SPONSOR: As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe Timestamps: 00:00 - Intro 01:11 - How to Improve Science 05:56 - Einstein and Hawkins 11:10 - Discovery of Gravitational Waves 21:03 - The Stages of Discovery 26:57 - The Fractal Model of Society 36:52 - How Society Forms You 45:08 - Moral Truths and Science 55:30 - Outro / Support TOE
Dear Curt, on UA-cam you can find Dr. Unzicker channel. He is a theoretical physicist, and he is trying to reduce the number of fundamental constants. Maybe you could ask him to be your guest on your channel.
30:10 according to this diagram Nazis are the truth lol awfully very strange and specific things on this diagram which kind of make me not trust the validity of it... Not very well thought out.
It amazes me that your guest is a sociologist, but is completely blind to two critically important details about human behavior. In therapy and 12-step groups I was taught the phrase, "Trust the Trustworthy" because I'd been too open, too honest, and there had been dishonest people around me who used my honesty against me. Your guest then asks, "Who cares about individual scientists?" and posits that the only value of scientific discovery is its use to the public, as if these scientists don't have jobs, don't have mortgages, don't have to worry about losing their jobs because of any of the hundreds of bad things that can happen when your kitchen is too open - which he clearly knows, because of Panel E in his diagram at 44:00. He says he doesn't know how to stop institutional competition. You can't. Not until you put bounds on individual competition (which is what ethics IS), but there are no laws that can undo the kinds of harm that can be caused by unethical behavior - which is exactly the reason everyone (scientists or otherwise) needs to know how much to share, and how much not to. He seems to believe that turning away from science is eroding trust in society. The reality is that society has always been dishonest. Science has always been subservient to the powers that be. The only time science is given free reign is when it stays far, far away from challenging the status quo. What's been eroding over the last 60 years isn't society's trust in science, it's society's trust in the powers that be. And it's been the powers that be that have demonized science in a bid to retain power - just like they've done for hundreds of years, any time they feel challenged. This isn't new.
I read the "Who cares about individual scientists?" question/statement as a push towards removing "peopleness bias" to focus on "the truth" of the science towards a society based on truth, as it leads to "trust" betwixt and between its parts.
@@lesliedean8029 False dichotomy. You can desire to both protect your employees and pursue the truth in their results. If the only reason people don't trust the results is because they don't understand the reason scientists need to guard their work then that means you need to educate people on the importance of guarding their work, not strip scientists of their ability to do so.
I agree that this is mostly a power structure issue! I think we have a hard time understanding what is even meant by "human behavior" or human nature, as it's often put. We are the most adaptable species ever and yet we act like we can look at the last hundred or so years, since almost all of psychology has developed in rhat short time, and actually know what is natural. But this whole time has been within a system that shapes us in very particular ways. Psychology is at best pseudoscience and yet goes around trying to get us to believe we understand human nature so definitively. The problem is that we have very little knowledge of what human nature looks like outside of a system that's based on competition, profit, growth, and greed, and so it's very hard to see just how much of our behavior is actually caused by the system itself. The dishonesty you mention, for example. We live in a system where dishonesty can get you ahead, if applied carefully. Of course, many people are going to be dishonest when they see it as a net benefit to their life. I think you can apply this to many aspects on negative behavior. If we actually were to change this system, which we already must do if we are to survive this century, then we'll see a very different kind of human nature arise. That could be for the better or the worse, depending on the system we design in its place. We should at least apply some of what we know, but also be open to just how much we mold ourselves into the people we become. A system based instead on cooperation would have a vastly different outcome. How we think about power structures will be at the heart of such decisions as well
@@MattAngiono "We should at least apply some of what we know, but also be open to just how much we mold ourselves into the people we become." ... "A system based instead on cooperation would have a vastly different outcome." You seem to be missing my point. We're already in a society/system based on cooperation. That is not enough. If you want to make it safe to be as open as Mr. Collns suggests you must also make it impossible for bad actors to abuse the system. And that is never going to happen, for two reasons. First because human creativity and curiosity will always drive some of us to break the rules just to see if we can. We find joy in crossing every boundary (not individually, but collectively). And second, because there are those who would do the same for the additional joy called greed.
I hate to say it but I think it's incredibly naive to think science is or would be different from any other human endeavour. Office politics trumps all. Particularly if fame, fortune and careers are at stake. I say this as a professional physicist of 30 years +.
Science is supposed to be our best people to not hold our smartest to high standards or have higher expectations seems completely understandable to believe this to be true. Doesn’t it ? I could be wrong and missing something important which is more than possible because I am not a expert in any of this.
Naive to assume people who dedicate themselves to holding truth and evidence of reality as the highest standard would behave any different than pimps, payday lenders and used-car salesman? Perhaps that says more about professional physicists in the last 30 years than it does the profession as a whole.
@@davidchavez81yes, but what is this "profession" that you speak of in which "people dedicate themselves to holding truth and evidence of reality as the highest standard"? Economics? Medicine? Photography? Or, to put it another way, what profession _doesn't?_ Because I'm pretty sure that if you asked a used-car salesman whether they, and the cars they were peddling, were real or not, then I'm guessing they would answer in exactly the same manner as if you asked a biologist if they and their Petri dishes were real. Yes, but biologists don't lie about their research findings, you say. Well, that may or may not be true, but then what types of lies do pimps tell when they're advertising their wares? And used-car salesmen don't really _lie_ so much as be economical with the truth. Ah, yes, but people like biologists, or astronomers, or physicists are different because they aren't "economical" with the truth, they simply _tell_ the truth, you retort. They don't _mislead_ people about _reality!_ But that's just not true, for they most certainly _do_ mislead people. For instance, if you are a physicist working in quantum theory, then your work - including how you write, talk, and think about it - will be informed by which "interpretation" of quantum mechanics you subscribe to. Those in the "many worlds" camp hold wildly divergent views of what "reality" consists of than those from the Copenhagen school will tell you. And, depending if they prefer MOND or WIMP explanations for dark matter, then astronomers will tell you wildly different stories about what 24% of the universe is made out of. LQG researchers will tell you the truth, and that string theorists are lying. Ask 100 biologists what "life" is, and you'll get 100 different answers... and give any of these groups a few drinks and they'll openly fight each other about just what "reality" really is. And no, they won't _really_ be lying, but they _will_ be being economical with the truth... and so, at least by your definition, pimping must be the most morally virtuous profession of them all! The more closely you look at things, at _anything,_ the more you realise that, as unsavoury and unsatisfying as it may be, there is precious little in the world that one can hold aloft and proudly assert that _this_ is the truth. Because... who's "truth" are you ultimately holding up? Look, obviously I'm not suggesting that pimping (as opposed to prostitution) should be regarded in _any_ way other than with a vast amount of disdain, and, having had my left-rear tyre overtake me on the road once, not long after having purchased a used-car, I'm not exactly lauding that profession either. But this is not to dilute my central point, which is that making nebulous statements about "holding truth about evidence of reality as the highest standard" isn't merely to engage in naive, soap-box, pap, but that to believe such qualities truly exist in some Platonic sense - that they are objectively _real_ - is also ill-reasoned, incoherent, and almost wholly illusory. Such things are normative quantities, they are imbued with morality and meaning _by_ society, and not the other way around. Reality, whatever it may be, is far less real than people think. And science, for all its manifest value, is a social construction, deal with it. Oh, and maybe you could try not sounding like a total dick the next time you respond to a comment. It kinda helps. You're welcome. 🙏🏻
Needs more push back from interviewer for these kind of extraordinary claims. Exactly what was wrong with the original MM experiment? And why could such a result not have been possible until 2nd half of 20th century.
>>>Exactly what was wrong with the original MM experiment? Nothing was wrong with it. And the fact that "it didn't show anything" was precisely the reason it was so important: it failed to indicate the presence of an expected "aether wind."
Wow, it is simply amazing that as I realize & and learn these things in life on my own, science seems to be releasing the info at the same rate.. coincidental? I think not 😂
The Descartian Fallacy is at the core of a lot of this. It's not that the Cartesian view is wrong, it's that people elevated Descartes to the point of scientific sainthood so they could avoid thinking about magic. 🤷
The person he's referring to is likely Dayton Clarence Miller, an American physicist and astronomer known for his experiments in the early 20th century that he claimed showed a slight variation in the speed of light, potentially challenging the results of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. The Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) was designed to detect the presence of the "aether," a medium that was once believed to permeate space and carry light waves. Michelson and Morley found no significant variation in the speed of light, suggesting that no such aether existed and that the speed of light is constant in all directions, a result that strongly supported Einstein's special theory of relativity. However, Miller, starting in 1902 and continuing into the 1920s, conducted his own series of experiments, using a more sensitive version of Michelson's interferometer. He claimed to have detected small variations in the speed of light depending on the time of day and the position of the Earth in its orbit, which he interpreted as evidence of aether drift.
The Michelson Morley Experiment did not attempt to detect the aether. It attempted to detect an "aether wind" or "aether drift," which was a difference in the measured light speed between two light beams sent in two different directions which were normal (90 degrees) to each other, but travelled the same exact distance. Miller was testing for the same exact phenomena, only he did so with much better equipment for a much longer duration at a facility that was on top of a mountain instead of in the underground basement of a Princeton building, like the MM experiment. Of course, Miller's experiment did not fit the mainstream propaganda narrative and was mothballed as it disproved Einstein's erroneous theories. Since then, they place heavy spin on anything that contradicts Einstein's theories, such as the Sagnac Experiment and the Pound Rebka Experiment.
Also, the MM Experiment had no consideration at all for Einstein's theories as they came much later with SR being published in 1905 and GR being published in 1915. In fact, special relativity was heavily influenced by the MM Experiment's erroneous results.
The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for a drift velocity, but that concept assumes the medium to be of some substance with a discernable location with which to measure drift -as if it had atoms or the like. It is massless, obviously, so how can you expect to measure something that has no points to measure. This lack of drift velocity IN NO WAY dictated that light is constant to each observer. If you really think about that, it's crazzy to think that way. In my opinion, constant light per observer is the next chapter in the narcissistic nature of humans putting themselves at the center AGAIN! This theory is presumed and believed FIRST, then transform equations change your dimension numbers (after "declaring" c the constant) to make it true ON YOUR PAPER. There are very few proofs of this. The majority of support is a test of USING the theory. All Gamma-Ray bursts arrive here in order of wavelength with radio always last. If this were known then, Relativity would not be here now.
@@jnhrtmn Had the Sagnac Experiment been performed before the Michelson Morley Experiment, Einsteinian relativity would never had been accepted. The Sagnac Effect is the same exact effect that the Michelson Morley detected, but at much too low of a difference to be close to the speed of earth's rotation due to the measurement being taken of a two way speed of light that largely cancels itself out due to the average of c+v and c-v being c. The MM Experiment did not actually have a null result.
Science can't justify any system because economics is pseudoscience at best. That said, applying systems thinking to economics and many other layers of society would be highly beneficial. You wouldn't get communism, but you definitely wouldn't get capitalism either. This system is based on an even worse understanding of human beings and basic resource management. We're literally going to destroy our own habitat and bring on our own extinction if we let profit drive our direction much longer
Normal science is to have peer review. The Copenhagen Group have disputed the justification for the results because LIGO refuse to release the testable data and the process. Just release that. Emails and pronouncements might be nice but third party verification - which isn't exactly easy to drop in and do anyway - is better.
