really have the two halves necessary for a complete science communicator, hope to see more of your work in the future

@ChrisTheBrain

11 ай бұрын

Thank you!

You're doing a great job, man! Keep up with the good work!

I don't understand how this isn't getting more traction. I'm not remotely close to being a scientist, but this sounds like an amazing, innovative take on what has bugged a lot of us armchair enthusiasts re: relativity.

@ChrisTheBrain

11 ай бұрын

There were a lot of self-educated scientists in Einstein's time... including Einstein. But today, that's basically a taboo. It will take a WHILE and a LOT before I get taken seriously. But I appreciate the sentiment!

I definitely like what you're doing. I would say keep moving forward and do not waste too much time trying to prove that other scientists got it all wrong. Nice work!

@ChrisTheBrain

11 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Very enjoyable, didn't expect my attention to be kept the whole video for 2+ hours, normally that only happens when I watch Hbomberguy. Also the production quality has increased by an order of magnitude which is so impressive and highly appreciated. I think the secret sauce is the chemistry between you as the presenter and your daughter as the camera/editor.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Much appreciated. 😊

@markdwyer5301

11 ай бұрын

Agreed. I will say the piano music under the really really important stuff is actually distracting. Love the cute motion graphics and humour.

I love how now when I am watching this video no one yet had TIME to watch it in it's entirety, nice to be early

I lack the math and physics education necessary for a deep dive on these topics, so I appreciate any attempt to explain complex ideas such as these to a broader audience. Notwithstanding my love for SpaceTime, I definitely understand how some of the metaphors and speculative liberties would irk you. I'm having flashbacks to almost walking out of a cognitive psychology lecture when the professor described the Screaming Demon theory of pattern recognition.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thank you!

❤"i have a idea: why don't plug all the holes un physic before we assume how the univers started"

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

😉

I've been waiting for your next video. It's about time.❤

I think these videos are fantastic, yeah you might not be a physics doctorate, but i believe the key road blocks that stand in our way today are conceptual in nature and it's hardly like you are approaching the topic from a position of ignorance. Also, thanks for taking the time to make such a complete video on your theory.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thank you!

This makes a lot of sense. The more i study black holes the further I'm convinced that time stops beyond the event horizon. Black holes are essentially doing your antigravity trick and no longer interacting with c.

@DrWrapperband

Жыл бұрын

I've been thinking that time is quantum, so it can't "stop" inside the black hole. The black hole is at the next quantum down of "time speed", e.g a time is (for instance) a million times slower in the black hole than our universe. Particles in our Universe, would be super particles in the new "universe formed" and slower time would cause them to split, the large particles into smaller particles (and energy), forming the "inflation" of the new Universe, which is actually the "smaller particles" in the new Universe with slower time. From someone made of these smaller particles, and the slower time would make the Universe inside the black hole look enormous from inside. Really cool video by Chris.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

You got it, the only difference is the black hole is "passing" c in the other direction than what an anti-gravity field would do. Thanks!

@aliensarerealttsa6198

Жыл бұрын

Why would you think time stops beyond the event horizon? Time still passes for a blackhole and everything inside it or it wouldn't shrink into nothing eventually. All that happens is that the gravity becomes so intense that it causes light to move in a geodesic towards the core. Physicists can't even label antimatter properly. It's matter.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

@@aliensarerealttsa6198 " why would you think time stops beyond the event horizon?" **Gestures broadly at entire video** "Or it wouldn't shrink into nothing" As I said, it leaks. The degree of "frozen time" is constantly fluctuating around the event horizon.

@aliensarerealttsa6198

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain Just because something can't move doesn't mean it doesn't experience time especially when things still happen to it. Like you said, time is just a measurement of motion. It's relative. It has no intrinsic properties of its own and it can't be changed or measured because it doesn't exist. Motion is not time. You can stop motion but you can't stop time. Semantics. Someone: "Anything that exists has energy." Time and space doesn't have energy of it's own. They are emergent properties.

Videos like this make me really glad that I have notifications turned on. I really hope this video gets the same boost from the KZread algorithm that the first one got.

I love this stuff, I think any way to reframe thinking about things whether or not they are "true" (whatever that even means) is valueable because we all can easily fall victim to thinking the first way a concept is presented is the only way to conceptualize it. Being open to different modes of thinking is important and can cause an idea to suddenly click and open doors for further understanding.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Very true! I went through a lot of "crazy" ideas to get here, but even if not viable, each new idea gave me a clue.

@SurfTheSkyline

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain very few great ideas spring to fruition without roadbumps. I think it would be interesting to see a demonstration of what the stuff that ended up in the bin was to layout the hidden parts of scientific process and to showcase what promise they had and why they were set aside or fully discarded. Analogous to this is how I love hearing demo tracks of songs to get an idea of the thought process and seeing what was an okay idea recycled later (sometimes a singular demo becomes two unique songs) or what didn't work at all and was excised completely as all information is illuminating.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

@@SurfTheSkyline that's a really good idea!

One minute in already laughing, already great. Been lookinh forward to this!!!

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thank you!

How dare someone with a different background attempt to teach us something that doesn't strictly fall within that category. I can't imagine how much work this is, and you shouldn't have to preempt so many of your facts (not even opinions, but facts) due to commenters being lazy and rude. Screw em. We don't have time for those people. I've had a weird 35 years and this video is helping me relax. Thanks, and please make more if you can.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Well that just warms the heart. Thank you.

YESS!!!!!!!!! Greatly enjoyed your last video and Im greatly looking forward to watch this one👍👍

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Hope you enjoy!

Dude, these videos are awesome! I really feel like you are onto something important. I get that same feeling watching these videos I get when listening to a perfectly clear explanation of a very unfamiliar concept in that moment before it clicks but after I realize that the concept definitely makes sense and I just haven't gotten my head around it yet. I can't wait for see the next video regardless of which of the 3 options you choose (though my vote would be to just keep moving forward). I spend many hours a day watching youtube and I am VERY selective about which channels I subscribe to (a grand total of 2 channels after more than a decade on youtube). I'm now subscribed to a 3rd channel: Chris "The Brain".

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

I'm honored, thank you.

Keep moving on. I want more, please.

I'm here on time!

