LOL! I couldn't help but burst out laughing when I saw the quote from Einstein, "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore."

@hrsmp

Жыл бұрын

He just wasn't that good with math. Einstein learned tensors from Marcel Grossmann. If he didn't, there would be no general relativity and nothing to invade. So kind of stupid comment. Also special relativity was invented by Poincare, another mathematician. Dirac was much better with this and a better physicist too even though he was technically an engineer by degree. Another example of otherwise very bright person who just wasn't into math and therefore hated it would be Richard Feynman. Those are exeptions though. Since 1970's, unless you working in something like condensed matter, you have to learn at least some algebraic topology.

@vasile.effect

Жыл бұрын

But when did he understand it ? When his relativistic universe contracted from its own gravity, or when he introduced a cosmoillogical constant to make it steady ? Or when he removed it to make it expanding, altough innitially he understood that it was contracting under its own gravity without that constant ?

@JanPBtest

Жыл бұрын

@@hrsmp Keep in mind that at that time (1905-1915) differential geometry (then known as "absolute differential calculus") was very much unknown to almost everybody except a few mathematicians. So Einstein was by no means an exception: this was the rule among physicists back then. In fact, such basic considerations of the geometry of the Schwarzschild solution as the nature of the horizon were not understood by physicists until 1920s.

@KabelkowyJoe

Жыл бұрын

Obvious statement for a plagiator who copy and pasted everything he released, who followed the trends even if this contradicted his previous statements. There is no theory of relativity. Functionally it was still lorentz aether theory with poincaree math. Every frame of reference is valid until i say otherwise.. speed of light is constant, until is variable..

@JanPBtest

Жыл бұрын

@@KabelkowyJoe Everything you say is incorrect. You are free to create your own theories but you cannot alter facts.

Poincaré’s writings “Science and hypothesis” and “Value of science” and “Science and method” are absolute master pieces. Highly Recommend

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

Well said!

@maeton-gaming

Жыл бұрын

Ken Wheeler pointed me in the direction of Poincare's disk model possibly being the correct model for how magnetism works. Absolutely eye opening and amazing.

@TheLuminousOne

Жыл бұрын

listen dawg, Poincaré didn't care. That's just a fact.

@jackwhitestripe7342

9 ай бұрын

sir can you make a 3 page sum of that book in pdf format

For those people wondering whether to watch this video... The section beginning at 22:50 is really interesting and agreeable to any physics perspective. Every revolution in physics is associated to a reduction of the number of constants of nature: 1. Newton: Gravity g and G are related 2. Electrodynamics: e0, mu0 and c are related 3. Thermodynamics: k and rms v are related. Very interesting and had never pondered this.

@yash1152

Жыл бұрын

thanks a lot

@rahulvats95

Жыл бұрын

Few months ago I was wondering about the same thing, what if we haven't found Gravitational law, we might be studying planetary motion through empirical equation with variables raised to some powers and some constant and these equation would vary for various planets and systems. But just because we have a law all such equations are unified in harmony.

"Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little. It is only its mathematical aspects that we can discover." - Bertrand Russell

@noumenon6923

4 жыл бұрын

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” - Albert Einstein

@rclrd1

3 жыл бұрын

@TheAbstraction He did _far_ more in his long life than _Principia Mathematica _ (which turned out to be fundamentally flawed not a complete "waste of his life")

@LarsOfMars.

3 жыл бұрын

*stares blankly at telescope survey data...

@ramang5400

3 жыл бұрын

Nature does not mathematical, philosophical, spiritual , quantum etc aspects. Nature is pure and simple it is. In oir thirst to understand it we formulate mathematical formulae each formula attempting to fathom a microscopic part of nature, metaphysical explanations. It is human pride to say, after writing out a formula which tries to encompass a miniscule part of it, that nature obeys mathematics. .

@ramang5400

3 жыл бұрын

Correction Nature does not have mathamatical laws to obey nature is nature,. It is human pride to say, having formulated a mathamatical formula to try to understand nature, formula encompassing a miniscule part of nature, to say that nature obeys mathamatical laws. Mathematical laws are miniscule attempts to understand a miniscile part of nature, or God or Brahman

This is basically the only video on youtube criticizing Minkowski space-time. I wish this was a more popular topic.

@arctic_haze

5 ай бұрын

Yes, this channel is the fringiest fringe you can get.

@destroya3303

5 ай бұрын

@@arctic_haze Great I hate most of the mainstream crap. It represents decades of stagnant physics which have yielded 0 practical results. What was the last real world problem that the alleged discovery of quarks resolved? Any advances in nuclear engineering as a result? No? Oh well look at that.

@jonathanhockey9943

3 ай бұрын

It is criticised a lot in certain circles of philosophy of science, in relation to this presumption of a block universe. Search about issues for the block universe ontology, for this is effectively the ontology that MST leads to. The block universe is deeply problematic, and dismissing such criticism as "fringe" often seems to be the most reasonable response you will get out of the blockheads who go along with current science trends without applying their own critical reason.

@arctic_haze

3 ай бұрын

@@jonathanhockey9943Yes but this is not physics-based criticism. Minkowski's space-time is a necessary tool in General Relativity. By the way, I did some checking on the channel owner and he is a fraud. Sorry to say that but it's true.

@destroya3303

3 ай бұрын

@@arctic_haze But GR isn't truly an improvement on Newtonian gravity. It helped with some orbital calculations, but at the expense of explaining gravity near Earth's surface (i.e. the fundamentals of Newton). A new addition to our understanding must not undermine basic fundamentals. GR also introduces too much fanciful and vague concepts. "Space bends light" or "space changes the direction of a moving object". Space historically is empty, so it's like saying "a ghost bends light, a ghost makes the object change direction". It's not properly conceptualized from first principles of any known physics and makes no attempt to create a proper physical model for what this "space" is (from what I've seen) .

Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants, that's why he saw further. In other words, the birth of the theory of relativity could be compared to when the finished parts of an engine are lying about on the floor of a car repair shop, but no one knows how to assemble them. And then came Einstein...

@rl7012

6 ай бұрын

Even then you are over crediting Einstein. Einstein's real genius was in his self promotion.

@user-io4sr7vg1v

3 ай бұрын

​@@rl7012It is likely that Einstein had little to do with the promotion. He was the performer. 🎉

@Discoverer-of-Teleportation

Ай бұрын

mercury precision was due to barycentre of solar system and light bend due to refraction of stars liquid/plasma midium

@Discoverer-of-Teleportation

Ай бұрын

universe follows Newton rules not Einstein and Einstein copied E=mc2 from previous scientists & pasted in front of world 😂😂

Interesting video. It's a point worth considering: if c wasn't treated as a factor for translating time into spatial units, people might well be more open to the idea that it is a variable quantity.

@kensandale243

2 жыл бұрын

"Interesting video. It's a point worth considering: if c wasn't treated as a factor for translating time into spatial units, people might well be more open to the idea that it is a variable quantity." It is quite clear you do not know General Relativity.

@soheil527

2 жыл бұрын

@@kensandale243 he stole ideas from poincare and wrote horsehit about time dilation

@linuxp00

Жыл бұрын

Think about it. Every instant that passes more space is created, conversely, as space expands, the time flows, also, events don't have and specific order, they happen a sequence that depends only on your velocity relative to them. So, space and time are some kind of dual structure. As mass and energy, particles and waves, electricity and magnetism. That's what I believe.

@jonathanhockey9943

3 ай бұрын

I think the problem is that light is effectively part of the dimensional framework in special relativity. It would be a bit arbitrary like varying our standard of measurement for the meter, say, by some other unit of length and imagining it has physical significance. We need some accepted standard or the curvature/distortion has nothing to be a distortion relative to. By measuring geodesic deviation relative to assumed straight standard of light speed which we presume as steady based on some universal physical law, we are able to measure distortions within one coherent framework that all observers can agree upon, if we vary light speed, we have no standard of straightness we are agreed upon, and so making different observers perspectives coherent will be likely impossible, for what universal physical principle of straightness as our standard bearer, could we all appeal to in this case?

”Things evolve, therefore I am.” - Time

@humboldthammer

4 жыл бұрын

WE (you too) have been tasked with the progressive perfection of Man Kind, God's composite of unique individuals with ascension promise, even if it takes us all 6,493 years remaining in Abraham's 10,000 year Covenant (after Moses renegotiated, face to face as a friend, and some years are not counted.) Mankind includes all of us; from the first human pair, unto the last man or woman, and for those who pass the faith test, into the afterlife, we are ONE Creation. Potentially, everlasting. For the individual, self-mastery is a worthy goal -- especially with an expanding sense of self as a potentially, everlasting child of God. Exercise faith -- to get in shape for the Awakening -- because the Vernal Equinox of 2030 marks the beginning of the 3rd, 1000-year Day of Heaven, since Jesus taught us that ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS, and we have been told Sooner! There's an Epochal Eclipse April 8th 2024, when more shall be revealed to those with "eyes and ears." Don't stare at the sun; there will be no physical manifestation of this spiritual event. Speak with thy God thyself, to get in shape for the Awakening. Only NOW exists. The Past is merely the records of previous nows; the Future, merely predictions of 'Nows' that may or may not come.

@VeganSemihCyprus33

3 жыл бұрын

Talking about evolution: kzread.info/dash/bejne/d4CeybasZ6Wsc5c.html

@jakelabete7412

3 жыл бұрын

I change my mind, therefore I think.

@bipolatelly9806

3 жыл бұрын

"stuff happens, therefore I am." -Time

@nobigbang825

3 жыл бұрын

"I am nothing but memory of the deluded" - Time

It's intriguing and at the same time reassuring that physicists are questioning the fundamental constants of nature with the public. General public always gets it as thus says the all knowing scientists even though they don't mean it. So when the public asks why and I don't mean just childish rhetorical whys but the reasons behind things like space itself, matter itself, movement itself, they are not treated like idiots or dismissed with smirk. Thank you Prof. Unzicker.

@helifalic

4 жыл бұрын

He thinks time can't be tied to 3-d space because our brains conceive of time and physical space as different phenomena. Unbelievably small minded, it's like saying the Earth can't be a ball because the horizon looks flat to our eyes.

@hareecionelson5875

Жыл бұрын

@@helifalic ALso, time and space are used together all the time in every day situations

@0626love

Жыл бұрын

@@hareecionelson5875 Time does not even exist. It is merely a sequence of matter in 3D space which motions (relative to all other parts of matter) depend on the matter itself (gravity, etc.). So, using time as a 4th dimension is an unnecessary dimension added in as a circular logic.