As a member of the public, I love the idea of incremental release of progress, and much more transparency. If you want to catch the attention of the public, the thrill of victory, and the agony of defeat even in small stages, can keep people interested.
Then how was so much discovered and advanced in the 100 years after MM??? Maybe gravity is just super weak and it's really hard to find violations of lorentz invariance 🤷
@@cdenn016what has been “discovered” that has “advanced” us? The technology for our entire civilization could be developed just using Heaviside, Maxwell, Tesla. What has quantum physics or QED or string theory done to directly to contribute to technology that we couldn’t have done with just Heaviside? Nothing at all. I always hear people say that quantum physics is our “most successful theory”. That statement is made but never ever does anybody explain the metric for “success”. “Successful at making predictions”. Predictions of what exactly? Oh wait. You mean the predictions that have the hundred of “problems” like “the hard problem of consciousness” ect ect ect. Bottom line is. We need to retrace our steps back to Heaviside or Einstein and pick a different direction.
Despite all of the advancements that came after the MM experiment, I agree that it has contributed to the current stagnation. The MM experiment is one of the most misunderstood, misinterpreted experiments ever conducted. What it did do in fact was that it reaffirmed Galileo's Principle of Relativity. What it did NOT do was verify that the speed of light is constant for all observers. The light source used in the experiment was internal and moved with the apparatus. As a result - the observed outcome did eliminate the possibility of a fixed universal aether. But the observed outcome did not indicate that light propagates without any aether at all. That's because each electron that is about to fall to a lower energy level and create a light wave is surrounded by its own electric field. These electric field lines projecting into space are in fact the aether that the light waves travel through. Have you ever wondered why the chapter in a typical undergraduate text book that discusses the generation and propagation of light does such a great job with a simple easy-to-understand explanation of an EM wave propagation model traveling through an existing electric field - but then a few chapters later introduces the concept of relativity while conveniently forgetting that light is a traveling EM wave and instead uses a ridiculous bouncing photon mirror clock?
Deep in the echo chambers we find the dogmatic parrots squawking" peer review! peer review!". But the book says I cant have my diploma if i think for myself and don't behave like a lemming in a lab coat.
Loved this episode. Also, I have always loved books that were well written and the perspectives too. Not to mention interesting. People should read books of all perspectives, even if they are not the full truth. Read everything and question everything to keep your brain sharp and to expand your mind to find the answers. Find the answers within and by connecting to beauty🕊️
@@theotherIIIThe Michelson Morley Experiment attempted to detect the same exact phenomena that was observed by the Sagnac Experiment. Michelson originally hypothesized an experiment where light went around the entire earth in both directions, but was unable to perform that experiment due to deficiencies in technology and funding. So, instead, he created the interferometer which produces erroneous results repeatedly. The originally hypothesized experiment was nothing more than a huge Sagnac Experiment where the earth itself is used as the rotating light path. Had this experiment taken place, it would have provided the results the Michelson was attempting to detect.
When are scientists going to figure out that the changes in the measures of time and distance due to the amount of gravity in the vicinity change the speed of light relative to our measures of time and distance where we are inside of a galaxy? Scientists can’t seem to figure out that where gravity changes time and distance it changes the speed of light and the rate of causation. Space is not flat in the measures of time and distance on larger scales just like the Earth is not flat on larger scales. Light MUST indeed *always* travel 186,000 miles an hour at the speed of light C. When distance is stretched from having less gravity, light must still complete traveling that distance in the time determined by C. That means the light is traveling faster as perceived by us in a more contracted frame of reference where there is more gravity. Add to that the fact that a second passes by faster away from the center of mass which increases the speed light MUST travel even more. It’s really not complicated. It’s so simple. It’s the very reason things appear to be moving faster than the speed of light moving away from the center of the galaxy because they are moving faster away from the center of the galaxy yet without exceeding the speed of light. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand. There are three rates to consider. 1. The diminishing effect or draw of gravity away from the center of mass. 2. The increasing rate of time away from the center of mass. 3. The increasing measure of distance away from the center of mass. Speed is measured by time and distance which both change and that changes the speed of light and causation. Things happen faster. Distance gets longer without gravity and time goes by faster, both of which combine to speed up causation. The light has to arrive at a farther distance faster when distance is stretched *and* time also goes by faster. *Then* there is the first thing to consider and that is the diminishing draw of gravity the farther away it is from the center of the galaxy which means things eventually slow down the farther away they are from the center mass of a galaxy. (It's not complicated. No dark matter is needed.) 😎 Redshift happens when light leaves a galaxy. Blueshift happens as light enters a galaxy. All things being equal, the light will be redshifted as it leaves a galaxy and then blueshifted back again as it enters our galaxy. Except we already know galaxies are different sizes. The distant galaxies that we can see are very large and the distances between here and there is excessive causing more redshift than our small galaxy can blueshift back to its original spectrum. The more distant a galaxy is the more accumulated gravity there is from nearby masses causing more redshift.
The part that gets me is the conclusion of "no ether medium for light" due to M-M experiment yet "EM-field medium for light" is still valid?? Ive yet to hear a satisfying response to "why cant we consider the EM field (etc) as 'ether'? " or some variation of that question. Often i hear "light doesnt travel in a medium" as if it isnt an EM wave lol. Maybe im missing some important distinction...
The distinction is that at first people thought ether was kind of like a fluid. Suppose a wave is travelling in the sea, going 10km/h. If you are on a ship travelling in the opposite direction with 10km/h, you see it doing 20km/h. But this does not happen with light. The way people explained it was to say, well, maybe as you are travelling through this fluid you drag some of the fluid with you, so a big thing was to figure out what the dynamics of this fluid were. Lorentz actually had the Lorentz transformations (which are now explained by special relativity) before special relativity was a thing, and interpreted them as properties of this aether. You could 100% interpret special relativity as an aether theory, it's just that the approach of Einstein proved more powerful and intuitive, and even ended up explaining gravity, so the aether interpretation became unfashionable. If I'm not mistaken people have come up with "Einstein aether" theories, which adopt the aether perspective to explain general relativity, and they are more or less equivalent for most stuff. But it gets pretty involved and most people just don't see the point in it. Really ditching the aether is mostly a shift in viewpoint, because thinking about a fluid with dynamical properties is probably pointlessly confusing and superfluous when we know now that we can just say it's all due to how you convert from frame to frame, or, in more modern perspective, because of the geometry of spacetime.
The difference is that the Ether was a substance, so you could, say, have a cup of Ether, and you could meaningfully ask what is the Ether made of. In contrast, the EM field is not a substance, it's notade of anything, and there is no meaning to getting a cup of EM field. It's just a property of space-time.
As other have said, yes, in a sense the EM field does reintroduce the idea of a medium for light. But its properties as a relativistic quantum field are different from what anyone was capable of imagining as properties of a medium back when people were using the word “ether”.
@definitelynotofficial735 That's the problem with mathematics: there are so many isometries. Though it strikes me, esp with current "there are real and realized frictionless/dragless fluid materials", that we'd get hung up on such a mundane and assumed property of fluid and then throw the whole baby out with the bathwater by assuming something ("no-medium") as fundamental instead of a property of some other system (e.g. "ether is superfluid so drag doesn't apply", which I don't mean to taut as correct, just an example. I know *that* rabbit hole exists lmao). It's amazing, the isometries of math and how different systems can produce an identical meta-system. @@yrgautumn "The difference is that the Ether was a substance, so you could, say, have a cup of Ether, and you could meaningfully ask what is the Ether made of. In contrast, the EM field is not a substance, it's notade of anything, and there is no meaning to getting a cup of EM field. It's just a property of space-time." But why can't we just ascribe "not made of anything" to ether? I *can* be like "this a specific volume of EM field in a specific state" (a very real and mathematically rigorous definition), which is just as material and real as saying "have a cup of something". Though I'm wary of such layman phrasings because it's like saying "point to the climate! Oh you can't? It's not real then" So if I may summarize what I think yall are saying: Ether means a very specific material and behavior, as opposed to the generic one: a vague concept, that seems to have survived in the popular eye. And it's that specific material and behavior that has been shown to be inaccurate (or at least the assumptions we have about it). I guess it's just the way I think about things that has added to the confusion. The physicists involved were like "a fluid can only be this", but I'm not quite so strict about that (having seen cold helium lol).
Not quite, you see the experimental design of M&M cant pick up a different phase depending in orientation from the speed of light, or the length of the arms, or a different passage of time or a change in the geometry of space itself, that depends on direction, if these sorts of variables conspire to produce a null result. That is the big takeaway, physics that is equivalent to shortening the arms in relation to the velocity vector through the medium in a way such that the effective distance and effective two way speed of light integrated over the lenght of light clocks in any orientation in relation to the speed through the medium and its direction, then the phase shift would not be produced, just like in the experiment, and just like if we imagined the experiment being stationary in relation to the medium no matter how fast you are going, because of this equivalence in observables, Einstein used this kind of representation to formulate special relativity, and so for every reference frame in special relativity, the physics works like Newtonian spacetime with anything stationary not being contracted or slowed down in time at all, and anything moving would have its internal relationships produce the same observables, therefore after a transform you could have such a representation for any frame of reference, this makes perfect sense, its not wrong. But whether you choose ti use this form of representation is entirely arbitrary, its a convention of description for more complicated reasons. But it has nothing to do with whether a mwdium is there, whether there is a velocity relative to is at all, Einstein knew this, and that is why he said that it is a superfluous concept, not a discredited one. And indeed for the purposes of describing observables, because of thos freedom in choosing a representation, at least with respect to the observables known at the time, you dont need to talk about an ether or ether drift at all for the purposes of describing the physics in any reference frame. But if you want to understand whether the ether is a useful concept the answer is simple, it might not matter for some levels of description like special relativity and field theories of stuff that moves slower than light, but also you need to know how an ether theory would work wkth small deviations from lorentz invariance, to be able to have a full view of the situations and what effects to test special relativity against. If you capitulate to lorentz invariance and say its forever gonna hold and the ideas about the ether that seem superfluous given lorentz invariance are forever irrelevant, that is like amputating your own arm because you currently only use the left one to jerk off and write with, that a shame if you at some point have to climb down a ladder right. Should be easy enough to understand even without knowing the technical details. So, in a model of an ether with physics where these higher level variables of motions in it have lorentz invariance, you could have velocity through the medium, but measure no effects from an interferometry experiment of any kind. So. It is not true to say that to disprove that there is such a thing as the eaths motion through the ether you would have to measure the speed at various times of year, yes it is true that if there is a stationary ether frame, at some point in a year it could be tje case that earth is standing still for a moment in the ether, but thats a secondary concern, if you took the mm experiment and spun it around slowly all year round such that you cover aøl your basis, you will still see a null result, and that would not do anything to dent that idea that the experiment os moving through a medium at a given speed at any given time. Because physical lenght contraction that depends upon the velocity through the ether would make such results null for any orientation anyway.
