How Superposition Causes Length Contraction -- And Explains the Principle of Relativity
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2024
- What causes relativistic length contraction? Drawing inspiration from contemporary theories of wave mechanics, we tackle this problem in special relativity head-on. A long-overlooked formalism known as the method of the retarded potential provides a vital and intriguing clue -- ultimately leading to the resolution of a mystery 130 years in the making.
*****************************************************
Acknowledgments:
This work would not have been possible without the assistance rendered from the following two individuals:
PHILLIP SCRIBNER -- A retired professor of philosophy from American University whose treatise entitled "Naturalistic Reason" provided invaluable and clarifying insights into the highly convoluted history and nature of the length contraction problem. More information about his work and his theory regarding the ontological unification of physics can be found here: www.natreason.com
www.amazon.com/gp/product/173...
VALERIE LINDNER -- A PhD student at Pennsylvania State University who decoded the math of Feyman's "Solutions of Maxwell’s Equations with Currents and Charges" for us, and furnished the turning point in our understanding of the problem. Extraordinarily gifted and multi-faceted, Valerie was planning to do her PhD dissertation on the subject of flowing-space, an alternative model to Einstein's theory of gravity. Sadly, she passed away from illness before this video was completed, and as such would never learn of the impact of her contribution. You can learn more about her incredible and unusual life here: henrylindner.net/Valerie/Valer...
Additionally, to our Patreon subscribers and all our viewers, we cannot express how greatly we have appreciated all your support over the years.
This channel would not be possible without you -- five years ago we never could have believed we would tackling problems like this!
******************************************************
Please help support the channel on Patreon! / dialect_philosophy
Join our discord for further discussion on the topics presented here in this video:
/ discord
*******************************************************
Works and References Cited:
Heaviside, Oliver. (1894-1912). "Electromagnetic Theory: Volume I - III" archive.org/details/electroma... (Volume I)
archive.org/details/electroma... (Volume III)
Feynman, Richard. (1963). "Solutions of Maxwell’s Equations with Currents and Charges." www.feynmanlectures.caltech.e...
Lorentz, Hendrik. (1916). "The Theory of Electrons" ia800203.us.archive.org/15/it...
Scribner, Phillip. (2022). "Naturalistic Reason: Volume I: Unification of Physics" www.amazon.com/gp/product/173...
Redzic, D. V. (2015). "Direct Calculation of Length Contraction and Clock Retardation" arxiv.org/abs/1501.05899v1
Miller, D. J. (2009). "A Constructive Approach to the Special Theory of Relativity." arxiv.org/abs/0907.0902v1
Purcell, Edward M. and Morin, David J. (2013) "Electricity and Magnetism". archive.org/details/Electrici...
Lindner, Henry. (2015). "On The Philosophical Inadequacy of Modern Physics and The Need For a Theory of Space"
henrylindner.net/Writings/Lind...
Einstein, Albert. (1905). "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"
www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...
Reichenbach, Hans. (1927). "The Philosophy of Space and Time"
altexploit.files.wordpress.co...
Mansouri, Reza & Sexl, Roman. (1977). "A test theory of special relativity: I. Simultaneity and clock synchronization." General Relativity and Gravitation. 8. 497-513. 10.1007/BF00762634.
www.researchgate.net/publicat...
*******************************************************
Contents:
00:00 - Intro
00:52 - Part 1: The Pancake Field
08:30 - Part 2: The Retarded Potential
14:20 - Part 3: Superposition
19:53 - Discussion & Remaining Issues - Наука та технологія
I think I'm not getting the point you're trying to make in this video.
Yes, the electromagnetic field of a moving charge can be calculated either in the static frame, using a Lorentzian boost, or directly in the moving frame with classical electromagnetism. And yes, both calculations agree, because classical electromagnetism is compatible with special relativity (in fact the latter was discovered due to the former). To me this doesn’t show that relativity is superfluous, but on the contrary that it is powerful : it allows us to change frames without having to recalculate the electromagnetic field each time. It’s not because the calculation can be done in two different ways that one of them is superfluous.
What you’ve presented in your video is the way we solve the wave equation for a point charge (□φ = δ). It applies to any field that obeys this equation (gravitational waves, sound waves, etc). Let’s note that the wave equation assumes the speed of propagation is the same in all directions. In the context of special relativity, this always works for electromagnetism because the speed of light is isotropic in all frames. But in the context of your interpretation, this is only valid in the "aether frame". It is much more restrictive and feels much less fundamental, all the more so as this "aether frame" is purely arbitrary, and physics still works the same if we change it.
My criticism has actually not much to do with special relativity, so let's forget about it for a moment, and just think about Galilean relativity :
Galileo's idea was simple : there is no way to measure absolute motion, so motion is relative. In other words, deciding whether an object is in motion or at rest is a pure matter of convention, no experiment can distinguish the two situations. This is strong : it implies that any frame we use to write the laws of physics is an arbitrary choice. The “absolute motion” of a frame cannot be measured in any way, and it has therefore no reason to appear in the laws of physics. It is superfluous.
Of course, you can still pick one specific frame and declare it "the absolute frame". The “Earth’s frame” for instance. Then you can still describe the whole world with respect to this one frame. That's what physics allows you to do. But what makes relativity so great is precisely that this could be any frame, the laws of physics don't care which one you choose.
Imagine a planet of aliens located light-years away from us. These aliens would have no reason to use the Earth's frame like us. Of course they could still do it, but the laws of physics that would result from it would look extremely weird, because they would have to account for the relative motion of their planet with respect to Earth. A better choice would instead be to choose their own planet as their frame of reference. Relativity is here to ensure them that the laws of physics would still work the same in this frame as in Earth's frame.
The point of this research is to show that there is a mechanism for why motion is relative. It could have been that there is an ether and that motion through it is detectable.
What should an isotropic speed of light be worth if you can't observe it? It just different assumptions leading to the same results. Just like the interpretations of quantum mechanics
Hey ScienceClic! Glad to see you stopping by our channel again and thanks for checking out the video!
We would strongly agree with one thing you wrote here. Special Relativity IS powerful -- and especially it was so a hundred years ago, when it provided a way to make predictions and correlations between observed phenomena without having to account for what was causing those phenomena. That was extremely necessary back then, when nobody had a clear working picture of the microscopic world.
Now, if you defined relativity today as simply a mathematical formalism which allows you to choose any inertial frame to be your "ether frame" and not have to worry about whether you picked the right frame, we would agree further, that it is indeed still very powerful. But that of course that is not actually modern relativity. Modern relativity is the assertion that relative space and time are brute facts of existence, consequences of an intrinsic Lorentzian geometry that structures reality. But since Lorentzian geometry is clock synchronization convention, this interpretation cannot be correct, and it both hinders and impedes us from asking what the actual nature of relative space and time truly are.
