How Hermann Minkowski Led Physics Astray
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 03. 2020
- Talk given at the DPG meeting 2019 in Munich. The correct spelling is "Hermann". I apologize for the wrong slides.
Follow also my backup channel: odysee.com/@TheMachian:c
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/ - Věda a technologie
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."
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.
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 ?
@@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.
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..
@@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
Well said!
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.
listen dawg, Poincaré didn't care. That's just a fact.
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.
thanks a lot
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.
This is basically the only video on youtube criticizing Minkowski space-time. I wish this was a more popular topic.
Yes, this channel is the fringiest fringe you can get.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
@@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) .
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.
"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.
@@kensandale243 he stole ideas from poincare and wrote horsehit about time dilation
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.
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?
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.
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.
@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!
@@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.
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
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.
"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
“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
@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")
*stares blankly at telescope survey data...
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.
.
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
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.
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.
@@helifalic ALso, time and space are used together all the time in every day situations
@@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.
@@0626love And yet using time, more specifically ict, as a coordinate in 4D hyperbolic space yields accurate predictions.
@@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.
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?
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...
Even then you are over crediting Einstein. Einstein's real genius was in his self promotion.
@@rl7012It is likely that Einstein had little to do with the promotion. He was the performer. 🎉
mercury precision was due to barycentre of solar system
and light bend due to refraction of stars liquid/plasma midium
universe follows Newton rules not Einstein and
Einstein copied E=mc2 from previous scientists & pasted in front of world 😂😂
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?
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.
@@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?
@@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).
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?
time space. as it is everywhere. which space we are going to explore?
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' ?
Hmmm, yes!
The slope of the bucket's wall has nothing to do with producing the concave shape of the water.
”Things evolve, therefore I am.”
- Time
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.
Talking about evolution: czcams.com/video/ELjgTs7BFC4/video.html
I change my mind, therefore I think.
"stuff happens, therefore I am."
-Time
"I am nothing but memory of the deluded"
- Time
Maybe if we look at the speed of light more as a rate of induction versus a speed ….
Hi Alex,
Can you include the Q&A session for your presentation please?
This is the Q&A session :-)
@@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.
@@guytech7310 haha, maybe someone in the audience was actually a physicist and took apart his presentation. We'll never know!
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?
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?
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.
Science is not about being kind to each other. If the standard model is flawed - the basic reasons have to be told.
@@TheMachian Sir, Have you watched
czcams.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/video.html
And if you wish to understand basic state of universe watch
IJSR vol.7, issue3, pages273-275
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.
@@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
@@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
are you saying that poincare was the first to derive the lorentz transform
No, he is saying that Poincare was the first to put them in geometric terms.
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?
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.
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.
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”
"..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.
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?
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
1947 specifically June 2-4
The Shelter Island meetings.
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
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.
@@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
@@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
Because it's unnecessarily complicated and nonsensical in practical reality.
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.
I think that there are even more serious problems: medium.com/swlh/gravitational-waves-the-silent-disaster-ab18857c68f8
@@TheMachian Praps LIGO can get a 2nd Nobel, this time for proving that GWs do not exist.
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.
Time is not a spatial dimension. It is a metaphorical one. Time = distance/speed making it a relationship.
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.
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
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
How can you separate Time out from Space Time ?
Kennt jemand das Mathematik-Buch von Courant und Minkowski?
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?
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.
@@peterrobinherbert Where, when and how was the Twin Paradox tested?
@@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
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
everything moves all the time, speed of light cannot be constant in time and in geography, I guess, but how to measure such changes?
Not a single deep thought, not a single careful analysis of basic physical concepts.
This is deep: czcams.com/video/ELjgTs7BFC4/video.html
@@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.
25:10 Maybe Minkowski is also responsible for buggy enumeration functions in modern text processors
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
Exactly. He spouts a bunch of stuff, but backs nothing up with observational evidence. Not really a valuable talk.
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.
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").
@@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 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.
Thanks. Indeed, one can learn more from the old papers than from the modern stuff.
@@TheMachian Very well said.
@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.
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?
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.
@@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.
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.
Hmm... no. Noether's theorem is fine, but it doesn't explain why nature appears in such a particular fashion of 3+1 dimensions.
@@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.
@@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?
@@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?
@@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.
The really important question is this: can we accurately measure the variable velocities of light, if we may assume them to exist?
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.
@@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.)