The concept of the "ether" is still with us today, but the name has been changed to the... "Higgs Field". Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
@@SpotterVideo Interesting but want to learn more. I don't know where to start but I always thought that the M-M experiment was the most erroneous experiment. Counting out aether as a building block of space-time was propped by this experiment, and probably the artificial divide between a physics of small and big took root here. My mental picture of the universe is made of basically TWO entities, metaphorically explained as the SEA (1) and ICE (2). The SEA is an aether filled domain hosting bubbles, waves and ripples (the Higgs particle, photons) and the ICE represents tangled aether-ates (creating all leptons and quarks of matter and anti-matter) a varying stability. Where does gravity fit in then? It is a density gradient of the aether field. Gets rarefied closer to tangled knots, and the acceptable terminology would be 'wrapping/twisted space-time region', which is a stable geometry around baryonic particles and black holes. The short-lived version of this would be Higgs boson. The biggest type of such an instance would be a black hole. A Standard Model that rearranges Gluon, Higgs boson, and Black hole in one group (rarefied aether field ) might help a lot one day 😉😁 . . . So what are neutrinos? These are aether-ates zipping through the SEA. It is like a brick zipping through an infinitely thick brick wall unimpeded. Their flavor oscillation stems from the dipole nature of the illusive particle. Spinors? Well, all aether-ates didn't end up tangled during the nucleosynthesis. Some collisions give rise to the circumscribed spheres of two versions (electron and anti electron) , and 720° rotation is imaginable this way only. This is natural philosophy at its worst, sorry 😜😜
@@earcurate9384 There seems to be some agreement between your model and mine found below. Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension, and the “belt trick” of Paul Dirac? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to with this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ==== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? Does it take two full turns to get down the rabbit-hole (Alpha funnel)? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea.
I think that seeing science as a search for truth is very idealistic. In reality, what drives the development of science is utility. Even in the social sciences, we see that the greatest progress is where we can develop practical applications and generate profit.
Physics has gone to dogshit, even as early as the 20th century. In the 19th century and before it was practiced by gentlemen on a quest for truth! Then it got invaded by goblins and their fantasy ideas. Nowadays physics has been reduced to simply mathematical models that need to predict stuff. Complete decline of the science.
The greatest physicists who lived hundreds of years ago studied physics not for practical purposes and that is why they achieved great results, because they were looking for the truth and wanted to know the world as it is, including to its very depths and essence. Practical applications came later.
@@dmytro_shum I agree that there were, are and will be people who dedicate their lives to searching for the truth, but what accelerates this search is potential usefulness
@@wulphstein The economy will only be driven by what is profitable, notwithstanding the blind idealization of "science." I'll ride with his judgment, over the blandheaded ruminations of a youtube crankbite monologist lol!
The key here is that for the purposes of variables that result from the motion in the ether like length contraction, or time dilation, you can view those as causally invariant to taking a basis for coordinates of any kind, nit just lorentz transformations, obviously. But then you can view the universe's matter and radiation as moving at any arbitrary speed through the ether as a whole, with all its internal relations being causaly invariant to taking a different basis for the ether drift. The fact is that the question of whether there is an ether and an ether drift has to be done by variables that are not lorentz invariant and result in observables that show it. And so at the level of the discussion of Einstein and lorentz and such figures they didn't have a single observable to decide the question with. Only proposed models of the ether that did not have this invariance were refuted or indeed can be refuted by experiments that have been done, only the models that predict a positive result for mm were refuted by it, and the same applies to all other experiments that has been done lr can be done, and so we dont know, and it is trivial to give an account of annether theory with lorentz invariance exactly or close enough to nit have been picked up in experiments that has been done, or that has new effects that break lorentz invariance in a way that isnt even tested by infinite precision versions of mm or similar experiments. This is an issue of rigorously dealing with what experiments actually tell us, and that rigor being sadly lacking in most professionals, especially when communicating, it is not an issue of all academics, certainly not experts in this topic, there are a lot of people that understand at least part of this stuff, but i would like to see every student that comes out of a ohd or even undergrad to understand what is meant by rigor, and whynit is missing in this area and other areas, if that males old professors that are bafoons uncomfortable then so be it.
The problem with science is we can mistake utility and reproducibility for truth, and the utility part is its main motivation. In maths, we use concepts like 0 and infinity to greatly simplify equations and work in highly restricted many trial experiments which "reduce errors" so we get closer to those 0s and large number infinity ideal. But no one has ever seen nothing or the infinite..and its unlikely they exist or are true in a reality. In order to apply the science, we need to create an articial environment where they apply....to basically create a restricted environment where our technologies work based on those reproducilities. But its a mistake to believe this is truth....more a possibility for limited truth when we restrict our environment. If we mistake this for actual truth without keeping a cautiously open and apply this as much as possible, we will de-diversify our world to get it to work as much as possible. The endgame to science may be fascism if we take it too seriously. The other negative thing about science is that although it gives an illusion of control in restricted environments, it can nonetheless unleash chaos in the real ones. And one has to wonder about the utility of knowing too much and if we are or will ever be responsible enough for such knowledge. Nuclear weapons may nix the utility argument if we end up annihilating ourselves. New technologies like AI, easy bake bioweapons, and gamma ray lasers that could unleash nuclear detonations with a laser pointer even in ordinary matter...could be a bridge too far in this direction, and make our annihilation all too certain. Finally, I think we need to understand at a fundamental level what is the point of life and it's pinnacle currently with human intelligence if we are to examine some of the darker motivations and dangers of scientific discovery. This may have a thermodynamic basis...in that all life increases entropy more than inanimate matter does on planetary scales. This may paradoxically be our reason for existence and why we would be thermodynamically favorable...as it appears to take an organized low entropy agent to intelligently exploit the environment to maximize entropy...normally external to that agent. If our whole point for being is to maximize chaos outside of ourselves, one wonders if scientific knowledge puts this whole process on steroids to the point the chaos cannot be separated from the agent producing it...and this ultimately makes intelligence above our own self limiting due to inevitable self destruction.
The first thing you need to do is realize scientists are humans. If something like the MM experiment doesnt seem to hold water it probably doesnt. Perhaps the aether does exist but they didnt test a single feature of it. That has always been my view even since high school. I’m skeptical about science and open minded to strange stories I hear. I do in fact believe that’s a better way to live.
In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher went to war against academics in universities. It was she who wanted to see practical applications of research. For a while, if you applied for research funding, you had to have an industrial partner. That distorted the practice of science in the UK for more than a decade. I had just returned to the UK after 14 years doing research in the USA, in non-profit centres, academia, and in an industrial research lab. The USA had a much more enlightened view of science and academia than Thatcher.
>>>It was she who wanted to see practical applications of research. Thatcher was perfectly reasonable considering the fact that so much of research is funded by taxpayers, who would at least like to see a practical return on their involuntary "investment."
The MM experiment is compatible with the physical length contraction of the experimental apparatus. The reality of length contraction is pretty easy to demonstrate via retarded potentials and Maxwell’s equations
Science in academia, is very much a political one , especially when there's a narrative to follow... Afterall, physicists are still subjected to the desire of having materialistic things.. Nice car, nice house, to have nice things.... If you want em, you had better tow the line
Thanks Curt & Harry great interview. A very pertinent subject for me as I am recently feeling like science & particularly physics can not be trusted because of the direct correlation with technology and economics. I think it’s worth remembering how effectively secrets can be kept ie. Manhattan Project. Physics in this era has direct economic political and defence consequences unfortunately this interview only serves to validate my concern 😂 The commitment science has to fundamental laws is not healthy or scientific. I recently read that the speed of light has only ever been confirmed by use of reflection hence the proof is not as solid as one might expect. Although it sounds outlandish if their is a panpsychic element to the universe light might actually travel at half the measured speed on the return leg and instantaneously on the outgoing leg😂
Now i don't want to endorse your guests work, i havent read it, and this is written prior to watching the episode. But the standard story that gets told in undergraduate doesnt keep physics separate from conventions of representation at all and thousands of students get confused about the subject as a consequence. I have heard phds that think Einstein says the speed of light is the same speed in all directions and that this is an important part of the theory, well it isnt, its a convention that is superfluous the anything that comes later.
This is such an important point. Relativity defines the two way speed of light as a constant c and bends time to accomplish it. Other frameworks are possible where c is variable and the speed of c is what causes time dilation, length contraction, etc.
@@trucid2 Trust me length contraction and time dilation were just invented in the head of Lorentz to "force" galilean invariance in a very, very special way. As a matter of fact the Michelson Morley experiment actually showed galilean invariance, it was just that Lorentz was focused on his static ether and wanted to save it. Einstein just put a philosophical spin to it but his theory is exactly Lorentz and he just postulates what they deduced.
You can use Einsteins representation of a single frame to see that, it has lenght contracted matter as well just the stuff moving in the frame, which is the same thing just in a different representation, just with pretty word salad on top to make it sound like it ks fundamentally a relative velocity phenomenon, when it can be framed as a relative velocity with respect to the ether, a substance no less that matter, and the invariance just says you could choose any velocity for the ether without changing the physics. Which is (ignoring some finer points) the same as choosing a different interial frame in Einsteins soecial relativity. Which way of thinking is right? It can't be decided by the set of observables that arw lorentz invariant, that is why Einstein says the ether is superfluous, not discredited, because that would be a straight up lie.
They apparently had the entire frame of reference wrong - Earth does not move through the ether, everything in the material universe is powered/inflated by the ether…aoparently
20:20 Professor Feynman employed this tactic at Oakridge during the Manhattan Project. "I said in my opinion it's impossible for them to understand or to obey a bunch of rules that they don't understand unless they understand how it works." ua-cam.com/video/uY-u1qyRM5w/v-deo.htmlsi=-YuQmuQR63iE7ykd&t=2418
You don't get it... an Ether implies a medium for light. We call this medium the Electromagnetic Field. The Ether, however, also implies that relative motion in this medium would change the speed of whatever this medium is for. In the case of Ether, light is being carried, so the speed of light should have been observed to be phased-shifted by relative motion to the general direction of the moving Ether. This however, to this date, hasn't been observed. In fact, variations of the MM experiment are in use today to observe shifts in our local spacetime-metric, due to black hole remnants passing through us.These are gravitational wave detectors. The closest that you get to Ether is the spacetime continuum, which gets bent and twisted by matter. It even features drag. Yes people explored super fluid implications of spacetime with Electromagnetic properties. Yes, there are modals that these describe these. No, all these reject the key quality of the Ether, and that is that the medium for light is classical.
@@TheEEragon light is a transverse sound wave( quantized phonon) in ether being a superfluid in this model So light or EM waves are emergent in this model . So you do not know anything , so remain silent
Nah man, a sound wave in a superfluid doesn't make for lorentz invariance you didnt understand the problem. The wave in a medium will travel at the same speed in any direction in the medium, in a superfluid as well ...
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relationship to reality" - Nikola Tesla
The speed of light is not constant. The Pound Rebka and Pound Snider experiments found that gravity accelerates light the same exact amount that it accelerates any object in freefall.
The Morley setup measures the two-way speed of light, seems obvious that a two way measurement would cancel out any speed difference they were looking for.
It seems like the speaker is conflating the GW discovery itself with the manner in which it was announced, which are indeed two separate issues. While the discovery of gravitational waves is based on rigorous scientific evidence, how it was communicated to the public is a subjective matter, influenced by various factors like timing, style, and media strategy. By not making this distinction, the speaker might be unintentionally casting doubt on the discovery itself, when perhaps their real issue is with how the announcement was handled. It would be important to clarify that the discovery and its communication are distinct, and criticism of the latter does not necessarily imply questioning the validity of the former.
