How Hermann Minkowski Led Physics Astray
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Talk given at the DPG meeting 2019 in Munich. The correct spelling is "Hermann". I apologize for the wrong slides.
Follow also my backup channel: odysee.com/@Th...
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/
LOL! I couldn't help but burst out laughing when I saw the quote from Einstein, "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore."
He just wasn't that good with math. Einstein learned tensors from Marcel Grossmann. If he didn't, there would be no general relativity and nothing to invade. So kind of stupid comment. Also special relativity was invented by Poincare, another mathematician.
Dirac was much better with this and a better physicist too even though he was technically an engineer by degree. Another example of otherwise very bright person who just wasn't into math and therefore hated it would be Richard Feynman. Those are exeptions though. Since 1970's, unless you working in something like condensed matter, you have to learn at least some algebraic topology.
But when did he understand it ? When his relativistic universe contracted from its own gravity, or when he introduced a cosmoillogical constant to make it steady ? Or when he removed it to make it expanding, altough innitially he understood that it was contracting under its own gravity without that constant ?
@@hrsmp Keep in mind that at that time (1905-1915) differential geometry (then known as "absolute differential calculus") was very much unknown to almost everybody except a few mathematicians. So Einstein was by no means an exception: this was the rule among physicists back then. In fact, such basic considerations of the geometry of the Schwarzschild solution as the nature of the horizon were not understood by physicists until 1920s.
Obvious statement for a plagiator who copy and pasted everything he released, who followed the trends even if this contradicted his previous statements. There is no theory of relativity. Functionally it was still lorentz aether theory with poincaree math. Every frame of reference is valid until i say otherwise.. speed of light is constant, until is variable..
@@KabelkowyJoe Everything you say is incorrect. You are free to create your own theories but you cannot alter facts.
For those people wondering whether to watch this video... The section beginning at 22:50 is really interesting and agreeable to any physics perspective. Every revolution in physics is associated to a reduction of the number of constants of nature: 1. Newton: Gravity g and G are related 2. Electrodynamics: e0, mu0 and c are related 3. Thermodynamics: k and rms v are related.
Very interesting and had never pondered this.
thanks a lot
Few months ago I was wondering about the same thing, what if we haven't found Gravitational law, we might be studying planetary motion through empirical equation with variables raised to some powers and some constant and these equation would vary for various planets and systems. But just because we have a law all such equations are unified in harmony.
Poincaré’s writings “Science and hypothesis” and “Value of science” and “Science and method” are absolute master pieces. Highly Recommend
Well said!
Ken Wheeler pointed me in the direction of Poincare's disk model possibly being the correct model for how magnetism works. Absolutely eye opening and amazing.
listen dawg, Poincaré didn't care. That's just a fact.
sir can you make a 3 page sum of that book in pdf format
"Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little. It is only its mathematical aspects that we can discover."
- Bertrand Russell
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” - Albert Einstein
@TheAbstraction He did _far_ more in his long life than _Principia Mathematica _ (which turned out to be fundamentally flawed not a complete "waste of his life")
*stares blankly at telescope survey data...
Nature does not mathematical, philosophical, spiritual , quantum etc aspects. Nature is pure and simple it is. In oir thirst to understand it we formulate mathematical formulae each formula attempting to fathom a microscopic part of nature, metaphysical explanations. It is human pride to say, after writing out a formula which tries to encompass a miniscule part of it, that nature obeys mathematics.
.
Correction Nature does not have mathamatical laws to obey nature is nature,. It is human pride to say, having formulated a mathamatical formula to try to understand nature, formula encompassing a miniscule part of nature, to say that nature obeys mathamatical laws. Mathematical laws are miniscule attempts to understand a miniscile part of nature, or God or Brahman
From my experience, this guy is right on, not only in his analysis of the physics but in his understanding of why the errors persist.
Big respect to the DPG that they allow a talk such as this at their meeting. There is a small but non-zero probability that new insights are coming from people who are not formally educated in the field, so I find it impressive that the DPG takes that non-zero chance and accepts such a talk.
Having said that, I do not think there is anything of value in this talk. Unzicker simply understands only a fraction of what he is trying to argue against.
_Postulating_ that it is a "denial of reality" to "glue" space and time together, and arguing that nature "has no reason" to do so - is totally unscientific. It is in the tradition of Mach, who denied Boltzmann's statistical mechanics because he did not believe in the existence of atoms.
The concept of a "variable speed of light" may be useful for some problems regarding weak gravitational fields, but it is (at most) an approximation to the full Einstein theory. For example, it would probably not be able explain difference in time between clocks at different places in a gravitational field, and it would certainly not be able to explain light paths that are "one-way", e.g. leading through an event horizon.
Nobody takes the time dimension as "imaginary", it is only in the _metric_ and there only for _flat spacetime_ that this is a possible mathematical formalism, however it is not very much used, the metric tensor concept is simply a much more powerful formalism.
You're using words I don't understand. And since I don't understand them I'm gonna take it as disrespect. You wanna fight me . Right here in Best buy? I don't have any home training so I'll fight you in this fine retail establishment.
@Chr15T You have the astray-ed mindset which clearly shows itself. What you don't understand or calculated yourself is that your (and the world's) celebrated GR formulation ironically flips the strong field approximation with weak approximation. So, I see your argument everywhere. The problem really creeps up somewhere from the foundation which this man is trying to show. I commend this!
@@dvoiceotruth I don't understand. Please elaborate. What are the observable phenomena or conceptual contradictions where Einstein's theory fails, and what is the improved new proposal? This is the ONLY accepted and acceptable scientific way of formulating new theories. See Feyman's short talk about "the nature of physical law", it can be found on youtube.
The theory never fails in its 4-5 oft-repeated predictions that is the problem, it just becomes handicapped for further probing. it won't hold up its merit in 'real strong field' predictions and unfortunately those are out of reach for experiments right now The same 4-5 results and a few approximations, here and there, which offer some advantage over plain Newtonian results (in cases where the two are comparable). If something improves Newtonian results doesn't mean it is 'relativistic' in SR sense. The case here is that there IS a 'geometric' enhancement/elegance of results from the Newtonian but those are not truly relativistic (SR sense). if we celebrate the geometric in the name of relativity, Physics will be behind for a couple more decades. The Schwarzschild factor blows up in what GR regards strong limit. This is akin to a particle with a newtonian velocity parameter able to reach the speed of light in SR. This we call the weak field limit sort of thing in SR (Special Relativity) @@Chr15T
So you think atoms exist then? If so, Is that not a bit bizarre given that since the Rutherford model of the atom was undermined in relation to quantum theory, the whole notion of atoms as micro planetary systems was exploded in favor of the notion of standing waves, and wave-particle duality. These days it seems a bare husk of atomism is just affirmed with no support from the science of quantum theory. Either this or there is a strange compartmentalisation between the "physical" atoms of statistical and classical mechanics and the standing, probability waves of quantum mechanics. The whole philosophical project of logical atomism also failed. These things were not understood or resolved, people just stopped trying to understand them as I guess it got too difficult, and instead just started affirming the current scientific paradigm. We need some independent standards for assessing the claims even of science, otherwise it just becomes lazy and overly sure of itself, and settles into an all too comfortable paradigm that is never adequately criticised. If the argument instead is that it's not about whether atoms exist or not, its about results of experiment, then this would be a positivist direction actually deeply akin to the spirit of what Mach was aiming at, but also deeply flawed as we saw with the failed attempts of logical positivism. We cannot separate out experiential results from our conceptual and theoretical assumptions so neatly as they had hoped. Where then does that leave us? On the variable speed of light, I am also unconvinced, but when you actually look into the philosophical debate and try to be consistent rather than compartmentalising different areas of physics or merely dogmatically asserting the existence of entities that there is no basis for you find many issues for the current paradigm, and particiularly for MST which has paradoxical consequences when we consistently associate it with its ontological conclusion of the block universe.
Interesting video. It's a point worth considering: if c wasn't treated as a factor for translating time into spatial units, people might well be more open to the idea that it is a variable quantity.
"Interesting video. It's a point worth considering: if c wasn't treated as a factor for translating time into spatial units, people might well be more open to the idea that it is a variable quantity."
It is quite clear you do not know General Relativity.
@@kensandale243 he stole ideas from poincare and wrote horsehit about time dilation
Think about it. Every instant that passes more space is created, conversely, as space expands, the time flows, also, events don't have and specific order, they happen a sequence that depends only on your velocity relative to them. So, space and time are some kind of dual structure. As mass and energy, particles and waves, electricity and magnetism. That's what I believe.
I think the problem is that light is effectively part of the dimensional framework in special relativity. It would be a bit arbitrary like varying our standard of measurement for the meter, say, by some other unit of length and imagining it has physical significance. We need some accepted standard or the curvature/distortion has nothing to be a distortion relative to. By measuring geodesic deviation relative to assumed straight standard of light speed which we presume as steady based on some universal physical law, we are able to measure distortions within one coherent framework that all observers can agree upon, if we vary light speed, we have no standard of straightness we are agreed upon, and so making different observers perspectives coherent will be likely impossible, for what universal physical principle of straightness as our standard bearer, could we all appeal to in this case?
This is basically the only video on youtube criticizing Minkowski space-time. I wish this was a more popular topic.
Yes, this channel is the fringiest fringe you can get.
@@arctic_haze Great I hate most of the mainstream crap. It represents decades of stagnant physics which have yielded 0 practical results. What was the last real world problem that the alleged discovery of quarks resolved?
Any advances in nuclear engineering as a result? No? Oh well look at that.
It is criticised a lot in certain circles of philosophy of science, in relation to this presumption of a block universe. Search about issues for the block universe ontology, for this is effectively the ontology that MST leads to. The block universe is deeply problematic, and dismissing such criticism as "fringe" often seems to be the most reasonable response you will get out of the blockheads who go along with current science trends without applying their own critical reason.
@@jonathanhockey9943Yes but this is not physics-based criticism. Minkowski's space-time is a necessary tool in General Relativity. By the way, I did some checking on the channel owner and he is a fraud. Sorry to say that but it's true.
@@arctic_haze But GR isn't truly an improvement on Newtonian gravity. It helped with some orbital calculations, but at the expense of explaining gravity near Earth's surface (i.e. the fundamentals of Newton).
A new addition to our understanding must not undermine basic fundamentals.
GR also introduces too much fanciful and vague concepts. "Space bends light" or "space changes the direction of a moving object". Space historically is empty, so it's like saying "a ghost bends light, a ghost makes the object change direction". It's not properly conceptualized from first principles of any known physics and makes no attempt to create a proper physical model for what this "space" is (from what I've seen) .