Adding time as 4th dimension is one of the biggest disaster in physics.
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,
Could you do a program on Abdus Salam.
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.
the gravitational field is due to a gradient of c2.
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.
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.
@@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.
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?
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.
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?
@@richardmasters8424 Don't think c=1 is a useful choice. See arxiv.org/abs/0708.2927
@@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.
@@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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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. 👏
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.
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.
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
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.
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 (CZcams), not to mention her book.
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?
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.
@@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?
Thank you
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.
? What are you talking about?
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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 speak of "denial of reality" with regards to 4 d spacetime here. But as far as I know, as long two theories make the same predictions, they are equivalent. Further, if both show a similar complexity, they are both fit for "practical use".
So do you have an experiment, where they predict different outcomes? And has that experiment been done?
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!
Excellent video.
Page 24:33
Suggesting to eliminate u0. Why?
Why not eliminating c^2 and keep e0 and u0 ? Since c is a dependent of e0 and u0.
perhaps a naive thought but the description of the photon as a wave always bothered me. Sure it is wavelike when measured but so is everything else. The wave is a measurement artifact. The photon should appear as a point due to relativistic contraction. It is the superposition of many photons that give rise to a continouous wave like radio waves
george jo
You are offering here a series of logical arguments, sound and solid as far as argument sake, can be traced to conclusion theories drawn by (highly celebrated) scientists who don’t scrutinize or understand the test apparatus with which their theories took root from. Why do we spend more time in learning and preaching (highly celebrated) theories but scrutinize it before we wear it?
@@philoso377 There is always another interpretation . Perhaps the rush to mathematical models has diminished the role of experiment.
george jo
Mathematic speculation in theoretical science is replacing the old school “science methods” today and beyond.
As long as there are funding provided for “mainstream celebration of targeted celebrities physicists and theories”, disciple and worshipers wearing scholar’s hat will grow in equal proportion..
@@georgejo7905 Man-made radio signals are carried by photaenos, they are not carried by photons.
A photon with a (natural) 10 mm wavelength (the length of its central helix), is a different animal to a radio wave with a (forced) 10 mm wavelength (which has no central helix).
Photons have a central/internal part (the central helix) & an external part (the photaeno).
The central helix has a front end & a rear end, & is 1 wavelength long. The wavelength is simply one turn of the helix (there is no wave).
The central helix is an annihilation of aether. Annihilation of aether gives gravitational mass & inertial mass.
The track of the annihilation forms a helix. The helical annihilation moves axially throo the aether at the speed of light c, & along its helical track at more than c.
Photaenos radiate out (to infinity) from the central helix.
Photaenos annihilate aether, hence they have gravitational mass & inertial mass.
Photaenos include a vibration (excitation) of the aether.
Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field & perhaps c in the far field.
Photaenos radiate from fixed locations in the aether, ie from fixed locations along the central helix.
Photaenos do not have a sideways velocity in the aether, ie each photaeno is shed from the central helix as the rear end of the central helix passes.
In a free photon every photaeno is initially attached to the central helix, & later it detaches.
In a confined photon the central helix has formed a continuous loop, in which case the photaenos do not detach (the central helix has no rear end).
Electrons & other elementary particle are confined photons.
Photaenos give us charge fields & electromagnetic fields.
An attached photaeno gives a high field strength, an unattached photaeno gives a weaker field.
Hence a free photon has 3 parts, the central helix, the attached photaenos, & the unattached photaenos. A confined photon has 2 parts, it has no unattached photaenos.
Man-made radio signals are carried by photaenos, they are not carried by photons.
A photon with a (natural) 10 mm wavelength (the length of its central helix), is a different animal to a radio wave with a (forced) 10 mm wavelength (which has no central helix).
Free photons are slowed by the nearness of mass (confined photons), as proven by Shapiro (Shapiro Delay).
Shapiro Delay is due to the photaenos (from the free photon)(& from the confined photon) fighting for the limited use of the aether.
Fighting/congestion slows the photaenos & this slowing feeds back to the central helix, slowing the central helix.
I call this slowing "photaeno drag". It contributes to the bending of light. It gives us diffraction near an edge.
Photaeno drag is very strong inside mass (air water glass). It gives us refraction, & reflexion.
11:16 You say physics has swayed to developing sophisticated mathematical formulations instead of focussing on conflicting concepts. However, the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics were also merely mathematical re-formulations, and it would be foolish to say that they did not play an important part in the history of physics. How do you reconcile this with your statement, just curious?