That's a very idealistic way of looking at it. The simple answer is that the project spent far too much money not to detect gravitational waves. The same math and methodology used to detect gravitational waves is the same math and methodology behind the study of EVPs in ghost hunting. If you believe in gravity waves, then PEAR has a much larger and more statistically significant set of data which gives evidence for global human consciousness. Which was the entire point of PEAR. (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) - it was basically set up to use the same indirect methods of statistical analysis as is often used in fields of particle physics and astro physics. If you believe those methods are valid, then you should be giving equal or greater significance to their studied anomalies. If you believe their premise is stupid and absurd, then the discovery of gravitational waves and the higgs are, also, stupid and absurd. The only real difference between the two is the money and motivations behind them - and perhaps the general bias that comes with the sciences and spiritualism - which was precisely the point, again. The methods are "rigorous" and "serious" when they prove our theories about the material world but "misplaced" and "dubious" when used to suggest something spooky is going on.
Bei dem Michelson Experiment geht es um den Abgleich von spektralen Interferenzen bei größeren Meßanordnungen. Wenn so viel Unsinn in den Medien dazu phantasiert wird, dann ist doch Michelson nicht schuld ?😂
The MM experiment was simply not enough to throw out the idea of an aether in general. And when I say aether. But what do we mean when we say aether? Just measurement and language hitting the obstacle of scale it’s seems to me.
Every time I hear the Michelson Morley experiment misused by celebrity scientists, even the few that I like, like Sabine, my eyes start to roll into the back of my head.
The problem I've had is that I thought the existence of gravitational waves was something that would be obvious once you had a field. So the "discovery" of gravitational waves seemed not at all surprising. What was surprising was that you could do useful astronomical investigations with the detectors.
It is true, it is just that the technical work isn't technically wrong, it just gets presented and thought about the wrong way. So for example, if you are competent in using special relativity for very advanced physics, you don't have to know that the undergraduate story that gets told to them is just silly and actually irrelevant for using the theory or thinking about the theory. You can use a very strange coordinate convention for shiting frames if you want to, justnuse the Galilean transform and make sure to use forms for the laws in each frame that preserves the same physics and you are good to go. There is nothing physical about saying something like in frame A the doors of the barn open at different times and in frame B the car inside the barn is shorter and can fit inside it. This kind of language is wildly misleading. Because those two. Reference frames are not two views of. The same thing, its just a different coordinate system, all the causal relations are the same in both accounts, you cant actually say stuff happened differently for anyone at all, its just using coordinates that mix time andnsoace differently to represent the same coordinate independent evolution in exactly the same way.
For an alternative view, interview Michael Strevens, author of "The Knowledge Machine". It's an interesting take on the scientific process, modelled on an idea similar to the invisible hand of capitalism.
Which, travelling at the speed of light, arrive with the light as well of course!? Light that produces its own gravitational waves as it travels! Hence why we get a gravitational bow wave or “gravitational boom”?! Or more like a growing roar I guess as the emr and the, fed faster than it dispels, gravity bow wave move together??? I don’t think so but that would have to be the conclusion?
The real problem was that the MMX Experiment ASSUMED a stationary Aether. That's the problem. DEMONSTRATE to me that the Aether must be stationary and not also orbit around the Sun, like other matter in our solar system.
It was a negative result to a poorly framed idea. There is still an "ether" and is called spacetime. And the time dimension is compactified, which creates limits. Highest density, and lowest density. And makes a closure vertebrae those limits, joining those limits. So that a neutron which falls on an event horizon, high limit, falls out in a deep void, low limit, and decays into amorphous monatomic hydrogen. Expanding by a factor of 10⁴⁵ in doing so. Then it falls towards the high limit because that is the only direction. Down.
Michelson-Morley experiment looked for a drift velocity in the light, but the medium would certainly be massless with the relative positions within the experiment not changing, so why would you expect a drift velocity in a massless medium? Light velocity is certainly determined at production or reflection, and I don't think this was explored enough. I think relative time is intoxicating and ends up blinding people into total math dependence. You can't show me dimensions 1 or 2 in reality. Math needs them to get a grip. Time is in your head as remember and anticipate functions, and in math, it is merely an accounting marker for the other "fake" dimensions. Constant c is a "declaration" NOT an "observation." Then these fake dimensions are "adjusted" using "transform" equations to make all of this true ON PAPER! There is CERTAINLY a NON-transformed reality left behind ignored by all of you rote memory math followers. Constant light per observer is the next chapter in human narcissism putting yourselves at the center AGAIN! All Gamma-Ray bursts arrive here in order of wavelength, so they call it an afterglow and ignore that important detail. Relativity comes first, explain second.
Well yes, but Carlo Rovelli's observation of Spinfoam is the same "fringe" inside-outside holographic i-reflection containment state as Black Hole Singularity positioning inside-outside shell-horizons in continuous Black-body Holographic Principle Perspective, by the default logic of line-of-sight superposition identification of probabilistic cause-effect relative-timing correlations, bubble-modes of Euler's Unit Circle flash-fractal logarithmic condensation superimposed holography-quantization of e-Pi-i sync-duration fields.., and so on to instantaneous trancendental cross-sectional Completeness.
If only a bounded group of specialized scientists (e.g. String Theory enthusiasts) are pontificating on the validity of a theory, won't we also open ourselves up to a very limited perspective that might benefit from outside views which might go beyond a reductionist/materialistic worldview? So for training AI models, it might be more a matter of finding some kind of balanced perspective.
Ok... If science is a cultural institution... Then carpentry is also a cultural center institution. Plumbing is a cultural revolution institution. Science is a method to discover stuff about the natural world through hypothesis, experiment, and observation. If you're interested in cultural institutions, you're not really doing science. You're more concerned with people who claim to do science. Sorry bub. You're studying people.
I totally LOL during your intro. How people think about the world is due to the culture they're in? OMG no kidding 😂😂 I always wonder how the fanatical Christians would be if they were born and lived in a Muslim country. They get mad when I tell them they probably would be a fanatical Muslim 🙊
I think investigation of Heisenberg uncertainty as applied to Gravitation --whether quantum or not- Gravity is non-linear and QM is linear. I have made Jacobian elliptically-generalized Fourier transform which comes in here perhaps. Available on request.
there was more than one theory concerning the nature of the aether and the Michelson-Morley Experiment only dealt with one of them, yet the test was sup posed to dispense with all of them. His theory was not false, just incomplete. The idea that the earth moved along with the aether cannot be either proved or disproved.
From my understanding, all the MM experiment shows is it can't be used to falsify the lumineferous ether (and which theory of ether it would prove or disprove doesn't seem to be clear, either - there are so many different iterations of ether theory). It was even said the time of the experiment, as well as decades later.
Curt, since you're open to get controversial guests like Pais or Harry Collins or others, why don't you interview Joy Christian? I'm pretty sure you already know who he is
Ok i must say that that framing of "science" is really problematic. Science itself never meant the pursuit of finding truth. Its the pursuit of finding proof. This does contain truth in a lot of instances but its actually very distinct from that. There are truths that science might never be able to touch because it cannot proof them. Starting the talk like that makes me instantly question the philosophical viewpoint of this person perse. Sciece cannot be a foundation of democracy but rather a pillar to gain more structural integrity. Ruling is not scientific. The unknown cannot be known until it was encountered. As we move ahead as humanity we will face unknown situations.
Ehh, idk. There’s problems with saying proof is science because we already know that logical proof is not possible. Truth is in the same boat because there might not be a single mode of “what is true” For instance if I say there is 60 minutes in an hour…well that’s not exactly true because what time it is, depends on how fast we are moving in relation to each other…and it depends on the definition of what is an hour and a second which is just based on rotations of the earth and our rotation around the sun (nowadays defined by oscillations of an atom) Science basically can’t be about truth or proof, it is about something else… I think people like wolfram define it correctly: what narrative can we make about the world that makes sense to us…about things we care about.
loved the beginning of the talk where he explains speed of light is not constant. It isn't! But they made it constant by linking the description of distance to the speed of light.
The maxwell equations are exactly Galilean invariant. Look up Hrvoje Dodig and his work. Move the entire EM source and detector on a train and you will not be able to determine that the training is moving wrt the earth. Hence the M&M experiment outcome is very logical and proves galilean invariance for maxwell equations. Of course history took a different path with Lorentz forcing "galilean invariance" with his length contraction and time dilation (which he sucked out of his thumb) to save his own static ether.
Truth requires space and time to be ontologically distinct from each other and from matter. Answer to Einstein is that light is more complex than has been claimed, the answer that Einstein rejected by misrepresenting the Doppler Effect by treating it only mathematically.
The individuals... have ... [ multidimensional fractal embedding from competing dynamics at all levels within ] the entire fractal. [ therefore truth is in the eyes of the beholder ] and makes us vulnerable authoritarian regimes.
First, not firstly, but first of all, why are these “animations” always showing “gravity” protruding, shall we say, the wrong way? That would be a good first step into being not misleading yourself. Thank you.
SPONSOR: As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe
Timestamps:
00:00 - Intro
01:11 - How to Improve Science
05:56 - Einstein and Hawkins
11:10 - Discovery of Gravitational Waves
21:03 - The Stages of Discovery
26:57 - The Fractal Model of Society
36:52 - How Society Forms You
45:08 - Moral Truths and Science
55:30 - Outro / Support TOE
Dear Curt, on UA-cam you can find Dr. Unzicker channel. He is a theoretical physicist, and he is trying to reduce the number of fundamental constants. Maybe you could ask him to be your guest on your channel.
30:10 according to this diagram Nazis are the truth lol awfully very strange and specific things on this diagram which kind of make me not trust the validity of it... Not very well thought out.
It amazes me that your guest is a sociologist, but is completely blind to two critically important details about human behavior.
In therapy and 12-step groups I was taught the phrase, "Trust the Trustworthy" because I'd been too open, too honest, and there had been dishonest people around me who used my honesty against me.
Your guest then asks, "Who cares about individual scientists?" and posits that the only value of scientific discovery is its use to the public, as if these scientists don't have jobs, don't have mortgages, don't have to worry about losing their jobs because of any of the hundreds of bad things that can happen when your kitchen is too open - which he clearly knows, because of Panel E in his diagram at 44:00.
He says he doesn't know how to stop institutional competition. You can't. Not until you put bounds on individual competition (which is what ethics IS), but there are no laws that can undo the kinds of harm that can be caused by unethical behavior - which is exactly the reason everyone (scientists or otherwise) needs to know how much to share, and how much not to.
He seems to believe that turning away from science is eroding trust in society. The reality is that society has always been dishonest. Science has always been subservient to the powers that be. The only time science is given free reign is when it stays far, far away from challenging the status quo. What's been eroding over the last 60 years isn't society's trust in science, it's society's trust in the powers that be. And it's been the powers that be that have demonized science in a bid to retain power - just like they've done for hundreds of years, any time they feel challenged. This isn't new.
This
I read the "Who cares about individual scientists?" question/statement as a push towards removing "peopleness bias" to focus on "the truth" of the science towards a society based on truth, as it leads to "trust" betwixt and between its parts.