This guy is idiosyncratic to put it politely , Minkowski helped greatly with the mathematisation of Einstein’s ideas about general relativity ,thereby he made a great contribution to physics, and the title is just clickbait.
Minkowski's version of "space" is certainly dominant. An infinite number of directions are replaced by three "dimensions," and then time is tossed into Pythagoras with a negative sign, and here we are.
The problem is that while it all works to 24 decimal places it fails right away when it bumps into the two-slit experiment.
Einstein's Universe, our current view of the world, is deeply useful and elementarily incorrect.
When will you do a video on Descartes and complain about his influence on Newton?😆
The real reason for this presentation comes at the very end, when it is revealed that Mr Unzicker has published an article proposing "variable speed of light" instead of the currently mainsteam thinking of constant c (with some empirical measurements to back it up).
I would suggest that a better way of getting support to your thoughts is to present evidence and reasoning to support your theory rather than discredit the people who have been instrumental in developing the current mainstream thinking.
Science is not about being kind to each other. If the standard model is flawed - the basic reasons have to be told.
@@TheMachian Sir, Have you watched
ua-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/v-deo.html
And if you wish to understand basic state of universe watch
IJSR vol.7, issue3, pages273-275
I feel it is also important to understand the flaws in thought. Many times the flaws are derived from offhand comments from those we build our thoughts upon.
@@TheMachian I completely agree with the point that light speed is variable. Apart from your paper, there is a different approach which proves the same and has some testable predictions as well. Can we have some discussion on that?
Sent you an email from hsharjeet720@gmail.com
@@TheMachian This is not a point about science, it is a point of communication. If you want to communicate effectively, you ought to be kind
Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants, that's why he saw further. In other words, the birth of the theory of relativity could be compared to when the finished parts of an engine are lying about on the floor of a car repair shop, but no one knows how to assemble them. And then came Einstein...
Even then you are over crediting Einstein. Einstein's real genius was in his self promotion.
@@rl7012It is likely that Einstein had little to do with the promotion. He was the performer. 🎉
mercury precision was due to barycentre of solar system
and light bend due to refraction of stars liquid/plasma midium
universe follows Newton rules not Einstein and
Einstein copied E=mc2 from previous scientists & pasted in front of world 😂😂
Except Einstein created a theory that is logically inconsistent within itself (the twin paradox has never truly been resolved) and despite getting some new predictions right which other theories did not it gets some of the basics wrong (such as an apple falling to Earth, aka near Earth gravity).
It's intriguing and at the same time reassuring that physicists are questioning the fundamental constants of nature with the public. General public always gets it as thus says the all knowing scientists even though they don't mean it. So when the public asks why and I don't mean just childish rhetorical whys but the reasons behind things like space itself, matter itself, movement itself, they are not treated like idiots or dismissed with smirk. Thank you Prof. Unzicker.
He thinks time can't be tied to 3-d space because our brains conceive of time and physical space as different phenomena. Unbelievably small minded, it's like saying the Earth can't be a ball because the horizon looks flat to our eyes.
@@helifalic ALso, time and space are used together all the time in every day situations
@@hareecionelson5875 Time does not even exist. It is merely a sequence of matter in 3D space which motions (relative to all other parts of matter) depend on the matter itself (gravity, etc.). So, using time as a 4th dimension is an unnecessary dimension added in as a circular logic.
@@0626love And yet using time, more specifically ict, as a coordinate in 4D hyperbolic space yields accurate predictions.
@@hareecionelson5875 That is because we know the relations between those sequences. :) There is no time as a separate entity. It is just relationships (affected by matter influenced by itself), to put it really simply.
”Things evolve, therefore I am.”
- Time
WE (you too) have been tasked with the progressive perfection of Man Kind, God's composite of unique individuals with ascension promise, even if it takes us all 6,493 years remaining in Abraham's 10,000 year Covenant (after Moses renegotiated, face to face as a friend, and some years are not counted.)
Mankind includes all of us; from the first human pair, unto the last man or woman, and for those who pass the faith test, into the afterlife, we are ONE Creation. Potentially, everlasting.
For the individual, self-mastery is a worthy goal -- especially with an expanding sense of self as a potentially, everlasting child of God.
Exercise faith -- to get in shape for the Awakening -- because the Vernal Equinox of 2030 marks the beginning of the 3rd, 1000-year Day of Heaven, since Jesus taught us that ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS, and we have been told Sooner!
There's an Epochal Eclipse April 8th 2024, when more shall be revealed to those with "eyes and ears." Don't stare at the sun; there will be no physical manifestation of this spiritual event. Speak with thy God thyself, to get in shape for the Awakening.
Only NOW exists. The Past is merely the records of previous nows; the Future, merely predictions of 'Nows' that may or may not come.
Talking about evolution: ua-cam.com/video/ELjgTs7BFC4/v-deo.html
I change my mind, therefore I think.
"stuff happens, therefore I am."
-Time
"I am nothing but memory of the deluded"
- Time
Not a single deep thought, not a single careful analysis of basic physical concepts.
This is deep: ua-cam.com/video/ELjgTs7BFC4/v-deo.html
25:10 Maybe Minkowski is also responsible for buggy enumeration functions in modern text processors
This is just a quatch getting attention over other people's work, clearly only visited wikipedia to take screenshots, and sees himself as an eye of god when on stage as he grabs the attention using dark psychology of scape-goating a voice from the past that cannot answer in this monologue controlled hallucination this man is in; thinking he understands Richard Feynman when he statet "Science is a culture of Doubt, Religion is a culture of Hope". Well this man is in camp hope, hoping to see what these people have seen whilst discovering and applying universal "beliefs" of how quantum space-time relate to each other. He says so himself; it takes a long time to figure things out, and by just patronizing the words of the unique people of ages, he pushes himself to a certain "eye of god" that is actually worth-while to listen too. Oh ps, Unzicker's Real Physics... What kind of physics would need the name REAL applied to it; that's totally relative in space-time
Exactly. He spouts a bunch of stuff, but backs nothing up with observational evidence. Not really a valuable talk.
Well, imagining that physics might have developed differently, and thinking about what a plausible alternative theory might have been isn't a meritless pursuit. Modern physics has become engulfed with mathematical obscurity. There is at least some merit in looking at how to simplify it conceptually. I think the appropriate thing to do is to develop the theory, and compare it to the other contenders for explaining gravity. In particular, one might see if this theory has some merit from the perspective of combining it with quantum mechanics. He says that variable speed of light physics has some differences from mainstream physics. See what those are and do experiments to see what is ruled out.
Adding time as 4th dimension is one of the biggest disaster in physics.
(Correction) Temperature is BOTH Potential Energy (PE), while its higher radiation is Kinetic Energy (KE). Just saying Temperature is KE is bogus. PE manifests KE, not KE manifests PE. All matter, no matter at 0 Kelvin or extreme temperatures, is PE. KE then is radiation manifested from the PE based upon temperature. But Temperature - IS - KE is false. Temperature as an external force manifesting UPON a PE object, then manifests and outward KE force. Just the same as light laser (laser ablation) upon a metal and having particles fly off (kinetic particles). No KE laser, no KE particles. Only the inherent PE object manifesting KE radiation from temperature changes.
Time is not a spatial dimension. It is a metaphorical one. Time = distance/speed making it a relationship.
16:47 No, it's not "underestimated". The reason the variable speed of light (or refractive medium) approach is not used in general is that certain geometries (notably, the Kerr geometry) _cannot_ be formulated in those terms. The Schwarzschild geometry can, but the Kerr geometry cannot.
Many people, I am afraid also you, judge theories according to whether they are compatible with known formalisms. Yet the ultimate arbiter is observation. The variable speed of light formulation of GR is in perfect agreement with all tests.
@@TheMachian It's not around a rotating body - that was my point. This means simulating GR with a refractive medium is impossible. You are welcome to come up with another theory replacing GR, of course. But if you introduce a medium, you'd have to pull out all QFT stops to get there because any traditional medium leads to all the usual late-19th-century difficulties, chief among them ensuring such medium cannot support longitudinal waves. This was deduced from experiments even before Maxwell got his equations, and many big names tried to describe such a medium: Navier, Cauchy, Poisson, Lord Rayleigh, etc. All media constructed that way were extremely exotic, with properties simply cooked up to obtain the desired results. So yes, it did work, but it wasn't good science.
@@TheMachian Err, this would also imply dispersion according to frequency (like a rainbow effect) in the presence of a gravitational body bending the light waves. Which does NOT happen.
@@TheMachian Yes, but speed of light we know from law of Snell bends and changes velocity when passes through media with diferent consistency and this has nothing to do with the space and time bending by e mass. So in e Universe full of matter with different consistency, if someone investigating the bending of light with no respect to Snell law even if he is Einsein, and his math are giving at the end correct result this means only one thing. A math cooking, a fraud. I don't know if a mass bends space-time sheet, and light bends because falls in this hypothetical bending but the law of Snell end the chaing of light speed because of the passing is e fact.
@@JanPBtest The medium exists is all material and is stars winds, dust, neutrinos and so many other particles that create material in space, and full of it but with a different consistency. Not like the Ether of the end of the 19th century, but like this that the two Voyager probes continue to describe. See the site of NASA about that and even the Sun's magnetic field with bigger and biggers gaps between, reach their positions. The gaps are because the Sun's field is produced by an impulse and isn't constant. So you see my friend just to these distance everything is occupied by, let say, Sun's atmosphere. This atmosphere like the Eart's one has different in content probably like the Earth's in layers. And every physicist knows what happens to the speed and the direction of light when passes through layers. It bends and changes speed. Snell's law and Maxwell's for the electromagnetic wave. I think light is also something like that, waves of moving energy pieces that we call them photons.
10:18 But isn't, say, Hamiltonian mechanics using similar abstractions? To describe for example 3 particles, it uses a 6-dimensional space which on top of that behaves like an incompressible "fluid". So in what way is Minkowski's idea so different than Hamilton's?
If Minkowski was wrong, then E is not equal to m c-squared.
Maybe if we look at the speed of light more as a rate of induction versus a speed ….
I think there is a big elephant in the room that was activly avoided to mention. The success of Noethers Theorem which gave quite a good reason to go for a 4D Spacetime model instead of variable c.
Hmm... no. Noether's theorem is fine, but it doesn't explain why nature appears in such a particular fashion of 3+1 dimensions.
@@TheMachian My point was that Noethers Theorem give a strong correlation between physical properties and mathematical mainly topological properties. So using a topological modeling which would keep all that correlarions and just describe a curved spacetime seems alogical decision especially for a group where Noether and Riemann worked.
Did the variable c theory has something identical to the Lense-Thirring effect? I really does not know so i ask as this seems to be in reach to be measured or ruled out in a foreseeable amount of time and could then be used as an indication which model should be preferred.