@Akira-Aerins

Жыл бұрын

time is relative but the only thing you can't be is early, because the upload is a set event that is required first in order to be here. Technically I could also be on time, relative to my own position in time, even though compared to the absolute set time frame of the video upload we are all later than the time of upload, so it just becomes very semantic, does it not?

@GKRainwater

Жыл бұрын

@@Akira-Aerins Ya totally, I agree!

@Akira-Aerins

Жыл бұрын

@@GKRainwater You could also be an hour early to work, but at the exact moment everyone at work decides to turn their clock back by that time, for whatever reason, and still be on time. Same for being late an hour, and being on time.

@GKRainwater

Жыл бұрын

@@Akira-Aerins Yeah the daylight saving time is a weird one!!

oh hey, i caught it post-watch edit: another banger, as always

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thank you!

Yay! I love this series! Thank you for the effort you've put in. I am always grateful for new ways to think about the cosmos. Speaking of which, Chris, you seem open minded. Have you heard of data visualization experiments done using gravitational lensing and cross-eye, a.k.a. stereoscopy? I'm a lifelong cross-eye enthusiast and I swear some gravitational lensing creates a borderline stereogram. But not from parallax; from repetition, so it's data visualization in that sense I'm a self taught stereoscopic artist and I've been practicing cross-eye since I was small, it's almost like a second language to me; I swear there's information visible this way and I've learned more about lensing symmetry behavior through cross-eye than I thought could be possible Keep up the awesome work, dude! Hope this helps in any way

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Interesting, there are a kind of "mandala" patterns that emerge when we dive deeper into dimensional interactions. Maybe you'll recognize some when we get there.

@EmergeHolographic

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain Thank you for replying!

I've really been looking forward to this update!

It’s pretty surreal watching your videos man. As someone who’s always been interested in science but never in the field, it does feel like things continue to get more complicated, mindbending, and for someone like me just straight up ungraspable. Watching your videos is like going back in time to some point before a fork in the road, and continuing on a path that is intuitive and logical again. I really hope you’re right for the sake of my contradicular, limited brain. Cheers and good luck

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

I really appreciate it. If science was a house, I am definitely taking the "burn it down and start over" approach over the "renovate" approach. Not throwing everything out, but yeah, pretty much everything after 1973.

Your theory is incredible! I am officially interested. I got deep into the can of warms of relativity and QM during COVID. so much so, my Bday present from my wife was the EPR paper. I felt like I exhausted “out of the box” thinking/concepts on KZread. But you have filled that void! Keep up the amazing work! 🤓👍

@ChrisTheBrain

11 ай бұрын

Thank you!

This was a very good presentation on both the existing science, and on the discussed experimental one. A bit heavy on some aspects, even for a CS guy, but overall light enough to get through it and actually understand it. What you proposed, makes sense, however, like you mentioned, one if not THE biggest weakness of our species is that we are so set in our traditions and old ways of understanding things, that until some major event happens, we simply refuse to even discuss the probably, let alone debate the "known facts", something sadly closer to the middle ages approach than we would like. What could have been easier for some folks to understand would have been to expand a bit on our perception of time persay, how it changes due to how our brain adapts to outside stimuli Good stuff, thank you, and good luck with the next one :)

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thank you!

Hi Chris, I just came across your "Unifying Theory of Dimensional Geometry and Interaction" videos and watched them all. As many have commented, you communicate your thought process well and make it understandable. Although you may not be as polished as some other science explainers, you make it work and work well. I do like your idea of testing for an absolute zero for motion in our universe and I hope that someone takes you up on it and gets it done. Sounds like a great idea to me. Kudos to your daughter, editor, titler, animator, and video resource researcher. Fabulous work. And I love the animations and onscreen comments that she inserts. GIve her a raise.

I’ve been waiting for this one ❤

Take note of the tangential concepts and circle back later. I think what you're doing makes a lot more sense than the way things are typical taught to us (3rd year Astrophysics student) and I'm excited to hear more of where it goes and to share it with some other math and physics folks who are likewise unsatisfied with our current narrative.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Your vote is counted! Thanks for the feedback.

Been looking forward to your videos

Finally another video - it's about time!

Between Chris, pbs space time and the history of the universe channel, I can now say I’m officially a physicist. Thank you

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Not a bad gang to be grouped in with. Thanks!

Twin Paradox - Let's take acceleration out of it. Yes, acceleration was necessary to initiate the original motion of direction and velocity. Imagine two astronauts (apparently they must always be named Alice and Bob) in outer space and they are wearing jet packs. They are far enough away from larger bodies so gravity doesn't affect them. They each activate their jet packs for a time to get them going to where they're headed, which happens to be toward each other. When they pass each other they are not accelerating. One can rightly say the other is speeding past them and "I am the one at rest", because no force of acceleration is measured by either of them. Who is observed aging faster?

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

In this example, there is no way to know without a third, or absolute, frame of reference.

@dbugged

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain so, if there is no way to know, how can anyone conclude or predict?

@dbugged

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain even without a 3rd observer or "absolute" frame of reference, what is the reality of what actually happens? On that note, isn't everyone's own observation their reality regardless of what other observers' realities are?

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

@@dbugged I don't mean this to be rude, but did you watch the whole video?

@dbugged

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain i did. Maybe I misunderstood something?

Great video once again! I already kind of thought of time (sorry, I mean "c") in this way, how you have like a normalized vector of time and space, how one effects the other. And I'm glad you brought up how so many people do just continue drawing past the graph to see what would happen. Don't get me wrong, I love exceeding boundaries and think of "But what if...?" scenarios, but a lot of science personell (KZreadrs especially) just states it in such a way it sounds like you could just go and do that.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thank you! Math was supposed to describe reality, but somewhere along the line we transposed the two.

Chris what ever you're up to I'm on board! Thank you so much captain!

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

My pleasure!

We have the ability to make particles move at the speed of light, but the process freezes the particle's evolution in time. A photon from a distant galaxy is like a wormhole. It was entangled with a particle in that galaxy, and in an instant, it became entangled with a particle in your eye.