@@lesliedean8029 False dichotomy. You can desire to both protect your employees and pursue the truth in their results. If the only reason people don't trust the results is because they don't understand the reason scientists need to guard their work then that means you need to educate people on the importance of guarding their work, not strip scientists of their ability to do so.
I agree that this is mostly a power structure issue!
I think we have a hard time understanding what is even meant by "human behavior" or human nature, as it's often put.
We are the most adaptable species ever and yet we act like we can look at the last hundred or so years, since almost all of psychology has developed in rhat short time, and actually know what is natural.
But this whole time has been within a system that shapes us in very particular ways.
Psychology is at best pseudoscience and yet goes around trying to get us to believe we understand human nature so definitively.
The problem is that we have very little knowledge of what human nature looks like outside of a system that's based on competition, profit, growth, and greed, and so it's very hard to see just how much of our behavior is actually caused by the system itself.
The dishonesty you mention, for example.
We live in a system where dishonesty can get you ahead, if applied carefully.
Of course, many people are going to be dishonest when they see it as a net benefit to their life.
I think you can apply this to many aspects on negative behavior.
If we actually were to change this system, which we already must do if we are to survive this century, then we'll see a very different kind of human nature arise.
That could be for the better or the worse, depending on the system we design in its place.
We should at least apply some of what we know, but also be open to just how much we mold ourselves into the people we become.
A system based instead on cooperation would have a vastly different outcome.
How we think about power structures will be at the heart of such decisions as well
@@MattAngiono "We should at least apply some of what we know, but also be open to just how much we mold ourselves into the people we become." ... "A system based instead on cooperation would have a vastly different outcome."
You seem to be missing my point. We're already in a society/system based on cooperation. That is not enough. If you want to make it safe to be as open as Mr. Collns suggests you must also make it impossible for bad actors to abuse the system. And that is never going to happen, for two reasons. First because human creativity and curiosity will always drive some of us to break the rules just to see if we can. We find joy in crossing every boundary (not individually, but collectively). And second, because there are those who would do the same for the additional joy called greed.
I hate to say it but I think it's incredibly naive to think science is or would be different from any other human endeavour. Office politics trumps all. Particularly if fame, fortune and careers are at stake. I say this as a professional physicist of 30 years +.
Does that office politics enhance or detract from the science?
@@davegoldthey need funds.
Science is supposed to be our best people to not hold our smartest to high standards or have higher expectations seems completely understandable to believe this to be true. Doesn’t it ? I could be wrong and missing something important which is more than possible because I am not a expert in any of this.
Naive to assume people who dedicate themselves to holding truth and evidence of reality as the highest standard would behave any different than pimps, payday lenders and used-car salesman? Perhaps that says more about professional physicists in the last 30 years than it does the profession as a whole.
@@davidchavez81yes, but what is this "profession" that you speak of in which "people dedicate themselves to holding truth and evidence of reality as the highest standard"? Economics? Medicine? Photography? Or, to put it another way, what profession _doesn't?_ Because I'm pretty sure that if you asked a used-car salesman whether they, and the cars they were peddling, were real or not, then I'm guessing they would answer in exactly the same manner as if you asked a biologist if they and their Petri dishes were real. Yes, but biologists don't lie about their research findings, you say. Well, that may or may not be true, but then what types of lies do pimps tell when they're advertising their wares? And used-car salesmen don't really _lie_ so much as be economical with the truth. Ah, yes, but people like biologists, or astronomers, or physicists are different because they aren't "economical" with the truth, they simply _tell_ the truth, you retort. They don't _mislead_ people about _reality!_ But that's just not true, for they most certainly _do_ mislead people. For instance, if you are a physicist working in quantum theory, then your work - including how you write, talk, and think about it - will be informed by which "interpretation" of quantum mechanics you subscribe to. Those in the "many worlds" camp hold wildly divergent views of what "reality" consists of than those from the Copenhagen school will tell you. And, depending if they prefer MOND or WIMP explanations for dark matter, then astronomers will tell you wildly different stories about what 24% of the universe is made out of. LQG researchers will tell you the truth, and that string theorists are lying. Ask 100 biologists what "life" is, and you'll get 100 different answers... and give any of these groups a few drinks and they'll openly fight each other about just what "reality" really is. And no, they won't _really_ be lying, but they _will_ be being economical with the truth... and so, at least by your definition, pimping must be the most morally virtuous profession of them all!
The more closely you look at things, at _anything,_ the more you realise that, as unsavoury and unsatisfying as it may be, there is precious little in the world that one can hold aloft and proudly assert that _this_ is the truth. Because... who's "truth" are you ultimately holding up? Look, obviously I'm not suggesting that pimping (as opposed to prostitution) should be regarded in _any_ way other than with a vast amount of disdain, and, having had my left-rear tyre overtake me on the road once, not long after having purchased a used-car, I'm not exactly lauding that profession either. But this is not to dilute my central point, which is that making nebulous statements about "holding truth about evidence of reality as the highest standard" isn't merely to engage in naive, soap-box, pap, but that to believe such qualities truly exist in some Platonic sense - that they are objectively _real_ - is also ill-reasoned, incoherent, and almost wholly illusory. Such things are normative quantities, they are imbued with morality and meaning _by_ society, and not the other way around. Reality, whatever it may be, is far less real than people think. And science, for all its manifest value, is a social construction, deal with it.
Oh, and maybe you could try not sounding like a total dick the next time you respond to a comment. It kinda helps.
You're welcome. 🙏🏻
Needs more push back from interviewer for these kind of extraordinary claims. Exactly what was wrong with the original MM experiment? And why could such a result not have been possible until 2nd half of 20th century.
>>>Exactly what was wrong with the original MM experiment?
Nothing was wrong with it. And the fact that "it didn't show anything" was precisely the reason it was so important: it failed to indicate the presence of an expected "aether wind."
Wow, it is simply amazing that as I realize & and learn these things in life on my own, science seems to be releasing the info at the same rate.. coincidental? I think not 😂
@@brandis3309 isn't it always like that xD
I NEED TRUTH!!! Like wtttf
Oh & I can handle it so don't even go there 😎
right?!!!! i’m totally with you!!
The Descartian Fallacy is at the core of a lot of this. It's not that the Cartesian view is wrong, it's that people elevated Descartes to the point of scientific sainthood so they could avoid thinking about magic. 🤷
The person he's referring to is likely Dayton Clarence Miller, an American physicist and astronomer known for his experiments in the early 20th century that he claimed showed a slight variation in the speed of light, potentially challenging the results of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment.
The Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) was designed to detect the presence of the "aether," a medium that was once believed to permeate space and carry light waves. Michelson and Morley found no significant variation in the speed of light, suggesting that no such aether existed and that the speed of light is constant in all directions, a result that strongly supported Einstein's special theory of relativity.
However, Miller, starting in 1902 and continuing into the 1920s, conducted his own series of experiments, using a more sensitive version of Michelson's interferometer. He claimed to have detected small variations in the speed of light depending on the time of day and the position of the Earth in its orbit, which he interpreted as evidence of aether drift.
The Michelson Morley Experiment did not attempt to detect the aether. It attempted to detect an "aether wind" or "aether drift," which was a difference in the measured light speed between two light beams sent in two different directions which were normal (90 degrees) to each other, but travelled the same exact distance. Miller was testing for the same exact phenomena, only he did so with much better equipment for a much longer duration at a facility that was on top of a mountain instead of in the underground basement of a Princeton building, like the MM experiment. Of course, Miller's experiment did not fit the mainstream propaganda narrative and was mothballed as it disproved Einstein's erroneous theories. Since then, they place heavy spin on anything that contradicts Einstein's theories, such as the Sagnac Experiment and the Pound Rebka Experiment.
Also, the MM Experiment had no consideration at all for Einstein's theories as they came much later with SR being published in 1905 and GR being published in 1915. In fact, special relativity was heavily influenced by the MM Experiment's erroneous results.
@reybitgo4958 check out my pecks, wrote you a fun little science thing.
The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for a drift velocity, but that concept assumes the medium to be of some substance with a discernable location with which to measure drift -as if it had atoms or the like. It is massless, obviously, so how can you expect to measure something that has no points to measure. This lack of drift velocity IN NO WAY dictated that light is constant to each observer. If you really think about that, it's crazzy to think that way. In my opinion, constant light per observer is the next chapter in the narcissistic nature of humans putting themselves at the center AGAIN! This theory is presumed and believed FIRST, then transform equations change your dimension numbers (after "declaring" c the constant) to make it true ON YOUR PAPER. There are very few proofs of this. The majority of support is a test of USING the theory. All Gamma-Ray bursts arrive here in order of wavelength with radio always last. If this were known then, Relativity would not be here now.
@@jnhrtmn Had the Sagnac Experiment been performed before the Michelson Morley Experiment, Einsteinian relativity would never had been accepted. The Sagnac Effect is the same exact effect that the Michelson Morley detected, but at much too low of a difference to be close to the speed of earth's rotation due to the measurement being taken of a two way speed of light that largely cancels itself out due to the average of c+v and c-v being c. The MM Experiment did not actually have a null result.
Gravitational waves? These scientists need to comprehend the reality of NHI here on earth. This is how far it’s gone.
Just as it is with the climate, science is in constant flux and there is no way for society to stay in locked step with it.
Collins apparently has forgotten history. The Soviets also claimed that Science would justify Socialism-Communism. …
Science can't justify any system because economics is pseudoscience at best.
That said, applying systems thinking to economics and many other layers of society would be highly beneficial.
You wouldn't get communism, but you definitely wouldn't get capitalism either.
This system is based on an even worse understanding of human beings and basic resource management.
We're literally going to destroy our own habitat and bring on our own extinction if we let profit drive our direction much longer
Normal science is to have peer review. The Copenhagen Group have disputed the justification for the results because LIGO refuse to release the testable data and the process. Just release that. Emails and pronouncements might be nice but third party verification - which isn't exactly easy to drop in and do anyway - is better.
This is amazing, finally someone opening the can of worms
I'm 3 minutes in and I already love it.
As a member of the public, I love the idea of incremental release of progress, and much more transparency.
If you want to catch the attention of the public, the thrill of victory, and the agony of defeat even in small stages, can keep people interested.
Triumph
The Michelson Morley experiment is one of the top 5 leading contributors to why physics has stagnated!
Then how was so much discovered and advanced in the 100 years after MM??? Maybe gravity is just super weak and it's really hard to find violations of lorentz invariance 🤷
@@cdenn016what has been “discovered” that has “advanced” us? The technology for our entire civilization could be developed just using Heaviside, Maxwell, Tesla. What has quantum physics or QED or string theory done to directly to contribute to technology that we couldn’t have done with just Heaviside? Nothing at all. I always hear people say that quantum physics is our “most successful theory”. That statement is made but never ever does anybody explain the metric for “success”. “Successful at making predictions”. Predictions of what exactly? Oh wait. You mean the predictions that have the hundred of “problems” like “the hard problem of consciousness” ect ect ect. Bottom line is. We need to retrace our steps back to Heaviside or Einstein and pick a different direction.
"That's a wacky claim."
- GOD
Such a nonsense. Physics has progressed enormously since the MM experiment. And, the MM experiment has been one of the foundation stones.