@@TheMachian I'm not a physicist sir. But to me, 4D space-time always seemed to be just a convenient coordinate, nothing else. Does this interpretation makes any significant change?
@@TheMachian Yes it does. Noether's theorem is a statement relating symmetries to conservation laws, and in relativity, there are numerous conservation laws. The most appropriate law in this case is the invariance of the spacetime interval. You cannot get this invariance with a variable speed of light, and a spacetime in which space and time are related by a Lorentz transformation. The treatment of space and time on equal footing is implicit in Maxwell's equations. Without that property, you cannot have a constant speed of light. Based on numerous meticulously conducted experiments, the speed of light is constant in every reference frame, hence, you must have space and time as functions of each other, rather than absolute. I assume that you have an issue with this, as you mention the constancy of c in your video. But if Galileo was right, then Maxwell was wrong, because his equations would depend on the reference frame. You are channeling the Aristotelian way of thinking, which gives certain position or time coordinates too more merit than others. If you are okay with Noether's theorem, then why do you have a problem with 3+1 spacetime?
@@Techmagus76
Except there's not any experimental evidence for variable c. It's just an idea that doesn't have any data or observational evidence to back it up. Kind of like string theory. Ultimately, physics must rely on observations.
15:18 I dont understand what the spinning water bucket has to do with understanding gravity. Isnt that the centrifugal force at work ? When you spin the bucket you create a rotating mass and a displacement of water from the center to the edges driven by the centripetal force. So when it hits the bucket at an angle, it tends to go up on the bucket, because the bucket has an inverted cone shape i.e. a slope which allows the force vector to dissipate upwards. If you take a cylinder shaped bucket with straight walls the effect wil not be the same (if any). The displaced water will be pushed from the wall back to the center with an equal and opposite force to the centrifugal force. Which is the centripetal force. So what does have to do with 'all masses in the universe' ?
Hmmm, yes!
The slope of the bucket's wall has nothing to do with producing the concave shape of the water.
What's special about velocity c is that it's invariant under the Lorentz transform. Without 4D spacetime, there is no proper time, which is what's needed to form S, so spacetime "distances" are invariant under Lorentz transformation. Same holds for energy/momentum 4 vector. Now if you wish to argue velocity c slows down in a gravitational field, it also can be argued time also slows for the measuring device. Therefore the apparent measured velocity c remains constant.
Why are you rejecting 100 years of proven special relativity?
Because spacetime is a joke. It's a made-up fantasy with no proof at all, like phlogiston and caloric. The only proven facts are the Lorentz transformations and the invariants that are calculated from them algebraically. Apparent velocity is not actual velocity.
E/C = MC Energy slowed to the speed of light equal Mass accelerated to the speed of light. They are two expressions of the same Dialectric -- Electricity -- Magnetism nature of the Universe.
Time does not exist; time is experiential. Space does not curve -- that is simply a visualization to aid in understanding the "square of the distance" rule -- which applies to the Dialectric, too.
Light does not "Travel" but perturbs the ether. Yes, first there was an either, then there was no ether (Einstein), then there was (see Tesla).
Force and Motion. Acceleration and Inertia. Space and Counter-space. Charge. Field Theory meets Quantum Theory meets the Electric Universe.
It looks like c is invariant under the Lorentz transform precisely because that is one of the assumptions that the theory of special relativity makes: “Later in the same year Albert Einstein published what is now called special relativity, by deriving the Lorentz transformation under the assumptions of the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light in any inertial reference frame”
"..proven special relativity". Relativity is a THEORY. The fact that Some of its consequences have shown up in our observance of nature makes it plausible: conditionally correct. But no theory is ever proven because knowledge is always incomplete. What we THINK we know today may be shown to be incorrect or imprecise tomorrow.
(Correction). Light is NEITHER electro-magnetic NOR a wave. Light is electro-gravitic (EG). Light is a particle and not a wave. Photons as (EG-EG) particles (high energy, light speed) and smaller EG-EG particulate photinos (smaller energy and variable and less than light speed) have a small core of gravitons. They undergo (the former) gravitational lensing and escape, while (the latter) undergo gravitational capture and orbiting. Neutrons/neutrinos are electro-static (ES-ES) objects, having no internal graviton core, fly around and through gravitational fields without attraction, deflection, or capture.
Light is a particle, and not a wave. Bosons as force carriers, gauge and scalar bosons, and cosmic tension (tensor bosons) ... are composed of both half electro-static (ES) and half electro-gravity (EG) properties. They are half ES electron - EG positron or EG electron - ES positrons, They have half (ES-ES) neutron-like and (EG-EG) photon-light-like light speed or variable light speed (depending on the amount of inherent energy of these multiple-levels of objects). They are force carriers, with the half-gravitational properties of photons, and thus bosons are carrier waves and force carriers of electrons/positrons or smaller electrinos/positrinos along their internal graviton carrier wave. Thusly, bosons are the only particles (and smaller particulates) having carrier and gravity waves aspects. Bosons also dislay their half-photon "light" properties as "glow," but these boson hybrids are not photons as light particles (and light speed).
Photons - electrogravitic, light speed and variable light speed, gravitational lensing or gravitation capture. Photons are light particles, and no waves.
Neutrons - electrostatis, light speed, no gravitational properties or attraction. Particles and the smallest of any discernable waves.
Bosons - electro-static-gravitic hybrids, force carriers, tensor and gauge bosons, having small light particle glow. Bosons are BOTH particle and wave properties. ONLY bosons as ES-EG (or EG-ES) hybrids are the duality of the false and misleading Hegelian question of ... is light a particle or a wave. Bosons are BOTH. Photons are particles. Neutrons display the minimalist of waves.
False concepts destroy and keep physics from obtaining true discoveries from false questions, bad words, bad word definitions, bad and false 2D models with further false drawings and their extrapolations.
There are two formulations of general relativity. One Minowski-inspired which talks about curved space. The other talks about variable speed of light. They are equivalent. Physicists have looked at both and decided that curved space is easier to work with. Get over it.
Just what I was going to say, but I didn't have confidence in my understanding of GR. Thank you. I think this guy is some kind of snake-oil salesman.
"Curved space" is a meaningless term. Think about it. It describes nothing.
“I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties." - Nikola Tesla
"Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.” - Nikola Tesla
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” - Nikola Tesla
Relativity is extremely well tested, it’s one of the most well tested theories in physics. Tesla was a smart guy, but he was wrong in this case.
@@Chicken_Little_Syndrome If space has no properties, then it doesn't exist. One should be very careful to use off-the-cuff quotes as scientific statements.
Minkowski spcetime is just a model. I find it to be a natural one for special and general relativity. As a mathematician, i find it very weird that anyone would question this.
The reason why it is natural stems directly from Klein's work in geometry.
Unzicker is clearly not on top of relativity and obviously has no understanding of the spacetime concept ..this talk is a lowlight at that DPG meeting way back in 2019 ..
So, to someone in a vessel in free fall towards a high gravity `source' the speed of light would not change, but for an outside observer the speed of light would be changing, right?
Instead of criticizing well-known contributors to the field of physics, why can't Unziker try to tell what HIS correct answer is? He seems to be rather unpleasant to be around as he struts around thinking he is the only one who knows how things are connected. But really? What are HIS contributions other than saying everybody else is/was wrong?
1. Do your homework when searching sth. 2. Anything factual you have to add?
In regards to the question of cosmic tension, there are the bosons as force carriers and whether they are manifestations of gravity. Photons/photinos have electro-gravitic properties, while neutrons/neutrinos have electro-static (no gravity) properties. Thus photons have gravitational lensing with light speed, while the smaller photinos have gravitational capture with variable light speed. Neutrinos and neutrons have no gravitational attraction to anything, thus light speed through 30 light years of steel with no interaction.
New discoveries have found multiple levels of physical matter, also have their counterpart bosons with the electrino-level, electron-level, muon-level, and tau-level. With Higgs bosons (said) having the possible 2 levels of existence, then a tau-boson and a muon-boson (having half-neutron and half-photon properties) they would have portions of gravity interacting with the space-time fabrics and the levels of physical matter. These then would be the source of (variable) cosmic tension, as tensor bosons.
In the search for (said) gravitation waves from a specific source, this answer would be a no, as the gluons have a portion in sapce-time fabric, while electrogravitic physical matter of smaller particles would have small gravity in space, as would the boson hybrids of 1/2 electro-static and 1/2 electro-gravitic properties would have a portion of gravity, ... and the cosmic tension of tensor bosons would have a portion of gravitation. So looking for specific gravity waves or a gravity field from a specific particle or particulate leads to a false research project. One will NOT find a clear gravity wave from a gravity object, unless you can have such advanced engineering and technology down to the graviton-level and then be able to differentiate between all of these many levels and variety of objects having full or half gravitational properties. And such study would only confirm our geolocation at the end of the galactic arm having this quantitative value, while it would be vastly different near a galactic core of higher density, higher energy, and higher tensor boson objects.
Very pleased to discover at last somebody interrogating the scientific trends of physics and its consequences. We just spend too much money to find proofs of non sensical théories. The leads that could help knowledge are far less sexy and are very difficult to fund.
Like many other people, Unzicker is so convinced of his own infallibility that he doesn't think that his slides need to be proofread by someone else before they are presented in public.
Presented in public… from the applauding in the end you can hear that he is talking in front of 3 people. 😂😂. So much to the impact of this guy. He doesn‘t give any physical arguments anyway. His slides are just full of quotes.
That’s because you cannot prove something new peer review. Because if you can’t compare your discovery to something already existing then the discovery is not true. It’s called fascistic conformity which is anti science. And there for peer reviewing is a circle jerking of assholes who constantly agree with each other with out question.
If u like this stuff i suggest Mythos weltformel by jochen kirchhoff. Both selfconvinced Idiots from the political right edge that seem to have a Problem with Einstein being jewish and try to top every Single physician of the 20tiest Center with psychotic conspiration theories
Reißen Sie sich gefälligst zusammen, sonst haben Sie ganz schnell eine Anzeige wegen übler Nachrede und eine Unterlassungsklage am Hals. Wahrscheinlich auch von Herrn Kirchhoff.
Jetzt hab ich aber Angst. Was halten sie beide davon wenn sie den Unsinn den sie verbreiten mal begründen anstatt auf Drohungen zurückzugreifen?
The models of showing the Einstein rocket and a light particle flying through the rocket is a false drawing. The particle appears to fly upwards and outwards from its point at the rocket's shoulder. The reality and correction of this drawing should show the light particle first at the shoulder, but the 2 right-most rockets, should have the particle falling down the side of the forward rocket, and the same curvilinear pathway should be shown. Again, 2D models, with false concepts of drawings inside them have waylaid many a physicist. One in the physics field should correct this drawing once and for all, albeit Einstein's words accurately present this experiment.