And we are by no means disagreeing that the principle of relativity is incorrect, but relativity is forced to postulate that principle as an axiom -- whereas here we deduce it. If you can deduce something from a deeper principle, why would you bother postulating it? That would not be good science. That is what makes special relativity unnecessary and "superfluous".
Lastly, to the best of our knowledge, NO ONE has ever presented the math of retarded potentials this way. This derivation is completely original, and it is unquestionably the shortest derivation possible. Textbooks generally derive these potential fields by first invoking relativity, wherein the transformations are simply postulated, and so the majority of the math is shortcutted. Heaviside and Lorentz derived it through more abstract and roundabout manners which do not make the physical picture clear. Feynman derived it in an utterly abstract manner, completely failing to notice that his "correction factor" to the retarded potential of a point charge was in fact just a doppler shift. So please do not try to discredit us by pretending this derivation is somehow already out there and common knowledge, because it is most definitely not.
@@dialectphilosophy Potentials can't be physically measured like the velocity and acceleration of charges. Note that it was lienard and Wiechert who first derived these potentials with one of these authors giving a physical argument -- I don't know who. I don't understand why you believe Feynman derived the potentials in an 'utterly abstract manner' when his picture involves giving a physical argument as to why the effective charge density changes as it moves relative to an observer. This is given in Section 21-5 of Feynman's second Lecture volume.
@@dialectphilosophy Ok I think I understand your approach better. In a way, I agree that what you are doing is very interesting.
Your argument seems to be that we can take all the ingredients of modern physics, remove the principle of relativity, and miraculously still recover the same phenomena (correct me if I didn’t understand correctly). If this was true, then of course by Ockham’s razor I would agree with you : the principle of relativity would be “superfluous”.
However, I don't think this is true. I don't think we can remove the principle of relativity and still predict everything correctly:
For instance, let's say I throw a radioactive particle with a certain velocity. I will observe that its radioactive decay time is greater than that of a motionless particle. In relativity, this is explained by time dilation. But I am not sure how your theory would explain that?
Furthermore, it may work nicely with special relativity, but what about general relativity? I am not saying it's impossible, but I'm doubtful that your approach can be generalized to general relativity without any additional axioms.
-------
About the calculation with retarted potentials, I remember doing it as an exercise during my undergraduate course : it's the Liénard-Wiechert potential (its derivation can be found on the Wikipedia page). It is indeed a very interesting calculation (I think that may actually be what helped Lorentz find his transformations in the first place). When I said that it is common knowledge, I meant it in the sense that the retarded potential is just the Green function of the wave equation, and is therefore the most commonly used technique to solve the wave equation. However you are right that it is rarely presented as a “physical cause” for length contraction.
---------
Overall, I have an issue when you write: "modern relativity is the assertion that relative space and time are brute facts of existence". I don't think that's what relativity is about. The notion of "existence" is purely philosophical, and a theory never states whether something "is a fact" or not. They are just models after all, they only tell us how we can describe the world, but not what things really “are” (I tend to think that ontology is a matter of interpretation, and doesn't depend on the theories themselves).
I do agree though that in pop-science we usually present things less subtly, and it might lead to frustration for those who explore these philosophical questions.
The problem is that we often want to explain things by identifying their “cause”. And this is highly dependent on how we interpret the models. One might say that the Moon orbits the Earth because of the centrifugal force, while someone else might argue that it is because of the inertia of the Moon. They would give two different causes to the same phenomenon, and still, none of them would be wrong.
This has to be the hardest video of dialect for me to follow.
It's because he makes his own interpretations of relativity and complicates matters for no reason.
@@KennyT187Yes. Fans of this channel need to check out the peer review of their other videos.
It's like when kid learns to drive and hits the brake and gas a lot the car gets shorter
And pretend there's water involved and its not baffled so you get retarded waves or something.
I don't actually think the car gets shorter when kids learn to drive though.
Some do but differently.
It kinda feels like bond yields
I'm not able to follow the math entirely, but this type of presentation does help me glean conceptual "bits" of understanding. If science moved from the obscure realm of journals to presentations of this quality it would go a long way toward increasing scientific literacy.
I imagine a world where even your opponents were as capable as communicating as you. It worries me that I'm getting a very one sided view.
We'll be doing a shorter summary of these videos in the future, aimed towards general audiences and featuring less math and more conceptual discussions. These videos are intended to be "semi-rigorous" -- a balance of mathematics and conceptual discussion -- in order to exhibit the evolution of our research and ideas.
@@dialectphilosophy Keep up the good work.
Soon, you will be able to feed an AI some scientific paper, and it would produce an entire interactive documentary about it. You could ask it to explain things in a way that a 6 year old can understand, and it will.
That math, the way he presents it here, isn't terrible to follow. If you took calculus 1 and understood derivative and integral concepts, then you got this. Learning Maxwell's equations before watching this helped a lot. I'm still trying to put that all together, by the way, I do not want to sound like I got it figured out at all, but so much of this unlocked for me once I checked out the Maxwell set. It blows me away that having gone through years of history, chemistry, electrical engineering and physics classes that I never was given a proper study of Maxwell's equations, like probably the most important scientific discovery of the 19th century, it's why I can tell you all this over an electronic wireless link! How could that get left out? By the way, humorously enough, it was a history PhD holder that taught me the Maxwell equations to my understanding.
@@dialectphilosophy You are the exact type of UA-camr I was looking for. You know most youtubers simply skip the heavy math altogether and some academics focus too much on equations. What I needed was a balanced semi-rigorous approach, which I got from you. Thanks for your wonderful videos and making knowledge more accessible!
Well... The way I see it, there's no "charged particle", there's only the wave packet, or what Dialect calls here the "(pancake) field". The "particle" is merely a conceptual, abstract placeholder, and it doesn't generate the field, instead it's a convenient approximation of the field itself, just like a centre of mass is merely an approximation of a mass.
Of course, "superposition" here means "addition", it's not the quantum superposition that we commonly associate with "particles".
Oh, and it's a Smartie, not a pancake. Know your sweets.
@@jack.d7873 I don't see the need for such a hard beating Here. However I feel the title IS a Bit Tclick bait Here, AS I thought this would truly related to qm Superposition.