@sethrenville798

Жыл бұрын

Things only exist within time when they interact with the Higgs field and gain mass, as what we perceive as a lawyer time is, in my understanding, actually just the direct result of an irreversible calculation done by some Information processing mechanism of the universe, that takes the infinite potentials of the higher dimensional probabilistic wave function and collapses them into a singular, discreet Manifestation of experience, with a particle being in a certain location, or having a certain momentum. I think Stephen Wolfram explains this unbelievably well with the wolfram physics project common as a comparison to Conway's computational game of life, With each discreet unit of space time either being activated or deactivated, in regards to the underlying quantum field, and changing its state defending on the States of its neighbors with each calculation. The beauty of that way of looking at it is it perfectly explains the strong nuclear force, in that quarks can't be isolated; they are actually the real world counterpart of an oscillator, meaning that they aren't actually individual particles, but rather, manifestations of a larger probabilistic wave function that oscillates throughout time. It also perfectly explains time dialation, as gravity distorts spacetime in such a way that each specific unit of space time is compressed into a smaller area, so a computation that spreads at the speed of causality, C comment has to do more calculations in order to spread the same distance, meaning that time appears to move slower within a gravitational field.

great video... please remove the hook above your head... lol

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Ha! The set was kind of ad-hoc since my office has been under a migration to a new location. Hopefully, I will have more control over future environments.

@Akira-Aerins

Жыл бұрын

don't worry its just a modified Sims character marker. The player is the Universe, this guy is just the avatar. No big deal lmao.

Жыл бұрын

Looking forward to see Sabine to “debunk” your bold theories. Don’t take me wrong, I’m not suggesting they are necessarily wrong. I just wish to hear someone smarter then me to investigate your theory which indeed sounds very impressive and well thought through. Regarding to true time/c vector measurement: wouldn’t be flawed with the same issues as Derek’s highlighted in his light speed measurement video? It’s the same thing just in multiple directions. Every part of the apparatus would be subject to same paradoxes.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

@ I hear you, I would love someone like Sabine to try and pick it apart. Regarding the flaws, that was my point with "millions of measurements" - With enough data, you can use Fourier Transformations to separate out, identify, and compensate for each effect that causes variability.

Hi Chris, love your work in this field, but noticed the sharp dropoff from your successful video viewcount vs your other videos and their success rate. It is of course vital to get the word out about this to as many people as possible. That way more people can look into this and it can go through proper rigor! I wanted to give you a couple of insights into why I believe your viewership was so high on that one video vs your others: - Thumbnails are the most important thing about a video, period. Your 5 dimensional video got a ton of views because the thumbnail promised a visual of a 5D reality. We all want to see that so we all (self included) clicked it. Unfortunately you failed to deliver on a strong visual in this area, but managed to deliver a highly intriguing concept which me and my partner both love and have taken great interest in. Thus, I want to help you get the word of your ideas out there and see if they hold any water. - Length of videos + attempts at comedy. I'm not saying you, or your daughter aren't funny because some of the jokes definitely land. But the amount of time that is being spent on....everything....is far too high. The very first 20 seconds of this video are a great sample of this, there are a bunch of repeat jokes that cost a lot of time without getting anywhere close to the meat of the video. This is the internet and people have short attention spans, the rule is you need to have them hooked within 3 seconds. Yet 20 seconds in and your video hasn't even began. Your daughter has mentioned your tendency towards longwindedness in your videos before and I agree with her. Learn to cut the fat and get straight to the point. You are here to present a real scientific theory for which the theory itself is highly interesting. We do not need to be entertained by jokes along the way, you are not a comedic youtuber and nobody clicked this video to get a laugh. Again, you're funny, just not the right time/place. Very few people are going to sit through a full two hours. Please take someone like veritasium as an example of great short straight to the point content. He emphasizes the value of thumbnails in his "how I went viral video" about the shadeballs and I found it to be a very compelling argument. His content is also cut down and very quick to get through each topic. Show your daughters animations and discuss your subject directly, quickly, and without tangents. Other great youtuber examples include captain disillusion who also knows how to get straight to the point. It's just too tempting with all of those OTHER videos right there in the sidebar tempting to pull me away from your video. You've got this bud, just keep at it and honestly I would recommend starting over on the whole series. Do a 10 minute version of your first video showcasing your theories only, leave out any historical educational background on the topic or the current science. Just show what you've got and let us analyze it. You'll get a lot more science minded people arguing in the comments that way and that's just good ol engagement.

@spookiecrisp4046

Жыл бұрын

what an insane comment

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thanks so much for the encouragement, and I appreciate that you took the time to put so much thought into it. We have discussed/debated a lot of these, and the road forward is a bit of both. The number one request I got from my last video was "make it longer." Or more accurately "don't rush." I think there is a market for long-form content, much like @PhilosophyTube. But, obviously not as large a market as for

@ewmegoolies

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain you got this! And I like to share ideas, but 99% if ppl I can share with will turn off an hour video. I like long format. Don't be afraid to make parallel uploads, a short-form and long-form. I feel like both would be equally valid and course I would watch both.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

@@ewmegoolies Well, a trailer/preview video is coming soon for sure. I will definitely keep thinking of ways to do other shorts.

@tylerchism134

Жыл бұрын

​@@ChrisTheBrain my unsolicited opinion is that I would worry less about length and more about what I get out of the length. You covered many concepts but I was left a bit fuzzy on each concept so the overarching message is left obscured. For example in other comments it seems that fleshing out some of these ideas like your light compass is needed. I noticed that when you take a second to break down certain concepts and include an animation I'm with you but then there's long section of dialogue where I drift away. So I guess in short: more animations. After all if you're gonna go long to flesh out a concept (which you should) then why not go hard with it? But honestly that's a ton of work and you're doing a good job, veritasiums production quality is a high bar. If you just kept doing what you're doing then I'd be happy.

16 minutes into the video and 17 years of self immersion in this subjects and you surprise me with the twin paradox thing. Good job Chris! Can’t we “See” the objects we confirmed time relativity with though?

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thank you! I think you have gotten my point "backwards." Unless I am misunderstanding you. The Twin Paradox is correct, I just never heard any point out that it contradicts how we think a "timeline" works.