@hareecionelson5875

Жыл бұрын

@@0626love And yet using time, more specifically ict, as a coordinate in 4D hyperbolic space yields accurate predictions.

@0626love

Жыл бұрын

@@hareecionelson5875 That is because we know the relations between those sequences. :) There is no time as a separate entity. It is just relationships (affected by matter influenced by itself), to put it really simply.

Big respect to the DPG that they allow a talk such as this at their meeting. There is a small but non-zero probability that new insights are coming from people who are not formally educated in the field, so I find it impressive that the DPG takes that non-zero chance and accepts such a talk. Having said that, I do not think there is anything of value in this talk. Unzicker simply understands only a fraction of what he is trying to argue against. _Postulating_ that it is a "denial of reality" to "glue" space and time together, and arguing that nature "has no reason" to do so - is totally unscientific. It is in the tradition of Mach, who denied Boltzmann's statistical mechanics because he did not believe in the existence of atoms. The concept of a "variable speed of light" may be useful for some problems regarding weak gravitational fields, but it is (at most) an approximation to the full Einstein theory. For example, it would probably not be able explain difference in time between clocks at different places in a gravitational field, and it would certainly not be able to explain light paths that are "one-way", e.g. leading through an event horizon. Nobody takes the time dimension as "imaginary", it is only in the _metric_ and there only for _flat spacetime_ that this is a possible mathematical formalism, however it is not very much used, the metric tensor concept is simply a much more powerful formalism.

@Xsiondu

5 ай бұрын

You're using words I don't understand. And since I don't understand them I'm gonna take it as disrespect. You wanna fight me . Right here in Best buy? I don't have any home training so I'll fight you in this fine retail establishment.

@dvoiceotruth

4 ай бұрын

@Chr15T You have the astray-ed mindset which clearly shows itself. What you don't understand or calculated yourself is that your (and the world's) celebrated GR formulation ironically flips the strong field approximation with weak approximation. So, I see your argument everywhere. The problem really creeps up somewhere from the foundation which this man is trying to show. I commend this!

@Chr15T

4 ай бұрын

@@dvoiceotruth I don't understand. Please elaborate. What are the observable phenomena or conceptual contradictions where Einstein's theory fails, and what is the improved new proposal? This is the ONLY accepted and acceptable scientific way of formulating new theories. See Feyman's short talk about "the nature of physical law", it can be found on youtube.

@dvoiceotruth

4 ай бұрын

The theory never fails in its 4-5 oft-repeated predictions that is the problem, it just becomes handicapped for further probing. it won't hold up its merit in 'real strong field' predictions and unfortunately those are out of reach for experiments right now The same 4-5 results and a few approximations, here and there, which offer some advantage over plain Newtonian results (in cases where the two are comparable). If something improves Newtonian results doesn't mean it is 'relativistic' in SR sense. The case here is that there IS a 'geometric' enhancement/elegance of results from the Newtonian but those are not truly relativistic (SR sense). if we celebrate the geometric in the name of relativity, Physics will be behind for a couple more decades. The Schwarzschild factor blows up in what GR regards strong limit. This is akin to a particle with a newtonian velocity parameter able to reach the speed of light in SR. This we call the weak field limit sort of thing in SR (Special Relativity) @@Chr15T

@jonathanhockey9943

3 ай бұрын

So you think atoms exist then? If so, Is that not a bit bizarre given that since the Rutherford model of the atom was undermined in relation to quantum theory, the whole notion of atoms as micro planetary systems was exploded in favor of the notion of standing waves, and wave-particle duality. These days it seems a bare husk of atomism is just affirmed with no support from the science of quantum theory. Either this or there is a strange compartmentalisation between the "physical" atoms of statistical and classical mechanics and the standing, probability waves of quantum mechanics. The whole philosophical project of logical atomism also failed. These things were not understood or resolved, people just stopped trying to understand them as I guess it got too difficult, and instead just started affirming the current scientific paradigm. We need some independent standards for assessing the claims even of science, otherwise it just becomes lazy and overly sure of itself, and settles into an all too comfortable paradigm that is never adequately criticised. If the argument instead is that it's not about whether atoms exist or not, its about results of experiment, then this would be a positivist direction actually deeply akin to the spirit of what Mach was aiming at, but also deeply flawed as we saw with the failed attempts of logical positivism. We cannot separate out experiential results from our conceptual and theoretical assumptions so neatly as they had hoped. Where then does that leave us? On the variable speed of light, I am also unconvinced, but when you actually look into the philosophical debate and try to be consistent rather than compartmentalising different areas of physics or merely dogmatically asserting the existence of entities that there is no basis for you find many issues for the current paradigm, and particiularly for MST which has paradoxical consequences when we consistently associate it with its ontological conclusion of the block universe.

Adding time as 4th dimension is one of the biggest disaster in physics.

From my experience, this guy is right on, not only in his analysis of the physics but in his understanding of why the errors persist.

fantastic talk. thanks!

Thanks for the video! Greetings from Iceland!!

Thank you

Maybe if we look at the speed of light more as a rate of induction versus a speed ….

Time is not a spatial dimension. It is a metaphorical one. Time = distance/speed making it a relationship.

The real reason for this presentation comes at the very end, when it is revealed that Mr Unzicker has published an article proposing "variable speed of light" instead of the currently mainsteam thinking of constant c (with some empirical measurements to back it up). I would suggest that a better way of getting support to your thoughts is to present evidence and reasoning to support your theory rather than discredit the people who have been instrumental in developing the current mainstream thinking.

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

Science is not about being kind to each other. If the standard model is flawed - the basic reasons have to be told.

@johnm.v709

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Sir, Have you watched kzread.info/dash/bejne/oKKf2NGCeN3agNo.html And if you wish to understand basic state of universe watch IJSR vol.7, issue3, pages273-275

@YutakaTaniyamasFeels

3 жыл бұрын

I feel it is also important to understand the flaws in thought. Many times the flaws are derived from offhand comments from those we build our thoughts upon.

@harjeetsingh27000

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian I completely agree with the point that light speed is variable. Apart from your paper, there is a different approach which proves the same and has some testable predictions as well. Can we have some discussion on that? Sent you an email from hsharjeet720@gmail.com

@CulusMagnus

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian This is not a point about science, it is a point of communication. If you want to communicate effectively, you ought to be kind

Nice video which prtovides the fundamentals related to Relativity... Is there any book authored by H. Minkowski

So, to someone in a vessel in free fall towards a high gravity `source' the speed of light would not change, but for an outside observer the speed of light would be changing, right?

Excellent video.

Thanks for this video! You raise many interesting issues. On the topic of the gratuitousness of the Minkowski spacetime diagram, you might appreciate the work of philosopher Joe Cosgrove (Providence College), especially his relatively recent book: Cosgrove, J. (2018) _Relativity without Spacetime_. Palgrave Macmillan And he's published a number of papers that orbit the subject. In physics proper, Lee Smolin has of course been hammering on the problem of the spatialization of time. Speaking of the over-mathematization of physics, I presume you've seen Sabine Hossenfelder's channel (KZread), not to mention her book.

Not a single deep thought, not a single careful analysis of basic physical concepts.

@VeganSemihCyprus33

3 жыл бұрын

This is deep: kzread.info/dash/bejne/d4CeybasZ6Wsc5c.html

@BrettHar123

3 жыл бұрын

@@ati3414 He is not a crank, presentism is a viable model of the world. Julian Barbour has constructed a 3-space model based on what he calls Shape Dynamics, a modification of General Relativity, with general covariance in three dimensions as well as local Lorentz invariance, evolving in a Hamiltonian formulation (arbitrary t parameter). The theory has gravitational time dilation, which means that the rate of change varies continuously across the 3-space, and massless fields still travel at c, and all local Lorentz transformations hold. The speed of light in a vacuum is still fixed, in accord with every experiment since Michaelson-Morley. This doesn't prove that c is fixed, just that current experiments are not sensitive enough to find any dispersion even in gamma ray bursts which have travelled over 10 billion light years. By variable speed of light, he means the curvature of light rays due to gravitational fields, I am assuming you know the difference between speed and velocity Barbour, J, Foster B. Z., O'Murchadha N., "Relativity without Relativity" arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0012089.pdf Anderson E., Barbour J., "Interacting vector fields in Relativity without Relativity". arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0201092v1.pdf There is only a three dimensional present, but every point in space has its own duration measure, and integrating back, every point has a different time since the Big Bang. It is experimentally indistinguishable from GR at present, but it does not have "The Problem of Time", in which the same operator that evolves three-space, can be cancelled by a general coordinate transformation, which results in a frozen time. It has a defined present, there is no past or future, and it is compatibable with the evolution of quantum mechanics. If you somehow think that you are conscious now, and Aristotle is conscious 2000 years ago, and Zork is conscious in 10 years time, when you meet Zork in ten years time, who are you talking to, a ghost from his past, because he is still conscious ten years in the future? As I write this, it is a week later than when you wrote your comment, and we meet you will also be conscious of the same present as me. Otherwise if everyone has their own personal present, then no two people will meet in the same present. Those who deny the present as some sort of illusion, also deny our subjective experience of time. The only thing which is strange, is that although there is a single present, but there is no single time, and due to the finite speed of light, the present is unknowable.

@sshawnuff

3 жыл бұрын

25:10 Maybe Minkowski is also responsible for buggy enumeration functions in modern text processors

@MrDoodleDandy

3 жыл бұрын

This is just a quatch getting attention over other people's work, clearly only visited wikipedia to take screenshots, and sees himself as an eye of god when on stage as he grabs the attention using dark psychology of scape-goating a voice from the past that cannot answer in this monologue controlled hallucination this man is in; thinking he understands Richard Feynman when he statet "Science is a culture of Doubt, Religion is a culture of Hope". Well this man is in camp hope, hoping to see what these people have seen whilst discovering and applying universal "beliefs" of how quantum space-time relate to each other. He says so himself; it takes a long time to figure things out, and by just patronizing the words of the unique people of ages, he pushes himself to a certain "eye of god" that is actually worth-while to listen too. Oh ps, Unzicker's Real Physics... What kind of physics would need the name REAL applied to it; that's totally relative in space-time

@dankuchar6821

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly. He spouts a bunch of stuff, but backs nothing up with observational evidence. Not really a valuable talk.

time space. as it is everywhere. which space we are going to explore?

10:18 But isn't, say, Hamiltonian mechanics using similar abstractions? To describe for example 3 particles, it uses a 6-dimensional space which on top of that behaves like an incompressible "fluid". So in what way is Minkowski's idea so different than Hamilton's?