@@jack.d7873 I think this is an unfair comment. I'm not sure if you've been following, but this is one in a series of videos that Dialect has been producing for at least 6 months now if not longer, with the explicit purpose of carefully analyzing and articulating this new perspective of SR / GR. As such approaching topics such as QFT / QED is still a far ways off as the foundations are still being developed for the viewers, and therefore should not be considered as a weakness of the presentation given here. Dialect, as well as many of the viewers, already know about QFT and the resolutions it makes regarding issues in classical particle physics. The reason many are excited about this new theory (it's actually an old theory really) is because in contraposition to QFT, which many would argue that as a metaphysical explanation of reality is intellectually nonsensical, this new theory is far more intelligible and tangible. In addition, Dialect is one of the most monotone and concise scientific speakers on UA-cam, and if anything is too 'unemotional'. They very rarely state their opinion on anything and for the most part take viewers along a journey of scientific questions and analysis. A character attack such as being "irrationally emotional" and an "unscientific thinker" are unfounded to say the least. In fact, it is exactly scientific to be investigating and developing new theories, challenging paradigms with new ideas, and following the facts, math, and explanations to where they seem to naturally lead. It seems to me that when others challenge the scientific dogma, it is those who retort with "irrational" character attacks who are being "emotional".
I don't see how the electron being a wave packet and not a point particle changes any of the arguments in the video. Red herring?
@0NeverEver Yes, after re-reading my comment, it is too tough. I acknowledge he is exceptionally knowledgeable and has gifted presentation skills. Click-bait is forgivable online. I will remove my comment because it is too harsh.
I'm afraid the public will accept "interpretations" as facts of the universe without having knowledge of the original theories and the evidence supporting them.
RIP Valerie - your work has not been lost, and your troubled existence was not in vain. Thank you, Dialect, for bringing light to her efforts.
Uhh ... Can you please explain? I'm missing context.
It’s awesome that two independently developed theories converge on the same conclusion
RIP Valerie, whoever you were. It seems you lived a very troubled life, and I hope you've found peace. Dialect continues to excel, not only in creating stunning visuals and delivering powerful explanations but also in uncovering remarkable individuals and sharing their mind-blowing ideas. Truly exceptional work, everyone.
Honey, wake up. New Dialect video dropped.
Why is Honey always sleeping?
Literally just woke up after a nap and saw this.
@@chrimony Pacific time zone.
Honey, did that AI voice startle you?
She got narcolepsy Dialect make her wake up quick😀
It's so nice to finally get the real answers to the questions I had in school 20-30 years ago... Thank you for such a fantastically beautiful video! The animations and formulas and what all the variables are, as well as postulating potential questions/reactions and their intuitions, footnotes, mwah. Can't wait for the next one!
He is wrong about most of it, he just makes his own non-canon interpretations of relativity and represents them as truths. For example, he said that there is no length contraction of spatial distances - which is false: spatial distances are as much frame dependant as measured proper time.
Guy on UA-cam finds a unified theory/proof of Classical physics and Einsteinian relativity and still doesn't put a word in all bold in the title. Much respect. I would put a saluting face emoji if it could show up here...
🫡
Just wait for physics channels to peer review this one too. This channel seems to be more entertainment than education.
He is full of sh*t
@@umbraemilitosPhysics channels? This is pure philosophy. You have to believe light is a self interfering wave. There's evidence for and again many theories of what constitutes light. The relativists are more amenable to the single photon theories because it sustains the Twins Paradox and they are committed to nothing more. I want the philosophy channels to peer review, and I want hobby experimentalists involved. Physicists definitely just need to sit down and drink some water.
@jorgejimenez4325 Physics is applied philosophy. Pure philosphers and pure mathematicians thinking they are doing science, without scientific peer review, is a great way to mislead people.
Awesome, but what about the weak and strong nuclear forces? At the time Lorentz et. al. came out with this ether-theory, physicists thought that gravity and electro-magentism are all that there is to mechanics. But with the advent of quantum mechanics, we found out that there is a lot more going on than that. Does all that still fit with this interpretation, or do you plan to only explain electro-magnetism in this series? Either way, I'm as hyped for the next video as always, it just keeps getting better!
I'm curious to know if there's actually any experimental data showing how the strong/weak nuclear forces interact with special relativity, given the inherent expense and danger of performing nuclear science at relativistic velocities lol. Maybe plasma confinement fusion reactor experiments? Though maybe not, since the strong nuclear force holding nucleons together is a pseudoforce carried by mesons, not the true gluonic strong force itself (which is so strong at measurable distances that pretty much everything we've ever directly measured has a neutral color charge).
As for the weak force, I don't know if anyone's put a bunch of heavy elements into a particle accelerator and measured whether they decay slower, or whether the decay is somehow pancake-shaped (whatever that would mean).
That said, my naive assumption would be that they'd follow the same logic, since they're all wave mechanics and follow the same superposition laws.
I would think that the argument would be similar, replace light signals with other exchange particles
We can't speak too greatly to any quantum considerations at the moment. However, we will say that quantum physics and special relativity are of course naturally compatible, and nothing present in the retarded potential formalism or presented in our videos elsewhere makes any differing predictions from special relativity (as of yet). So although we feel that this interpretation will still hold once we move to QM, much more research is still required.
I am working on relativistic quantum mechanics, without second quantization, and I swear it is a Titan's work... So before incorporate weak and strong interactions (which are very ill-defined with 100 lines Lagrangian, with Yukawa magic potentials... ), a good comprehension of relativity with electromagnetic force is largely good enough.... and the animations here are really amazing.
@@sensorernope no particles. Particles are just your interpretation of wave phenomenon. No particles to see here!
I just want to say thank you! What y'all doing is fantastic!
Just knowing that there are people who actually question and give explanations that are logical puts my mind at ease.
Thanks!
Truely mindblowing, Dalect. Thanks!
Outstanding video! I wrote my thesis based on Heaviside's work on retarded potentials and derived models for gravitational radiation. Doppler's experiments with trains and horns had me thinking about relativity and the analogy between high potential wave fronts and high pressure wave fronts. I often relate the doppler effect to relativity and it seems they are more intimately related than I initially thought!
Note that the doppler effect depends on which direction you are going -- there could be a redshift or a blueshift or neither one -- but length contraction happens no matter which direction the relative travel is. Also, in the doppler effect, your observations depend on WHERE you are, but relativistic effects depend only on velocity and are independent of location. Also, both redshift and blueshift exist, but there is no such thing as length expansion (that would require, what, imaginary speed?)
By far the most explicit and coherent science channel for relativity. 👏👏👏👏
Not even close, he makes his own wonky tonky and untrue interpretations of how acceleration in general relativity works, for example.
@@ExistenceUniversity Yup. And he throws away length contraction of spatial distances even though it's as much frame dependant in relativity as measured proper time. He just interpretes the theories to his own likening and represents his views as truths.
I want to thank you for all the videos so far, @dialectphilosophy, as I look forward to them with anticipation, not because I believe everything you put forward (I don’t have the physics knowledge to make that judgement), but because I was a sound engineer for 20 years and I’ve always thought about the universe in a similar way to my knowledge of sound waves. Your work is so closely aligned with my knowledge, it makes me feel closer to being able to understand more about this amazing thing we live in…and I do hope you’re right too. Good luck! :)
I've often imagine the electromagnetic field as waves emanating from the source but never had the conviction to try to prove it nor knew enough physics to do so. Well done!