Thanks.
Good question. Thought about that already. At the end, we need the correct differential equations. There migth be several Lagrangians which yield the same. it is an elegant formalism, no doubt. Personally, I do not use it very much, since I guess you have to develop an intuitive understanding first (see also the history of GR development... Einstein did not think about a Lagrangian first). What I consider an even more severe problem is that spacetime might not be R^3, but S^3. That means you have to throw away much of the linar formalisms and start over... use Lie algebras when talking about dericvatives and so on. Mathematically terrible, but maybe unavoidable. morein "The mathematical reality"
(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.
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).
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.
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. "
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.
"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?
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.
Let’s not confuse the model with the phenomenon. Mathematics is a model _only_
fantastic talk. thanks!
So basically what you're saying is that physicists have to focus on finding formulations which define the universal constants.
This isn't a new idea and blaming Minkowski for it not having happened yet is rather contrived in my opinion.
I think that you simply don't appreciate the power of a 'dimension' in the mathematical sense.
Physicists are often misformed in this way, they interpret dimensions as a spacelike thing, implying things like distance and angles when you really have no right to assume these things.
To talk about dimensions is only to say that you have a line with numbers where the numbers correspond to whatever you want the numbers to represent.
In this sense an informal description of spacetime would simply be: "i got 3 directions i can move in, and if i break a vase i can't unbreak it. alas 3+1 because the last one doesn't behave like the first three."
Notice how i didn't mention lengths, angles, "time" or any other extra information in this formulation. I only assumed/observed a 4D manifold. nevertheless the laws of relativity follow, as such the question you should ask is: "why does spacetime appear 4 dimensional to us?"
This has very little to do with Minkowski, whose name I am sure of you just put in the title to attract viewers.
So to surmise:
What's new isn't true and what's true isn't new.
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
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
Cool image!
Looks like the whole sha bang is a slinky
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."
I have never claimed to understand relativity, even though so many popular science articles try to explain it to us laymen, clearly indicating an expectation that it is something that the general public should be familiar with.
But as far as I have understood it, the ieea that that the speed of light is the same in every frame of reference is the basis for everything Einsteinian in physics. From that does everything else follow as logical consequences.
So can the speed of light be the same for all observers, yet variable from place to place according to the strength of the field of gravity? This needs further explanation.
And how would this work for a black hole, where the gravitation is enormously strong and hence the speed of light should be terribly slow?
have they ever measured C in microgravity?
IIRC the M-Morley experiment was quite bulky. Required basins of liquid mercury if I remember, so getting something like that into space would not be easy. Aside from that your points are excellent. What exactly do we mean by C being the limit? I mean we are all moving at the speed of light relative to some point in the universe. Does that mean if I throw a ball that I break all the laws of physics? obviously something is off here. Great quotes from Einstein showing that his claims about C weren't altogether solid.
Some of the astronomy satellites have, such as those observing the sky in gamma & X-rays from different directions. They observe a range of energies in light from distant sources like quasars & black hole accretion disks, and did some measurements looking to see if the time of flight of the light had any dependencies on its frequency (and therefore energy). They were actually looking for tiny violations of special relativity that some quantum gravity ideas might cause, like quantum foam, and instead observed a constant speed for all light to really high accuracy (e.g. something like 1 part in 10^15).
So while it isn't the exact same experiment, they are space-based zero gravity measurements looking for the same effect as Michelson & Morley were- a directional (and/or energy) dependence in the speed of light. Because an absolutely constant light speed and Lorentz transform implies a continuous- infinitely divisible and smooth- space time that has proven impossible to square with quantum physics.
Has anyone measured the speed of light AFTER the source is turned off?! If the caboose, the last photon in the stream, instantly vanishes, then we could at least ponder what we were really measuring?
The speed itself aside, pulsed lasers are known and widely used things. If the photons vanished after the source is turned off (when laser emission is halted), beams of pulsed lasers would not propagate beyond a certain distance (dependent on the pulse lenght and the speed of propagation). This is not what happens, emitted photons go on their merry way.
This simple observation should clear it up (if I understood your question right).
Thanks for the video! Greetings from Iceland!!
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.
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.
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.
I like that idea!
Don't you wonder sometimes about Sound and Vision?
Spacetime interval is lorentz-invariant and the spacetime formalism leads in GR to correct prediction of mercur precession. A variable speed of light theory cannot achieve that.