The part of mach principle honestly blew my mind, thanks a lot for your talk, I think that modern physics ignores very ofter its phylosophical fundamentals and that leads to two problems, first is a wild west of speculations about its subject that leads nowhere because they ignore the fundamental ideas in which the already tested theories are built and second, to focusing too much on their desire for an idea to be true instead of the empirical experience for it. I like when someone puts into question basics notions in a deep and profound way, thanks a lot.
Thanks. Indeed, one can learn more from the old papers than from the modern stuff.
@@TheMachian Very well said.
@Shimmy Shai In relativity de causality is determine by the space time interval, which determines de space time relation between things events, maybe I am wrong but the description you just made of Mach's principle makes me think of it.
So basically what you're saying is that physicists have to focus on finding formulations which define the universal constants.
This isn't a new idea and blaming Minkowski for it not having happened yet is rather contrived in my opinion.
I think that you simply don't appreciate the power of a 'dimension' in the mathematical sense.
Physicists are often misformed in this way, they interpret dimensions as a spacelike thing, implying things like distance and angles when you really have no right to assume these things.
To talk about dimensions is only to say that you have a line with numbers where the numbers correspond to whatever you want the numbers to represent.
In this sense an informal description of spacetime would simply be: "i got 3 directions i can move in, and if i break a vase i can't unbreak it. alas 3+1 because the last one doesn't behave like the first three."
Notice how i didn't mention lengths, angles, "time" or any other extra information in this formulation. I only assumed/observed a 4D manifold. nevertheless the laws of relativity follow, as such the question you should ask is: "why does spacetime appear 4 dimensional to us?"
This has very little to do with Minkowski, whose name I am sure of you just put in the title to attract viewers.
So to surmise:
What's new isn't true and what's true isn't new.
Quoting people, and particularly the people of the classical and Old era, is not scientific......so your representation is not scientific
I don't understand what's wrong with quoting intelligent statements. A way to learn from history, which is certainly not bad for science.
You should relabel the title of this video to *"The seeds of stagnation".*
The video should be called "I don't understand dimensional analysis"
@@annaclarafenyo8185 I think it should be called "the absurdity of tensor analysis" , A bridge too far, or should I say, a dimension too far, is destined to failure!
@@rubenanthonymartinez7034 And you're using the GPS of your smartphone exactly thanks to that.
Re-evaluation of GR should have begun 50 years ago, when science stopped progressing. It is obvious that physics took more than one wrong turn, following the discovery of electricity; but we are interested in understanding the turn that eliminated all possible others. You can locate it by checking if it requires the principle of cause and effect in order to be explained.
? What are you talking about?
The success of a scientific theory is not evaluated based on our ability to develop more accurate theories afterwards. And science has not at all stopped progressing. After the discovery of electricity, science has advanced in leaps and bounds to accuracies that used to be inconceivable. Quantum field theory, a theoretical framework which requires all the modern physical concepts you seem to discredit, is the most successful scientific theory of all time by FAR. And it has opened countless possible avenues of further investigation. We are not in the slightest painted into a corner, in fact things are looking better than ever before with respect to the future of physics. The only difference now is that in order to probe the physics more accurately, we need more and more sophisticated experiments. The difference between an experiment-lead science and a theory-lead science is that If there is an abundance of unexplained experimental data, theory just has to explain it, which is a lot faster process than having a lot of theoretical possibilities with scarce data to use to determine which is most accurate. Before we eliminate possibilities we cannot use the leading theory to predict further experiments in order to get better data and repeat the process. It used to be that a few relatively simple experiments provided profound data that required new models to explain, then the leading models would quickly lead to further methods of falsification, which again were relatively easy to adapt to experiment. Simply put, the bottle neck in physics at the moment is politics. Funding, resources, feasibility, strategy. Theoretically we have perhaps the richest diversity of possible, often beautiful candidate theories(even potential theories of everything) we have ever had, and this spawned from the theoretical and experimental/observational success of special and general relativity.
RedTriangle53
The problem is politics. In the absolute opposite way you claim.
Junk science is funded. The stuff that is funded will lead nowhere.
Massive government over funding is exactly what has broken and corrupted academia and the university system.
RedTriangle53
Also the public shouldn’t be exploited to pay for all the crap. They are exploited enough, and the assholes demanding more exploitation are *never* satisfied. They always more rent extraction, more rent seeking vampirism. As the common man gets devoured.
@@solank7620 I am not sure what junk science you are referring to. But physics is frankly underfunded compared to the long term economic benefits of improved technology. It's baffling how miniscule the funding of physics is compared to the economic growth which has occurred thanks to it. It is essentially the best investment of all time.
Thanks for this video! You raise many interesting issues. On the topic of the gratuitousness of the Minkowski spacetime diagram, you might appreciate the work of philosopher Joe Cosgrove (Providence College), especially his relatively recent book:
Cosgrove, J. (2018) _Relativity without Spacetime_. Palgrave Macmillan
And he's published a number of papers that orbit the subject.
In physics proper, Lee Smolin has of course been hammering on the problem of the spatialization of time. Speaking of the over-mathematization of physics, I presume you've seen Sabine Hossenfelder's channel (UA-cam), not to mention her book.
The biggest takeaway from this video is whether Nature needs time to exist. That is, does Nature need time to create reality. Since Nature is defined by frequency, wavelength and velocity and uses it to create the universe the answer is Yes. Without the concept of time we would understand out universe far less than we do now. That's because time allows us to ponder the questions of the universe. If there was only space, then energy would never be able to bring order from chaos and there would be nothing to observe. Even observing takes time.
Mach's comment that all objects have inertia across the cosmos - should be properly rewritten as matter has potential energy (PE) of the first stable cup, while the second drawing shows what appears to be an external force rotating the cup, which would be an external kinetic energy (KE) acting upon the STILL potential energy of the cup (!). So many drawings and words with word definitions have wrong implications,
The problem is that the validity of GR is contingent on Minkowski’s 4-D spacetime. If spacetime is only a mathematical construct with no relevance to the real world, (as quantum mechanics suggests), then we need to have the courage to throw out GR.
I’m sure many physicists would be interested to hear an explanation of the replacement theory, incorporating a variable speed of light, a non-expanding universe, and a terrestrial microwave background.
Inertia IS NOT "originating from all masses in the universe." Matter objects are transducers. An accelerating force applied to a matter object manifests the acceleration of charged particles.
See 'radiation resistance.' Radiation resistance is the loss incurred by the propagation of EM waves off a radio antenna into the Vacuum. Radiation resistance is the loss incurred by the accelerated charges of the radio antenna that is propagating the EM waves. The loss suffered by the accelerated charges in the radio antenna is a GAIN of energy into the Vacuum in the form of an EM wave propagation.
In this way, the radio antenna acts as a transducer. The energy put into the radio antenna to cause acceleration of charged particles in the antenna is converted into the energy of the propagated EM wave.
The pattern of this transducer is this:
1) energy from the transmitter (radio frequency oscillations) is applied to the antenna's charged particles
2) the antenna's charged particles are then accelerated
3) the acceleration of those charged particles is transduced (converted) into the energy of the propagating EM wave
If you look up 'radiation resistance' you will find that it is a real, authentic, measurable loss, showing that the antenna acted as a transducer: when an accelerating force (the oscillating RF frequency output of the radio transmitter) - when this accelerating force was applied to the charged particles of the antenna, the Vacuum received a portion of this energy, which manifested as a propagating EM wave.
MATTER OBJECTS are conceptually identical to the radio antenna. Here is the pattern:
1) energy from the accelerating outside force (say, a person pushing on a block of metal during a spacewalk) is applied to a matter object
2) the charged particles of this matter object are then accelerated (note: neutrons carry the charges of their three constituent quarks, so all the constituent particles of each atom carry charge)
3) the acceleration of those charged particles is transduced into a temporary local electric field increase in the immediate vicinity in the Vacuum
The particle-antiparticle pairs that fill the Vacuum have a dipole (a charge-separation dipole) induced in them by the accelerated charged particles of the accelerated matter object. The temporary local increase in the electric field, caused by the acceleration of the charged particles of the matter object, are manifest as induced dipoles in the particle-antiparticle pairs in the immediate vicinity.
The 'feeling' of inertia - the resistance we feel when attempting to push on, to accelerate, an object is the physical manifestation of the accelerated matter object acting as a transducer, as its accelerated charged particles lose energy to the induced dipoles in the Vacuum.
Inertia is a local, Vacuum-originated transduction effect.
Carefully note: the random ordering of the charged particles in the matter object, versus the electrically aligned charged particles that are accelerating in the antenna. A coherent behavior of accelerated charged particles increases the Vacuum screening of the temporary local electric field increase.
A non-coherent (random) set of accelerated charged particles does not yield the same radiative screening effect from the Vacuum.
The electrons - the accelerated charges - in the antenna move coherently, due to the imposition of the electric polarity put on the antenna by the transmitter output. The atoms in an accelerated matter object move in the same direction ('a person pushing on a block of metal during a spacewalk') but the atoms/electrons are not electrically coherent - they are randomly ordered.
To get a radiative EM wave - aka 'to compel the Vacuum to coherently screen the accelerated charges and produce a resulting directional, propagating EM wave response' - you will need to use alignment forced on the electrons of the antenna by the polarity fed to the antenna by the transmitter.
Accelerated matter objects, with random (not electrically aligned/coherent) charged particles, will not radiate. The screening effort of the Vacuum - with its natural behavior to mitigate the sudden temporary increase in the local electric field caused by the charged particles of the matter object - the Vacuum's screening effort transfers the temporary local increase in the electric field from the accelerated charged particles of the matter object into charge-separation induced dipoles in the particle-antiparticle pairs that fill the Vacuum. We call this transfer of energy OUT OF the accelerating matter object "inertia" - it is felt as a loss of energy - a RESISTANCE to our 'push' on the matter object to accelerate it.
Hi, while I encourage you to develop your theories, this is not the place to promote them. Obviously, you don't appreciate Mach's principle. I do.
Presentation tip: NEVER just read off the slides. Extra negative points for turning away from the audience. Even more for putting Wikipedia pages on your slides.
Wow! This totally helped me with a model I'm working on. H and C don't have to be constants? Oh, boy. It all fits!
Thank you sir for your informative perspective. You presented your points extremely well.
I know this is an old upload, so forgive me for posting on a 4 year old presentation.