Insightful video! Even though I didn't like some of the previous videos, this one is super good!
Ok taking notes on myself as I watch:
2:35 - my guess is that the charge and the effect of it are moving together because they are just one thing, not two. A whole wave, not a wave and a field effect.
13:13 - Ok, there is some confusing oversimplification being used as the basis for logic here i think. You can’t pick a point and say an electron “is here”. Electrons are never in a single location. The electron is everywhere nearby that point, but will interact with other things with a certain probability at any of those places. It isn’t because we don’t know where it is, it is because it isn’t just right there. That potential location doesn’t change at constant speeds except with 1/lambda.
14:50 - Oh I see that was the whole point! You were illustrating why that way of thinking without superposition cannot be correct! Nice, well explained!
Unless I'm mistaken, this line of enquiry is also leading into the property of the space medium that underlies Newton's first law, enabling a physical object to coast frictionlessly thru space (unless acted upon by an intervening force). Obviously the medium is a _superfluid_. But it loses a bit of its superfluidity in the presence of acceleration, exhibiting resistance like a 'viscosity'. The object's atomic lattice (electron orbitals in particular) comes under tension, resisting being 'stretched' in the axis of motion, generating the resistance we call inertia.
So the space medium could rightly be called an 'acceleration-mediated quasi superfluid'. A rough analogy is found in non-Newtonian fluids (like oobleck) in their stress-mediated variable viscosity.
Dialect's line of enquiry could probably expound deeper into the mechanism of this unique property of "space".
The very same property would come into play when _space itself_ is flowing *and accelerating*, conferring 'weight' to an object (provided it's prevented from falling). But that's a whole 'nuther chapter, and would congrue squarely with the 'River' model of gravity. ua-cam.com/video/hFlzQvAyH7g/v-deo.html It would follow that this unique spatial property underlies and unifies _not only_ Newton's laws of inertia and conservation of momentum, but also gravity/acceleration equivalence (monkey in rocket ship) AND the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. All in one neat little package. 🎁
I look forward to these so much. Thanks for all the hard work!!
Absolutely amazing video usually I have to watch lecture style videos on UA-cam to learn something I didn't already know. But this was completely new to me, finally I got to watch a well animated video with simple explanations again without knowing where it will go. Amazing video thanks.
Very nice and intriguing! Sounds like you are onto something! Love this channel! Bravo!
Unspeakably beautiful way of looking at relativity. I cannot wait for the further development of this interpretation. Deepest respect for sharing it here and presenting it so well, too.
Love this channel and this series on relativity.
Netflix needs to sign this guy, I am hooked 😂
Im doing my thesis about a very related topic, thanks so much for this quality video, it really helps me a lot. So great to have channels like yours. Congrats for your work.
Spacetime physics must be an emergent phenomenon from matter physics, generally speaking. This is a principle which is getting increasingly clear. This is a good demonstration of how that takes place. I've had criticisms of prior videos, but this one was quite good.
This is a great video! It is important to have all the math that you can include without taking away from mathematica beauty, but important to break down any chance you get. I suggest making two videos to satisfy both of these conditions. Thank you!
Awesome video! A!so the graphics are absolutely stunning!
Simply amazing and intuitive explanation!
You know what I love about these dialect videos so far, besides the nicely paced explanations and beyond uninitiated content? The fact that there is so much time in between them. I feel it communicates the research is being done real time and we are getting the latest updates as they are discovered, maybe with some output delay. That's even accounting for video production, editing and post-processing. Just like the universe, there seems to be a very naturally ordered structure to the way the videos are released and how they connect from previous to next. It's continuous and beautiful ❤️
Basically the exact phenomenon that we just learned about in this video 😅 but applied to the transmission of information. Which, in the lowest analysis, all any of what we're experiencing is - the movement of information described as frames of the passage of time on a field of something.
I now understand Maxwell's equations enough to realize we don't need an ether for em waves to travel through like sound needs air or water. Just because we don't need it doesn't mean it isn't there, though. Just one guy's opinion based on philosophy and current empirical science. I feel that this video opens the door to aspects of this.
Many of the ideas I have cannot be tested yet and some may never be testable, landing them in the philosophical arena rather than the empirical. Just because it's untestable philosophy doesn't make it false, though. Just untestable through empirical peer scrutiny. What is logical to us may seem magical to an ant, so in the same way what seems mystical to us is likely no big deal to a higher thinker 🤔
I was about to say the exact same thing! Thank you for having already said it, because you saved me a lot of time 😂
This _can_ be experimentally measured, and _has_ been experimentally measured many times over the past century. The Ives-Stilwell and Mössbauer rotor experiments in particular are direct measurements of the relativistic Doppler effect.
something ive found helpful for pondering is figuring out what aspects of someting are falsifiable(even just hypothetically), and what aspects of it are not. i find it helpful bc it gets me thinking about potential ways certain things may be observed( or not).. im rly curious about the spin axis of a smbh distorting part of a dark matter halo😱
@@juliavixen176 , thanks for the rotor experiment reference. I knew we had measured and proved it but had never read the how. Though I was more referencing the testability of the presence, or non-presence, of an 'ether' field. My gut deep down tells me it's there, but so far there is no test which has confirmed yes or no either way. The math doesn't care if it's there or not, but I still wonder. It's still in the taboo realm in physics but it just feels like it should exist, and if it does could be the key to the something that is beyond space-time mechanics, not just curled inside it. There's definitely something there, vacuum density suggests it. Is it Plato's aether? Idk and I don't think it has any sort of acceptably testable measurements, it's just a gut feeling that it's there. That's all I meant, thanks again for the rotor reference! I'll be doing that tonight lol, reading not performing.
@auriuman78 I mean, it depends on _exactly_ what you mean by the word "aether". There were several dozen aether theories in the 1800's which had exact definitions and made exact predictions... which experiments did not measure... except for Lorentz's aether theory, which is mathematically equivalent to Einstein's Special Relativity. The difficulty that Lorentz and Larmor were having, as Poincaré explained, is that the aether in Lorentz's version of the aether is fundamentally impossible to measure. It can not be measured, at all. Einstein's big things was that he showed that the aether _doesn't matter_ You can ignore it entirely. It has no effect on anything, and you can avoid the need for it entirely by simply setting the speed of light to be a constant in all inertial reference frames, just as Maxwell's equations say that it is!
Oh yeah, there's a big chunk of nineteenth century physics that gets left out of the pop-sci explanations of Special Relativity. The actual problem that Einstein was trying to solve was to make magnets work. You know how moving electric charges create magnetic fields? How do the charges know they're moving? That's what Einstein was doing, and Lorentz, Heaviside, Larmor, Fitzgerald, Poincaré, et al.