_Of course_ relativity needs 1+3D spacetime because simultaneity of spatially separated events depends on the reference frame we use!
Moreover, the spacetime concept itself does not require relativity, NM can also be formulated using the spacetime terminology.
The GALILEI transform can be understood as a spatiotemporal shear which leaves temporal distances invariant.
Such thing as absolute space does indeed not exist due to GALILEI's principle of relativity from which follows the _relativity of conlocality_ of temporally separate events.
What is space? It's the set of fixed locations which means positions relative to a certain reference body B. If another body B' which moves at a speed (v|0|0) with respect to B is chosen as our new reference body, a position relative to B is no fixed location any more but a position relative to B' instead.
It takes a reference body to divide spacetime into (coordinate) time and space.
Of course, spacetime doesn't mean that time and space were pretty much the same thing.
Nothing to argue with what you're saying. But considering time and space as pretty much the same thing was precisely the ideology Minkowski advanced.
@@TheMachian
I'm not sure about whether MINKOWSKI ever took time and space as _the same thing._
What he really said _expressis verbis_ is the truism that time and space _cannot longer be considered independent._
And this is even _an understatement_ since the claim of an _absolute space_ is not even consistent with NEWTONian mechanics (NM), though NEWTON himself postulated such thing.
But there he contradicts his own theory which already contains the GALILEI principle of relativity (PoR) which includes the _relativity of conlocality._
Space is the set of all places and what is a place depends on reference frame:
If I drink a coffee within the board bistro of a space vehicle (in the widest sense, including Earth) which I consider stationary, this is a single place.
If we consider another space vehicle stationary with respect to which mine is moving, my bistro is not a place any more but just a relative position with respect to a moving object.
So we don't even need EINSTEIN's SR to affirm MINKOWSKI's famous words.
What's new in SR is that time is as little independent from space as vice versa but like conlocality, simultaneity of spatially distinct events is also relative and what remains absolute is only their weaker property of having a space-like distance.
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.
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.
Where AREN'T there gravitarional fields in the universe? Help me, did I miss sonething?
So Boltzman's constant is irrelevant because it only defines a temperature scale. But then why is the speed of light so important if it only defines a time (or distance) scale? It seems the whole talk was centered in the premise that Minkowski led physics astray because he defined a time scale so that the metric tensor is diag(1, -1, -1, -1), but this was only a mathematical convenience, he could also have defined it as diag(c², -1, -1, -1) (or diag(1, -1/c², -1/c², -1/c²) as P. G. Bergman does in his relativity book) with no time or distance scaling and all of his arguments would stay the same.
I don't want to dismiss a possible formulation of a gravitation theory based on variable speed of ligh, but is seems that the concept of spacial speed makes no sense in general coordinate systems, but only in local infinitesimal Lorentz frames. In those frames, the speed of light is always the same (due to the principle of equivalence), no matter the surrounding gravitational fields. I don't know why Einstein considered dx/dt something meaningful in general coordinate systems (and there are no other possible coordinate systems in the presence of gravity), but he certainly knew very well that the speed of light is c in local infinitesimal Lorentz frames.
I see no problem that a mass can be accelerated beyond the speed of light. It is just our observation of the light from the object, from a static reference, that is sendt to us by the speed of light, that cannot go any faster. Just like a airplane going faster than the sound. If all you had is the sound of it you will deduce that it is further back than it actually is.
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.
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 .. 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.
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! ))
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
I have a holographic model without using any space-time assumption.
(Correction) Temperature is BOTH Potential Energy (PE), while its higher radiation is Kinetic Energy (KE). Just saying Temperature is KE is bogus. PE manifests KE, not KE manifests PE. All matter, no matter at 0 Kelvin or extreme temperatures, is PE. KE then is radiation manifested from the PE based upon temperature. But Temperature - IS - KE is false. Temperature as an external force manifesting UPON a PE object, then manifests and outward KE force. Just the same as light laser (laser ablation) upon a metal and having particles fly off (kinetic particles). No KE laser, no KE particles. Only the inherent PE object manifesting KE radiation from temperature changes.
Considering time as if it were a spatial dimension is misleading and has misled a lot of people.
"Considering time as if it were a spatial dimension is misleading and has misled a lot of people."
Time is not considered to be a "spatial" dimension. Spatial dimensions are considered to be spatial dimensions.