The part of mach principle honestly blew my mind, thanks a lot for your talk, I think that modern physics ignores very ofter its phylosophical fundamentals and that leads to two problems, first is a wild west of speculations about its subject that leads nowhere because they ignore the fundamental ideas in which the already tested theories are built and second, to focusing too much on their desire for an idea to be true instead of the empirical experience for it. I like when someone puts into question basics notions in a deep and profound way, thanks a lot.

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks. Indeed, one can learn more from the old papers than from the modern stuff.

@luis5d6b

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Very well said.

@luis5d6b

3 жыл бұрын

@Shimmy Shai In relativity de causality is determine by the space time interval, which determines de space time relation between things events, maybe I am wrong but the description you just made of Mach's principle makes me think of it.

In regards to the question of cosmic tension, there are the bosons as force carriers and whether they are manifestations of gravity. Photons/photinos have electro-gravitic properties, while neutrons/neutrinos have electro-static (no gravity) properties. Thus photons have gravitational lensing with light speed, while the smaller photinos have gravitational capture with variable light speed. Neutrinos and neutrons have no gravitational attraction to anything, thus light speed through 30 light years of steel with no interaction. New discoveries have found multiple levels of physical matter, also have their counterpart bosons with the electrino-level, electron-level, muon-level, and tau-level. With Higgs bosons (said) having the possible 2 levels of existence, then a tau-boson and a muon-boson (having half-neutron and half-photon properties) they would have portions of gravity interacting with the space-time fabrics and the levels of physical matter. These then would be the source of (variable) cosmic tension, as tensor bosons. In the search for (said) gravitation waves from a specific source, this answer would be a no, as the gluons have a portion in sapce-time fabric, while electrogravitic physical matter of smaller particles would have small gravity in space, as would the boson hybrids of 1/2 electro-static and 1/2 electro-gravitic properties would have a portion of gravity, ... and the cosmic tension of tensor bosons would have a portion of gravitation. So looking for specific gravity waves or a gravity field from a specific particle or particulate leads to a false research project. One will NOT find a clear gravity wave from a gravity object, unless you can have such advanced engineering and technology down to the graviton-level and then be able to differentiate between all of these many levels and variety of objects having full or half gravitational properties. And such study would only confirm our geolocation at the end of the galactic arm having this quantitative value, while it would be vastly different near a galactic core of higher density, higher energy, and higher tensor boson objects.

With the discovery of gravitational waves from binary netron star mergers in 2017, wouldnt this and mergers of Supermassive black holes with waves way too big for our detectors cause all light to travel much longer distances than flat space and therefore redshift linearly from distance on its way to our observatories. Thereby a factor in tired light theory?

Wow! This totally helped me with a model I'm working on. H and C don't have to be constants? Oh, boy. It all fits!

The idea of varying speed of light works for a far observer of a gravitational source. For such an observer, a light falling into a black hole will take longer to reach the event horizon, however, locally, the length along the radius is elongated, so locally, the speed of light is the same. So yes, this idea can work if correctly used, however, the theory will be equivalent to ordinary General Relativity. The challenge, however, is to locally describe the field that the "mass" generates such that a far observer will see a lesser velocity without the use of Ricci curvature.

@dubistverrueckt

2 жыл бұрын

Yes because "ordinary" General Relativity yields the same result, not just for falling but deflected light rays at perihelion (lol a friend and I calculated these a few weeks ago for fun and to learn how this stuff _actually works_ ). The problem is that Unzicker's version is _more_ contrived -- not less -- than GR, and all due to the dread that gravity is nothing more than spacetime curvature (or more precisely that there's no gravity _only_ spacetime curvature). He's as bad as the physicists he criticizes because they, too, abhor GR and claim to have a better theory (they call theirs "quantum gravity").

@eytansuchard8640

2 жыл бұрын

@@dubistverrueckt Unzicker's idea is correct in the coordinate system of a far observer. Not sure it is simpler. It seems equivalent to GR.

The difference or asymmetry between space and time becomes clear if we start considering the concept of speed. We measure speed in terms of time

I noticed the Ernst Mach picture of water in two vessels. The water is flat in one vessel, but it is curved and crawls up the sides in the vessel that is turning. When I first looked at the turning vessel picture I thought the picture showed a vessel with a hole in it. Could we get the same phenomenon as happens in the rotating vessel by putting a hole 🕳 in the vessel and attaching a vacuum to it to accelerate the leak? What about a rotating vacuum, or a variable vacuum?

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

There is no hole. The point is that the friction of the walls drags the water along, then the level at the walls rises. Thus, the rotating vessel "feels" what is rotation, defining an absolute reference system. Then Mach wondered whether this unaccelerated frame was determined by the distant masses in the universe.

@kallianpublico7517

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian You get the same behavior whether you rotate the vessel or rotate the water. I'm just wondering if you would get the same behavior using a vacuum and a hole. A slow leak might have a miniscule effect like this, or none whatsoever. Are you saying that under no conditions would you get the same behavior of the water climbing up the sides using a hole and a vacuum? Any size hole and any strength vacuum?

@atheistaetherist2747

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Mach was correct. Gravity is due to aether tension, & that tension needs the mass of all stars in our cosmos (but i wouldnt say that it needs the mass of all stars in our infinite eternal universe).

Very pleased to discover at last somebody interrogating the scientific trends of physics and its consequences. We just spend too much money to find proofs of non sensical théories. The leads that could help knowledge are far less sexy and are very difficult to fund.

How can you separate Time out from Space Time ?

If we could wind back the clock to a meaningful save point, what year would we be in? Is it possible to restart physics from that point?

@subliminalfalllenangel2108

Жыл бұрын

Maybe in 1905, when Einstain first submitted his PhD thesis of GR. Edit: ok, even winding the clock back to 400 years might not be even enough to solve this issue

@raycar1165

Жыл бұрын

1947 specifically June 2-4 The Shelter Island meetings.

Hi Alex, Can you include the Q&A session for your presentation please?

@TheMachian

4 жыл бұрын

This is the Q&A session :-)

@guytech7310

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Yes, but I figured the conference Attendees would have some interesting questions than I could not think of. :) Some of my opinions: 1. Don't think inertial is caused by gravity, but likely the permeability of space (Mach Theory of Inertia). Consider that the magnetic fields have impedance to change (ie acceleration) at least until a magnetic material saturates. Issue I see with gravitation causing inertial is that it appears constant no matter how much gravity there is is (At least perpendicular to the large mass providing the large gravitation field). 2. Permeability of space may also be the limit for the speed of light (ie saturation of space to permit light to travel any faster). Gravity may impact the permeability as light appears to travel slower near large masses. If permeability does have some merit, then there would be a constant, but it would likely super-cede G & C, since likely would be derived from a permeability constant. This constant could be composed from the dielectric constant & or the the magnetic permeability constant.

@chrisdistant9040

3 жыл бұрын

@@guytech7310 haha, maybe someone in the audience was actually a physicist and took apart his presentation. We'll never know!

This guy is idiosyncratic to put it politely , Minkowski helped greatly with the mathematisation of Einstein’s ideas about general relativity ,thereby he made a great contribution to physics, and the title is just clickbait.

@TheDavidlloydjones

2 жыл бұрын

Minkowski's version of "space" is certainly dominant. An infinite number of directions are replaced by three "dimensions," and then time is tossed into Pythagoras with a negative sign, and here we are. The problem is that while it all works to 24 decimal places it fails right away when it bumps into the two-slit experiment. Einstein's Universe, our current view of the world, is deeply useful and elementarily incorrect.

Like many other people, Unzicker is so convinced of his own infallibility that he doesn't think that his slides need to be proofread by someone else before they are presented in public.

@phumgwatenagala6606

2 жыл бұрын

Who gives a fk? I’m sure everyone understood the words being used - idiots focus on these basic things and criticise others because that’s the lowest hanging fruit and they can’t reach anything higher. “He saiD isT isSteAD of is, hahaha imaGinE beINg so DuMb”. So you keep grabbing the lowest hanging fruit, good job. 👏

@tensortrain1621

2 жыл бұрын

Presented in public… from the applauding in the end you can hear that he is talking in front of 3 people. 😂😂. So much to the impact of this guy. He doesn‘t give any physical arguments anyway. His slides are just full of quotes.

@autisimusprime4328

2 жыл бұрын

That’s because you cannot prove something new peer review. Because if you can’t compare your discovery to something already existing then the discovery is not true. It’s called fascistic conformity which is anti science. And there for peer reviewing is a circle jerking of assholes who constantly agree with each other with out question.

@tttzzz1957

2 жыл бұрын

If u like this stuff i suggest Mythos weltformel by jochen kirchhoff. Both selfconvinced Idiots from the political right edge that seem to have a Problem with Einstein being jewish and try to top every Single physician of the 20tiest Center with psychotic conspiration theories

@TheMachian

2 жыл бұрын

Reißen Sie sich gefälligst zusammen, sonst haben Sie ganz schnell eine Anzeige wegen übler Nachrede und eine Unterlassungsklage am Hals. Wahrscheinlich auch von Herrn Kirchhoff.

It seems that reference to a transmission medium is needed. Considering magnetism: Would negative and positive charges having the same spin generate fields with opposite directions, possibly because of differences in pressure wave systems that they may generate? It may seem that it could be so but that it isn't necessarily so. Would negative and positive charges having the same spin generate fields with the same direction, from their angular momentum alone, not from charge? It isn't easy to say that it must be so. From bubble chamber results for pions: Do the results show that neutral pions decay typically into opposite charges with opposite spins that circulate in opposite directions in the magnetic field? Did researchers model proton-antiproton collisions as having a pair of like spins, leading to the assumption that collision jets were produced by W and Z particles, which then, according to that model, took away a unit of angular momentum? From such an assumption, has it been believed that proton-proton collisions, obviously having opposite spins, also produce such W and Z particles?

Time is an emerging property of space so it certainly deserves a dimension.

are you saying that poincare was the first to derive the lorentz transform

@yanair2091

4 жыл бұрын

No, he is saying that Poincare was the first to put them in geometric terms.