Oh yeah, I was going to mention earlier that theories about light being a mechanical displacement in a material aether have some intractable logical problems... which you don't have to deal with if there's no aether.
For example, the speed of sound or any wave through a medium is directly related to its elasticity and tension and stuff. For the speed of light, the aether will need to be millions of times stronger than steel. But also, the planets can orbit the sun for billions of years, passing through the aether, without slowing down. Also, since light is a longitudinal wave (as Frensel proved), the aether must be a solid, because longitudinal waves don't propagate through liquids or gasses.
yeah, anyway, there's over 200 years of history about this, and adding an undetectable aether to any theory just makes it worse.
Great video people! Keep it up! Finally, a point of contact between quantum field theory and special relativity!! I'm greatly looking forward to your next video
wonderful explanation!!
WOW! I always thought it was something like that, but I never considered it in terms of superposition in wave mechanics. This is so cool; my initial assumption was a delay in communication between two points led to some form of contraction, but I never thought of it in terms of wave mechanics. The fact that you can derive special relativity through this approach is incredible. I have asked this question (re: length contraction)about a dozen times to physics experts over the last 20 years without finding a satisfactory answer; this is the best explanation, backed by formalized equations, I have ever seen. Thank you for doing this - please do another video showing how the increase in mass (and its mechanism) plays into it. - g
One can only derive special relativity from the relativity principle. Superposition only requires linearity. It does not require relativity. It works just as well in water waves. Water waves ARE NOT relativistic. They have a preferred coordinate system (the rest system of the water). Sorry to say, but you have been had here.
There was some contention in earlier comments about the author presenting the particle as _literally_ emitting wavefronts and 'pinging'... even though he used the qualifiers "lets imagine" and "as though". The qualifiers seem to imply the model is allegorical or heuristic. And clearly, a _non-accelerating_ charged particle 'coasting' frictionlessly at high relativistic speed is not gonna emit any waves (unless it should hit a random magnetic field). But IF it were emitting the waves and 'pinging' as described, a profound heuristic emerges which the author elucidates brilliantly with pure math.
Someone else might well have deduced the 'pancake' effect mathlessly from an entirely different perspective, based on the space medium being a superfluid. Newton's first law attests to its superfluidity, enabling an object to 'coast' frictionlessly even at high relativistic speeds. In a such a scenario, the object's atomic lattice, particularly the electron 'shells' (orbitals) of its atoms cannot 'reach' fully ahead (no short bus jokes, pleez) against the fixed speed of light, thus retarding or 'pancaking' the forward face of the object. The object being not under acceleration precludes its trailing end from 'stretching' axially, so the whole object remains pancaked in both the forward and aft directions.
Having such a physical model, bolstered by the descriptive math, is how physics SHOULD be done by academia. But they'd first have to posit the space medium being real and literal, _which it is_ .
This is a beautiful path to derive relativity from Maxwellian electrodynamics, superposition, Doppler's law and Gamma, however, there are much more implications. The very same observations and conclusions account to gravitation. And yes we can use the gravitational potential too.
0:14 "The theory of special relativity is notoriously ambiguous on this subject."
You're off base from the get-go. Length contraction and time dilation are direct consequences of the Lorentz transformations, which are hyperbolic rotations on the manifold. Therefore, length contraction and time dilation are caused by observers using relatively-rotated coordinates (i.e., relative motion) to describe events. These two effects are completely unambiguous, both mathematically and physically.
I want to say up front, I'm a huge believer that relativity and quantum mechanics are almost certainly intimately connected in ways that we have yet to understand (see Susskind and Maldacena for more on that brilliant development). I just think the work done on this channel would be better contextualized in the larger picture of modern theoretical research if it could drop the grandiosity that seems to be unnecessarily attached to it all.
When I have a free day this week, I'll take a look at this video's details more closely.
This is absolutely kind blowing!
I love this autocorrect
@@erinm9445 lol sorry I meant mind blowing
@@jonathandawson3091 I know! Like I said, a great autocorrect!
This is very good.
I'm a physicist, who studied "modern physics" as the latter part of my degree, and although my career has led me to a more applied field (clinical physics), I've never lost interest in fundamental physics and cosmology.
I've mentally carried with me a list of questions which were never quite answered satisfactorily, including this one. For me it was exciting and refreshing to learn in my youth about Einstein's relativity, challenging a universal coordinate frame, and leading to the most verifiable physical predictions ever of our universe. But the explanations never quite seemed to be consistent with reality.
I look forward to your next offering, which promises to include the other forces (potentials) in this approach.
My degree at Oxford was called Natural Philosophy rather than Physics. This has always reminded me that understanding the nature of things is so much more important than describing things with mathematics and statistics, as important as that is.
Dialect I am a student in my third year of undergraduate physics and i appreciate your videos since they offer new perspectives to my studies of physics. I also like the fact that you show the niddy griddy mathematical details instead of just ranting philosophical conjectures. However, one criticism that I have regarding this video is that the steps used to rel the retarded potential of a charge in uniform motion to that of a stationary charge require the speed at which information travel (C) to be the same for both observers. Otherwise the scaling factor 1+-v/c wouldn't make much sense as it would be a function of both the relative speed v and the speed c which you will have to calculate in each respective frame. Second of all the most important assumption you have made is that the speed of propagation of information is not instant, that is it travels at a finite speed c. This assumption is a statement of causality which is heavily burried in Maxwell equations by those time derivatives. What i am trying to point out is that those two implicit assumptions in this video are exactly the assumptions of special relativity which Einstein simply put forth as postulates based on Maxwell equations. So no Wonder you got length contraction and the principle of relativity of inertial observers. In other words you derived SR without calling it SR. Infact SR says more than the principle of superposition used in this video. For example, special relativity asserts that the form of the laws of physics (field equations) is invariant under lorentz transformation, this is not a consequence of superposition neither retardation. Also, special relativity can handle accelerated reference frame and provides the necessary tensors to transform the E and B fields to those frames. This leads to a phenomenon called the rindler horizon, an event horizon similar to that of a black hole. This cannot be explained by wave mechanics of any sort, it's a causality partition of spacetime which you ignored in this video. Thanks for reading my constructive criticism!!
Ask yourself: Which kind of theoretical physics do you want--do we all want? One which only seeks the mathematical "laws" that can be used to describe and predict the observer's measurements? That's all that Einstein attempted to do. Consider that the Ptolemaic astronomy is another fine example of observer-based physics that worked. Or do we want a theoretical physics that actually theorizes--that attempts to explain what exists in this Cosmos and how it causes the phenomena that we observe and measure? Dialect is showing that the latter kind of physics--a truly theoretical physics--is not only possible, but far superior. To go beyond observer-based physics requires a theory of Cosmic space--of the electromagnetic-inertial/gravitational substance from which particles, electromagnetism, gravity and inertia arise. This space-physics revolution is long overdue.