I am well studied but I am not a physicist. These problems have been bugging the back of my mind for most of my life. I have recently dived into the rabbit hole in an attempt to investigate for my own peace of mind and in having done so realized many problematic "assumed" assertions in the fundamental physics and geometry.
The following are my personal notes while watching your presentation. Note the time marks relative to my comments.
>
~1:50 Henri Poincare
Debate over the 4 dimensional geometry with Minkowski.
Newtonian mechanics are preserved in the underlying 4D space-time coordinate system.
Axle: The above appears to be problematic in respect to the different natural geometries available to choose from.
>
5:50 A kind of union between space and time. But what is this union? And how do we accurately describe this union? What fundamental properties are we unifying? What is space? What is time?
What IS space-time? I have identified a number of natural geometries that satisfy the broad description of relativity and space-time, so which is correct to the natural universe?
>
~8:00 This light cone is a very problematic geometry.Axle
>
~9:10 I fully agree. Albert was correct to question this geometry proposed by Minkowski as I don't believe it accurately described the conceptualisation of space-time that Albert has in his mind. Minkowski recreated Alberts space-time relativity in his own image instead of Albert's.
>
10:45 Is space and time the same thing?
Axle: The first question is does time exist of it's own accord as fundamental to the universe which we only seam to have a subjective human answer to.
Second, can we have time as fundamental, or just an emergent illusion of the maximum value of motion.
If time is fundamental we have a kind of Pseudo 4D space-time which has a few possible geometries. Only one of those geometries appears to encapsulate a true space-time union with relativity (causation) and the Minkoski model does not fit.
An object with zero velocity in space may still have a minimum velocity in time as an equation of 'c'm/s.
The other geometry is space only (we could apply an abstract 3D (x,y,z) over this) were Space is static and time is only an illusion that emerges from motion of objects where motion has a maximum rate.
An object with zero velocity in space will have no inherent expression of time. Time is not fundamental and does not exist without motion.
Which is correct may be difficult to establish.
>
11:29 Note the use of 3D+1D This has many geometric interpretations and we have to be extremely careful about how we construct those geometries and even more so when translating those geometries back to a human readable form as it breaks the fundamental space-time concept.
>
12:24 This fundamental construct of the speed of a photon is critical, and currently quite likely incorrect at the moment.
[Note that the reference frame for 'c' is ambiguous. Is it global (universal) or local to an object... Or both frames at the same time? This is a conflict in physics which is ignored, and leads to all fashion of weird time dilation illusions in SR]
>
~14:38 This is an exceptionally important problem that is overlooked, complex, ignored with an assumed solution.
P.S. I don't actually think light speed is variable to the universal frame. [See following comments]
>
19:20 I think all of this comes out of a human illusion that we have about distant objects. We tend to conflate a photon (which is not the object) with the actually object. The limited speed of light will always give the illusion because of the blurring in motion or time.
It is just a human visual illusion.
>
19:57 Albert clearly states the problem here between SR and GR. The claim of time and length dilation is an illusion in SR and does not appear to exist in reality. Axle [GR and time dilation is a different matter. See next comment]
>
20:20 Variable speed of light in GR (gravity). Light speed is variable in different densities of a medium, so we have to ask is light traveling through a high density medium in a gravitational field. We know all physical objects are at a higher density state, but how far does that density state extend in the gravitational field when we include all forms of particles in space?
>
21:36 Mikowskis space-time seams to be a fundamentally incorrect description of the math and geometry.
>
21:48 This is Albert Einsteins acknowledgement of the problem with the "Human Condition". We have imposed assertions over physics based upon subjective human beliefs.
>
27:05 What IS the constant 'c'???
>
29:52 This is a reasonable summary of the problem.
We have to make an attempt to define the following 3 things as they exist in nature (nor for us, but nature) and then also inspect our limited human ability to describe these things in a human way without damaging there natural (non-human real) context.
Speed of a photon: What does that even mean to the universe?
Time: What does time even mean to the universe?
Space (empty void): What does a void, universe even mean to the universe? What is the universes concept of our neat human box like x,y,z? What are boundaries or infinities to the universe?
An idea of an object: What is an object to the universe? Does the universe even know if they exist?
All difficult questions.
>
The above is a somewhat raw summary of my own investigation and thoughts. They may be a little ambiguous to the reader. If you need clarification on any point feel free to ask :)
Axle
A response to each conclusion: 1. A fourth imaginary dimension is necessary to go from a sphere to a hyperboloid. 2. I agree that space and time are different phenomenon. 3. Spacetime can be replaced by projective geometry which is Euclidean space with points at infinity and beyond. 4. c requires a fifth dimension that is electromagnetism. 5. 3 + 1 imaginary dimension gives a good model of quantum particles on an elliptic plane (sphere) projected onto a "two sheeted" hyperboloid for Minkowski diagrams.
Events are fundamental so, Time and location are conected. Events must be some quantum sistems like microspaces with internal Time. Local Time depends on corelated quantum microspaces. Infinit realityes are present but not în faze.
@@ovidiulupu5575 the two-sheeted hyperboloid becomes a Minkowski diagram if the radius of the elliptic plane is zero. The problem is i think the speed of light is the radius of the elliptic plane R=c and the confusion is that the Minkowski Diagram shows events frozen in time where c=0! Further the elliptic plane is flat making quantum objects on it at the speed of light mathematically. Then we have the Minkowski Diagram with the plane traveling vertically through time at the speed of light. The hyperboloid was conceptually a kind of complex degenerate space having the imaginary dimension vertically that can be converted to the diagram showing special relativity is merely a result of Doppler shift.
While I completely share author's irony about unverifiable concepts and plain speculations, like string theory, black holes, etc, attacking Minkowski's (well, Poincare's) formalism looks like an act of Luddite to me)) This is one of the most acurate, robust, yet comprehensible tools in physics. Yes, it is not intuitive, yes, you have to train your brain to deal with it, but it does reveal the beauty of the universe. Just look at how it simplified Maxwell equations! Or related energy to mass and momentum! And if you are after eliminating another fundamental constants, you got it: 1/c is just a natural scale of time! ))
The last sentence is absolutely retarded. If you start with one constant and left with one constant after your mental gymnastics, it's still one constant. How can someone get this wrong?
Unbelievable
We all criticise things which we don't like. But if this dislike is coming out of incompetence in understanding then I think there is a problem.
I see your critique :-)
Space and time are different, yet space necessitates time in order tc move between points, and time has no purpose without the points of space. The further away a point is, the more it becomes time. The closer the point, the more it becomes space. But space and time are different units.
The different units are not an argument. You could decide to measure vertical distances in ft and horizontal ones in m, so you had another constant which you need to combine them e.g. if you want to calculate the actual length of a ramp.
I believe universal constants are an artefact of the system of units.
Point reductionism is silly, as moving from point to point in space of infinity of infinitesimal points would take infinite time, making any and all movement mathematically impossible. The point reductionist nonsense about "real numbers" is thus just Zeno on steroids.
I like that idea!
You cannot even conceive of space without time. You cannot perceive time without space.
Thats not treu at all, at a Math level yuo can build Anything , but in ower reall word its make sense to think in 3 spatial dimensions + one time dimension , becouse we experiment that everyday.Yuo cuold esey build 1 ,2 3, n space dimension cordinate systems , like a 2 dimension world , like a plane , but yuo always need the time dimension if somehing move (speed : distance/time)
@@noway8233 That is math dude , physics is differnt. I have built predictive models with over 10 dimensions, but we also learn to avoid overfitting so we try to reduce the number of dimensions thus reducing complexity. Spacetime is different, they are intertwined, In the reality of the physical world, we cannot measure one without a change in the other. We cannot measure distance without a tick of a clock and conversely we cannot measure time without advancing across distance.
Light as the singular factor making time is a false concept. Gravity, and transits through gravitational fields, are the source of speeding up or slowing down time.
You speak of "denial of reality" with regards to 4 d spacetime here. But as far as I know, as long two theories make the same predictions, they are equivalent. Further, if both show a similar complexity, they are both fit for "practical use".
So do you have an experiment, where they predict different outcomes? And has that experiment been done?
Biggest question is whether space fabric (and distance) creates the time dimension ... or whether gravity (gravitational objects) create(s) the time dimension. The time problem was solved with satellites at high elevation with lessened Earth gravity on them, showing that there was a recognizable time difference (no matter how small), ... and all the issues of light speed travel life ... and conventional life aging faster (on a planet's gravitational properties). So this would propose that gravity is the source of distance and time, not the space-time fabric.
This then gives credence that light speed photons and neutrons/neutrinos do not age ... like other particles in a gravitational field or light speed gravitational lensing and escape ... while smaller photinos with variable light speed having gravitational capture but slower aging ... (or particulate/particle matter destroyed in a black hole).
So, if humans occupy space, with 0 gravity, do they have minimalized aging on the space station, ... or with man-created gravitational properties (Star Trek Enterprise all floors have their individual gravity, these people would age.) Having an Arthur C Clarke rotating space station (centrifugal force and no gravity), people in space would age slower, (depending on whether they also reside at a LaGrange point (Earth, moon, and Sun equal gravitational region) or orbit around a gravitational object (space station around the Earth).
Admsittedly, (it is said) that gluons in special conditions can display mass (gravitational attraction) and gluons make up quarks, which are the foundation of all space-time mesh fabrics, then space-time does have a very small gravity, but not like greater physical matter (made up from gravitons). So up/down quark space-time fabric has smallest gravity factor, while charm/strange fabric has a higher gravity factor, and top/bottom fabric has the highest gravity factor ... but not anywhere near physical matter gravity, Up/down space-time fabric is more predominant in our location at the end of the galactic arm, with less charm/strange fabric, and minimalized top/bottom fabric. At the galactic core, there would be maximum top/bottom fabric density (and cosmic tension), with minimal up/down fabric.
I’m assuming he has the slides shon on the podium, but he still continues to turn around and look at the screen. Something that really detracts from the presentation.
I always think that c depends on the permittivity and permeability of free space so why is c considered fundamental and not the other two on which it depends?
yes, the variability of c implies varying eps0 and mu0, with interesting consequences for Maxwell's eqns. But it is a matter of taste which constant you consider fundamental. You can keep eps0 and mu0 fixed by c and the fine structure constant.
Unzicker's Real Physics - thanks for that - I still think you can’t vary mo or eo as they are fixed and we only use c=1 in free space to make the maths easier. FYI - My theory is the the universe is conscious and it knows when it is being observed at any stage so it collapses the wave function as it wants. I believe this consciousness can also bend spacetime to give the effect of gravity. Furthermore, I believe this is evidenced in dark energy and dark matter which manifests itself in a similar you to the information energy of Landauer’s Principle but it has no entropy and is many times smaller. This consciousness has to keep expanding in consort with the increasing reality and it drives the expansion of the universe with it - do you know if anyone else has suggested this theory?