Despite all of the advancements that came after the MM experiment, I agree that it has contributed to the current stagnation. The MM experiment is one of the most misunderstood, misinterpreted experiments ever conducted.
What it did do in fact was that it reaffirmed Galileo's Principle of Relativity.
What it did NOT do was verify that the speed of light is constant for all observers.
The light source used in the experiment was internal and moved with the apparatus. As a result - the observed outcome did eliminate the possibility of a fixed universal aether. But the observed outcome did not indicate that light propagates without any aether at all. That's because each electron that is about to fall to a lower energy level and create a light wave is surrounded by its own electric field. These electric field lines projecting into space are in fact the aether that the light waves travel through.
Have you ever wondered why the chapter in a typical undergraduate text book that discusses the generation and propagation of light does such a great job with a simple easy-to-understand explanation of an EM wave propagation model traveling through an existing electric field - but then a few chapters later introduces the concept of relativity while conveniently forgetting that light is a traveling EM wave and instead uses a ridiculous bouncing photon mirror clock?
Have watched the entire thing now, load of interesting stuff, seems like a good guy. :)
Deep in the echo chambers we find the dogmatic parrots squawking" peer review! peer review!". But the book says I cant have my diploma if i think for myself and don't behave like a lemming in a lab coat.
" 'Truth' is a kind of lie without which a certain specoes could not endure life!" - Nietzsche
"Science" like everything else has been ruined by leftist greed and hate.
Sociology is one of the softest of sciences and it is glaringly obvious here.
Loved this episode. Also, I have always loved books that were well written and the perspectives too. Not to mention interesting. People should read books of all perspectives, even if they are not the full truth. Read everything and question everything to keep your brain sharp and to expand your mind to find the answers. Find the answers within and by connecting to beauty🕊️
Michelson-Morley was performed more than 100 years ago and accepted as a fact despite huge progress in engineering since then.
It has been repeated many times since. Why not read before you say something?
@@theotherIIIThe Michelson Morley Experiment attempted to detect the same exact phenomena that was observed by the Sagnac Experiment. Michelson originally hypothesized an experiment where light went around the entire earth in both directions, but was unable to perform that experiment due to deficiencies in technology and funding. So, instead, he created the interferometer which produces erroneous results repeatedly. The originally hypothesized experiment was nothing more than a huge Sagnac Experiment where the earth itself is used as the rotating light path. Had this experiment taken place, it would have provided the results the Michelson was attempting to detect.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 Cool story bro. Are you related to Felix?
@@theotherIII Oh, you are one of those people.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 what is "one of those people"?
When are scientists going to figure out that the changes in the measures of time and distance due to the amount of gravity in the vicinity change the speed of light relative to our measures of time and distance where we are inside of a galaxy? Scientists can’t seem to figure out that where gravity changes time and distance it changes the speed of light and the rate of causation.
Space is not flat in the measures of time and distance on larger scales just like the Earth is not flat on larger scales. Light MUST indeed *always* travel 186,000 miles an hour at the speed of light C. When distance is stretched from having less gravity, light must still complete traveling that distance in the time determined by C. That means the light is traveling faster as perceived by us in a more contracted frame of reference where there is more gravity. Add to that the fact that a second passes by faster away from the center of mass which increases the speed light MUST travel even more.
It’s really not complicated. It’s so simple. It’s the very reason things appear to be moving faster than the speed of light moving away from the center of the galaxy because they are moving faster away from the center of the galaxy yet without exceeding the speed of light. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand.
There are three rates to consider. 1. The diminishing effect or draw of gravity away from the center of mass. 2. The increasing rate of time away from the center of mass. 3. The increasing measure of distance away from the center of mass.
Speed is measured by time and distance which both change and that changes the speed of light and causation. Things happen faster. Distance gets longer without gravity and time goes by faster, both of which combine to speed up causation. The light has to arrive at a farther distance faster when distance is stretched *and* time also goes by faster. *Then* there is the first thing to consider and that is the diminishing draw of gravity the farther away it is from the center of the galaxy which means things eventually slow down the farther away they are from the center mass of a galaxy. (It's not complicated. No dark matter is needed.) 😎
Redshift happens when light leaves a galaxy. Blueshift happens as light enters a galaxy. All things being equal, the light will be redshifted as it leaves a galaxy and then blueshifted back again as it enters our galaxy. Except we already know galaxies are different sizes. The distant galaxies that we can see are very large and the distances between here and there is excessive causing more redshift than our small galaxy can blueshift back to its original spectrum. The more distant a galaxy is the more accumulated gravity there is from nearby masses causing more redshift.
The part that gets me is the conclusion of "no ether medium for light" due to M-M experiment yet "EM-field medium for light" is still valid?? Ive yet to hear a satisfying response to "why cant we consider the EM field (etc) as 'ether'? " or some variation of that question. Often i hear "light doesnt travel in a medium" as if it isnt an EM wave lol. Maybe im missing some important distinction...
The distinction is that at first people thought ether was kind of like a fluid. Suppose a wave is travelling in the sea, going 10km/h. If you are on a ship travelling in the opposite direction with 10km/h, you see it doing 20km/h. But this does not happen with light. The way people explained it was to say, well, maybe as you are travelling through this fluid you drag some of the fluid with you, so a big thing was to figure out what the dynamics of this fluid were. Lorentz actually had the Lorentz transformations (which are now explained by special relativity) before special relativity was a thing, and interpreted them as properties of this aether. You could 100% interpret special relativity as an aether theory, it's just that the approach of Einstein proved more powerful and intuitive, and even ended up explaining gravity, so the aether interpretation became unfashionable. If I'm not mistaken people have come up with "Einstein aether" theories, which adopt the aether perspective to explain general relativity, and they are more or less equivalent for most stuff. But it gets pretty involved and most people just don't see the point in it.
Really ditching the aether is mostly a shift in viewpoint, because thinking about a fluid with dynamical properties is probably pointlessly confusing and superfluous when we know now that we can just say it's all due to how you convert from frame to frame, or, in more modern perspective, because of the geometry of spacetime.
The difference is that the Ether was a substance, so you could, say, have a cup of Ether, and you could meaningfully ask what is the Ether made of. In contrast, the EM field is not a substance, it's notade of anything, and there is no meaning to getting a cup of EM field. It's just a property of space-time.
As other have said, yes, in a sense the EM field does reintroduce the idea of a medium for light. But its properties as a relativistic quantum field are different from what anyone was capable of imagining as properties of a medium back when people were using the word “ether”.
@definitelynotofficial735 That's the problem with mathematics: there are so many isometries. Though it strikes me, esp with current "there are real and realized frictionless/dragless fluid materials", that we'd get hung up on such a mundane and assumed property of fluid and then throw the whole baby out with the bathwater by assuming something ("no-medium") as fundamental instead of a property of some other system (e.g. "ether is superfluid so drag doesn't apply", which I don't mean to taut as correct, just an example. I know *that* rabbit hole exists lmao). It's amazing, the isometries of math and how different systems can produce an identical meta-system.
@@yrgautumn "The difference is that the Ether was a substance, so you could, say, have a cup of Ether, and you could meaningfully ask what is the Ether made of. In contrast, the EM field is not a substance, it's notade of anything, and there is no meaning to getting a cup of EM field. It's just a property of space-time."
But why can't we just ascribe "not made of anything" to ether? I *can* be like "this a specific volume of EM field in a specific state" (a very real and mathematically rigorous definition), which is just as material and real as saying "have a cup of something". Though I'm wary of such layman phrasings because it's like saying "point to the climate! Oh you can't? It's not real then"
So if I may summarize what I think yall are saying: Ether means a very specific material and behavior, as opposed to the generic one: a vague concept, that seems to have survived in the popular eye. And it's that specific material and behavior that has been shown to be inaccurate (or at least the assumptions we have about it).
I guess it's just the way I think about things that has added to the confusion. The physicists involved were like "a fluid can only be this", but I'm not quite so strict about that (having seen cold helium lol).
Why wouldn’t we assume that the aether moves with us?
Not quite, you see the experimental design of M&M cant pick up a different phase depending in orientation from the speed of light, or the length of the arms, or a different passage of time or a change in the geometry of space itself, that depends on direction, if these sorts of variables conspire to produce a null result. That is the big takeaway, physics that is equivalent to shortening the arms in relation to the velocity vector through the medium in a way such that the effective distance and effective two way speed of light integrated over the lenght of light clocks in any orientation in relation to the speed through the medium and its direction, then the phase shift would not be produced, just like in the experiment, and just like if we imagined the experiment being stationary in relation to the medium no matter how fast you are going, because of this equivalence in observables, Einstein used this kind of representation to formulate special relativity, and so for every reference frame in special relativity, the physics works like Newtonian spacetime with anything stationary not being contracted or slowed down in time at all, and anything moving would have its internal relationships produce the same observables, therefore after a transform you could have such a representation for any frame of reference, this makes perfect sense, its not wrong. But whether you choose ti use this form of representation is entirely arbitrary, its a convention of description for more complicated reasons. But it has nothing to do with whether a mwdium is there, whether there is a velocity relative to is at all, Einstein knew this, and that is why he said that it is a superfluous concept, not a discredited one. And indeed for the purposes of describing observables, because of thos freedom in choosing a representation, at least with respect to the observables known at the time, you dont need to talk about an ether or ether drift at all for the purposes of describing the physics in any reference frame. But if you want to understand whether the ether is a useful concept the answer is simple, it might not matter for some levels of description like special relativity and field theories of stuff that moves slower than light, but also you need to know how an ether theory would work wkth small deviations from lorentz invariance, to be able to have a full view of the situations and what effects to test special relativity against. If you capitulate to lorentz invariance and say its forever gonna hold and the ideas about the ether that seem superfluous given lorentz invariance are forever irrelevant, that is like amputating your own arm because you currently only use the left one to jerk off and write with, that a shame if you at some point have to climb down a ladder right. Should be easy enough to understand even without knowing the technical details. So, in a model of an ether with physics where these higher level variables of motions in it have lorentz invariance, you could have velocity through the medium, but measure no effects from an interferometry experiment of any kind. So. It is not true to say that to disprove that there is such a thing as the eaths motion through the ether you would have to measure the speed at various times of year, yes it is true that if there is a stationary ether frame, at some point in a year it could be tje case that earth is standing still for a moment in the ether, but thats a secondary concern, if you took the mm experiment and spun it around slowly all year round such that you cover aøl your basis, you will still see a null result, and that would not do anything to dent that idea that the experiment os moving through a medium at a given speed at any given time. Because physical lenght contraction that depends upon the velocity through the ether would make such results null for any orientation anyway.
Curt, could you interview Matthew Pines, please?
The concept of the "ether" is still with us today, but the name has been changed to the... "Higgs Field".
Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory.