(Correction). Light is NEITHER electro-magnetic NOR a wave. Light is electro-gravitic (EG). Light is a particle and not a wave. Photons as (EG-EG) particles (high energy, light speed) and smaller EG-EG particulate photinos (smaller energy and variable and less than light speed) have a small core of gravitons. They undergo (the former) gravitational lensing and escape, while (the latter) undergo gravitational capture and orbiting. Neutrons/neutrinos are electro-static (ES-ES) objects, having no internal graviton core, fly around and through gravitational fields without attraction, deflection, or capture. Light is a particle, and not a wave. Bosons as force carriers, gauge and scalar bosons, and cosmic tension (tensor bosons) ... are composed of both half electro-static (ES) and half electro-gravity (EG) properties. They are half ES electron - EG positron or EG electron - ES positrons, They have half (ES-ES) neutron-like and (EG-EG) photon-light-like light speed or variable light speed (depending on the amount of inherent energy of these multiple-levels of objects). They are force carriers, with the half-gravitational properties of photons, and thus bosons are carrier waves and force carriers of electrons/positrons or smaller electrinos/positrinos along their internal graviton carrier wave. Thusly, bosons are the only particles (and smaller particulates) having carrier and gravity waves aspects. Bosons also dislay their half-photon "light" properties as "glow," but these boson hybrids are not photons as light particles (and light speed). Photons - electrogravitic, light speed and variable light speed, gravitational lensing or gravitation capture. Photons are light particles, and no waves. Neutrons - electrostatis, light speed, no gravitational properties or attraction. Particles and the smallest of any discernable waves. Bosons - electro-static-gravitic hybrids, force carriers, tensor and gauge bosons, having small light particle glow. Bosons are BOTH particle and wave properties. ONLY bosons as ES-EG (or EG-ES) hybrids are the duality of the false and misleading Hegelian question of ... is light a particle or a wave. Bosons are BOTH. Photons are particles. Neutrons display the minimalist of waves. False concepts destroy and keep physics from obtaining true discoveries from false questions, bad words, bad word definitions, bad and false 2D models with further false drawings and their extrapolations.

I think there is a big elephant in the room that was activly avoided to mention. The success of Noethers Theorem which gave quite a good reason to go for a 4D Spacetime model instead of variable c.

@TheMachian

4 жыл бұрын

Hmm... no. Noether's theorem is fine, but it doesn't explain why nature appears in such a particular fashion of 3+1 dimensions.

@Techmagus76

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian My point was that Noethers Theorem give a strong correlation between physical properties and mathematical mainly topological properties. So using a topological modeling which would keep all that correlarions and just describe a curved spacetime seems alogical decision especially for a group where Noether and Riemann worked. Did the variable c theory has something identical to the Lense-Thirring effect? I really does not know so i ask as this seems to be in reach to be measured or ruled out in a foreseeable amount of time and could then be used as an indication which model should be preferred.

@aniksamiurrahman6365

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian I'm not a physicist sir. But to me, 4D space-time always seemed to be just a convenient coordinate, nothing else. Does this interpretation makes any significant change?

@narek323

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Yes it does. Noether's theorem is a statement relating symmetries to conservation laws, and in relativity, there are numerous conservation laws. The most appropriate law in this case is the invariance of the spacetime interval. You cannot get this invariance with a variable speed of light, and a spacetime in which space and time are related by a Lorentz transformation. The treatment of space and time on equal footing is implicit in Maxwell's equations. Without that property, you cannot have a constant speed of light. Based on numerous meticulously conducted experiments, the speed of light is constant in every reference frame, hence, you must have space and time as functions of each other, rather than absolute. I assume that you have an issue with this, as you mention the constancy of c in your video. But if Galileo was right, then Maxwell was wrong, because his equations would depend on the reference frame. You are channeling the Aristotelian way of thinking, which gives certain position or time coordinates too more merit than others. If you are okay with Noether's theorem, then why do you have a problem with 3+1 spacetime?

@dankuchar6821

3 жыл бұрын

@@Techmagus76 Except there's not any experimental evidence for variable c. It's just an idea that doesn't have any data or observational evidence to back it up. Kind of like string theory. Ultimately, physics must rely on observations.

I am not sure to whom the following statement should be attributed: "No one has experimentally created, nor even imagined how to physically create, an inertial system of reference."

Could you do a program on Abdus Salam.

PHYSICS AT THE EXTREMES (too fast and/or too small) IS JUST GOOD OLD PHILOSOPHY. At the untestable extremes everyone can have an opinion; just read all these reactions :-)

everything moves all the time, speed of light cannot be constant in time and in geography, I guess, but how to measure such changes?

I saw a video a while pack talking about variable speed of light in flat space. They made prediction that gravitational waves would have different polarization. There was also mention that LIGO was modified to try to detect the difference. I haven't yet seen any news if LIGO has managed to detect any anomalies in the polarisation.

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

I think that there are even more serious problems: medium.com/swlh/gravitational-waves-the-silent-disaster-ab18857c68f8

@atheistaetherist2747

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Praps LIGO can get a 2nd Nobel, this time for proving that GWs do not exist.

Thankyou

If Minkowski was wrong, then E is not equal to m c-squared.

You cannot even conceive of space without time. You cannot perceive time without space.

@noway8233

3 ай бұрын

Thats not treu at all, at a Math level yuo can build Anything , but in ower reall word its make sense to think in 3 spatial dimensions + one time dimension , becouse we experiment that everyday.Yuo cuold esey build 1 ,2 3, n space dimension cordinate systems , like a 2 dimension world , like a plane , but yuo always need the time dimension if somehing move (speed : distance/time)

@keithtaylor6188

3 ай бұрын

@@noway8233 That is math dude , physics is differnt. I have built predictive models with over 10 dimensions, but we also learn to avoid overfitting so we try to reduce the number of dimensions thus reducing complexity. Spacetime is different, they are intertwined, In the reality of the physical world, we cannot measure one without a change in the other. We cannot measure distance without a tick of a clock and conversely we cannot measure time without advancing across distance.

Space-time is a hybridisation of space and time into 1. Just as the eye hybridises 3 dimensions into 2 by projecting 3 dimensions onto a 2 dimensional plane.

16:47 No, it's not "underestimated". The reason the variable speed of light (or refractive medium) approach is not used in general is that certain geometries (notably, the Kerr geometry) _cannot_ be formulated in those terms. The Schwarzschild geometry can, but the Kerr geometry cannot.

@TheMachian

4 жыл бұрын

Many people, I am afraid also you, judge theories according to whether they are compatible with known formalisms. Yet the ultimate arbiter is observation. The variable speed of light formulation of GR is in perfect agreement with all tests.

@JanPBtest

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian It's not around a rotating body - that was my point. This means simulating GR with a refractive medium is impossible. You are welcome to come up with another theory replacing GR, of course. But if you introduce a medium, you'd have to pull out all QFT stops to get there because any traditional medium leads to all the usual late-19th-century difficulties, chief among them ensuring such medium cannot support longitudinal waves. This was deduced from experiments even before Maxwell got his equations, and many big names tried to describe such a medium: Navier, Cauchy, Poisson, Lord Rayleigh, etc. All media constructed that way were extremely exotic, with properties simply cooked up to obtain the desired results. So yes, it did work, but it wasn't good science.

@ati3414

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Err, this would also imply dispersion according to frequency (like a rainbow effect) in the presence of a gravitational body bending the light waves. Which does NOT happen.

@user-dialectic-scietist1

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Yes, but speed of light we know from law of Snell bends and changes velocity when passes through media with diferent consistency and this has nothing to do with the space and time bending by e mass. So in e Universe full of matter with different consistency, if someone investigating the bending of light with no respect to Snell law even if he is Einsein, and his math are giving at the end correct result this means only one thing. A math cooking, a fraud. I don't know if a mass bends space-time sheet, and light bends because falls in this hypothetical bending but the law of Snell end the chaing of light speed because of the passing is e fact.

@user-dialectic-scietist1

4 жыл бұрын

@@JanPBtest The medium exists is all material and is stars winds, dust, neutrinos and so many other particles that create material in space, and full of it but with a different consistency. Not like the Ether of the end of the 19th century, but like this that the two Voyager probes continue to describe. See the site of NASA about that and even the Sun's magnetic field with bigger and biggers gaps between, reach their positions. The gaps are because the Sun's field is produced by an impulse and isn't constant. So you see my friend just to these distance everything is occupied by, let say, Sun's atmosphere. This atmosphere like the Eart's one has different in content probably like the Earth's in layers. And every physicist knows what happens to the speed and the direction of light when passes through layers. It bends and changes speed. Snell's law and Maxwell's for the electromagnetic wave. I think light is also something like that, waves of moving energy pieces that we call them photons.

Kennt jemand das Mathematik-Buch von Courant und Minkowski?

Biggest question is whether space fabric (and distance) creates the time dimension ... or whether gravity (gravitational objects) create(s) the time dimension. The time problem was solved with satellites at high elevation with lessened Earth gravity on them, showing that there was a recognizable time difference (no matter how small), ... and all the issues of light speed travel life ... and conventional life aging faster (on a planet's gravitational properties). So this would propose that gravity is the source of distance and time, not the space-time fabric. This then gives credence that light speed photons and neutrons/neutrinos do not age ... like other particles in a gravitational field or light speed gravitational lensing and escape ... while smaller photinos with variable light speed having gravitational capture but slower aging ... (or particulate/particle matter destroyed in a black hole). So, if humans occupy space, with 0 gravity, do they have minimalized aging on the space station, ... or with man-created gravitational properties (Star Trek Enterprise all floors have their individual gravity, these people would age.) Having an Arthur C Clarke rotating space station (centrifugal force and no gravity), people in space would age slower, (depending on whether they also reside at a LaGrange point (Earth, moon, and Sun equal gravitational region) or orbit around a gravitational object (space station around the Earth).

@johnlord8337

5 ай бұрын

Admsittedly, (it is said) that gluons in special conditions can display mass (gravitational attraction) and gluons make up quarks, which are the foundation of all space-time mesh fabrics, then space-time does have a very small gravity, but not like greater physical matter (made up from gravitons). So up/down quark space-time fabric has smallest gravity factor, while charm/strange fabric has a higher gravity factor, and top/bottom fabric has the highest gravity factor ... but not anywhere near physical matter gravity, Up/down space-time fabric is more predominant in our location at the end of the galactic arm, with less charm/strange fabric, and minimalized top/bottom fabric. At the galactic core, there would be maximum top/bottom fabric density (and cosmic tension), with minimal up/down fabric.

Much needed rethink of the blind worship of the new absolutes, such as the speed of light being the speed limit of the universe. Needless to say, it is ridiculous. And Minkowski's transformation of distance into time multiplied by the square root of -1 is simply unprovable.