@@richardmasters8424 Don't think c=1 is a useful choice. See arxiv.org/abs/0708.2927
@@TheMachian I think the way to unpack this is that because the electromagnetic properties of "free space" varies implies that it is not a true vacuum, nor uniform. More advanced observations show that voids in space are still laden with material that can interact with light.
Otherwise one can lever it to say that it makes no sense to have a physical property equal a true zero without causing cascading undefined values. Where there is electromagnetism there must be a medium, as far as Maxwell is concerned.
@@TheMachian (1) Does anyone ever consider that Einstein's (real/true) VSL is in the (real/true) world due to a change in eps0 &/or mu0?
(2) Do eps0 & mu0 depend on the nearness of mass (or (3) praps on gravity itself).
(4) Or is the standard equation re c eps0 mu0 incomplete (which is my belief).
So, this is the fifth Unzicker video I've watched this evening. My impression so far is that Dr. Unzicker really doesn't *say* anything. He's very good at kicking over the sandcastles of others, but I don't see anything put forward to take their place.
My impression is that you don't really know what to do with your time if you watch five videos you don't like. And yes, some castles - I would say in the air - have to be removed before thinking about buliding reasonable physical theories, which I tried in "Einsteins Lost Key" and "The Mathematical Reality".
@@TheMachian I guess I was just really hopeful of finding some good juicy Mach's principle material. It has a very strong "sense of rightness" to me, but there's not a whole lot on UA-cam that covers it. I wouldn't say I disliked them - I feel pretty sympathetic toward the idea that some parts of mainstream physics are off in the weeds. I didn't really mean anything terribly critical - I was just sharing my thoughts. You have to admit that in some places you pause and search around for words to some degree. The biggest thing, though, is that I can't really tell exactly what it is you're saying. You seem very supportive of the variable speed of light position. As far as I could tell general relativity already predicts the effects you were referring to - they just wrap them up in something different (length contraction, time dilation, etc.) Would it be fair to say that you object to the concepts of time dilation, for instance? Just exactly what position are you espousing? It's not clear to me, beyond "the mainstream is wrong, somehow." Oh, and you seem to like Dirac's large number thing. I find that interesting as well - is your position on that just that no one's paying it any attention and they should?
Anyway, take care and stay safe. I appreciate the replies. I was just trying to give honest feedback - I apologize if I upset you.
@@TheMachian Oh, sorry - I forgot. I also wanted to say that admire the heck out of your willingness to stand up and speak out about the problems you see in physics. Not many people would be that brave. I'm really glad there are some people that will.
@@KipIngram It's fine don't worry. I think SR is correct, nothing to change. Relating Machs principle to GR (and its 1911 VSL version) needs a longer discussion, and interstingly, it is closely related to Dirac's large numbers. I believe to have shown this relation, and also the close resemblance to ideas of Schrödinger 1925 and Dicke 1957. The best place to get more familiar with this is my book www.amazon.com/dp/B01FKTI4A8 of which i am happy to send you a pdf if you contact me per Email.
I wouldn't say Minkowski led physics astray, I believe it is our misunderstanding of time. Time is both linear and Non-Linear. Einstein's "co-ordinate time" is the objective, linear observation of the present moment, from a conscious perspective. Einstein's "proper time" is the subjective experience of the present moment, from a conscious perspective. When you understand these two temporal dimensions of the universe and apply it to the minkowski space-time diagram, it becomes five-dimensional and an electromagnetic sphere or torus. The linear, constant progression of time is represented by the sides of the light cone whilst the non-linear passing of time is represented by the volume of a light cone. Kaluza-Klein theory is very close but it's not an extra spatial dimension. It's an extra temporal dimension that allows for time dilation. It's an inverse relationship between the progression of time and the aggregation of information - a spiral or vortex. If you consider the rate of information processing as being Einstein's "proper time", It is infinite at the zero point. As you move away from the zero point at the progression rate that is Einstein's "co-ordinate time", coherent information gathers with an inverse relationship between frequency and amplitude, where frequency is the rate of processing and amplitude is the amount of information being processed. This applies to every dynamic electromagnetic field, including humans. From a universal perspective, it would mean that the universe is flowing at a constant rate and our rate of flow in the universe is relative to position. This is to say that our current Hubble tension is not a result of the universe expanding faster, rather a result of our perspective slowing down as our informational complexity increases.
Well, space & time are abstractions. Reifying abstractions is the basic logical fallacy underlying modern physics and relativity. Elementary logic is sufficient to refute relativity.
Space and time are useful concepts for everyday purposes. They have real meaning. For instance if I say something is very far away, there certainly is meaning to that, not abstract.
For the purposes of physics, these concepts can be extended beyond their usual domain. In relativity we use the fact the the speed of light (distance/time) is always the same to extend the definition of time and space to moving objects.
Well, if space and time are not seated in our reality, it pose a great problem when dating someone don’t you think?
@@NicleT "Seated in our reality" is wonderfully ambiguous. Space and Time can be subjectively real - so you can make your date - without having objective reality - without, that is, being parts of the furniture of the external world.
Looking forward to your explanation to the precession of the orbit of Mercury, gravitational lensing, time dilation (e.g. cosmic rays particle decay times, GPS adjustments) and a few others. Come back once you have it peer-reviewed and experimentally verified.
Einstein's STR is krapp, & GTR is mostly krapp. But there are lots of relativities. I have my own kind, which naturally i like best.
But, unfortunately, the Lorenz invariance acts on 'space and time' and not 'space' and 'time'
'absolute speed in space and internal speed of clock'. Clocks arrow move slower, not time.
I am not sure to whom the following statement should be attributed:
"No one has experimentally created, nor even imagined how to physically create, an inertial system of reference."
I see no problem that a mass can be accelerated beyond the speed of light. It is just our observation of the light from the object, from a static reference, that is sendt to us by the speed of light, that cannot go any faster. Just like a airplane going faster than the sound. If all you had is the sound of it you will deduce that it is further back than it actually is.
Spacetime interval is lorentz-invariant and the spacetime formalism leads in GR to correct prediction of mercur precession. A variable speed of light theory cannot achieve that.
PHYSICS AT THE EXTREMES (too fast and/or too small) IS JUST GOOD OLD PHILOSOPHY.
At the untestable extremes everyone can have an opinion; just read all these reactions :-)
The idea of varying speed of light works for a far observer of a gravitational source. For such an observer, a light falling into a black hole will take longer to reach the event horizon, however, locally, the length along the radius is elongated, so locally, the speed of light is the same. So yes, this idea can work if correctly used, however, the theory will be equivalent to ordinary General Relativity. The challenge, however, is to locally describe the field that the "mass" generates such that a far observer will see a lesser velocity without the use of Ricci curvature.
Yes because "ordinary" General Relativity yields the same result, not just for falling but deflected light rays at perihelion (lol a friend and I calculated these a few weeks ago for fun and to learn how this stuff _actually works_ ). The problem is that Unzicker's version is _more_ contrived -- not less -- than GR, and all due to the dread that gravity is nothing more than spacetime curvature (or more precisely that there's no gravity _only_ spacetime curvature). He's as bad as the physicists he criticizes because they, too, abhor GR and claim to have a better theory (they call theirs "quantum gravity").
@@dubistverrueckt Unzicker's idea is correct in the coordinate system of a far observer. Not sure it is simpler. It seems equivalent to GR.
This is very interesting, but don't you think that first we should tackle the dimensional divide between perception and ontology? I mean, the phenomenology of length and width is different from that of depth, and glueing them together in a three-dimensional space is a denial of reality.
So Boltzman's constant is irrelevant because it only defines a temperature scale. But then why is the speed of light so important if it only defines a time (or distance) scale? It seems the whole talk was centered in the premise that Minkowski led physics astray because he defined a time scale so that the metric tensor is diag(1, -1, -1, -1), but this was only a mathematical convenience, he could also have defined it as diag(c², -1, -1, -1) (or diag(1, -1/c², -1/c², -1/c²) as P. G. Bergman does in his relativity book) with no time or distance scaling and all of his arguments would stay the same.
I don't want to dismiss a possible formulation of a gravitation theory based on variable speed of ligh, but is seems that the concept of spacial speed makes no sense in general coordinate systems, but only in local infinitesimal Lorentz frames. In those frames, the speed of light is always the same (due to the principle of equivalence), no matter the surrounding gravitational fields. I don't know why Einstein considered dx/dt something meaningful in general coordinate systems (and there are no other possible coordinate systems in the presence of gravity), but he certainly knew very well that the speed of light is c in local infinitesimal Lorentz frames.
9:51 This dude asks "How justified is this union of 3 dimensional space and 1 dimension of time..? Turns out that there's no real justification besides the postulate by Minkowski.," then claims "space and time are simply different phenomenologies of physics." [citation needed]
Appartently, this guy doesn't understand neither the math or the physics, or even the history of physics, because Maxwell not so long before Minkowski and Einstein showed for the first time that different phenomenologies in physics, namely electricity and magnetism, could be united and (nearly) completely understood by meshing them in orthogonal dimensions, i.e. electromagnetism. At this time in the really early 20th century, the only known forces were electromagnetism and gravitation, so when Kaluza-Klein proposed doing something similar to to unify EM with gravity, he was enormously excited by the prospect. Of course we know that the Kaluza-Klein model was not the correct one but Einsteinian general relativity, and its great successes both back then and 100 years later when he's been proven right yet again with the prediction of gravitational waves, which otherwise would not have been discovered and astronomers would lose a tool in their toolkit to search the heavens. This alone justifies it, and the fact that this guy is confused makes me immediately think he's the wrong one here, and Minkowski, Poincare, Hilbert and Einstein are correct.
What school does this guy teach at?? this is embarrassing...
I do teach math and physics indeed, as Balmer, Weierstraß and Ampere did, if you happen to know these guys. You can do teaching in two ways: make yoiur students parrot or make them think. I chose the latter option, if you like it or not. Your argument with Maxwell's equations is flawed, because just as space and time, electric and magnetic fields are different phenomenologies (despite the Lorentz transformations). GW have nothing to do with it.