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
@@SpotterVideo Interesting but want to learn more. I don't know where to start but I always thought that the M-M experiment was the most erroneous experiment. Counting out aether as a building block of space-time was propped by this experiment, and probably the artificial divide between a physics of small and big took root here. My mental picture of the universe is made of basically TWO entities, metaphorically explained as the SEA (1) and ICE (2). The SEA is an aether filled domain hosting bubbles, waves and ripples (the Higgs particle, photons) and the ICE represents tangled aether-ates (creating all leptons and quarks of matter and anti-matter) a varying stability. Where does gravity fit in then? It is a density gradient of the aether field. Gets rarefied closer to tangled knots, and the acceptable terminology would be 'wrapping/twisted space-time region', which is a stable geometry around baryonic particles and black holes. The short-lived version of this would be Higgs boson. The biggest type of such an instance would be a black hole. A Standard Model that rearranges Gluon, Higgs boson, and Black hole in one group (rarefied aether field ) might help a lot one day 😉😁 . . . So what are neutrinos? These are aether-ates zipping through the SEA. It is like a brick zipping through an infinitely thick brick wall unimpeded. Their flavor oscillation stems from the dipole nature of the illusive particle. Spinors? Well, all aether-ates didn't end up tangled during the nucleosynthesis. Some collisions give rise to the circumscribed spheres of two versions (electron and anti electron) , and 720° rotation is imaginable this way only. This is natural philosophy at its worst, sorry 😜😜
Quarks and Higgs particle conjecture only, based on mathematical misconceptions.
@@earcurate9384 There seems to be some agreement between your model and mine found below.
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension, and the “belt trick” of Paul Dirac? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to with this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
====
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? Does it take two full turns to get down the rabbit-hole (Alpha funnel)?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea.
" 'Truth' is a kind of lie without which a certain specoes could not endure life!" - Nietzsche
I think that seeing science as a search for truth is very idealistic. In reality, what drives the development of science is utility. Even in the social sciences, we see that the greatest progress is where we can develop practical applications and generate profit.
Physics has gone to dogshit, even as early as the 20th century. In the 19th century and before it was practiced by gentlemen on a quest for truth! Then it got invaded by goblins and their fantasy ideas. Nowadays physics has been reduced to simply mathematical models that need to predict stuff. Complete decline of the science.
The greatest physicists who lived hundreds of years ago studied physics not for practical purposes and that is why they achieved great results, because they were looking for the truth and wanted to know the world as it is, including to its very depths and essence. Practical applications came later.
@@dmytro_shum I agree that there were, are and will be people who dedicate their lives to searching for the truth, but what accelerates this search is potential usefulness
Science should drive the economy. Otherwise, a lot if money is wasted on string theory , which is not science.
@@wulphstein The economy will only be driven by what is profitable, notwithstanding the blind idealization of "science."
I'll ride with his judgment, over the blandheaded ruminations of a youtube crankbite monologist lol!
@@wulphstein profit should not drive science. Look whats its doing to medical research ffs.
The key here is that for the purposes of variables that result from the motion in the ether like length contraction, or time dilation, you can view those as causally invariant to taking a basis for coordinates of any kind, nit just lorentz transformations, obviously. But then you can view the universe's matter and radiation as moving at any arbitrary speed through the ether as a whole, with all its internal relations being causaly invariant to taking a different basis for the ether drift. The fact is that the question of whether there is an ether and an ether drift has to be done by variables that are not lorentz invariant and result in observables that show it. And so at the level of the discussion of Einstein and lorentz and such figures they didn't have a single observable to decide the question with. Only proposed models of the ether that did not have this invariance were refuted or indeed can be refuted by experiments that have been done, only the models that predict a positive result for mm were refuted by it, and the same applies to all other experiments that has been done lr can be done, and so we dont know, and it is trivial to give an account of annether theory with lorentz invariance exactly or close enough to nit have been picked up in experiments that has been done, or that has new effects that break lorentz invariance in a way that isnt even tested by infinite precision versions of mm or similar experiments. This is an issue of rigorously dealing with what experiments actually tell us, and that rigor being sadly lacking in most professionals, especially when communicating, it is not an issue of all academics, certainly not experts in this topic, there are a lot of people that understand at least part of this stuff, but i would like to see every student that comes out of a ohd or even undergrad to understand what is meant by rigor, and whynit is missing in this area and other areas, if that males old professors that are bafoons uncomfortable then so be it.
The problem with science is we can mistake utility and reproducibility for truth, and the utility part is its main motivation. In maths, we use concepts like 0 and infinity to greatly simplify equations and work in highly restricted many trial experiments which "reduce errors" so we get closer to those 0s and large number infinity ideal. But no one has ever seen nothing or the infinite..and its unlikely they exist or are true in a reality. In order to apply the science, we need to create an articial environment where they apply....to basically create a restricted environment where our technologies work based on those reproducilities. But its a mistake to believe this is truth....more a possibility for limited truth when we restrict our environment. If we mistake this for actual truth without keeping a cautiously open and apply this as much as possible, we will de-diversify our world to get it to work as much as possible. The endgame to science may be fascism if we take it too seriously. The other negative thing about science is that although it gives an illusion of control in restricted environments, it can nonetheless unleash chaos in the real ones. And one has to wonder about the utility of knowing too much and if we are or will ever be responsible enough for such knowledge. Nuclear weapons may nix the utility argument if we end up annihilating ourselves. New technologies like AI, easy bake bioweapons, and gamma ray lasers that could unleash nuclear detonations with a laser pointer even in ordinary matter...could be a bridge too far in this direction, and make our annihilation all too certain. Finally, I think we need to understand at a fundamental level what is the point of life and it's pinnacle currently with human intelligence if we are to examine some of the darker motivations and dangers of scientific discovery. This may have a thermodynamic basis...in that all life increases entropy more than inanimate matter does on planetary scales. This may paradoxically be our reason for existence and why we would be thermodynamically favorable...as it appears to take an organized low entropy agent to intelligently exploit the environment to maximize entropy...normally external to that agent. If our whole point for being is to maximize chaos outside of ourselves, one wonders if scientific knowledge puts this whole process on steroids to the point the chaos cannot be separated from the agent producing it...and this ultimately makes intelligence above our own self limiting due to inevitable self destruction.
" 'Truth' is a kind of lie without which a certain species could not endure life!" - Nietzsche
Nietzsche was a poor speller
@@paulcooper8818 thanks for the tip, Herr Lehrer!
The first thing you need to do is realize scientists are humans. If something like the MM experiment doesnt seem to hold water it probably doesnt. Perhaps the aether does exist but they didnt test a single feature of it. That has always been my view even since high school. I’m skeptical about science and open minded to strange stories I hear. I do in fact believe that’s a better way to live.
In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher went to war against academics in universities.
It was she who wanted to see practical applications of research.
For a while, if you applied for research funding, you had to have an industrial partner.
That distorted the practice of science in the UK for more than a decade.
I had just returned to the UK after 14 years doing research in the USA, in non-profit centres, academia, and in an industrial research lab.
The USA had a much more enlightened view of science and academia than Thatcher.
>>>It was she who wanted to see practical applications of research.
Thatcher was perfectly reasonable considering the fact that so much of research is funded by taxpayers, who would at least like to see a practical return on their involuntary "investment."
The MM experiment is compatible with the physical length contraction of the experimental apparatus. The reality of length contraction is pretty easy to demonstrate via retarded potentials and Maxwell’s equations
What is the statistical significance of mapping LIGO events with optical astronomical events?
Science in academia, is very much a political one , especially when there's a narrative to follow... Afterall, physicists are still subjected to the desire of having materialistic things.. Nice car, nice house, to have nice things.... If you want em, you had better tow the line
Impressive talk, all the best.
Thanks Curt & Harry great interview. A very pertinent subject for me as I am recently feeling like science & particularly physics can not be trusted because of the direct correlation with technology and economics. I think it’s worth remembering how effectively secrets can be kept ie. Manhattan Project. Physics in this era has direct economic political and defence consequences unfortunately this interview only serves to validate my concern 😂
The commitment science has to fundamental laws is not healthy or scientific. I recently read that the speed of light has only ever been confirmed by use of reflection hence the proof is not as solid as one might expect. Although it sounds outlandish if their is a panpsychic element to the universe light might actually travel at half the measured speed on the return leg and instantaneously on the outgoing leg😂
Now i don't want to endorse your guests work, i havent read it, and this is written prior to watching the episode. But the standard story that gets told in undergraduate doesnt keep physics separate from conventions of representation at all and thousands of students get confused about the subject as a consequence. I have heard phds that think Einstein says the speed of light is the same speed in all directions and that this is an important part of the theory, well it isnt, its a convention that is superfluous the anything that comes later.
This is such an important point. Relativity defines the two way speed of light as a constant c and bends time to accomplish it. Other frameworks are possible where c is variable and the speed of c is what causes time dilation, length contraction, etc.
@@trucid2 Trust me length contraction and time dilation were just invented in the head of Lorentz to "force" galilean invariance in a very, very special way. As a matter of fact the Michelson Morley experiment actually showed galilean invariance, it was just that Lorentz was focused on his static ether and wanted to save it. Einstein just put a philosophical spin to it but his theory is exactly Lorentz and he just postulates what they deduced.
Every time fractals are a centerpiece of someone’s theory: it doesn’t look good for their theory. 😅
Were there any formal NDA's or threats of legal reprisals in any of the secrecy that he described?
So funny, I was thinking about this earlier today.
Luminiferous Aether 2024 🇱🇷
Do gravity waves follow the same "straight" space-time path as light and matter?
You can use Einsteins representation of a single frame to see that, it has lenght contracted matter as well just the stuff moving in the frame, which is the same thing just in a different representation, just with pretty word salad on top to make it sound like it ks fundamentally a relative velocity phenomenon, when it can be framed as a relative velocity with respect to the ether, a substance no less that matter, and the invariance just says you could choose any velocity for the ether without changing the physics. Which is (ignoring some finer points) the same as choosing a different interial frame in Einsteins soecial relativity. Which way of thinking is right? It can't be decided by the set of observables that arw lorentz invariant, that is why Einstein says the ether is superfluous, not discredited, because that would be a straight up lie.
They apparently had the entire frame of reference wrong - Earth does not move through the ether, everything in the material universe is powered/inflated by the ether…aoparently
20:20 Professor Feynman employed this tactic at Oakridge during the Manhattan Project.
"I said in my opinion it's impossible for them to understand or to obey a bunch of rules that they don't understand unless they understand how it works."
ua-cam.com/video/uY-u1qyRM5w/v-deo.htmlsi=-YuQmuQR63iE7ykd&t=2418
Ether = superfluid medium = no viscosity ( possible non- zero but extremely low viscosity) = No dragg = no Ether dragg = MM experimemt is wrong
You don't get it... an Ether implies a medium for light. We call this medium the Electromagnetic Field. The Ether, however, also implies that relative motion in this medium would change the speed of whatever this medium is for. In the case of Ether, light is being carried, so the speed of light should have been observed to be phased-shifted by relative motion to the general direction of the moving Ether.
This however, to this date, hasn't been observed. In fact, variations of the MM experiment are in use today to observe shifts in our local spacetime-metric, due to black hole remnants passing through us.These are gravitational wave detectors.
The closest that you get to Ether is the spacetime continuum, which gets bent and twisted by matter. It even features drag. Yes people explored super fluid implications of spacetime with Electromagnetic properties. Yes, there are modals that these describe these.
No, all these reject the key quality of the Ether, and that is that the medium for light is classical.
@@TheEEragon light is a transverse sound wave( quantized phonon) in ether being a superfluid in this model
So light or EM waves are emergent in this model . So you do not know anything , so remain silent
That couldn't be summarized better. Chapeau!