Re-evaluation of GR should have begun 50 years ago, when science stopped progressing. It is obvious that physics took more than one wrong turn, following the discovery of electricity; but we are interested in understanding the turn that eliminated all possible others. You can locate it by checking if it requires the principle of cause and effect in order to be explained.

@dankuchar6821

3 жыл бұрын

? What are you talking about?

@RedTriangle53

3 жыл бұрын

The success of a scientific theory is not evaluated based on our ability to develop more accurate theories afterwards. And science has not at all stopped progressing. After the discovery of electricity, science has advanced in leaps and bounds to accuracies that used to be inconceivable. Quantum field theory, a theoretical framework which requires all the modern physical concepts you seem to discredit, is the most successful scientific theory of all time by FAR. And it has opened countless possible avenues of further investigation. We are not in the slightest painted into a corner, in fact things are looking better than ever before with respect to the future of physics. The only difference now is that in order to probe the physics more accurately, we need more and more sophisticated experiments. The difference between an experiment-lead science and a theory-lead science is that If there is an abundance of unexplained experimental data, theory just has to explain it, which is a lot faster process than having a lot of theoretical possibilities with scarce data to use to determine which is most accurate. Before we eliminate possibilities we cannot use the leading theory to predict further experiments in order to get better data and repeat the process. It used to be that a few relatively simple experiments provided profound data that required new models to explain, then the leading models would quickly lead to further methods of falsification, which again were relatively easy to adapt to experiment. Simply put, the bottle neck in physics at the moment is politics. Funding, resources, feasibility, strategy. Theoretically we have perhaps the richest diversity of possible, often beautiful candidate theories(even potential theories of everything) we have ever had, and this spawned from the theoretical and experimental/observational success of special and general relativity.

@solank7620

3 жыл бұрын

RedTriangle53 The problem is politics. In the absolute opposite way you claim. Junk science is funded. The stuff that is funded will lead nowhere. Massive government over funding is exactly what has broken and corrupted academia and the university system.

@solank7620

3 жыл бұрын

RedTriangle53 Also the public shouldn’t be exploited to pay for all the crap. They are exploited enough, and the assholes demanding more exploitation are *never* satisfied. They always more rent extraction, more rent seeking vampirism. As the common man gets devoured.

@RedTriangle53

3 жыл бұрын

@@solank7620 I am not sure what junk science you are referring to. But physics is frankly underfunded compared to the long term economic benefits of improved technology. It's baffling how miniscule the funding of physics is compared to the economic growth which has occurred thanks to it. It is essentially the best investment of all time.

Mach's comment that all objects have inertia across the cosmos - should be properly rewritten as matter has potential energy (PE) of the first stable cup, while the second drawing shows what appears to be an external force rotating the cup, which would be an external kinetic energy (KE) acting upon the STILL potential energy of the cup (!). So many drawings and words with word definitions have wrong implications,

The only way I could make peace with the Twin Paradox was by thinking geometrically in 4D spacetime: Objects propagate through spacetime at fixed speed c. Traveling spatially subtracts from traveling temporally. Pick any frame (Minkowski diagram rotation angle), and measure the lengths of any two paths that start together and end together (like the twins). The longer geometric path spent more of its propagation cycles traveling through space, so it has fewer accumulated time cycles. Acceleration is indirectly involved as the only way to get other than a straight path in one frame. How should I update this?

@peterrobinherbert

Жыл бұрын

No need to update it. We can understand the Twin Paradox, as you said, by thinking geometrically in 4D spacetime. And the result has been tested experimentally. Although physics is obviously incomplete, it seems we can't do without 4D spacetime.

@lowersaxon

Жыл бұрын

@@peterrobinherbert Where, when and how was the Twin Paradox tested?

@stuartl7761

6 ай бұрын

@@lowersaxon They flew an aeroplane around with an atomic clock, and it's time differed from on that stayed on the ground by the amount predicted by general relativity

Being focused on current events is an evolutionary advantage, bub. It's just human to do that.

Three types of relativity: Aristotle relativity, (absolute space, one preferred frame of reference exists, variable speed of light), Galilean relativity (equivalent inertial frames and variable light speed), Lorentz relativity (equivalent inertial frames of reference, c is constant in all inertial frames of reference). Ludwig Lange was the original introducer of the ‘equivalent inertial frames’ concept, which is useful. An inertial frame does not accelerate/rotate with respect to other inertial frames. Galilean relativity runs into troubles: variable light speed contradicts the idea of frame equivalence, thus remains Aristotle’s absolute space and Lorentz’ relative space. I think Aristotle was/is right. Special relativity can also been viewed as a ‘low speed approximation’ of Aristotle’s relativity, in stead of the other way around, see Alfred O’Rahilly’s critical review book on electromagnetism, which explains why Dirac could use SR in QM. E = Mc^2 can be derived via classical electrodynamics in Aristotle absolute space, no need for SR magic here.

We all criticise things which we don't like. But if this dislike is coming out of incompetence in understanding then I think there is a problem.

@TheMachian

2 жыл бұрын

I see your critique :-)

A response to each conclusion: 1. A fourth imaginary dimension is necessary to go from a sphere to a hyperboloid. 2. I agree that space and time are different phenomenon. 3. Spacetime can be replaced by projective geometry which is Euclidean space with points at infinity and beyond. 4. c requires a fifth dimension that is electromagnetism. 5. 3 + 1 imaginary dimension gives a good model of quantum particles on an elliptic plane (sphere) projected onto a "two sheeted" hyperboloid for Minkowski diagrams.

@ovidiulupu5575

Жыл бұрын

Events are fundamental so, Time and location are conected. Events must be some quantum sistems like microspaces with internal Time. Local Time depends on corelated quantum microspaces. Infinit realityes are present but not în faze.

@edwardgalliano9247

Жыл бұрын

@@ovidiulupu5575 the two-sheeted hyperboloid becomes a Minkowski diagram if the radius of the elliptic plane is zero. The problem is i think the speed of light is the radius of the elliptic plane R=c and the confusion is that the Minkowski Diagram shows events frozen in time where c=0! Further the elliptic plane is flat making quantum objects on it at the speed of light mathematically. Then we have the Minkowski Diagram with the plane traveling vertically through time at the speed of light. The hyperboloid was conceptually a kind of complex degenerate space having the imaginary dimension vertically that can be converted to the diagram showing special relativity is merely a result of Doppler shift.

Space and time are different, yet space necessitates time in order tc move between points, and time has no purpose without the points of space. The further away a point is, the more it becomes time. The closer the point, the more it becomes space. But space and time are different units.

@jensphiliphohmann1876

4 жыл бұрын

The different units are not an argument. You could decide to measure vertical distances in ft and horizontal ones in m, so you had another constant which you need to combine them e.g. if you want to calculate the actual length of a ramp. I believe universal constants are an artefact of the system of units.

@santerisatama5409

Жыл бұрын

Point reductionism is silly, as moving from point to point in space of infinity of infinitesimal points would take infinite time, making any and all movement mathematically impossible. The point reductionist nonsense about "real numbers" is thus just Zeno on steroids.

@every1665

Жыл бұрын

I like that idea!

I have a holographic model without using any space-time assumption.

While I completely share author's irony about unverifiable concepts and plain speculations, like string theory, black holes, etc, attacking Minkowski's (well, Poincare's) formalism looks like an act of Luddite to me)) This is one of the most acurate, robust, yet comprehensible tools in physics. Yes, it is not intuitive, yes, you have to train your brain to deal with it, but it does reveal the beauty of the universe. Just look at how it simplified Maxwell equations! Or related energy to mass and momentum! And if you are after eliminating another fundamental constants, you got it: 1/c is just a natural scale of time! ))

@superneenjaa718

5 ай бұрын

The last sentence is absolutely retarded. If you start with one constant and left with one constant after your mental gymnastics, it's still one constant. How can someone get this wrong? Unbelievable

Why was Kelvins knot model never applied to the particle zoo? Quarks and knot crossings seem to have an obvious correlation, and then you can probably toss the strong and weak forces

@TheMachian

4 жыл бұрын

Knots are interesting, nut it is not easy to assign them to fundamental phenomena. i don't believe stronf and weak forces are reasonable concepts.

@EtherDais

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian I think there is a pretty direct association one can find but getting the math is not trivial. Writhe has some association with charge creation and mass comes from 'complexity'. Unknot ~ photon, linked photons~ neutrino, a Mobius 'belt' and it's mirror associate to electrons and positrons (see Williamson and van der mark's work ), the trefoil knot and it's mirror map to protons and antiprotons, the figure 8 knot maps to the neutron, being without writhe it is without charge. The figure 8 knot is its own mirror, thus the contention that there is no anti neutron. More complex knots form the unstable zoo elements (taus, xi, etc), which decay into these simpler stable states. Tying the electromagnetic fields to three knot topologies isn't easy, but the correlation seems to be pretty good. Quarks become a misapprehension of knot crossings, and you can toss all the gauge particle nonsense right out, assigning more useful models to each zoo particle quark-free! I admit it is hard to visualize without really playing with some knots, looking at photos, and studying fundamental measurable particle dats

@EtherDais

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian I guess what I was trying to say was that this approach validates your claims regarding strong and weak forces, they disappear as fog

@PrivateSi

4 жыл бұрын

Because it's unnecessarily complicated and nonsensical in practical reality.