I just watched part of a video of Terrence Howard at the Oxford Union.
Coming here is like taking a quick, cold shower to clean away mud.
Great video, as yours always are. Recently I read a paper about "the speed of gravity" by Tom Van Flandern, and this video rang a bell.
Well that explains it then, if the guy didn't have such a heavy side the charge wouldn't have been flattened and they would have learned nothing.😮. Thus they avoided the retarted potential and came up with the theory.
Physicists adopted the philosophical positivist strategy in trying to discover _mathematical_ descriptions of the world we live in with pictures as a guiding aid. As John Bell pointed out in his paper _How to teach Special Relativity:_ Einstein's and Lorentz's approaches are different philosophically, but give identical results.
Also, the 'superposition' of the potential you're describing here is a consequence of the 'effective' charge density which changes relative to its static value. Section 21-5 of Feynman's second Lecture volume has more to say on this.
8:32 the title card followed by the appearance of what seems to be a short bus was just too much for me and i just burst out laughing. 🤣
Nice work!
Again, a great video!
What about the transverse doppler effect? The frequency of a moving light source is reduced when the source is in motion. Would this reduction of frequency apply to the continuous emissions of the potentials you describe in this video as well?
Deriving from the scalar pulse is correct. Thank you.
23min long Video takes me almost 2 hours to catch the idea. Enjoin it . Good job
Nice graphics. What engine are you using?
a V8
If I understand properly, you're claiming that:
1) information is traveling at constant speed in every inertial frames (you assume the medium is inertial, so the charge moving at constant and linear speed with respect to the medium is inertial too)
2) there is no space nor time contraction, hence the frequency at which the potential of the moving charge pulses is the same as the one from from the charges at rest with respect to the medium
3) because of 1+2, the frequency at which the potential pulses seen from the medium, on the front and on the back of the charge is characterized by the classical doppler effect
4) you get a pancake shape
5) you get the wrong amplitudes orthogonally
I suppose you can fix that by forcing a variable charge too, instead of mass? If you look at the lorentz force classically, say, ma = q(E + v x B), then you cannot discriminate the motions of a (m,q) physical object with a (m',q') one, for m/q = m'/q', so you get this freedom too, right?
I think relativity is stronger because it'll force that mass and charge is the same in every inertial frame, while to save yourself, you're forced to make it variable
What I don't understand is... We use relativity every day at CERN and LIGO and other areas... Why is only Dialect who is bringing all that up? If relativity is incomplete then how the hek do we spend billions of dollars and euro on these experiments if we haven't at least done the math right?
How can we still be getting groundbreaking results (finding of the Higgs field, photographing a black hole, discovering gravitational waves etc...) with so MUCH incomplete knowledge?
I don't get it... I seriously want to see the Dialect team writing an actual scientific paper one day, one that can be peer reviewed... Videos like these are absolutely amazing and I can't get enough of them, but we the audience can't be the final judges... A paper needs to come after this.
@@-_Nuke_- i study physics at phd level. if i understand what is being said in this vid, the reason is that physicists already understand it. more precisely, the 'retarded' potential is just one of many valid potentials that can be used to calculate the physical effects of (classical-not quantum) moving charges. this one has a nice interpretation which is explained here, but the various potentials which can be used for a given physical circumstance are all equivalent and some are more useful for certain calculations than others. (choosing a certain potential, or a class of potentials, out of all the valid ones is called fixing a gauge.)
@@myca9322 Maybe I didn't fully understand the reason you emphasized "(classical-not quantum)" but I'm commenting so that if anyone gets confused like I did they get a clearer picture. Retarded and advanced potentials (Green's functions) are used in QFT in the form of the propagators, so these concepts do survive when quantizing.
@@apolo399 yes, they do appear. but there are many complications. in the classical case to find the equations of motion the prescription is: find the electromagnetic field associated to the potentials and integrate flows. this doesn't hold for QFT. in the perturbation analysis for scattering (ie feynman diagrams) it's eventually required to integrate over possible intermediate photon states, and there are different ways of doing so. usually the feynman propagator is used but presumably the advanced or returning could be used instead. here though these are not global potentials, not even proper local potentials, so it's not really an apt comparison.
@@apolo399 and there are other complications besides, involving self-interaction, quantization of the electromagnetic field, renormalization, and the fact that these calculations are all perturbative about plane-wave solutions, hence not really applicable to bound states or proper wave-packets. so, in all, these green function potentials do show up at 'virtual' level, but it has nowhere as nice an interpretation as in the classical case.
Truly Genius stuff Dialect.
Oh my gosh, this is a fantastic video! Since about a year ago I've wondered why potentials are so important in understanding the electromagnetic field. Last year I came across the Aharonov-Bohm effect, which requires potentials to understand. I'm at the 9:35 mark in the video and am assuming the connection will come up later in the video. But have to stop watching as am heading out the door shortly. Thank you for this enlightening video!
You are not alone. Energy Wave Theory (EWT) seems close to those ideas
Very cool !
Went right over my head 😅
The complexity of the nature of our existence and reality
I hope I don’t die before human understands gravity , dark matter and energy
So basically it is not a length contraction, but a transversal field amplification by a factor of gamma, right? Old longitudinal waves overlap with new longitudinal waves as if the charge is at rest. Old transversal waves overlap with new transversal waves as if they have higher frequency. But the charge is the same, so there is a difference in field between a moving charge and a rest charge, if we want to keep the charge and the length absolute.
Beautiful work! If you don't mind me asking, what do you use to make these videos?
Also, RIP to Lindner, I can tell by your video that this means a lot to you.❤❤❤
amazing video
great video.
Excellent video. You are making truly astounding animations. I would try and turn down the affirmations of an absolute reference frame and physical reality however. What you are presenting is a consistent alternative interpretation but just like the QM interpretation problem, one cannot say for certain which is correct.
I love that you're able to do the math and deeper reasoning for the things I'm becoming increasing suspicious of. Like the possibility of all 'laws' or measurements in physics being explainable through wave dynamics. Right now I'm blank on how interacting wave 'pings' could yield attraction vs. repulsion. I'm remembering bouncing droplets videos. Maybe some kind of combination of different types of waves in the medium? That's pretty much where I get lost (like, at conception).
You’re in good company regarding getting lost when asking deeper “why” questions. I imagine any good answer to your question will also result in the possibility of another deeper why question. Every theory at some point has to draw its line in the sand and give its “just because” axioms.
Awesome ideas❤
Thank you!
Not sure I follow the first part about the field needing time to react. Isn’t it the other way around? That the particle is a result of the field, or a physical manifestation thereof? In that case no time is needed between them, as there is no “them”, it is one and the same? Admittedly, I haven’t read the quantum field theories yet, just a bit of regular quantum mechanics.