@@Zonnymaka Thanks
Nah man, a sound wave in a superfluid doesn't make for lorentz invariance you didnt understand the problem. The wave in a medium will travel at the same speed in any direction in the medium, in a superfluid as well
...
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relationship to reality" - Nikola Tesla
Brilliant.
The speed of light is not constant. The Pound Rebka and Pound Snider experiments found that gravity accelerates light the same exact amount that it accelerates any object in freefall.
The Morley setup measures the two-way speed of light, seems obvious that a two way measurement would cancel out any speed difference they were looking for.
It seems like the speaker is conflating the GW discovery itself with the manner in which it was announced, which are indeed two separate issues. While the discovery of gravitational waves is based on rigorous scientific evidence, how it was communicated to the public is a subjective matter, influenced by various factors like timing, style, and media strategy. By not making this distinction, the speaker might be unintentionally casting doubt on the discovery itself, when perhaps their real issue is with how the announcement was handled. It would be important to clarify that the discovery and its communication are distinct, and criticism of the latter does not necessarily imply questioning the validity of the former.
That's a very idealistic way of looking at it. The simple answer is that the project spent far too much money not to detect gravitational waves.
The same math and methodology used to detect gravitational waves is the same math and methodology behind the study of EVPs in ghost hunting.
If you believe in gravity waves, then PEAR has a much larger and more statistically significant set of data which gives evidence for global human consciousness.
Which was the entire point of PEAR. (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) - it was basically set up to use the same indirect methods of statistical analysis as is often used in fields of particle physics and astro physics. If you believe those methods are valid, then you should be giving equal or greater significance to their studied anomalies.
If you believe their premise is stupid and absurd, then the discovery of gravitational waves and the higgs are, also, stupid and absurd.
The only real difference between the two is the money and motivations behind them - and perhaps the general bias that comes with the sciences and spiritualism - which was precisely the point, again. The methods are "rigorous" and "serious" when they prove our theories about the material world but "misplaced" and "dubious" when used to suggest something spooky is going on.
Bei dem Michelson Experiment geht es um den Abgleich von spektralen Interferenzen bei größeren Meßanordnungen.
Wenn so viel Unsinn in den Medien dazu phantasiert wird, dann ist doch Michelson nicht schuld ?😂
25:53 This reminds me of the axioms in mathematics. I mean, you have to believe in something in the first place (whether you like it or not).
The MM experiment was simply not enough to throw out the idea of an aether in general. And when I say aether. But what do we mean when we say aether? Just measurement and language hitting the obstacle of scale it’s seems to me.
What does that mean?
@@gonegahgah all I meant was there seems to still be “something” despite being disproven by the mm experiment. Think “quantum foam” etc.
Every time I hear the Michelson Morley experiment misused by celebrity scientists, even the few that I like, like Sabine, my eyes start to roll into the back of my head.
Old news... better late than never.
Open kitchen analogy slammed home why he wants to change the way discoveries are announced
The problem I've had is that I thought the existence of gravitational waves was something that would be obvious once you had a field. So the "discovery" of gravitational waves seemed not at all surprising. What was surprising was that you could do useful astronomical investigations with the detectors.
It is true, it is just that the technical work isn't technically wrong, it just gets presented and thought about the wrong way. So for example, if you are competent in using special relativity for very advanced physics, you don't have to know that the undergraduate story that gets told to them is just silly and actually irrelevant for using the theory or thinking about the theory. You can use a very strange coordinate convention for shiting frames if you want to, justnuse the Galilean transform and make sure to use forms for the laws in each frame that preserves the same physics and you are good to go. There is nothing physical about saying something like in frame A the doors of the barn open at different times and in frame B the car inside the barn is shorter and can fit inside it. This kind of language is wildly misleading. Because those two. Reference frames are not two views of. The same thing, its just a different coordinate system, all the causal relations are the same in both accounts, you cant actually say stuff happened differently for anyone at all, its just using coordinates that mix time andnsoace differently to represent the same coordinate independent evolution in exactly the same way.
Your model is insane, and doesn’t match reality.
For an alternative view, interview Michael Strevens, author of "The Knowledge Machine". It's an interesting take on the scientific process, modelled on an idea similar to the invisible hand of capitalism.
Is this some sort of religious group lol
Speed of gravity was measured. Gamma rays of meging neutron stars arrived 1.7 second after the detection of gravitational waves.
Which, travelling at the speed of light, arrive with the light as well of course!? Light that produces its own gravitational waves as it travels! Hence why we get a gravitational bow wave or “gravitational boom”?! Or more like a growing roar I guess as the emr and the, fed faster than it dispels, gravity bow wave move together??? I don’t think so but that would have to be the conclusion?
The real problem was that the MMX Experiment ASSUMED a stationary Aether. That's the problem. DEMONSTRATE to me that the Aether must be stationary and not also orbit around the Sun, like other matter in our solar system.
It was a negative result to a poorly framed idea.
There is still an "ether" and is called spacetime. And the time dimension is compactified, which creates limits. Highest density, and lowest density. And makes a closure vertebrae those limits, joining those limits.
So that a neutron which falls on an event horizon, high limit, falls out in a deep void, low limit, and decays into amorphous monatomic hydrogen. Expanding by a factor of 10⁴⁵ in doing so.
Then it falls towards the high limit because that is the only direction. Down.
Michelson-Morley experiment looked for a drift velocity in the light, but the medium would certainly be massless with the relative positions within the experiment not changing, so why would you expect a drift velocity in a massless medium? Light velocity is certainly determined at production or reflection, and I don't think this was explored enough. I think relative time is intoxicating and ends up blinding people into total math dependence. You can't show me dimensions 1 or 2 in reality. Math needs them to get a grip. Time is in your head as remember and anticipate functions, and in math, it is merely an accounting marker for the other "fake" dimensions. Constant c is a "declaration" NOT an "observation." Then these fake dimensions are "adjusted" using "transform" equations to make all of this true ON PAPER! There is CERTAINLY a NON-transformed reality left behind ignored by all of you rote memory math followers. Constant light per observer is the next chapter in human narcissism putting yourselves at the center AGAIN! All Gamma-Ray bursts arrive here in order of wavelength, so they call it an afterglow and ignore that important detail. Relativity comes first, explain second.
Well yes, but Carlo Rovelli's observation of Spinfoam is the same "fringe" inside-outside holographic i-reflection containment state as Black Hole Singularity positioning inside-outside shell-horizons in continuous Black-body Holographic Principle Perspective, by the default logic of line-of-sight superposition identification of probabilistic cause-effect relative-timing correlations, bubble-modes of Euler's Unit Circle flash-fractal logarithmic condensation superimposed holography-quantization of e-Pi-i sync-duration fields.., and so on to instantaneous trancendental cross-sectional Completeness.
If only a bounded group of specialized scientists (e.g. String Theory enthusiasts) are pontificating on the validity of a theory, won't we also open ourselves up to a very limited perspective that might benefit from outside views which might go beyond a reductionist/materialistic worldview? So for training AI models, it might be more a matter of finding some kind of balanced perspective.
Ok... If science is a cultural institution... Then carpentry is also a cultural center institution. Plumbing is a cultural revolution institution.
Science is a method to discover stuff about the natural world through hypothesis, experiment, and observation. If you're interested in cultural institutions, you're not really doing science. You're more concerned with people who claim to do science. Sorry bub. You're studying people.
I totally LOL during your intro. How people think about the world is due to the culture they're in? OMG no kidding 😂😂
I always wonder how the fanatical Christians would be if they were born and lived in a Muslim country.
They get mad when I tell them they probably would be a fanatical Muslim 🙊
I think investigation of Heisenberg uncertainty as applied to Gravitation --whether quantum or not- Gravity is non-linear and QM is linear.
I have made Jacobian elliptically-generalized Fourier transform which comes in here perhaps. Available on request.
there was more than one theory concerning the nature of the aether and the Michelson-Morley Experiment only dealt with one of them, yet the test was sup posed to dispense with all of them. His theory was not false, just incomplete. The idea that the earth moved along with the aether cannot be either proved or disproved.
From my understanding, all the MM experiment shows is it can't be used to falsify the lumineferous ether (and which theory of ether it would prove or disprove doesn't seem to be clear, either - there are so many different iterations of ether theory). It was even said the time of the experiment, as well as decades later.
Reminiscent of CERN's grand opening celebrations with, all the fanfare and ceremonial idolized worship of the goddess Shiva... wtf?
Curt, since you're open to get controversial guests like Pais or Harry Collins or others, why don't you interview Joy Christian? I'm pretty sure you already know who he is
Except for anti-relativists from the first half of the 20th century.
Bold claim that philosophy is not concerned with language.
terrible audio
There are meticulously written captions. Hope that helps. - Curt
@@TheoriesofEverything There’s nothing wrong with the audio.
@@ala3480 sometimes he’s yelling and sometimes he’s whispering.
Audio is good for me.
Thanks for being open and honest about AGW....it allowed me to stop at 2minutes and 42 seconds! No more time wasted :)
Ok i must say that that framing of "science" is really problematic. Science itself never meant the pursuit of finding truth. Its the pursuit of finding proof. This does contain truth in a lot of instances but its actually very distinct from that. There are truths that science might never be able to touch because it cannot proof them. Starting the talk like that makes me instantly question the philosophical viewpoint of this person perse. Sciece cannot be a foundation of democracy but rather a pillar to gain more structural integrity. Ruling is not scientific. The unknown cannot be known until it was encountered. As we move ahead as humanity we will face unknown situations.
Ehh, idk. There’s problems with saying proof is science because we already know that logical proof is not possible.
Truth is in the same boat because there might not be a single mode of “what is true”
For instance if I say there is 60 minutes in an hour…well that’s not exactly true because what time it is, depends on how fast we are moving in relation to each other…and it depends on the definition of what is an hour and a second which is just based on rotations of the earth and our rotation around the sun (nowadays defined by oscillations of an atom)
Science basically can’t be about truth or proof, it is about something else…
I think people like wolfram define it correctly: what narrative can we make about the world that makes sense to us…about things we care about.
What do you need proof of?
loved the beginning of the talk where he explains speed of light is not constant.
It isn't! But they made it constant by linking the description of distance to the speed of light.
Hairy colons 😂
💙
Waist of time. I used to like this podcast. But since recently I'm getting the impression that it's going sideways.
The maxwell equations are exactly Galilean invariant. Look up Hrvoje Dodig and his work. Move the entire EM source and detector on a train and you will not be able to determine that the training is moving wrt the earth. Hence the M&M experiment outcome is very logical and proves galilean invariance for maxwell equations. Of course history took a different path with Lorentz forcing "galilean invariance" with his length contraction and time dilation (which he sucked out of his thumb) to save his own static ether.
Truth requires space and time to be ontologically distinct from each other and from matter.
Answer to Einstein is that light is more complex than has been claimed, the answer that Einstein rejected by misrepresenting the Doppler Effect by treating it only mathematically.
The individuals... have ... [ multidimensional fractal embedding from competing dynamics at all levels within ] the entire fractal. [ therefore truth is in the eyes of the beholder ] and makes us vulnerable authoritarian regimes.
First, not firstly, but first of all, why are these “animations” always showing “gravity” protruding, shall we say, the wrong way?
That would be a good first step into being not misleading yourself. Thank you.
@EtherealMechanics
Free 🇵🇸