I've made it through an hour twenty or so now and wanted to throw in a few more things, then I'm gonna get out of your hair for good :P - Your daughters animation's are superb, her graphical talents spread from motion graphics to full blown 3d sims, I mean a walking fur cube, WUT! Her animation quality is top notch and Grenich sitting and twitching on the desk was adorable. I never mean to cut anything like this out, this stuff is all great. She really carries your channel and I know you know it lol. Since she's also the editor I believe, I want to give her some notes since I really feel like most of the changes I suggest are more editing focused. I'm not sure how much we can ever do to unlearn our speech patterns, but we can certainly edit a lot of it out! - Remove much larger segments of video while you work, this is going to save you both time on finishing this video. Key phrases that should trigger your cutting finger: *Again *I just want to nail that point home *repeated reminders about previous points, suggestions to watch previous videos multiple times (once is enough), and the entire dictionary segments or general criticisms chris has about society and our word usage. People don't listen to criticism, they just want to hear new ideas and will shuck off the bad stuff on their own once new information replaces their old thoughts. You have tons of new information here that is exciting to talk about, focus on that! *preparation phrases, this is the BIG KAHUNA IMO. This is a general issue many youtubers have "what we're going to talk about in this video is:" at the start of their content. It's silly, we all read the title and saw the thumbnail and know what you are going to talk about, so stop wasting our time. Most people skip this. Chris does it excessively "What I want to do now..." "So please understand that..." "We're going to use a lot of different analogies..." I typed these all back to back from a single segment at 29:50. There is far too much preparing you to listen going on and not enough just getting to the point. I know you know this is an issue of his, but he can't help it, so just cut it! :) I'm worried that with all of the filler and time wasters that people are never going to see all the great moments, such as the clip featuring bruce lee which had such a lovely metaphor. Or further down the line your AMAZEBALLS animation of the person spinning in the field looking up at the stars. I really can't believe you do all of this, he isn't paying you enough :P. One more thought about longform vs shortform. Keep in mind that youtube puts you in an adversarial position to your viewership. Your goal should be to gain the largest viewcounts across the largest number of videos possible in order to gain the highest exposure of your idea to society. As well as the monetary incentives that come along with that. Your viewerships goal is to get the most dopamine in the shortest amount of time possible, so of course there will be people begging you for more of your ideas and to make videos longer. They want to get all of the juice out of this cow as quickly as possible so they can move on to the next meal. The fact that you have people begging shows the promise of how big your channel could grow, and how much potential you have. I say short content with heavy focus on animated visuals, shorter explanations with less scientific background explanations. Many of us already know that and you can contrast when needed. Plus that just sets you up for a fight against something when you could just be pitching your new ideas fresh and clean. A fantastic example of this would be Rob Miles, he started out as an AI safety channel and just never gained a huge viewership. He recognized his lack of success and transitioned to animated content and now he gets Kurzestadt level viewership. It's amazing, people love cute animations and your daughter is nearly a pro already. Milk this cash cow. I know I'm being that annoying internet person, I hope you both know I criticize out of absolute love for the both of you and the excitement I have from the sharing of ideas. I feel like these ideas of changing the way we perceive the same math is beyond fascinating in concept and I eagerly await the future to see if this manages to gain some steam in the scientific community.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

From just a "technical editor skills" perspective, that's a fantastic list, and I will gladly pass on the positive feedback as well. From a "sharing the burden" standpoint though, I also need to get better at writing tighter scripts. Side note: I enjoy seeing someone struggle through the same "love language" as mine: giving advice. I know that's not always taken in the best spirit.

@NameNotAChannel

Жыл бұрын

Just from a viewer's POV, and enjoyer of what has already been presented, and someone who takes his time to word things very carefully... I think some of your suggestions would hurt the presentation or create a different tone around the ideas presented that could backfire. Using the phrases "again" and "just want to nail that point down" clarify that he KNOWS he already covered some of those things, and is revealing his intentions for being repetitive. People DO need reminders to go watch other connected videos. Perhaps they didn't think they needed to watch the connected video mentioned about a different point, but at this point, they DO want to follow up and see more information, now it makes it a call to action that the person will act on. (also, it could just be me, but I don't think his goal is to have a super popular youtube channel, but to just get his ideas out there into the world, and into the minds of people who can do something with it. This is best accomplished by individuals sharing it with others who have a keen interest in the subject matter - seven degrees of separation theory/whateveryoudcallthat-style - , and not the general public who just want to be entertained.)

@BlackFoxLovesYou

Жыл бұрын

​@@NameNotAChannel You're what I would consider "a statistical outlier." By being someone who cares and pays attention you are already vastly different than the majority of the human race in it's current state. I don't know if you've ever had a youtube channel but if you take a look at the analytics it shows where and how many people drop off watching your video at certain points. I've learned how quickly and easily viewership moves on to other content and learned the importance of keeping those little dropoff moments from happening before the main chunk of content ever gets delivered. If 70% of the audience has left by the 20 second mark, what is the point of the next 2 hours? (Yes that really happens, OFTEN) My argument is that he should strive to have a super popular youtube channel. Any valid scientific idea needs maximum exposure to be tested. The only way we'll ever know if there is truth behind Chris's ideas is if other scientists pick this up and test his claims. You will simply never get there with a small dedicated fanbase. Beyond that, if he's right, then even non-scientific users should be informed of this new view of reality, as it could fundamentally change people's entire world view which can have major positive repercussions down the line. You don't want to keep information like this secret or smalltime.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

I'm between the both of you. This takes a LOT of work, and it would be nice if KZread took off enough to make that possible. On the other hand, from a scientific rigor standpoint (which I am already taking liberties with) I do have to feel confident I have made a good case, and there is a level of investment required from the viewer if they want to understand it and vet it out. My daughter and I have been discussing it and we think we are going to try shorter videos to do a better job of teasing out new audiences and giving them an idea of what's here, while still doing long formats for those who have been convinced it's worth the time. Of course, with every video we learn to get better at producing them as well. Either way, it feels good to know y'all are rooting for us!

1:43:20 Agreed about PBS space-time - their videos are wonderful, but you often get the feeling their purpose isn't to explain the universe, but to mesmerize the viewer with how mind-boglingly inexplicable it really is... In other words: the quest of the scientists is neverending, the goals are infinite, but by all means give us more money and keep giving it... No! Stick to what has substance and don't go off into unprovable theoretical fantasies. If something can never be tested, proven or disproven but simply is because I imagined it, that is the definition of fantasy!

