Why Space and Time Are an Illusion - The Mathematical Reality
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2024
- Talk given by Alexander Unzicker at the DPG Meeting in Munich 2019. Background in more detail: www.amazon.com...
Typo at 3:06: the denominator should be (me+mp) not (mp+mp), the numerator mp, not me.
This was an eye opening lecture for me. It rekindled my love of physics from high school.
fully agree with the premise (always understood it like you describe) and studying the assumption. indeed the first interesting science video in a long time.
Alexander, our Bavarian answer to Stephen Hoaxking.
I realized about 10 years ago that time is a construct of the human mind. It's nice to hear that I finally found someone who confirms my belief.
Three dimensional space is a human invention, not a discovery.
I am quite satisfied with no dimensions at all.
John Walker
Three dimensional space is perceived out of human experience, formalised by Euclid who made us see what is a circle, its diameter as well as made us think of a sphere. It has its practical uses, without which we couldn't have designed an aero-engine, reached Moon & hope to land on Mars.
A baby when it grows to a child discovers it. Like Sunlight nor Sun, none need discover or invent it. Just it is there, whether we attempt to know it or not (is our funeral).
I like the central point that the constant, c, indicates failure of the dimensional ontology on the big scale, and the constant, h, indicates a similar failure on the small scale, I had not thought of it that way before. I have my own reasons for doubting the existence of spatial dimensions, I am sympathetic to some of the ideas of Lee Smolin, but also to the basis of his ideas in the suggestions of Leibniz.
At the maximal and minimal scales respectively, C & H represent pure stasis.
but the constants exist in pure mathematics (pi, euler's, feigenbaum's)... what about those?
At school we got the Fourier transform to transform signals from the time domain to the freq domain. Something simple in the time domain appears as voodoo in the freq domain.
Some time ago I had the idea that the same thing may apply to all kinds of physics voodoo, particle wave duality, gravity, electrons, those kind of things. So I got the idea that there may be the same kind of thing going on, that the 'real space' might just be one transformation away and then suddenly everything becomes very simple. what kind of transformation is the question I never got any further than this hypothesis.
There are some things that I do know:
- There is no such thing as a time-dimension, maybe on a graph or a formula but not in reality.
- 3-D space is a bit of a misnomer, it's more like 'ball shaped' or something it's more of a linguistic problem. 3-dimensional suggests there would be the possibility of 2-D or 4-D.
But I was never able to figure out 'space', maybe I just don't know enough about mathematics.
There's one thing I have figured out about space though: it seems that there is space and then things move about at the maximum of the speed of light. It may.. just be the other way round, that the light speed 'spawns' space, there's no space without light speed.
Anyway I'm not a scientist but all the 'voodoo' going on in physics suggests to me Space needs to be re-thought on some fundamental level. Just like the step from the geocentric to the heliocentric model. But that one was easy because you're still inside the same space.
consume more actual physics and less pop physics
There is a dimension of time It just collapses into the sphere itself. Therefore everything above three dimensions is a general scale of observation which relates to the ideal sphere itself. It's the way reality works The first three dimensions are necessary to form the framework of all the others to come after. Everything is within a dimension of its own point of being and a point in exponential space is a sphere. The sphere is the ideal holograph and the circle is the perfect shape of which implies all shapes and forms in itself and is the vacuum of space or the lens of your eye in reflection of this. All other dimensions outside of three-dimensional space are either general points or spheres or higher geometrical abstractions in symmetrical ways. Time includes all space in itself as a frame of reference in it and therefore it's a continuum of three-dimensional space in a general direction relative to the point of being in the center of them self.
Two-dimensional and one-dimensional exist in the same space just as 4 does All contained together in the body and mind which can relate to the vacuum itself The body being the foundation for the mind to revolve around and see from within. Two-dimensional is the polar expression of the pressures inside of us all and the singularity is the point in which it actually seems to be and the point of view in which is the focus of your mind and the awareness of it all.
Time is conventional, and without us here to measure it in a linear fashion, time is cyclical, not linear. We live and die on a time line, so the idea of time as linear is baked-in to so many of our assumptions. The Electric Universe people have done some good explanations of how time isn't really fundamental to physics.