Recently, I stumbled upon the following Wikipedia text that considers Minkowski's 4D spacetime as real entity and that we consider the two as separate because the speed of light is what it is, otherwise we would clearly perceive spacetime as one physical phenomenon. What is your take on this? "General relativity is a theory of the nature of time, space and gravity in which gravity is a curvature of space and time that results from the presence of matter or energy. Energy and mass are equivalent (as expressed in the equation E = mc2). Space and time values can be converted into time or space units by multiplying or dividing the value by the speed of light (e.g., seconds times meters per second equals meters). A common analogy involves the way that a dip in a flat sheet of rubber, caused by a heavy object sitting on it, influences the path taken by small objects rolling nearby, causing them to deviate inward from the path they would have followed had the heavy object been absent. Of course, in general relativity, both the small and large objects mutually influence the curvature of spacetime. The attractive force of gravity created by matter is due to a negative curvature of spacetime, represented in the rubber sheet analogy by the negatively curved (trumpet-bell-like) dip in the sheet. A key feature of general relativity is that it describes gravity not as a conventional force like electromagnetism, but as a change in the geometry of spacetime that results from the presence of matter or energy. The analogy used above describes the curvature of a two-dimensional space caused by gravity in general relativity in a three-dimensional superspace in which the third dimension corresponds to the effect of gravity. A geometrical way of thinking about general relativity describes the effects of the gravity in the real world four-dimensional space geometrically by projecting that space into a five-dimensional superspace with the fifth dimension corresponding to the curvature in spacetime that is produced by gravity and gravity-like effects in general relativity. As a result, in general relativity, the familiar Newtonian equation of gravity F = G m 1 m 2 r 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle F=G{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}\ } \textstyle F=G{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}\ (i.e. gravitation pull between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them) is merely an approximation of the gravity effects seen in general relativity. However this approximation becomes inaccurate in extreme physical situations, like relativistic speeds (light, in particular), or large, very dense masses. In general relativity, gravity is caused by spacetime being curved ("distorted"). It is a common misconception to attribute gravity to curved space; neither space nor time has an absolute meaning in relativity. Nevertheless, to describe weak gravity, as on earth, it is sufficient to consider time distortion in a particular coordinate system. We find gravity on earth very noticeable while relativistic time distortion requires precision instruments to detect. The reason why we do not become aware of relativistic effects in our every-day life is the huge value of the speed of light (c = 300000 km/s approximately), which makes us perceive space and time as different entities. "

@RexxSchneider

2 жыл бұрын

The reason why space and time are considered "interchangeable" is that the quantity x*x + y*y + z*z - c*c*t*t (where x, y z are the differences in the three spatial dimensions between two events and t is the temporal difference between the two events) is always the same, when measured by an observer in *any* inertial (i.e. non-accelerating) frame. Two observers moving relative to each other at a constant velocity may disagree about each of the values x, y, z, t that they observe, but they will agree on the value of the quantity above. Consequently, that has led to a popularisation of a 4D model, as if x, y, z and t were equivalent apart from a scaling factor (c) on the time dimension. But they are not. The invariant quantity has a crucial minus sign before the term in t. That means that the base vectors of the 4D space would be x, y, z and ict - where i is the square root of -1. That makes t a very different thing from the spatial dimensions, and it gives me considerable sympathy with the view that Minkowski started a ball rolling that has led to a lot of wrong-thinking over the years. There is no 4D space-time; not even a (3+1)D space-time. At best it is a (3+i)D space-time, and the distinction is very real.

Rupert Sheldrake has given a talk called The Science Delusion where he presents that the "constants" aren't constant.

@humboldthammer

4 жыл бұрын

I prefer Einstein's equation in this form: E/C = MC Energy, slowed to the speed of light, equals Mass, accelerated to the speed of of light. Thus, Mass and Energy are two expressions of the three-phased Dialectric -- Electricity -- Magnetism. All of our notions of Gravity, particles, and waves, are in need of adjustment. The very model of the atom, needs to be revisited with this new light. 1/Phi^-3 -- that's the reciprocal of the cube root of the Golden Ratio. It helps to define and to reveal "counter-space," and the Unified Field Theory.

@chrisdistant9040

3 жыл бұрын

Actually, now that you mention it, there is similarity between Sheldrake and Hunzicker. Both present bold claims with absolutely no arguments or evidence to back them up. But I think Hunzicker makes you take longer to realise it, so good on him!

@Dan-gs3kg

3 жыл бұрын

For example unstable isotope decay rates are not constant, and follow a seasonal cycle, and correlate to CME. Going in the other direction, you can personally cause this effect with ELF and ULF.

I am now very confused. Is the constancy of the speed of light in all non-inertial reference frames now upended and dead? Help me out. I thought that was now an axiomatic concept in physics.

@kiq654

Жыл бұрын

It isnt but we know everything by age of 5 is also false yet happends. We measure speed of light as constant to us. Meaning it is constant to everybody in our vicinity and us . Meaning measure something base value and change c all you like, i prefer using visual eye

@peterrobinherbert

Жыл бұрын

It's not upended and dead. It never existed in the first place. It was never an axiomatic concept in physics. Rather the postulate says that the speed of light will be measured the same by all *inertial observers* it doesn't say anything about non inertial observer. General relativity begins with the idea that an accelerating observer will see light taking a curved path and will therefore measure a changing velocity. However this guy is obfuscating. Measuring a variable speed of light does not imply a variable c

15:18 I dont understand what the spinning water bucket has to do with understanding gravity. Isnt that the centrifugal force at work ? When you spin the bucket you create a rotating mass and a displacement of water from the center to the edges driven by the centripetal force. So when it hits the bucket at an angle, it tends to go up on the bucket, because the bucket has an inverted cone shape i.e. a slope which allows the force vector to dissipate upwards. If you take a cylinder shaped bucket with straight walls the effect wil not be the same (if any). The displaced water will be pushed from the wall back to the center with an equal and opposite force to the centrifugal force. Which is the centripetal force. So what does have to do with 'all masses in the universe' ?

@lowersaxon

Жыл бұрын

Hmmm, yes!

@aneikei

4 ай бұрын

The slope of the bucket's wall has nothing to do with producing the concave shape of the water.

At between 10:30 and 11:10 you are absolutely correct. It is a denial of reality and is just playing with math. Real physics is Aristotelian in its logic. Every answer is there in the behavior of matter and EM. Something can only be A or not-A. If it is A it is non non-A. If it is false, it is not true and vice versa. Any truth established outside the basics of Newtons Laws of Motion and the lowest math that describes the motion, i.e. the fundamentals, equations for mechanics, motion and kinematics and other similar terms items that are the fundamental truths, including measurement; is unlikely to be the truth. A mathematical model is not the truth. Even Einstein in his GR postulates, said about the remarkable property of the gravitational field to accelerate all objects equally, If we modify the coordinate system, we can create the gravitational field. This is not reality. This is the creation of math. This is nonsense and not physics.

Just like partitions in numbers we have different space time. Leading to minkowski space.

As a theoretical physicist, I also advocate that students of physics should only be exposed to experiments, not dictated by theories, which should be considered by researchers.

I go with an absolute clock. Light travels from subspace field cell to subspace field cell in a constant time gravity (and dark energy) causes subspace cell size/gap to shrink (and voids expand) so absolutely light travel more or less distance in each tick so is absolutely faster or slower respectively. However, all subatomic processes and thus all measuring techniques are equally effected by the gravitational field so C always MEASURES C locally, even though absolutely it varies.. -- This compaction/expansion of the field as a gravity well gradient is mirrored by a body accelerating / decelerating, with the subspace field squashing more and more locally as velocity increases. There is gradient from front to back of the object.. Mass dilation is due to conservation of energy. As light has to travel shorter distance as cell size/gap reduces in a gravity well or as an object speeds up strong force bond circuits (tiny magnetic field loops) get longer (cross more cells).. This is where the bulk of mass comes from, the strong spin force. It's the same force responsible for magnetism, with conservation of energy meaning and the fact aligned atoms mean shorter internal paths for the magnetic loops, resulting in an externalised magnetic field. This does not affect the measurement of mass of the magnet, even though some of its mass is now technically extended outside the object. -- These magnetic field line are very thin (perhaps only 1 Planck Length). They effect the subspace laterally as streams of subspace cells loop through the close-packed, tight subspace field of old charge balls.. Only energy patterns and electron (down quark) / positron (up quark) focal points move with the particle. When a flowing DC subspace magnetic field loop energy pattern moves to the next load of cells the previous looping cells go back to stationary, balanced field when the energy pattern passes, with the next load of field cells instantly accelerated to C until moving on. blah, blah.. it's all physical and simple.

@StephanBuchin

Жыл бұрын

🙂

@PrivateSi

Жыл бұрын

@@StephanBuchin .. It was kind of a nice idea, the absolute clock, and may have some merit but I've simplified the electron and positron model to out of place cells and the excess -ve gas 'hole' left behind forming a swirling -ve gas pump.. streams flow in then bounce out at right angles and spiral out at all angles when stationary, or with 90' perpendicular bias caused by motion or a magnetic field line hitting it spinning the charged particle away at 90' to magnetic flow. -- Magnetism is spin aligned particle's -ve gas flowing in the same direction, directly from particle to particle, instead of spiralling out before being pulled back in, with conserved energy meaning the circuit is projected outside the material . Chirality may come from the fact positrons occupy gaps between field cells and electrons occupy a field cell. It's path of least resistance to form the spin bias at 90' but chirality is still a mystery to me really... It's a fun mind model. -- Gravity is still a -ve gas density gradient of expanded space the deeper into voids you go, causing a total charge and field cell density gradient too... Each electron has 1 quanta of -ve gas trapped away from the rest of the universe that has rebalanced, expansively, outwardly so does not want it back. Each positron attracts 1 quanta of -ve gas away from the rest of the universe at all times (though not the same gas, it just borrows what's closest locally.. I now have protons as 2 half neutralised positrons and neutralised central electron as a trapped ball of compacted space in a (multi-shelled?) bubble.

The really important question is this: can we accurately measure the variable velocities of light, if we may assume them to exist?

@TheMachian

2 жыл бұрын

Since time and length scales adjust accordingly, it is not that simple. However, the bending of alight ray is already evidence for a variability of the speed of light. Shapiro time delay is another.

@dennisbrown5313

Жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Not really; bending of space/time also accounts for it. The issue is which makes better predictions and GR wins and variable speed does not. See Red shift, space dragging and an interferometer (lack there of any indication of speed variation depending on frame motion.)

Presentation tip: NEVER just read off the slides. Extra negative points for turning away from the audience. Even more for putting Wikipedia pages on your slides.

I’m assuming he has the slides shon on the podium, but he still continues to turn around and look at the screen. Something that really detracts from the presentation.

Reality is subejctive, we only tune the radio to what we want to listen to.

But when exactly did Einstein understand general relativity ? When he predicted that the universe contracted from its own gravity, or when he introduced a cosmoillogical constant to make it steady ? Or when he removed it to make it expanding, altough innitially he understood that it was contracting under its own gravity without that constant ? I mean, if I make a theory which in my understanding predicts A, and then non-A, and then the opposite of A, at which point can I say that I understand it ?

You should relabel the title of this video to *"The seeds of stagnation".*

@annaclarafenyo8185

2 жыл бұрын

The video should be called "I don't understand dimensional analysis"

@rubenanthonymartinez7034

2 жыл бұрын

@@annaclarafenyo8185 I think it should be called "the absurdity of tensor analysis" , A bridge too far, or should I say, a dimension too far, is destined to failure!

@candidobertetti27

Жыл бұрын

​@@rubenanthonymartinez7034 And you're using the GPS of your smartphone exactly thanks to that.

Don't you wonder sometimes about Sound and Vision?