@@TheMachian Question existing theories with new hypotheses is justified as well as making your students think. Still _the way_ you responded to ℂ∀ℳiℒ∅’s Notebooks comment above is questionable:
"I do teach math and physics indeed, as Balmer, Weierstraß and Ampere did, if you happen to know these guys"
--> referring to social status; suggestion of lack of knowledge; defensive
"..., if you like it or not" --> defensive
"GW (gravitational waves) have nothing to do with it" --> suggestion of lack of knowledge(?); no explanation for this point
actually there is quite sufficient reason to consider (at least a priori) that its possible space and time are different phenonemologies. because traversal of space is symmetric (can go back and forth in any spatial dimension), whereas traversal of time is not (can only go forward in time, entropy etc). show me a time machine and ill be gladly proven wrong. so perhaps you are the one that should be embaressed? given both Einstein and Dirac also considered variable light theories, there is no shame in doing so. unless you want to be embaressed by Einstein and Dirac, then by all means. the proof however is always in the pudding. the best theory is the one with most evidence. but an inability to think of new theories to explain unexplained phenomena is the death of science. an example of unexplained phenomena is dark matter. Gravitational waves are indeed not necessarily indicative of a meshed spacetime. a newtonian gravity could also conceive of gravitational waves. yes einsteins theory predicted them but it doesnt rule out another theory explaining them.
Einstein did not predict GWs. And when GWs were predicted Einstein said that they could not carry energy.
GWs do not exist.
And if they did exist they would not travel at c.
But when exactly did Einstein understand general relativity ? When he predicted that the universe contracted from its own gravity, or when he introduced a cosmoillogical constant to make it steady ? Or when he removed it to make it expanding, altough innitially he understood that it was contracting under its own gravity without that constant ? I mean, if I make a theory which in my understanding predicts A, and then non-A, and then the opposite of A, at which point can I say that I understand it ?
My impression is that he starts with one very good point - that space and time are fundamentally different in our experience - and goes on from there to talk complete bollocks.
Well, the objection that the 3+1 dimension is somewhat cosmetic seems like a real objection. I understood that much. But this objection vanishes if 4D space-time is taken as a convenient coordinate, which is what it seems to me.
Alan Barnett: Bollocks? Complete bollocks?
Agreed. In his next talk he will probably show how science was led astray by abandoning the geocentric world view, and equally not back anything up with arguments or evidence XD
You should also mention his chaotic presentation and lack of practice
He is asking philosophical questions, which is what is necessary to get out of today's confusion about the meaning of physics.
Or we could just stop trying to answer questions in the absence of evidence and do some science instead.
The "meaning" of physics? Good grief. Physics, like all disciplines in science, doesn't "mean" anything. You're thinking of philosophy or religion. They look for "meaning", answers to "why" questions. Science is concerned only with "how" questions. It's theories try to describe the mechanisms behind "how" things work, like the steps in a recipe. Physics has no more meaning than a cake recipe.
Robert Barnes “the meaning of physics” = “what does it mean for something to be physics, not, idk, woo” = “what criteria does something have to meet to be considered physics”
@@OslerWannabe Equations have to be interpreted. They don't interpret themselves. Period.
@@OslerWannabe You have to be intentionally obtuse to read my comment in that sense. And you really have no historical perspective on science.
Space-time is a hybridisation of space and time into 1. Just as the eye hybridises 3 dimensions into 2 by projecting 3 dimensions onto a 2 dimensional plane.
With the discovery of gravitational waves from binary netron star mergers in 2017, wouldnt this and mergers of Supermassive black holes with waves way too big for our detectors cause all light to travel much longer distances than flat space and therefore redshift linearly from distance on its way to our observatories. Thereby a factor in tired light theory?
11:16 You say physics has swayed to developing sophisticated mathematical formulations instead of focussing on conflicting concepts. However, the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics were also merely mathematical re-formulations, and it would be foolish to say that they did not play an important part in the history of physics. How do you reconcile this with your statement, just curious?
Thanks.
Good question. Thought about that already. At the end, we need the correct differential equations. There migth be several Lagrangians which yield the same. it is an elegant formalism, no doubt. Personally, I do not use it very much, since I guess you have to develop an intuitive understanding first (see also the history of GR development... Einstein did not think about a Lagrangian first). What I consider an even more severe problem is that spacetime might not be R^3, but S^3. That means you have to throw away much of the linar formalisms and start over... use Lie algebras when talking about dericvatives and so on. Mathematically terrible, but maybe unavoidable. morein "The mathematical reality"
Don't you wonder sometimes about Sound and Vision?
Is there a point to this or is he merely the male version of Sabine Hossenfelder.....?
No. Sabine Hossenfelder presents arguments, and does not fill time with claims and quotes that amount to nothing of consequence.
Hossenfelder is at least not ONLY for them clicks un here....
Where AREN'T there gravitarional fields in the universe? Help me, did I miss sonething?
Time is an emerging property of space so it certainly deserves a dimension.
Recently, I stumbled upon the following Wikipedia text that considers Minkowski's 4D spacetime as real entity and that we consider the two as separate because the speed of light is what it is, otherwise we would clearly perceive spacetime as one physical phenomenon. What is your take on this?
"General relativity is a theory of the nature of time, space and gravity in which gravity is a curvature of space and time that results from the presence of matter or energy. Energy and mass are equivalent (as expressed in the equation E = mc2). Space and time values can be converted into time or space units by multiplying or dividing the value by the speed of light (e.g., seconds times meters per second equals meters).
A common analogy involves the way that a dip in a flat sheet of rubber, caused by a heavy object sitting on it, influences the path taken by small objects rolling nearby, causing them to deviate inward from the path they would have followed had the heavy object been absent. Of course, in general relativity, both the small and large objects mutually influence the curvature of spacetime.
The attractive force of gravity created by matter is due to a negative curvature of spacetime, represented in the rubber sheet analogy by the negatively curved (trumpet-bell-like) dip in the sheet.
A key feature of general relativity is that it describes gravity not as a conventional force like electromagnetism, but as a change in the geometry of spacetime that results from the presence of matter or energy.
The analogy used above describes the curvature of a two-dimensional space caused by gravity in general relativity in a three-dimensional superspace in which the third dimension corresponds to the effect of gravity. A geometrical way of thinking about general relativity describes the effects of the gravity in the real world four-dimensional space geometrically by projecting that space into a five-dimensional superspace with the fifth dimension corresponding to the curvature in spacetime that is produced by gravity and gravity-like effects in general relativity.
As a result, in general relativity, the familiar Newtonian equation of gravity F = G m 1 m 2 r 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle F=G{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}\ } \textstyle F=G{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}\ (i.e. gravitation pull between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them) is merely an approximation of the gravity effects seen in general relativity. However this approximation becomes inaccurate in extreme physical situations, like relativistic speeds (light, in particular), or large, very dense masses.
In general relativity, gravity is caused by spacetime being curved ("distorted"). It is a common misconception to attribute gravity to curved space; neither space nor time has an absolute meaning in relativity. Nevertheless, to describe weak gravity, as on earth, it is sufficient to consider time distortion in a particular coordinate system. We find gravity on earth very noticeable while relativistic time distortion requires precision instruments to detect. The reason why we do not become aware of relativistic effects in our every-day life is the huge value of the speed of light (c = 300000 km/s approximately), which makes us perceive space and time as different entities. "
The reason why space and time are considered "interchangeable" is that the quantity x*x + y*y + z*z - c*c*t*t (where x, y z are the differences in the three spatial dimensions between two events and t is the temporal difference between the two events) is always the same, when measured by an observer in *any* inertial (i.e. non-accelerating) frame.
Two observers moving relative to each other at a constant velocity may disagree about each of the values x, y, z, t that they observe, but they will agree on the value of the quantity above.
Consequently, that has led to a popularisation of a 4D model, as if x, y, z and t were equivalent apart from a scaling factor (c) on the time dimension. But they are not. The invariant quantity has a crucial minus sign before the term in t. That means that the base vectors of the 4D space would be x, y, z and ict - where i is the square root of -1. That makes t a very different thing from the spatial dimensions, and it gives me considerable sympathy with the view that Minkowski started a ball rolling that has led to a lot of wrong-thinking over the years.
There is no 4D space-time; not even a (3+1)D space-time. At best it is a (3+i)D space-time, and the distinction is very real.
With the conclusions:
1. No, it is never assumed that 4D spacetime is a necessary element of reality. Albert Einstein, for example, to the end of his life encouraged people to pursue theories that contradicted GR,
2. Physics makes no comment about phenomenologies. We can't even define the word rigorously enough for physics.
3. A model in physics which has experimental support is never a denial of reality. The curvature of light in a gravitational field and even the twin paradox have been confirmed experimentally. Everyone is free to offer alternate models.
4. Mr Unzicker needs to demonstrate how anything Minkowski said has obfuscated the problem of justifying the existence of c.
5. There is no good reason that we know of that nature should operate in a 3+1 dimensional way, just as there was once no good reason that people knew of as to why rainbows appeared in the sky. Physicists are working on the question of the origin of dimensionality in general and why there should be three spatial dimensions.. The trouble is that Unzicker wants to have a bet both ways and condemns those working on questions like these as not doing science because they have not yet been able to formulate testable hypotheses.
Special relativity will persist until the hero worship of Einstein burns itself out. So the apostles of Einstein will insist that clock A is faster than clock B and clock B is faster than clock A and the reason you can't understand that insanity is because you are not smart enough.
Whatever you migth believe, this video does not endorse doubts about time dilation.
@@TheMachian I haven't seen any evidence that time may dilate, I don't doubt that clocks can run fast or slow depending on physical (gravitation/travel) conditions. How does a machine's physical movement which is being influenced by physical forces have to do with time? I don't need to tell you that a clock has nothing to do with time anymore than anything else that moves.
@@sedevacantist1 Exactly. Well said.
As a theoretical physicist, I also advocate that students of physics should only be exposed to experiments, not dictated by theories, which should be considered by researchers.
If we could wind back the clock to a meaningful save point, what year would we be in? Is it possible to restart physics from that point?
Maybe in 1905, when Einstain first submitted his PhD thesis of GR.
Edit: ok, even winding the clock back to 400 years might not be even enough to solve this issue
1947 specifically June 2-4
The Shelter Island meetings.
This man uses a lot of words to say very little.
Appreciate if you can it phrase more concisely.
Rupert Sheldrake has given a talk called The Science Delusion where he presents that the "constants" aren't constant.
I prefer Einstein's equation in this form: E/C = MC
Energy, slowed to the speed of light, equals Mass, accelerated to the speed of of light. Thus, Mass and Energy are two expressions of the three-phased
Dialectric -- Electricity -- Magnetism. All of our notions of Gravity, particles, and waves, are in need of adjustment. The very model of the atom, needs to be revisited with this new light. 1/Phi^-3 -- that's the reciprocal of the cube root of the Golden Ratio. It helps to define and to reveal "counter-space," and the Unified Field Theory.
Actually, now that you mention it, there is similarity between Sheldrake and Hunzicker. Both present bold claims with absolutely no arguments or evidence to back them up. But I think Hunzicker makes you take longer to realise it, so good on him!