Even if something "is one and the same", if different parts of it are a some distance apart, those parts will still need time to communicate. It's like how it takes time for your brain signals to get to your feet event though they're all part of the same body.
I thought the exact same thing... The "particle" IS an excitation of the field... And it's not even a spherical thing... It's a spread out probability wave... Probably a manifestation of the underlying physics of many parallel universes interfering with each other...
The, say, electron, is a perturbation of the electron field, not of the electromagnetic field, which has the photon as its perturbation. So both fields do need to interact causally. Dialect doesn't understand how 1) classically, fields and matter interact, and 2) how quantum fields interact. The "paradox" presented here isn't a problem. Phycists do understand how all of this works, and we do use retarded potentials extensively.
10:13 What is meant by „refreshed“? Does this result in a different interaction compared to a static potential?
Great video as always, however its really hard for me to just shift my entire understanding of SR & GR, on one hand there are the grounding formalisms of SR & GR that we know for over a 100 year and tought at every academic institut in the worlds, as well as all the remarkable predictions that these formalisms predicts and have proven been by many experiments, they're the fundation of science as we know it, on the other your theory look like a breakthrough to our understanding of those formalisms & their interpretations, I cant wait to read your paper, I hope you publish it soon
i have gone through the cannot believe due to 'the remarkable predictions' and 'every academic (institute)' argument phase myself. How can this possibly be true? then all these people must have missed it? It took me a while, but this feeling will subside, if you will be persistent and critical and never take anyones word for it, certainly not the last citizens with titles. Lee Smolin summarized this (and a shocking number of other mainstream scientific pseudotruth's (as history in physics ed. is called pseudophysics - but is actual verifiable falsification, i will keep that term), that it is truly mind boggling how many intelligent people can be truly convinced of something of which they later independently come to see is so obviously wrong...
Relativity is one thing, but how many MD's actually do not have a full grasp of what a p-value is, leads to what is called death-by-significance. 'The cult of statistical significance' written by the amici of SCOTUS on the subject is as unbelievable as well as irrefutable。 All I can coclude is that social subjective reality and something with the development related to consciousness or cognition is being missed by our academia and our culture. The term modern science has not been appropriate for at least 200 years. Humility and soul-searching for science... and thank Brahman for AI.
great stuff!
Are there any working physicists in here that can back this up or refute any of these videos? Where's Brian Greene when you need him.
I'm a PhD theoretical physicist and all he says is sound. In fact, it is not different from standard school book physics in its predictions, just different in the interpretation. It is more philosophy than physics and thereby something most physicists are not trained in (but should be if they are working in the foundations).
I am doing my Ph.D. on something similar I am able to explain both gravity and the CMBR as well as cosmological redshift with aether and this is exactly how I explain Electro dynamics to my juniors
@@TheOneMaddinit's a little more than philosophical if they about to do away with relatively and unify electromagnetic and mechanical physics
He's correct
@@OhPuree42 Einstein disagreed with most of his work just before the end of his life, his theories rely on nonsense concepts and give outlandish conclusions
Anyone who things the CONCEPT space bends should not call themselves scientists, I don't care how many degrees and PhD's you have or nobel's you have won, you are an idiot
The Principle of Relativity is a measured effect, and also fundamentally linked to all of physics predating Newton. It is equivalent via Noether's Theorem to various conservation laws, you can't avoid it without being reduced to abstract math, and you'd find yourself without conservation of energy nor momentum -- and without a Doppler Shift formula.
Wouldn’t we find experimentally that charged particles have a “pancaked” field only when measured by an observer that sees the charged particle moving relative to themselves? A second particle moving at the same speed would observe no pancaked field at all, and thus would experience an electric field and corresponding force equivalent to that of a stationary particle. In order to recover the variable field that results in physical length contraction, we need to reintroduce a third particle at motion relative to the first two that observes the pancaked field and therefore observes the second particle move closer due to forces it experiences via the field.
The answer to your question is yes, but I’m not sure what you are confused about. In normal relativity, observers moving in relative motion to each other see each other length contracted and have no issues with objects moving with their same relative motion. Why do you think there is a problem with two observers moving together under the explanation of this video?
I mean, that is what we find experimentally, no?
@@ExistenceUniversity I'm not sure, from what you wrote, whether you understand it correctly, so let me put that in a more correct form.
*1)* the guy sitting in the car observes nothing special about himself;
*2)* you - outside the car, and "standing still" - observe:
--- the car, the drivers and all the things moving "together" with the car as being "pancaked" in the direction of motion; but everything is pancaked by the same amount, so nobody notices anything strange; meters are pancaked just like everything so they measure the same lengths;
--- everything in the car, or moving together with it, experiences time as ticking slower: all clocks AND all physical / physiological processes are slowed down by the same amount so they notice nothing weird: they seem to be experiencing a slower time passage and not realizing it;
--- (last but not least): the clocks ahead of them (in the direction of travelling) and in their rear do not show (TO YOU) the same time. This is a tie to *general relativity* , and is due to the car driver's (prior) *acceleration* phase that brought him from being in "your" frame (standing "still") to their final, constant, velocity.
While accelerating, in fact, the car experiences an instantaneous and uniform gravitational field (equivalence principle) pointing to his rear, with a magnitude equal to that of their acceleration with respect to you standing still; the clocks in the rear then *slow down* (being deeper "down" in the gravitational field) and the clocks ahead *run faster* (they're more "up" in the gravitational field); then the car stops accelerating and the situation becomes "frozen", with the clocks ahead and in the rear showing different times *but ticking at exactly the same (yet slower) pace* .
*3)* the guy in the car, when looking at YOU (standing still) has an exactly symmetrical experience of YOU (pancaked, slowed down, and with your front and rear clocks _ticking slower yet in sync_ , and showing times ahead and delayed, respectively).
@@ExistenceUniversity NO. and I feel sorry for your "students" if you're a teacher. You evidently do not understand relativistic physics... or .. well physics for that matter. I was right to take the time to show you the right picture.
I'll repeat just ONE more time, then I'm done:
According to Dialect - and I don't share the same view - the drivers *pancakes* physically. Dialect says, I DO pancake when I'm driving. and YOU DO TOO. But - again Dialect says - : there is NO WAY of detecting this "pancaking" because every pancaked sensor (be it nerves, meters, any instruments that you can think of) ALSO PANCAKES in the very same shape and amount.
And this pancaking is absolute. it happens. the argument "do you feel pancaked when driving?" is nonsensical in EVERY physics reasoning possible. You are a layman, therefore YOU SHOULDN'T TEACH anyone about physics.