I honestly recommend for almost anyone to read "The Evolution of Ideas in Physics" by Einstein and Innesfeld (sp?). It is a very accessible book.

@jakelabete7412

3 жыл бұрын

It's 'Einstein and Infeld' if anyone cares.

@antondovydaitis2261

3 жыл бұрын

@@jakelabete7412 Thank you. I was doing it from memory.

@honved1

3 жыл бұрын

@@antondovydaitis2261 well Einstein was a leader “innesfeld”

I love mathamajik!

What's special about velocity c is that it's invariant under the Lorentz transform. Without 4D spacetime, there is no proper time, which is what's needed to form S, so spacetime "distances" are invariant under Lorentz transformation. Same holds for energy/momentum 4 vector. Now if you wish to argue velocity c slows down in a gravitational field, it also can be argued time also slows for the measuring device. Therefore the apparent measured velocity c remains constant. Why are you rejecting 100 years of proven special relativity?

@RagingGeekazoid

4 жыл бұрын

Because spacetime is a joke. It's a made-up fantasy with no proof at all, like phlogiston and caloric. The only proven facts are the Lorentz transformations and the invariants that are calculated from them algebraically. Apparent velocity is not actual velocity.

@humboldthammer

4 жыл бұрын

E/C = MC Energy slowed to the speed of light equal Mass accelerated to the speed of light. They are two expressions of the same Dialectric -- Electricity -- Magnetism nature of the Universe. Time does not exist; time is experiential. Space does not curve -- that is simply a visualization to aid in understanding the "square of the distance" rule -- which applies to the Dialectric, too. Light does not "Travel" but perturbs the ether. Yes, first there was an either, then there was no ether (Einstein), then there was (see Tesla). Force and Motion. Acceleration and Inertia. Space and Counter-space. Charge. Field Theory meets Quantum Theory meets the Electric Universe.

@Aristotle675

3 жыл бұрын

It looks like c is invariant under the Lorentz transform precisely because that is one of the assumptions that the theory of special relativity makes: “Later in the same year Albert Einstein published what is now called special relativity, by deriving the Lorentz transformation under the assumptions of the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light in any inertial reference frame”

@kallianpublico7517

3 жыл бұрын

"..proven special relativity". Relativity is a THEORY. The fact that Some of its consequences have shown up in our observance of nature makes it plausible: conditionally correct. But no theory is ever proven because knowledge is always incomplete. What we THINK we know today may be shown to be incorrect or imprecise tomorrow.

Does anyone here think that a 'photon' is similar to a 'slinky toy'? Like a self perpetuating interaction, which can only occur at a certain pace/rythm. This would explain the constant speed of this process as it moves through mediums and vacuums. Hope you understand my analogy

@PrivateSi

4 жыл бұрын

I think a light wave is made up of mini waves / photonic elements. I think there is one, underlying field in which pure energy travels at C. phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

@alanbarnett718

4 жыл бұрын

Cool image!

@brendawilliams8062

3 жыл бұрын

Looks like the whole sha bang is a slinky

I always think that c depends on the permittivity and permeability of free space so why is c considered fundamental and not the other two on which it depends?

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

yes, the variability of c implies varying eps0 and mu0, with interesting consequences for Maxwell's eqns. But it is a matter of taste which constant you consider fundamental. You can keep eps0 and mu0 fixed by c and the fine structure constant.

@richardmasters8424

3 жыл бұрын

Unzicker's Real Physics - thanks for that - I still think you can’t vary mo or eo as they are fixed and we only use c=1 in free space to make the maths easier. FYI - My theory is the the universe is conscious and it knows when it is being observed at any stage so it collapses the wave function as it wants. I believe this consciousness can also bend spacetime to give the effect of gravity. Furthermore, I believe this is evidenced in dark energy and dark matter which manifests itself in a similar you to the information energy of Landauer’s Principle but it has no entropy and is many times smaller. This consciousness has to keep expanding in consort with the increasing reality and it drives the expansion of the universe with it - do you know if anyone else has suggested this theory?

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

@@richardmasters8424 Don't think c=1 is a useful choice. See arxiv.org/abs/0708.2927

@Dan-gs3kg

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian I think the way to unpack this is that because the electromagnetic properties of "free space" varies implies that it is not a true vacuum, nor uniform. More advanced observations show that voids in space are still laden with material that can interact with light. Otherwise one can lever it to say that it makes no sense to have a physical property equal a true zero without causing cascading undefined values. Where there is electromagnetism there must be a medium, as far as Maxwell is concerned.

@atheistaetherist2747

3 жыл бұрын

​@@TheMachian (1) Does anyone ever consider that Einstein's (real/true) VSL is in the (real/true) world due to a change in eps0 &/or mu0? (2) Do eps0 & mu0 depend on the nearness of mass (or (3) praps on gravity itself). (4) Or is the standard equation re c eps0 mu0 incomplete (which is my belief).

1.25x playback to sound normal

Thank you sir for your informative perspective. You presented your points extremely well. I know this is an old upload, so forgive me for posting on a 4 year old presentation. I am well studied but I am not a physicist. These problems have been bugging the back of my mind for most of my life. I have recently dived into the rabbit hole in an attempt to investigate for my own peace of mind and in having done so realized many problematic "assumed" assertions in the fundamental physics and geometry. The following are my personal notes while watching your presentation. Note the time marks relative to my comments. > ~1:50 Henri Poincare Debate over the 4 dimensional geometry with Minkowski. Newtonian mechanics are preserved in the underlying 4D space-time coordinate system. Axle: The above appears to be problematic in respect to the different natural geometries available to choose from. > 5:50 A kind of union between space and time. But what is this union? And how do we accurately describe this union? What fundamental properties are we unifying? What is space? What is time? What IS space-time? I have identified a number of natural geometries that satisfy the broad description of relativity and space-time, so which is correct to the natural universe? > ~8:00 This light cone is a very problematic geometry.Axle > ~9:10 I fully agree. Albert was correct to question this geometry proposed by Minkowski as I don't believe it accurately described the conceptualisation of space-time that Albert has in his mind. Minkowski recreated Alberts space-time relativity in his own image instead of Albert's. > 10:45 Is space and time the same thing? Axle: The first question is does time exist of it's own accord as fundamental to the universe which we only seam to have a subjective human answer to. Second, can we have time as fundamental, or just an emergent illusion of the maximum value of motion. If time is fundamental we have a kind of Pseudo 4D space-time which has a few possible geometries. Only one of those geometries appears to encapsulate a true space-time union with relativity (causation) and the Minkoski model does not fit. An object with zero velocity in space may still have a minimum velocity in time as an equation of 'c'm/s. The other geometry is space only (we could apply an abstract 3D (x,y,z) over this) were Space is static and time is only an illusion that emerges from motion of objects where motion has a maximum rate. An object with zero velocity in space will have no inherent expression of time. Time is not fundamental and does not exist without motion. Which is correct may be difficult to establish. > 11:29 Note the use of 3D+1D This has many geometric interpretations and we have to be extremely careful about how we construct those geometries and even more so when translating those geometries back to a human readable form as it breaks the fundamental space-time concept. > 12:24 This fundamental construct of the speed of a photon is critical, and currently quite likely incorrect at the moment. [Note that the reference frame for 'c' is ambiguous. Is it global (universal) or local to an object... Or both frames at the same time? This is a conflict in physics which is ignored, and leads to all fashion of weird time dilation illusions in SR] > ~14:38 This is an exceptionally important problem that is overlooked, complex, ignored with an assumed solution. P.S. I don't actually think light speed is variable to the universal frame. [See following comments] > 19:20 I think all of this comes out of a human illusion that we have about distant objects. We tend to conflate a photon (which is not the object) with the actually object. The limited speed of light will always give the illusion because of the blurring in motion or time. It is just a human visual illusion. > 19:57 Albert clearly states the problem here between SR and GR. The claim of time and length dilation is an illusion in SR and does not appear to exist in reality. Axle [GR and time dilation is a different matter. See next comment] > 20:20 Variable speed of light in GR (gravity). Light speed is variable in different densities of a medium, so we have to ask is light traveling through a high density medium in a gravitational field. We know all physical objects are at a higher density state, but how far does that density state extend in the gravitational field when we include all forms of particles in space? > 21:36 Mikowskis space-time seams to be a fundamentally incorrect description of the math and geometry. > 21:48 This is Albert Einsteins acknowledgement of the problem with the "Human Condition". We have imposed assertions over physics based upon subjective human beliefs. > 27:05 What IS the constant 'c'??? > 29:52 This is a reasonable summary of the problem. We have to make an attempt to define the following 3 things as they exist in nature (nor for us, but nature) and then also inspect our limited human ability to describe these things in a human way without damaging there natural (non-human real) context. Speed of a photon: What does that even mean to the universe? Time: What does time even mean to the universe? Space (empty void): What does a void, universe even mean to the universe? What is the universes concept of our neat human box like x,y,z? What are boundaries or infinities to the universe? An idea of an object: What is an object to the universe? Does the universe even know if they exist? All difficult questions. > The above is a somewhat raw summary of my own investigation and thoughts. They may be a little ambiguous to the reader. If you need clarification on any point feel free to ask :) Axle

This was pure quotes, appeal to authority only.

@RagingGeekazoid

4 жыл бұрын

It's an appeal to sanity. Space and time are completely different things.

@aw6936

4 жыл бұрын

@@RagingGeekazoid Replacing the "and" in "Space and Time" with a hyphen is just a conjuring trick. Whenever you see a hyphen - anywhere - think "conceptual impurity".

Hello, really appreciate your channel keep going :D Also, I am a little bit confused here, around 11-12min you say there is no reason for nature to show in 3+1 dimensions but doesn't SO(1,3) represents spatial rotation + Lorentz invariance? And is therefore somewhat natural, as in we need to consider differently the time dimension and the spatial ones?

@TheMachian

2 жыл бұрын

Well, SO(3,1) is something rather artificial that was used to described reality when space and time were already accepted. The question is whether such a 3+1 structure can come out of pure math - and yes, unit quaternions work this way.

@krigs_1434

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Right! I was also wondering that about the quaternions. I assumed mainstream physics to disregard them because they value more the relation between whatever group they find and the Pointcaré group. But I've never had the occasion to think about it deeper nor to talk about it with a professional. Thanks a lot for your answer! PS: I am still not convinced of the artificial aspect of SO(3,1) ^^' I mean we are just asking for a Lie group to contain distance-preserving transformations in 3D + boosts in 1 extra-D on our manifold, that doesn't seem too artificial..? Does it have something to do with that manifold? That is, that it is deeply related to Minkowski spacetime which isn't/might not be a realistic depiction of dimensionality in our world?