For example unstable isotope decay rates are not constant, and follow a seasonal cycle, and correlate to CME. Going in the other direction, you can personally cause this effect with ELF and ULF.
The difference or asymmetry between space and time becomes clear if we start considering the concept of speed. We measure speed in terms of time
_Of course_ relativity needs 1+3D spacetime because simultaneity of spatially separated events depends on the reference frame we use!
Moreover, the spacetime concept itself does not require relativity, NM can also be formulated using the spacetime terminology.
The GALILEI transform can be understood as a spatiotemporal shear which leaves temporal distances invariant.
Such thing as absolute space does indeed not exist due to GALILEI's principle of relativity from which follows the _relativity of conlocality_ of temporally separate events.
What is space? It's the set of fixed locations which means positions relative to a certain reference body B. If another body B' which moves at a speed (v|0|0) with respect to B is chosen as our new reference body, a position relative to B is no fixed location any more but a position relative to B' instead.
It takes a reference body to divide spacetime into (coordinate) time and space.
Of course, spacetime doesn't mean that time and space were pretty much the same thing.
Nothing to argue with what you're saying. But considering time and space as pretty much the same thing was precisely the ideology Minkowski advanced.
@@TheMachian
I'm not sure about whether MINKOWSKI ever took time and space as _the same thing._
What he really said _expressis verbis_ is the truism that time and space _cannot longer be considered independent._
And this is even _an understatement_ since the claim of an _absolute space_ is not even consistent with NEWTONian mechanics (NM), though NEWTON himself postulated such thing.
But there he contradicts his own theory which already contains the GALILEI principle of relativity (PoR) which includes the _relativity of conlocality._
Space is the set of all places and what is a place depends on reference frame:
If I drink a coffee within the board bistro of a space vehicle (in the widest sense, including Earth) which I consider stationary, this is a single place.
If we consider another space vehicle stationary with respect to which mine is moving, my bistro is not a place any more but just a relative position with respect to a moving object.
So we don't even need EINSTEIN's SR to affirm MINKOWSKI's famous words.
What's new in SR is that time is as little independent from space as vice versa but like conlocality, simultaneity of spatially distinct events is also relative and what remains absolute is only their weaker property of having a space-like distance.
I have never claimed to understand relativity, even though so many popular science articles try to explain it to us laymen, clearly indicating an expectation that it is something that the general public should be familiar with.
But as far as I have understood it, the ieea that that the speed of light is the same in every frame of reference is the basis for everything Einsteinian in physics. From that does everything else follow as logical consequences.
So can the speed of light be the same for all observers, yet variable from place to place according to the strength of the field of gravity? This needs further explanation.
And how would this work for a black hole, where the gravitation is enormously strong and hence the speed of light should be terribly slow?
There is a fundamental flaw in the idea that a photon has the same speed relative to the universe and the same speed relative to a moving object which is why they have this unproven idea of time dilation and length contraction which ends up in a paradox. The problem is that time dilation asserts a different speed of light in the relative frame after it has already been asserted as a constant to work out the time dilation.
Much needed rethink of the blind worship of the new absolutes, such as the speed of light being the speed limit of the universe. Needless to say, it is ridiculous. And Minkowski's transformation of distance into time multiplied by the square root of -1 is simply unprovable.
With variable speed of light, there is still the problem of the equivalence principle. Gravity is no more real than the jolt inside of a train pulling away from the station. GR correctly strips gravity of its status as a force, and puts it in the bin of 'pseudo force'.
GR is not unintuitive if you have always been suspicious that Newton let weight be defined by the acceleration of Earth, it's a total hack. Newton assumed the surface of EArth was an inertial frame. it isn't.
Nice video which prtovides the fundamentals related to Relativity... Is there any book authored by H. Minkowski
Bottomline... We don't actually really know what Space and Time fundamentally are. And even though the mathematical union of Spacetime was very successful for classical physics, such as Relativity and Electromagnetism, in the Quantum World, these concepts seemingly breakdown somewhat!
And since we really don't know the fundamental nature of the Universe... I.e. Space and Time... Then it's little wonder why Quantum Gravity will always remain elusive!
There is NOTHING about the total sum of all laws of nature that requires them to be subject to mathematical (or even, perhaps, logical) manipulation. For the standard two-value logic system, the simple statement "I never tell the truth" causes the system to have a short-circuit, requiring a "sometimes" third choice to allow it to be resolved. Conscienceness may or may not be subject to regular mathematical tools to try to measure/subdivide/analyze for rules, yet rules can be developed about it, both describing its qualities and predictions as to future actions. The problem is that when you have a hammer, all problems start looking like nails, even if they obviously have screw threads on them...
Well said! I always laugh when I hear anyone say "it shouldn't exist!" Who is to say what should or shouldn't exist in nature? It's not up to nature to abide by your understanding, reasoning, logic, mathematics, or laws.
Hi Alex,
Can you include the Q&A session for your presentation please?
This is the Q&A session :-)
@@TheMachian Yes, but I figured the conference Attendees would have some interesting questions than I could not think of. :)
Some of my opinions:
1. Don't think inertial is caused by gravity, but likely the permeability of space (Mach Theory of Inertia). Consider that the magnetic fields have impedance to change (ie acceleration) at least until a magnetic material saturates. Issue I see with gravitation causing inertial is that it appears constant no matter how much gravity there is is (At least perpendicular to the large mass providing the large gravitation field).
2. Permeability of space may also be the limit for the speed of light (ie saturation of space to permit light to travel any faster). Gravity may impact the permeability as light appears to travel slower near large masses.
If permeability does have some merit, then there would be a constant, but it would likely super-cede G & C, since likely would be derived from a permeability constant. This constant could be composed from the dielectric constant & or the the magnetic permeability constant.
@@guytech7310 haha, maybe someone in the audience was actually a physicist and took apart his presentation. We'll never know!
Correlation does not imply causation.
If the mathematics is defined by the observations, then of cause it is going to work.
So; we see how much light is bent by the sun and choose the constants to fit the mathematics.
4d mathematics will then work.
But that is not an explanation of how gravity works. It might be some unknown effect of electro-magnetism. Wal Thornhill posits, for example, a tripartheit electron with two negative charges and one positive charge, which would be capable of producing a very weak attractive force.
Charlie Hall posits at least one extra field involved in the propagation of light which would skew the Michaelson Morley results.
This is a psychological problem, documented by Psychiatrist Dr. Iain McGilchrist in his book, "The Master and His Emissary", in which the model-making Left Brain thinks its Models *ARE* reality and it has an existential crisis when it's models are challenged.
I've had a fruitless argument with AI in which it just appealed to authority when challenged. How this emergent problem is going to be addressed is not clear to me.
everything moves all the time, speed of light cannot be constant in time and in geography, I guess, but how to measure such changes?
Page 24:33
Suggesting to eliminate u0. Why?
Why not eliminating c^2 and keep e0 and u0 ? Since c is a dependent of e0 and u0.
perhaps a naive thought but the description of the photon as a wave always bothered me. Sure it is wavelike when measured but so is everything else. The wave is a measurement artifact. The photon should appear as a point due to relativistic contraction. It is the superposition of many photons that give rise to a continouous wave like radio waves
george jo
You are offering here a series of logical arguments, sound and solid as far as argument sake, can be traced to conclusion theories drawn by (highly celebrated) scientists who don’t scrutinize or understand the test apparatus with which their theories took root from. Why do we spend more time in learning and preaching (highly celebrated) theories but scrutinize it before we wear it?
@@philoso377 There is always another interpretation . Perhaps the rush to mathematical models has diminished the role of experiment.
george jo
Mathematic speculation in theoretical science is replacing the old school “science methods” today and beyond.
As long as there are funding provided for “mainstream celebration of targeted celebrities physicists and theories”, disciple and worshipers wearing scholar’s hat will grow in equal proportion..
@@georgejo7905 Man-made radio signals are carried by photaenos, they are not carried by photons.
A photon with a (natural) 10 mm wavelength (the length of its central helix), is a different animal to a radio wave with a (forced) 10 mm wavelength (which has no central helix).
Photons have a central/internal part (the central helix) & an external part (the photaeno).
The central helix has a front end & a rear end, & is 1 wavelength long. The wavelength is simply one turn of the helix (there is no wave).
The central helix is an annihilation of aether. Annihilation of aether gives gravitational mass & inertial mass.
The track of the annihilation forms a helix. The helical annihilation moves axially throo the aether at the speed of light c, & along its helical track at more than c.
Photaenos radiate out (to infinity) from the central helix.
Photaenos annihilate aether, hence they have gravitational mass & inertial mass.
Photaenos include a vibration (excitation) of the aether.
Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field & perhaps c in the far field.
Photaenos radiate from fixed locations in the aether, ie from fixed locations along the central helix.
Photaenos do not have a sideways velocity in the aether, ie each photaeno is shed from the central helix as the rear end of the central helix passes.
In a free photon every photaeno is initially attached to the central helix, & later it detaches.
In a confined photon the central helix has formed a continuous loop, in which case the photaenos do not detach (the central helix has no rear end).
Electrons & other elementary particle are confined photons.
Photaenos give us charge fields & electromagnetic fields.
An attached photaeno gives a high field strength, an unattached photaeno gives a weaker field.
Hence a free photon has 3 parts, the central helix, the attached photaenos, & the unattached photaenos. A confined photon has 2 parts, it has no unattached photaenos.
Man-made radio signals are carried by photaenos, they are not carried by photons.
A photon with a (natural) 10 mm wavelength (the length of its central helix), is a different animal to a radio wave with a (forced) 10 mm wavelength (which has no central helix).
Free photons are slowed by the nearness of mass (confined photons), as proven by Shapiro (Shapiro Delay).
Shapiro Delay is due to the photaenos (from the free photon)(& from the confined photon) fighting for the limited use of the aether.
Fighting/congestion slows the photaenos & this slowing feeds back to the central helix, slowing the central helix.
I call this slowing "photaeno drag". It contributes to the bending of light. It gives us diffraction near an edge.
Photaeno drag is very strong inside mass (air water glass). It gives us refraction, & reflexion.
I don't think that just because some theories emliminate a constant of nature this is always the case. You can't just explain nature with constants. Reducing your understanding into more fundamental axioms is also some progress. Did the Newtonian laws of motion eliminate any constant of nature? No! Did quantum mechanics eliminate any constant of nature? No! But they do predict newtonian laws from more fundamental principles. That's also a scientific revolution.
Besides, Minkowsi's work was not about making a scientific revolution. It was about formalization of special relativity, and the implementation of math in the theory as a tool, to make it more accessible. Thanks to these math we are able to analyze a more complicated relativistic problem without having to understand what's really going on.