Space is the difficult one to grasp. In a monistic paradigm, space is the aftereffect of divergent magnetic fields. This works at all levels, from the atomic to the cosmic. The 3D nature of space is fairly uncomplicated, but the concept of counterspace is the one that is probably the hardest to communicate. Tesla, Steinmetz and their peers all were monists who believed in the ether and understood counterspace.
I would suggest Ken Wheeler (Theoria Apophasis) for an explanation of monistic metaphysics. It is totally rational and complete, but it is really hard to reduce the universe to two forces/geometries and one substrate in your head, because sense experience implies a multitude of things. Ken's ferrocell and supercell videos show how magnetic fields bend and red/blue shift light.
For someone who lives (lived) by Fourier transform (& its myriad derivatives like FFT & Walsh-Hadamard Transform) it is still mind-boggling as to how he came up on that. Frequency & BW are my bread & butter. I was taught to think in a particular way & factor, reciprocal of time units (quantified as Hertz) as a Physical quantity. Physicists who fret over L, M, T etc, give short shrift to frequency (a fundamental quantity of nature like L, M, T) that takes its revenge by painting itself on the all-engulfing sky of a Black hole as "information" - merely because Time is at stand-still there.
Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768-1830) can't be classed in the same way as Newton, Maxwell or Einstein but as someone who taught us to think "differently"(orthogonally). What physical difference does it make if I characterise it as a wave / Time-history or its equivalent bundle, frozen in time as "spectrum" ("Parceval" has already proved them both as the same in the matter of carrying energy). Now DFT has become the most fundamental embedded chip & that famous Cooley-Tukey-Blackman "algorithm" (algorithm named for Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī) "the most important numerical algorithm of our lifetime" without which no NASA (or ISRO) calculation could take shape.
As you hinted, I think I am preparing to make a "transform" of our Number system, so that e or π isn't a string of numerals infinite long, but as a spot each in their (Fourier) transforms.
Interestingly there is a Samskrt verse ("Shloka") that memorises, length of the string of π numericals for 25 places (I even suggested an error-correction, for it read 3.1436 instead of 3.1416). It is fascinating & worth the life.
You seem to be strongly platonist. A fun fact: Heisenberg was very platonist himself (uniting Aristotle and Heraclitus to it). And so was Gödel.
It's good to see physics starting to return to its real business of making simplifying models of nature. The field was thrown off course and had blinkers put on by GR and QM being so successful relative to previous models.
Time, or maybe more precisely sequenciality, has many implications for philosophy, logic and mathematics. Therefore I believe that time could indeed be a "divine entity" and not (or not only) a "concrete entity" and/or "illusory entity".
Three logicians walk into a bar. The bartender asks if all of them want a beer. The first says "No". The second says "I don't know". The third says "Yes".
The bartender comes back with exactly 1 beer, puts it on the table and leaves.
There is a small type at min3:06. the numerator should be (me+mp) not (mp+mp).. it is a clear typo but still it is worth pointing.
Thx, wil be fixed in the comments.
The philosophical Concept of objective space only makes sense if we posit that there are seperate objects - seperate entities - out there. Then and only then space can be described as the relation between these seperate entities: this is the cartesian concept of space as a kind of container. But if the universe as a whole - and everything points to that - is one unseperated entity then there are not seperate entities and therefore no space between them.
This is the Leibnizian vision on space and time.
How can we speak of separate entities if there can not be separate entities?
Descartes, I LOVE your POV (that there no separation entities) so much, I invite you to give me unlimited access to your credit and debit cards to prove it.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Albert Einstein
He was also credited with saying, “Everything should be made as simple as possible and not one bit simpler“.
If you can explain it simply you not only not even wrong, you are applying indiscriminate labelling to a process obviously not explainable in relative-timing terminology, the only terminology used in Actuality.
ua-cam.com/users/shortsJDNhu6DH0pQ
'l=l
It's interesting that even though we have an excellent theory to describe matter and forces as well as time and space, the vast majority of physicists completely ignore it. We already have an established theory that uses NO free parameters. It is also predicted the muon charge ra dius of the protron to an accuracy within experimental limits where the Standard Model is way, way off inicating a total failure.