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Bingo

Chris, love every minute of your videos. THANK YOU. I hope your theories prove accurate. They're elegant enough for a mere physics dabbler like me to make sense of. But the really exciting thing would be experimental evidence. Any ideas on experiments in technological reach that we haven't tried that might give your ideas more backing? A gentle suggestion... for me, at least, hearing informationally dense things (the explainer on "contradicular", for example)--while music plays--gets exponentially harder the more similar the volumes are. I'm just one person, but it might be worth a little nudge-down on the volume. One person's distraction is another's amusement, right? Let's call it "attention dilation" :) Can't wait for your next one.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much. I will take note on the sound. As I get into electromagnetism, I think I will have more accessible experiments. But by "accessible" - probably still requiring university lab level equipment.

@ewmegoolies

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain will a casimir device or system be useful in testing your theories about space and time?

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

@@ewmegoolies perhaps, but the casimir effect was seen more as suggestive than proof. However, I might be able to use such a device to measure the effects of other experiments. It would at least be curiosity inducing.

Currently at the 1 hr 25 min - ish mark right before the recap, and I just have to say a lot of the ideas you are presenting here make soooo much sense. We haven't even gotten to your 4th spacial dimension idea but the way you are thinking about established special relativity is mind-expanding. I'm totally on board with this idea of "c" being a real physical dimension. I'm gonna spit some thoughts out just to see if I'm grokking this correctly: - so our current idea of "velocity" is really a measurement of how far apart two things are (hyperbolically) in the "c" dimension. - the way I'm thinking about it is like a Poincare Disc, where the "c" dimension is actually infinite and hyperbolic, but when projected on to our normal flat "velocity" the boundary appears to be at c (the constant). - light is infinitely far away from us along the "c" dimension and therefore always appears to have a velocity of c (the constant). - time as we know it is an emergent property that we experience due the contradicular relationship between "c" and "x", "y", "z". - inertia is simply the fact that things tend to be at rest along the "c" axis - acceleration is motion along the "c" axis, and therefore force is measuring the movement of mass along "c" (e.g. F = ma) - energy then is the measurement of the potential to change something's position along the "c" axis I might be making some mistakes here -- this is kind of difficult to grasp in one go. I definitely want to explore these ideas more because they seem totally consistent with what we know but offer a more sane way of thinking about it. I think you're really on to something though. EDIT: Okay so I think I was thinking of the "c" axis as being equivalent to velocity when it's actually something more subtle and more directly related to time. I'll probably have to watch this a couple times and play with examples to _really_ get it.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

I think you're getting it pretty well with the exception of the infinities. Infinities are basically "error messages" in physics (or should be). I'll try to follow up tomorrow with a better explanation.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

OK, so follow up now that I am back to my computer. "c" isn't equivalent to velocity by itself, the distance you travel/accelerate "contradictular" to space (x,y,x) determines your velocity relative to wherever other objects are at on "c." Regarding the "infinities" - They arise from the problem of "projecting" these 4 dimensions onto 2D graphs. The tangent wave I refer to does in fact have an end point, but it's impossible to represent on 2D. The best way to get your head around this paradox is with this wonderful video by 3Blue1Brown: kzread.info/dash/bejne/lmh5ycSghNCWcso.html Notice in the video how a finite circumference on a circle or sphere, becomes an infinite line when projected onto a lower dimension.

@lydianlights

Жыл бұрын

​@@ChrisTheBrain thanks I'll keep thinking about this. I can see where I got sort of confused. In particular I was kind of switching around the ideas of time and velocity. "c" is still the time axis and velocity is still a function of the relationship between "c" and "x, y, z". However me switching around these ideas did lead me to some interesting thoughts, lol. I think a big problem for me is that while I ostensibly know the math and derivation behind special relativity I'm not really totally proficient with all the details since it's been so long since I learned it. I think for me having concrete math-driven examples is the way I need to go to really understand. I'll definitely check out that quaternion video. I'll definitely rewatch the video and take some notes and try to think through my own examples though. Look forward to your future videos.

Never right on time but never past due! Chris the brain is here to educate you!

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

🤣

Isn't your vacuum sphere experiment a variation on the Michelson-Morley experiment that attempted to measure variations in the speed of light to detect which way Earth is moving through the "aether"?

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

It's testing a different property. I will cover what this experiment got wrong with "aether" - but I can't go into that just yet.

On your point around 46:00 mark about how we perceive time, it seems we actually don't rely just on external cues, but rather, our bodies also have a few internal "clocks". PBS SpaceTime actually made an interesting video related to this. KZread deletes comment with links so I can't link it, but the name of the video is "What’s Your Brain’s Role in Creating Space & Time?" Our brain tells time in part based on the "beat" of brain waves It doesn't change your point much, but I think you could find it interesting. Since I'm mentionning other youtubers, Artem Kirsanov channel talks about neuroscience and is pretty good, and he mentionned how brains perceive time a few time himself.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

100% true, we definitely have our own internal time trackers. I feel like that reinforces the "survival mechanism" point.

Keep up the good work Chris, your new concepts and Ideas are very interesting and refreshing, if you are right in your ideas, then new doors may be opened 🙂

@ChrisTheBrain

8 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Great video, after watching your first few I have been continuing to research more of this, always a fun excuse to improve at math and math is just the universe after all!

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Great to hear!

You said to "use words good", but I think what you should have said was, "to use words goodly" (because it's an adverb). You're welcome. - the only addison

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

😂

@SAMACAG

Жыл бұрын

... Please watch on KZread: Einstein Quiz ...

One thing about theoretical science I thought was weird was that everyone is trying to quantize relativity in order to make it fit within QFT rather than make a quantum field theory which fits within relativity. Almost no one is trying the reverse. I have the feeling that once someone makes a modified/simplified QFT that is built to seamlessly work within our universe, then I think we will move past the road block that is stopping science from progressing.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Nailed it on the head.

@Robinson8491

Жыл бұрын

I do feel (after analysis) entanglement should explain the spacelike area of special relativity, and thus QFT trumps relativity. But yeah who am I to say?

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

@@Robinson8491 I'll hit QFT starting with my next video

@_shadow_1

Жыл бұрын

@@Robinson8491 The problem is that quantum field theory makes some really absurd predictions that don't match what we observe. On the other hand relativity may be a less complete model, but at least it's infinities better match up with the universe's. I am not saying that they got things completely wrong or that it's all got to be thrown away. Instead I'm saying that in order to have any hope for a unified theory or eliminating infinities, they will need to redefine QFT to work on a relativistic framework and not the other way around.