The key point is the 4th dimension (time) is actually real. What's the physical basis of the notion of the '5th' dimension, etc. Julian Barbour's book is excellent, highly recommend.

@timothyblazer1749

Жыл бұрын

Time isn't real. You can't measure "time", you can only measure change. We assume that certain kinds of change take certain amounts of objective time, and that time is a characteristic of the entire Universe, but that is a convenience and not a fact. Time could vary, and if it was local and of chaotic character...or if it was a very large region...etc...we couldn't know it had happened. If varying time and the word "happen" are actually congruent. :-) No, I'm not talking about gravitational or velocity caused "Time dilation". I mean any cause, including all the ones we don't know, assuming Time is even a "thing".

@ultravioletiris6241

Жыл бұрын

@@timothyblazer1749 interesting point of view. How do you think gravity works?

@timothyblazer1749

Жыл бұрын

@@ultravioletiris6241 given that I studied physics, right now the standard model involving pseudo riemannian spacetime. But that model is currently under attack, and we may be going back to a variable speed of light model, as proposed originally in the early 1900s. That model would be more in line with measurement. I'm not saying change doesn't happen. I'm saying our concept of time is not reifiable. Nor is space, for that matter.

@ultravioletiris6241

Жыл бұрын

@@timothyblazer1749 what would cause the light to be variable? The medium it travels through? So would it have to do with the structure of space?

@timothyblazer1749

Жыл бұрын

@@ultravioletiris6241 the gravity, according to the original theory. Since this introduced the possibility of a medium like concept, Einstein and others changed the theory to a geometric one. They wanted to end the "aether" notion. I don't have a horse in this race btw. :-)

I agree with Herrn Unzicker that inertia is an unexplained mystery. It is a shame that Mach's ideas have been neglected. At one point, Einstein thought, or rather hoped, that General Relativity would account for inertia as a natural consequence of GR, i.e. that geodesics would fall out of the theory as the 4D paths of freely falling bodies. This didn't work out though, so the idea that bodies follow 4D geodesics is an added, extraneous principle in GR. We need a theory that explains why bodies follow geodesics, thereby explaining inertia!

If VSL is correct, the curvature of light is accounted for, but what then is the explanation of gravitational attraction? Presumably in the VSL theory, space-time curvature due to mass/energy is absent and space is (pseudo-)Euclidean.

@TheMachian

Жыл бұрын

the gravitational field is due to a gradient of c2.

If space and time are to be considered on equal footing, and we are to assign three dimensions to space, then would it not make sense to assign three dimensions to time also? Otherwise, space and time are not on equal footing, they are not a duality and would be entirely separate factors?

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

They are certainly not on equal footing. The riddle is why nuture presents itself in such a peculiar 3+1 dimensional manner. There has to be a mathematical reason for that. The object I propose to consider is S3.

@peterrobinherbert

Жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Physicists are always asking this question, I'm not sure why you think they don't. One suggestion is that this is only a localised phenomenon and that we just happen to be living in a 3+1 locality and that other geometries abound. The problem is that you seem to regard such theorising as somehow illegitimate. It seems to be "damned if you do and damned if you don't". If physicists are not asking this question you say they should be. But if physicists are asking this question then you turn around and say they are not even doing science because they have not yet arrived at a testable hypothesis.

When will you do a video on Descartes and complain about his influence on Newton?😆

Agree, maybe a better way is to consider the real relation of space... that is energy, not time. Energy is the one that acts over space as well over time. The invariance must be seen as space x+y+z +i *energy wavelength = constant. More energy implies a smaller wavelength as well as a smaller space (Lorentz length contraction). More energy implies more frequency or smaller time; energy is the one and Minkowsky mislead with the spacetime leaving out energy. You can read more in a small book on Amazon "Space, main actor of..."

"c" allows the universe to be divided up into independent regions where what happens in other regions has no major effect. It may very well be due to a processing limit in the ability of the structure of the universe to absorb information about what is going on and calculate what should be the results (such as doing a computation as to what speed and angle a pool ball should ricochet at when hit bounces off one of the rails or another ball). This may seem odd, but SOMETHING has to occur that determines the calculated final results of all interactions going on at any moment in the universe; just saying that it "naturally happens" means nothing. The "Aether" was eliminated when it was found no longer necessary for figuring out what happens to light, but only when another mechanism could be found that did the same thing, but without the problems of that fictitious stuff. You could not just say that an amorphous concept created the final correct results of your measurements. If each effect was completely local about its immediate area, then the speed of light could be essentially infinite as its information could be used very quickly to cause results to distant objects, but a slow speed of light implies that their are global (long range) situations that need to be calculated too (entanglement results, for example). Does this imply that the universe is a computer program of some sort with the value of c being the clock speed?

@halgee8229

3 жыл бұрын

Of course, saying any result "just naturally happened" is generally unhelpful. However, there is a lot of room between natural happening and actual calculation. Since nobody knows, you could say, like in your post, that this universe thing, program, multiple programs, whatever it is, is performing calculations to determine outcomes. I wouldn't personally, since I think calculation is far too high-level a phenomenon. Regardless of whether it's a simulation or not, I don't think the driving force of the universe is calculation. I think (and I have absolutely no proof or basis for this, I just find this idea very satisfying) that the driving force is incredibly simple. Irreducibly simple, even, but working in such massive parallel as to produce rules that look like our maths as an emergent effect. The Galton board is a good analogy. The output is a normal distribution (binomial really, but for large numbers of marbles, it approaches normal). Plotting a normal distribution is a non-trivial thing to do, it involves Euler's constant, exponents, and the square root of 2 pi. Yet, out it comes, from some pegs and some marbles. No calculations of any kind have been done. The distribution comes from the simple event of a marble either going left or right at a peg, but multiplied by many marbles and many pegs. It would be very satisfying to me if the universe were like this but far, far simpler than even a left/right choice. A sea of fundamental events, clacking away right down to the Planck length and beyond.

@rob28803

3 жыл бұрын

Let’s not confuse the model with the phenomenon. Mathematics is a model _only_

Like the equivalence of energy and mass, if the velocity of light is a constant then space and time can be equated to each other. If true then a lot of simplifications follow. But if not then we need to look deeper.

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

Those simplifications sweep important questions under the rug. Yes, we need to look deeper....

@Earwaxfire909

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian I agree. One clashing issue is that the age of the universe appears to be different depending upon the method used to estimate it. I wonder what the theories of variable light speed could do to reconcile that?

@Dan-gs3kg

3 жыл бұрын

@@Earwaxfire909 another is the Pleiades Distance Problem, which we can't even figure out the distance of the star cluster, let alone a neighboring one, Hyades. We can't even resolve the distance of something, so how can we resolve its age via its distance?

Inertia IS NOT "originating from all masses in the universe." Matter objects are transducers. An accelerating force applied to a matter object manifests the acceleration of charged particles. See 'radiation resistance.' Radiation resistance is the loss incurred by the propagation of EM waves off a radio antenna into the Vacuum. Radiation resistance is the loss incurred by the accelerated charges of the radio antenna that is propagating the EM waves. The loss suffered by the accelerated charges in the radio antenna is a GAIN of energy into the Vacuum in the form of an EM wave propagation. In this way, the radio antenna acts as a transducer. The energy put into the radio antenna to cause acceleration of charged particles in the antenna is converted into the energy of the propagated EM wave. The pattern of this transducer is this: 1) energy from the transmitter (radio frequency oscillations) is applied to the antenna's charged particles 2) the antenna's charged particles are then accelerated 3) the acceleration of those charged particles is transduced (converted) into the energy of the propagating EM wave If you look up 'radiation resistance' you will find that it is a real, authentic, measurable loss, showing that the antenna acted as a transducer: when an accelerating force (the oscillating RF frequency output of the radio transmitter) - when this accelerating force was applied to the charged particles of the antenna, the Vacuum received a portion of this energy, which manifested as a propagating EM wave. MATTER OBJECTS are conceptually identical to the radio antenna. Here is the pattern: 1) energy from the accelerating outside force (say, a person pushing on a block of metal during a spacewalk) is applied to a matter object 2) the charged particles of this matter object are then accelerated (note: neutrons carry the charges of their three constituent quarks, so all the constituent particles of each atom carry charge) 3) the acceleration of those charged particles is transduced into a temporary local electric field increase in the immediate vicinity in the Vacuum The particle-antiparticle pairs that fill the Vacuum have a dipole (a charge-separation dipole) induced in them by the accelerated charged particles of the accelerated matter object. The temporary local increase in the electric field, caused by the acceleration of the charged particles of the matter object, are manifest as induced dipoles in the particle-antiparticle pairs in the immediate vicinity. The 'feeling' of inertia - the resistance we feel when attempting to push on, to accelerate, an object is the physical manifestation of the accelerated matter object acting as a transducer, as its accelerated charged particles lose energy to the induced dipoles in the Vacuum. Inertia is a local, Vacuum-originated transduction effect. Carefully note: the random ordering of the charged particles in the matter object, versus the electrically aligned charged particles that are accelerating in the antenna. A coherent behavior of accelerated charged particles increases the Vacuum screening of the temporary local electric field increase. A non-coherent (random) set of accelerated charged particles does not yield the same radiative screening effect from the Vacuum. The electrons - the accelerated charges - in the antenna move coherently, due to the imposition of the electric polarity put on the antenna by the transmitter output. The atoms in an accelerated matter object move in the same direction ('a person pushing on a block of metal during a spacewalk') but the atoms/electrons are not electrically coherent - they are randomly ordered. To get a radiative EM wave - aka 'to compel the Vacuum to coherently screen the accelerated charges and produce a resulting directional, propagating EM wave response' - you will need to use alignment forced on the electrons of the antenna by the polarity fed to the antenna by the transmitter. Accelerated matter objects, with random (not electrically aligned/coherent) charged particles, will not radiate. The screening effort of the Vacuum - with its natural behavior to mitigate the sudden temporary increase in the local electric field caused by the charged particles of the matter object - the Vacuum's screening effort transfers the temporary local increase in the electric field from the accelerated charged particles of the matter object into charge-separation induced dipoles in the particle-antiparticle pairs that fill the Vacuum. We call this transfer of energy OUT OF the accelerating matter object "inertia" - it is felt as a loss of energy - a RESISTANCE to our 'push' on the matter object to accelerate it.

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

Hi, while I encourage you to develop your theories, this is not the place to promote them. Obviously, you don't appreciate Mach's principle. I do.