It seems to me that space and time are not things they are merely units of measurement of movement. Without movement space and time don’t exist
Without space, movement doesn't exist
@@goyonman9655 et vice versa
Without movement, time is immeasurable.
@@goyonman9655 Likewise, without time, movement doesn't exist.
There is no such thing as inertia
Meraviglioso. Finalmente. Grazie Prof. da parte di un vecchio ingegnere chimico. Hai smantellato un mare di bufale, che però ho amato tanto da giovane.
Sono contento che vi piace. Saluti da Monaco :-)
You lost me on this one Alexander, one of my problems is I agree more with Feynman. I like the geometry though.
Truly fundamental video.
When upper limit / constant velocity of light c is tangent space unit sphere (S3)
What is lower limit of c ,is it zero or some fraction like h (plank).
The "h" is a thermal electromagnetic energy cofficient , If it is due to matter we should see it in gravitational component.
Also a case of spin 2 particle differ your logic.
Constants represent everything we don't yet understand. I've always said this, and never knew Einstein had similar views on the issue until watching your videos.
Constants can hide entire equations. Anyone who's done calculus understands what can hide in a constant value.
Do you really think that can work down to any level though? Because if so that seems to presuppose that existence has an infinite regression of underlying phenomina to explain the previous one.
In which case you will end up with the same problem having a fundamental constant presents, which is an ultimate non answer to something that just "is".
It's for this reason that I think a bottom has to exist to it all. Even if you'd like to say we aren't quite at it yet.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 What I am saying in no way implies some sort of infinity. No one has ever observed infinity of any kind existing in realty so far.
F(x)=8x^2+x+C
Real simple right? Or think of the gravitational constant in Newton's gravity equation. But in a more complex example the "C" could hide another equation. Maybe just one, or maybe another equation with another "C" constant. But there are not infinite equations hiding in that "C". But if there is a "C", that means we still don't understand something that the C is approximating. Eventually you figure out what controls that thing and you end up with no more "C"s.
@@SoloRenegade well hold on. That's kinda what I asking about though. Like what's stopping you from assuming that whatever under C isn't hiding more stuff. And even right now the assumption that there is anything below C itself is a theoretical assumption based purely on the fact that simply knowing C exists, doesn't tell us how, or why it exists. But that problem is going to be there no matter what the bottom layer is. So assuming there must be more to a constant because we don't get full prescriptive knowledge of its existence out of it is an assumption you'll have to make with everything,so it's not a good criteria for assuming there is something underlying that constant.
Also the idea that there are no infinite is wrong. Mathematics itself is always an infinity, especially the integers. That's why things like the Mandelbrot set can be produced out of mathematics without human instruction. Now your right if your saying that no infities exist in material reality. But material reality isn't all that exists as seem by mathematics.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 1) infinity doesn't exist in real life
2) basic equations are built upon foundational principles. If you manage to find that many new foundational levels of explanations, then clearly what you thought was fundamental is wrong. our equations are not That far from reality.
Math is not reality. Math can model infinite numbers of wrong math that works in a fictional reality. Math is a tool, nothing more. Mandelbrot sets only reduce to infinity in THEORY, not in Reality. No different than math saying there are infinite numbers between 0 and 1, but simply not true in reality. math itself doesn't actually exist in reality. it only exists in theory. it's a tool, invented by humans.
Well that's obviously not true. Sure the symbol conventions we use to talk about, and describe math are arbitrate and made by humans, but if math itself was purely a human made tool, then it would not work to consistently describe, and more specifically predict physical realitionshios in material reality. And no Mandelbrot sets aren't just theoretically infinite, all attempts to even in principal find an end do not work. So as far as we have evidence for, Mandelbrot sets are infinite.
Ich persönlich finde ja, dass die Tatsache, dass Masse sich nicht über die Lichtgeschwindigkeit hinaus beschleunigen lässt, ein starker Hinweis darauf sein könnte, dass Masse eine (in irgendeiner Weise gebundene) Form von Licht ist. Die beobachteten Geschwindigkeiten von Materieteilchen könnten effektive Geschwindigkeiten eines gebundenen Systems sein. Mit diesem Bild geht ein Zerfall des herkömmlichen Zeitkonzeptes auf fundamentaler Ebene einher. Denn Ruhesysteme massebehafteter Teilchen sind dann nur noch effektive Konzepte, "Ruhesysteme" fundamentaler Teilchen wären dann mit unseren bisherigen Konzepten der Zeit nicht mehr beschreibbar, da es sich ja um Ruhesysteme von Photonen handeln würde.