For everyone saying this “makes so much sense” and is a refreshing, down to earth take, I’d like to repeat my recommendation from the last video that you read “Reason in Revolt.” It’s a lesson in materialist (Einsteinian) scientific approach rather than the standard “capital i” Idealist approach. The content is outdated and slightly inaccurate, but the lesson is in the method and outlook which Chris embodies, here.

Can't wait for the next chapter!!

Hi Chris, I'm so grateful for your work. I am also someone who has often felt unsatisfied by the accepted explanations for various phenomena, explainations that seem so entrenched in unconscious and inaccurate assumptions about the nature of the universe. Most relevant to physics, I too have never accepted the assumption of the big bang, and feel that there must be a more accurate, let alone fascinating (and less depressing) truth to the reality of the universe -- rather than big bang and entropy heat death -- that science has yet to seriously consider. I'm curious how you might relate your ideas to the Toroidal Universe theory? Your work is suggesting to me that such a theory, while valuable because it resists this questionable assumption of the big bang, may just be another attractive idea that ultimately rests too heavily on the past and future physically existing, the idea that 'everything that ever was or ever will be exists right now... somewhere.'

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

You know, I just don't care a lot about how the Universe began. To me, it feels like the last piece of the puzzle, and is more of a burden to progress to worry about it. I feel like if we focus on everything else, that is a question that will eventually answer itself. ...that said. If I had a gun to my head asking me to throw out a hypothesis, I'd say it was a "Great Perturbation" - like throwing a rock into a still clear pond and all the mud gets stirred up. Thanks for sharing!

You're a legend brother.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

👊

@the_l0cksm1th

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain Honestly though Mr. Brain, this channel is fantastic. Your ability to break down these complex concepts, while incorporating unique humor, is something to behold. Keep it up man! Keep using those words good.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

@@the_l0cksm1th Greatly appreciated, thank you.

Best explanations on the tubes. Subscribed!

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Woohoo! Thanks!

I thought that when my sister couldn't tell the time as a child, up to the age of about 8 years old; that this was odd. Now I have second thoughts after watching this video! Try telling the time on a clock with no hands.

Hello Chris. Great video once again. This topic is awesome and I'm currently working on scientific theories in exactly this domain of physics. There have been some mindbending breakthroughs that I'm certain you would appreciate. They would fit right in a video like this. The way things are going with the academic institutions these days, I'm hesitant to go the usual publishing route. I'm also thinking of starting a KZread to unveil some of it. Looking forward to seeing future vids from you.

@DKFX1

Жыл бұрын

It should be understood that within the context of special relativity what drives the concept of time at the core is the physical process of electromagnetic waves propagating away from you (the observer) at a relative speed to someone else. This directly translate to a new dimension where vectors of kinetic energy determines the curvature at speed V relative to C as a function of projected rays on the boundry of a 1-sphere from the x and y axes. This is how the relationship of speed and time geometrically exists in the most natural interpretation. This can very naturally be extended to general relativity where a very similar relationship exists co-dependently.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

If you put anything together or online, please link to it and let me know! There are a few people I have found playing around in the same sandbox. I am considering a Discord or something.

@DKFX1

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain Absolutely, that would be interesting and I myself am on discord in certain math and physics oriented servers already, so I would not hesitate to join. I quite frankly believe i'm sitting on what will turn out to be a major scientific breakthorugh, and the work it very progressed already. I just find myself somewhat puzzled about the best way to share it with the world and until I figure out a cool approach I'll keep developing the scientific framework of this new large area of fundamental physics that I've uncovered during the last few years..

@randomizer2240

Жыл бұрын

@@DKFX1 It seems everyone looking into this comes to similar conclusions. It's all to do with electromagnetism, photon-electron interactions, the permittivity & permeability of space. That causality has a speed limit, a field/medium/extra-dimensional space that impedes the maximum propagation of EM radiation. I believe I've seen a few dozen & seems like most of you are describing the same process but just with different interpretions.

@DKFX1

Жыл бұрын

@@randomizer2240 I've not revealed what my findings consist of so I think it would be hard for you to evaluate whether or not my ideas are similar to others. Obviously, these things you mention are important to know about because they are part of the current knowledge base we have gathered from physics, but all these things you list off are very old discoveries from the previous 2 centuries. What I'm working on currently is very fresh unexplored territory, including new math, new dynamics and more.

Shouldn't lag be latency instead? Could be both I guess because we still have to process too.

Dude you're killing it!

I’m laughing more at these vids than I do to most stand up specials. Seriously wish I could like this vid more than once

@ChrisTheBrain

11 ай бұрын

Thanks so much!

Entropy becoming blurred over time is great....

In addition to those uses of the word time you mentioned, there is another in my language (Spanish), for it uses the same word for time and weather (tiempo).

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Great to know, thank you!

dreams give out information, one of mine is that Time has a Spacial Dimension, and Chris is nicely explaining ''it''... best

This video popped up on the main page and I instantly liked and subscribed. What a great effort Chris in dealing with this complex topic. Would watch more of your videos and share your channel with family and friends. Thanks for giving a good Sunday viewing Chris.

@ChrisTheBrain

11 ай бұрын

Thank you!

I missed you. Cheers !

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thank you 🤗

Thank you so much for these deep analysis! Can you please enable CCs (I'm not a native english speaker and I'm greatly helped by subtitles)?

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thank you, I will look into that

@Unmannedair

Жыл бұрын

KZread also offers automatic language translations in the closed captions. It can also auto generate a transcript, except you'll likely find that it struggles with jargon and non standard words.

I have been saying for a while now that if you are not moving in space, you will be moving at C in time. In fact, I believe at all times we are always moving at C. If you are moving (relative to space itself), you are using some amount of C in velocity and losing an equal amount in time. Add them up and you will always equal C. This assumes that it is possible to become completely stationary relative to the fabric of space itself. While I believe this is absolutely possible, I don't know if it's something you could ever measure and be certain of. Perhaps you could make small adjustments to velocity and with a sensitive enough instrument, see if time has slowed or sped up. Eventually, you would reach a point where time cannot go any faster, at that point you should be at absolute zero velocity relative to space and be going C in time.