But... I repeat: I don't share the same view, but for other reasons! I'm pro-relativistic view, so spacetime is really contracting and time is slowing, and all that jazz... only my view is that physics is made of RELATIONS and this has some deeper implications about spacetime etc.. but you wouldn't understand, cuz you're an absolute ignorant of the matter..
LET IT SUFFICE that your view is WRONG. don't tell anyone please! don't "teach this stuff"... please don't.
What a beautiful video of great value 🫶 it’s amazing how you can make this work 🍀 thank you for sharing this beautiful piece of artwork with us all ♾️ keep it up 👍 sharing is caring
Thanks a lot man!!
Fascinating!
very interesting!!
Yep, I think this makes sense, I've read it in the book Introduction to Electrodynamics. However, we still need special relativity to explain the invariant nature of the speed of light in a vacuum (which is used as a postulate). You're also right about the relativistic mass at the end of the video.
By any chance is the author of that book Griffiths?
Cause I just bought it.
How does this explain the actual contraction that's happening? It perfectly explains why the EM field of a moving charge does not "lag" behind and also why it is stronger in the transverse direction, however, in these calculations we see that the effect in the direction of the motion perfectly cancels out. So why is it contracted in that direction?
I'm sure it's in the math somewhere that in the end, theres a factor of gamma whether you're doing it classically or relativistically, but also, if you imagine a particle going closer and closer to the speed of light, the front end of the particle must have very compressed potential waves that die off quickly, because they haven't gotten very far in a relatively long time.
If the limit is it being infinitely pancaked, then it must smoothly transition there from not being pancaked at all, the function being a factor of gamma.
@@lih3391 yes but that is the usual STR explanation, and the point of the video was to justify that with classical arguments i thought
@@doctormeister what about that was not classical?
@@lih3391 yes sorry its classical but the "must smoothly transition" to somehow get the gamma factor is very unsatisfying and similar to the usual arguments.
@@doctormeister You shouldn't expect so much from thought experiments, only when you think through it slowly along with the math will you get the full picture. That's also the best way since everyone is satisfied at different levels of understanding, and physics is inherently about making *mathematical* theories to get actual numbers for predictions.
8:40
The short bus had me dying 😆
My thought was "Whoops, how to get canceled over a theoretical physics video!" :-)
it wasn’t short it was “length contracted” 😅
The multiplying by f, reminds me of the Lorentz or static gauge. Is the field-theoretic equivalent of this argument just a gauge artifact? I'd have to seriously check out some of those papers, parsing the arguments, to know.
@@ExistenceUniversity I didn't come to that conclusion. Are there other places where he espouses Flat Earth ideas?
@ExistenceUniversity I've seen some pictures in older videos showing stuff that looks like flat earth at first but I think he is using the usual Principle of Equivalence of GR. Acceleration is equivalent to gravity. In this video, I'm not seeing anything that is weird, other than Doppler shifting the non-physical frequency. From what you've seen, what quantity do you see is different between rest frames, explicitly?
This is very cool!
Question : does this pancaking happpens when the observer ( measuring device) is moving relative to the aether , or only when the charge particle move relative to aether ?
Ether based theories (like that of Lorentz), which is basically what you are talking about here, were never disproven by Einstein's relativity. However, they were abandoned because, unlike relatively, they did not lead to new physics (e.g. general relativity, or the Dirac equation and relativistic QM).
Great vidéo ! And the charge interference or superposition, can explain: pauli exclusion principle, light emission from atoms and exchange energy in quantum mechanics. Keep up the good work 👊
In your analysis, the observer is moving with the charge (parallel and equidistant). This is not the case if the observer is stationary and the charge is moving towards or away from the observer, due to the change in latency of propagation to the observer...
Length contraction changes the container of value (potential) not the value. The literal size doesn't change, but the ability to store that size does. It's why particles become beams in an accelerator. The information defining the charge can travel FTL. It's the cause of Cherenkov radiation.
"and Boom! Out pops our pancake fields!" made me chuckle.
At 12:31 you talk about the potential getting weaker on one side and stronger on the other, but the whole purpose of the circle is to show where the potential is the same if it propagates at c. We shouldn't be comparing it to where the charge traveled to either, as we want to know the potential at that point in space, not the potential relative to the charge. Length contraction in Relativity is not a postulate. It is derived. At most you take the same postulate as Relativity does, light always goes c, and derive length contraction in a different way. I don't think it works out logically though. Maybe I missed something. The rest of your videos are great. This one needs work.
yes finaly a new dialect video
Nice! Very nice!
Hi Dialect. I was wondering what are your thoughts on what is the most likely correct metaphysical theory of time in the philosophy of time today? The dominant positions are presentism, growing block theory, and eternalism (other minority positions include the moving spotlight theory and the shrinking block theory of time)
I gotta know man… HOW DO YOU ANIMATE THESE??? I just learned manim and thought I was cracked but this stuff is on another level
You just showed Maxwell's equations are Lorentz invariant. This was a known fact way prior to Einstein. That's what motivated him to arrive at SR.
Dialect's ideas don't argue against SR, they are a different interpretation for what is physically happening that creates the math of SR that we observe. It really comes down to: is light speed invariant in all reference frames but space and time relative? Or are space and time invariant, but it's light speed that changes (relative to you) depending on how fast you are moving? They result in the same math, but the latter is far, far simpler. But the latter only works if length contraction exists as a physical phenomenon independent of relativity.
@@erinm9445 the two way speed of light is constant and that's been verified by many experiments, you can assume the one way speed of light is variable, but that will remain an unprovable hypothesis.
@@galveston8929 Agreed. But the current assumption that the one-way speed of light is invariant is also an unprovable hypothesis. This leaves open two different possible interpretations.
But it is equally unprovable that the one way speed of light is constant.
Having two models dual to each other is potentially more informative and inspiring than having just one.
this is one of those instant rewatch ones
What I don't understand under this perspective is that any lengths are contracted. If a particle from the Sun is moving towards the Earth, the distance between the Sun and the Earth will be shorter in the frame of the particle, so it doesn't apply to objects only.
This issue is explained in our videos "Matrix Theory" and "The Loophole". The length contraction an observer perceives depends on how they construct their coordinates and the assumptions that go into those constructions. By adopting the correct epsilon (synchronicity) values no such length contraction of space will be observed.
@@dialectphilosophy So, does this mean that length contraction of space is a matter of coordinates while the length contraction of objects is due to the change in the electromagnetic force?
That was very great. So many cool questions i haven't asked, like why inertial motion didn't make EM field to lag. But for me more natural to ask " why this math is perfectly cancels out?".
How does this work around a black hole? What would be the charged particle's electric field shape if the field curvature was noticeable?
Woooooow, I understood some of it....😢
Trig always comes in clutch
Can u please recommend what a beginner interested in thesw topics should start at?
You just did it. Absolutely Mindblowing