…not all. If you take {as an example} an old fashion “movie booklet” - a handheld length-wise picture booklet which if flipped with your other hand’s thumb, you see motion: like a horse galloping, a dog running, a couple dancing, et cetera. If you were to tear one of the pictures [re: pages] out of the booklet, ‘that’ would be a unique “moment” [re: example] of ‘Time’ in a four-dimensional spacetime continuum, (…even though the pictures in this movie-booklet’ are, `ahem, drawn in 2-D). …………….. {8~)
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.
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 :-)
I'm in the middle of your book Einsteins lost Key. Good read. What are your thoughts on JWST high Z galaxies and Tolman test failure to show accelerated expansion? & subsequent molding of data to fit the LCDM model after finding high metallurgy in the spectrum as just 100k solar mass stars in the galaxies? Also. Loved "The Higgs Fake"
Thanks for the kind feedback. Yes, analyzing recent JWT data (also GAIA) is sth I should do for VSL cosmology. However, such projects are time-consuming and I am currently busy with other stuff...
Thankyou
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.
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".
@@timothyblazer1749 interesting point of view. How do you think gravity works?
@@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.
@@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?
@@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. :-)
Rupert Sheldrake has given a talk called The Science Delusion where he presents that the "constants" aren't constant.
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.
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!
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.
This is very interesting, but don't you think that first we should tackle the dimensional divide between perception and ontology? I mean, the phenomenology of length and width is different from that of depth, and glueing them together in a three-dimensional space is a denial of reality.
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.
If scientific revolutions are about eliminating constants, then doesn't E = mc² eliminate c?
There is no constant E or m in that equation - unless you assume that one is talking of the entire universe, in which case we may well end up with a net energetic content of zero, and thus a net mass-equivalent of zero, and a wonderful identity 0 = 0 valid for any value of c.
The story is a little different here. There are no "constants" E and m (apart from specific particles), thus this equation does not reduce the number of constants. E=mc2 is tested however in thousands of nuclear reactions. Without Einstein's SR, these measurements would have created a mess of poorly understood "constants" or free parameters. See www.amazon.com/dp/B0849ZXQB1.
@@dlevi67 c is a constant.
I have been trying to watch this presentation where flaws in the current model of Science are… Does he ever present his correct model, how it changes the current paradigm and how to verify he is correct?
My soup is oversalted: Should I be disallowed to call it oversalted until I can cook it myself? - Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
@@TheMachian Absolutely not!. If someone is wrong they are wrong, even if this person is not right. Actually I share your sentiment.
My question is more of scientific curiosity and desire to know more than a critique of your critique.
A flat space with variable speed or curved space with constant speed. Can everything measured give consistent results? Do you think there has to be something that gives the clue?
@@TheMachian WELL IM NOT SERVING IT
I have viewed 2/3 of Prof Unzicker's video, and so far all I can derive from it is that one may look upon the GTR (general theory of relativity) from Minkowski's vantage, the four-d space or from Mach's, the variable speed of light. There are many physicals systems that can be viewed in multiple ways. So far he has not shown that the two view of GTR, in some limit, diverge. If that is not shown in the remaining 1/3, then there is no harm in choosing one as opposed to the other, and this video is just talk.
Part 2.
@prbprb2 referred me to the remaining third of Unzicker's discussion, which is surely interesting: the elimination of constants as an indication of theoretical progress. Suppose theorists are successful in finding new theories that reduce all constants to just one. Could a final theory eliminate that? Is that what physicists are seeking to do? No constansts at all. Just observables (as Dirac called his operators) expressed in terms of other observables with no constants at all in some algebra we have not yet discovered?
Appreciate the formal critique, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with this specific aspect of the topic to contribute.., to my certain knowledge. Maybe e-Pi-i sync-duration Singularity Reciproction-recirculation Apature is THE Holographic Principle Image Constant. (?)
The picture-plane concept that springs to mind comes from Grant @ 3BLUE 1BROWN channel in which he shows how the notes of a piano are aligned to create the musical scales. The resonances do not fit simply and this simple observation will be the same as the superimposed logarithmic time-timing sync-duration condensation of probabilistic relative-timing ratio-rates. A real-time example of how uncertainty is adapted to in literal pulse-evolution differentiates, that applies equally to photon-phonon wave-particle "notes" of frequency-> conduction condensation positioning. (A necessarily vague description)
Could you elaborate?
When will you do a video on Descartes and complain about his influence on Newton?😆