@ChrisTheBrain

11 ай бұрын

This falls under the realm of "accepted science" (although not many understand it) - yes, we are always moving at "the speed of c" it's just distributed between x,y,z and c.

can't wait for the next chapters

Your expectation of the mini Dyson sphere experiment is incorrect, though still a good experiment. Because of time dilation, there could never be a measured difference in the speed of light. But what you CAN measure is a difference in frequency. So if one direction is red shifted and the other direction is blue-shifted, then you know that there is a velocity difference shifted from an absolute point. But if there is no shift, then either there is no absolute point, or we are already at the absolute point. The problem is that this has already been done and much more simply. You already know it. It's the Michelson-Morley experiment, which is currently being conducted on grand scales in all directions, and none have ever detected such a shift except when gravitational waves were detected. Such shifts would also be detected when trying to slam single particles together at a collider as the particles would miss each other because of the shift, but such shift never occurs. That gravity waves have been detected from millions of light years away proves how sensitive these instruments are. So that argument would fail. Also, the reason they don't do it millions of times is because the power required to calculate a single photon's information is immense, then they have to collate the data, which can take weeks. They can at best do the experiment twice a day at any facility while a hundred scientists collate the data.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

If you look at the example I showed from Arvin Ash, you can see that there is a difference between the Doppler/shift effect, and the timing perception. Red shift and blue shift are caused by changes in energy. Gravity increases the energy it takes to travel between two points. The original assumption of the Michelson-Morley experiment was flawed. What I am proposing can never be tested in a "straight line" or even a bent one. It can only be tested along a circular curve. Add'l: The "return trip" - converging back at the center point kinda canceles out the variations as well.

@Dismythed

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain Arvin's example requires an observer in a different reference frame. In what you are suggesting, the observer would have to already be in the absolute frame to detect the shift. Therefore the experiment would be moot. The change in energy is caused by changes in momentum which is caused by changes in velocity. That is why galaxies moving away from us are red-shifted and those moving toward us are blue-shifted. The velocity has simply been transformed from forward movement to rotational frequency. (The person who solves that conundrum will get a Nobel Prize.) In what way was Michelson-Morley flawed? I'm not sure how a curve makes any difference. We are traveling on a planet whose gravitational field is curved, is curving on its axis, is curving around the sun, is curving around a galaxy which is curving around a local cluster. (Though we are currently on a straight trajectory through Laniakea.) Not to mention, that the original Michelson-Morley experiment was conducted on a rotelle. So the point seems lost.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

@@Dismythed "galaxies moving away from us are red-shifted and galaxies moving towards us are blue-shifted" It's more complicated than that. If that was the whole story, cosmology wouldn't have a problem. But yes, each sensor in the sphere would represent a slightly different frame of reference due to Earth's motion. The key is using very small bursts of light, like a picosecond, not a stream of light. The original idea behind the Michelson-Morley experiment was to test to see if light interacts with the "aether." It didn't consider the possiblity that light IS the aether (basically what we have now as Quantum Field Theory). This might be the first topic I need to cover in a "clarification" follow up.

@Dismythed

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain Yes, I agree with your motion summary of galaxies (Brilliant diagram and graphic, by the way, so kudos to the sis), but the shift is measured by the average of the light of the galaxy. The shift is very specific to movement. (Though I suspect that their positions from where they first emitted the light may not be accurately reflected by where we receive them.) Photons are packets. You don't measure it with time frames. You measure it with intensity. The Michelson-Morley experiment was a failure in proving the aether, but a success in proving that photons travel at c regardless of direction. Also QFT is cautioned by many QM physicists not to be taken as the reality, but as an indicator of something not yet known. It is just a way of measuring, not the reality. The idea of quantum fields as energy waves is only conjecture. We don't know what it is. That you say that quantum fields are light I believe is based on the recent highly conjectural paper that talks about how gravitational waves could be turned into light with math equations. (Though closer inspection reveals reliance on another one of the author's conjectural creations: gravitons, but as stationary transferrers of energy instead of moving between objects.) This is based on the assumption that gravity is a field. This is just my analysis, so it may seem haughty, but its just an analysis.: That you have so quickly bought into the "fields are light" idea without a wait and see attitude marks your methodology as haphazard. Some of your ideas are well thought out, but others are merely associative or you put the cart before the horse as above, as well as you seem a bit behind on modern tech (Galactic fluid simulations are already a thing). But you have a good mind and I think if you apply some of your skepticism to your own ideas, you will fair better. In fact, the video was decent up until the Dyson sphere. After that, it seemed to jump the rails for a lack of self-evaluation. However, I must thank you for turning me onto focussing on dimensions in my own work. I have found many interesting features of dimensions that help solidify and explain the standard model. I am honored that I inspired your first explainer for this video.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

@@Dismythed Well, you are obviously trying to be helpful and productive, and have a background understanding of all this. So I should either be able to persuade you of the merits of my experiment, or realize the flaw for myself. Either way, I will follow up. Also, hook me up with galactic fluid simulation if you are aware, pls.

Always looking forward to your vids man. You have a natural talent for transmitting your INTUITION if a given subject, not just your understanding of it. The music was a little loud, but I had the munchies and new headphones so..

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Thank you! Noted on music.

Awesome!

I love your rants. These videos makes me want to understand physics more. I'm really enjoying them.

It's funny because I love PBS Space time, but I get annoyed at how technical he gets about very very specific things. Some of his topics I simply can't understand.

What makes Relativity equations so difficult to grasp is that they are written for a temporal dimension plus three spatial dimensions. They keep invariant the Lorenz transformation: (dτ)² = (dx)² + (dy)² + (dz)² - (dt)² where τ represents a fourth-dimensional distance, or interval, between events, x, y, z represent spatial coordinate distances between the said events, t represents the usual temporal lapse between the said events, and d represents a differential interval of the variable it prefixes. But the same invariant can be expressed as (dx)² + (dy)² + (dz)² = (dt)² + (dτ)² This tells us that the differential three-dimensional spatial distance, squared, between events is the same as the differential two-dimensional, with temporal coordinates t and τ, distance, squared, between the same events. And, if differential distances, squared or not, are the same, so are distances, up to a constant difference between them. Thus: Euclidean (non- curved, flat) 3-D spatial distance = Euclidean 2-D temporal distance + constant We animals are not aware of the temporal coordinate τ because its value is negligible for the kind of events, namely non-relativistic, to which we and our ancestry have been exposed for the duration of neuronal evolution: our brains only recognize a one-dimensional line of time, that of t. If our lives had happened in relativistic scenarios, even if just occasionally, we would have a relativistic, two-dimensional, sense of time and all the weirdness we currently perceive in relativistic conditions would be absent. And relativity equations would state 3-D spatial and 2-D temporal relationships like the invariant Lorenz transformation above. So, time seems not to be one-dimensional but two-dimensional. Between any two ordinary spatial positions, we can trace a straight segment: the non-relativistic ordinary time direction. Or two orthogonal (perpendicular) segments, if such a distance were traversed at a fixed relativistic speed. The first of the two segments corresponds to perceived time; the second, to the time dimension we can't perceive, whose length grows with distance to travel and with speed. Then the ordinary spatial distance forms a rectangular triangle with the two temporal lapses, the 90⁰ vortex always in a semicircle whose diametre is the said distance, the triangle's hypothenuse. The greater the speed, the more the perceived time segment's direction deviates from the above-mentioned straight segment and the greater the second time coordinate's measure. The limiting speed c corresponds to a zero-length ordinary-time segment at 90⁰ to the straight segment, then fully corresponding to the second time coordinate: the minimum time required to physically traverse the above-mentioned distance. Trying to represent the second time coordinate as a distance (interval) between two four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime points, called events, results in the hyperbolic relation mentioned in the video. I think my geometric representation, always in flat Euclidean spacetime, is simpler and easier to understand. Pity I cannot show an image, worth better than a thousand words. Edited: wrong word substituted. Text added.

Out of all the physics related content I consume, I felt compelled to leave a comment. 1. Cool desk. 2. I like what you're doing and that you're putting yourself out there, it endears one to the content. 3. I appreciate the vocabulary. 4. If your audience tells you to get a patreon, you don't let them down. Patreon isn't so much about you and your ideals as it is the needs of the giver/ member/ content consumer.

@ChrisTheBrain

9 ай бұрын

Much appreciated. I do want to get a Patreon going, I just want to make sure I can commit to offering the "patrons" something for the support.

@HUSTLE_MONEY

9 ай бұрын

@ChrisTheBrain I was a little pushy in a comedic way, but I do believe my point merits consideration. Imagine the scenario where you've created content you're happy with and believe deserve some monetary reciprocity. I consume the content and move on to PBS space blunder without entertaining the thought of becoming a supporting member. People are cheap, frugal, darn near unfair consumers of others life work if they can get away with it for free. My point is that you don't have to worry about providing value "enough" to justify. We decide that. I'm not 100% sure I would join, but you may be at the top of the list for consideration. After years of consumption, i finally became a supporting member of NPR. After a partial video of yours, I wanted to become a member. It's not about the future. As you put it, that's a human construct. It's about what you've done for me now. You have endowed so much value as to get my cheap ass writing a long response comment detailing my frame of reference on the quality density of your work. I think that most of us greatly value the fact that you have not only saved us from looking like fools in repeating that garbage that permeates youtube but being less knowledgeable about a subject we cherish. We seek to know the true reality, imagine the pain of seeking that truth only to buy less truth, to buy needless fantasy and magic. All of the entanglement, double slit, and twin theory embleshments have nothing on the real nature of these things. Moreover, a more urgent need to study the proofs and grapple with the math is painful evident. In the vein of those thoughts is the need to support an honest contrarion.

@HUSTLE_MONEY

9 ай бұрын

@ChrisTheBrain I do get your point. It is a personal decision, and one might feel pressure to produce if you're getting compensation. I get it. My good, Sir 😀

@ChrisTheBrain

9 ай бұрын

I get your point too. Working on it.

@HUSTLE_MONEY

9 ай бұрын

@@ChrisTheBrain When I first looked at your videos it seemed somehow less polished, I was drawn to that. After watching them; however, I was quite mistaken. Tons of post production, pre production planning. Very time consuming. It would take a small % of your subs to help you financially. Think outside the box? Find another way? It's really, really good content that isn't concerned with click-bait and gimmicks. Just a thought and I'll leave you alone about it. You think about physics, I think about business and investments. 🤔I just said something there but not sure what. My brain will think on it. Thank you.

"Some of your listeners were not watching, just listening". What do you expect with a 2 hrs video? It's that or getting asleep while watching.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Well, obviously I was expecting it. 😉

@lydianlights

Жыл бұрын

To be fair this is basically a college-level lecture. I think it deserves full attention if you want to understand it and not just be entertained by it.

@Akira-Aerins

Жыл бұрын

​@@lydianlights Both? Both? Both. Both is good.

Side Note: the best way to build a Dyson Sphere is not to make it the size of Earth's orbit. Instead, make it much smaller, such that the gravity of the contained Sun is 1g on the outer surface of the sphere (a radius of about a million kilometers. Living space is inside the shell (maybe 100 km thick). So it needs vastly less material than a traditional Dyson sphere. It's basically a huge space station with a star inside.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Oh yeah. Materially speaking, the original idea is very inefficient. I just couldn't resist such a ready available source of exposition from Star Trek. I also like the idea of an "incremental sphere" where we just deploy orbiting solar collectors as we can build them.

@ewmegoolies

Жыл бұрын

You just created another Isaac aurthor video 😄

Chris... Thank you for sharing your 'Journey'! I call it a 'Journey' because it really is a journey, albeit intellectual. You asked questions in a way no-one else has and actually looked for the answer. It's this combination of events that lead to what we call genius. Einstein had a 'Journey' that he shared with the word, and we all know about it today. I have also had my own 'Journey' related to 'Dark Matter' and I'd love to share it with you since you've had the experience of a journey yourself. I think mine might have an additive effect with yours. Consider this an open invitation to reach out to me as you see fit to share ideas. Again, thank you so much for your work.

@ChrisTheBrain

Жыл бұрын

Hi Richard, you can send information/contact info privately by going to christhebrain.com and filling out the contact form. Thank you for the kind comments.

Chris, awesome job. Clear, understandable. I would ask for a video on quaternions. You probably could make them something I could grasp.

@ChrisTheBrain

11 ай бұрын

Thanks! I will cover quaternions during my chapter of electromagnetism.