I like this idea. I never thought of it that way. Thank you
It's possible to call anything an illusion. It's a fuzzy word. Fuzzy words dont solve problems.
As for constants of nature. They have no physical existence. They're just fudge factors to balance equations.. Aren't they?
More or less this is what I am trying to convey. Yes, constants of nature are gods of modernity and ought to be explained.
Not just elimination of constants, it is elimination of concepts. Remember, a constant is a mathematical concept. Sometimes there are linguistic "constants" that are eliminated. Remember learning about heat flow, and the concept of caloric, the concept that heat was a fluid that entered and exited objects? Well, it wasn't a mathematical elimination, it was a conceptual elimination. Heat became the result of particle motion, and the need for extra "fluid" was eliminated. Yet, calorie and describing heat as 'flowing' are still kept as artifacts of this. A similar elimination of extra concepts happened to me. The term "star" and the term "planet" were combined, eliminating the need for trying to describe stellar evolution as being independent of planet formation. In fact, it is the planet that is the highly evolved/evolving and dead star. They are the same physical concepts, saying "planet" is saying "star". It is just the "star" is still bright and hot and has a strong visible spectrum, and "planet" is the remains of what will happen to that bright, hot and big star. It will cease shining brightly, lose its mass, lose its size, and phase transition from plasmas to gases and then to liquid and solid structure. Here is the video that explains this process. ua-cam.com/video/CM0Hi0YwAJA/v-deo.html
Very wise words!
Why/is Space and Time Are an Illusion? I didn't get the answer to either why or is
An observer at the center of a sphere-like space that is (quasi) immovable, but all measurements/interactions take place in that space and produce a chronology and "motion" (or rather illusion thereof) - not such a bad idea.
Seu livro precisa ser traduzido para o português e vendido no Brasil. Estou esperando que isso ocorra logo. Assisto seus vídeos diariamente. Parabéns pela divulgação científica .
Trying to eliminate G requires understanding what it is first. The truth is that G is material dependent, and so if you try to derive G from something else, you first have to know that the G you are familiar with only applies to stainless steel and nothing else.
Planck said he struggled long and hard to find the proper constant that fit experimental results. It would probably be a lot to ask him why nature chose that number.
What if the power of math to describe reality is the illusion? (It’s a good description, but not a complete description.)
AU makes many interesting questions and poses much valid critic to existing theories, but the proposals posed here do not look like any real simplification or more fundamental than what we have.
"Space and Time might be illusions" - Let that unzicker in 😂
I am deadly serious :-)
Given that mathematics is the box of conceptual tools we use to measure virtually everything, that the problem that worries you lies inside the toolbox. That is the most likely solution to the problem you pose.
How did the need arise to integrate space & time?
It is purely the necessity of Physics, human understanding or unraveling the forces of nature - that was the cause. In a multi- dimensional explanation, all dimensions need to have the "same" variable or unit of measure. In this case"length" is that. So "Time" need be translated to length units. Einstein put the limit as speed of light. Our perception depends on speed of light to pass or get the "information" (at that speed. for instance when we look at a star, now). Our perception limited our perceptible universe into a cone in one dimension(that of time). Prof ECG Sudarshan tried to break free of this imposed condition of a cone (& none accepted it). Then we began tinkering all other parameters to fit into this cone - even expanding or contracting universe changing the cone angle at some places, at times making the cone flare like a trumpet mouth (expanding Universe).
Is "Time" a dimension in the Universe? No. In every dimension we fix the "origin" at a convenient point. Not so in the case of time, that has a fixed origin, as per which we need to arrange our dimensionality of the Universe. Like in case of other "length" units, we can't go beyond the origin - to the negative side of the axis. it is unreachable by any stratagem you adapt. It implies this dimension has positive side only & we have no choice on the origin. It implies that it isn't a full dimension, but half (½) the dimension. We have half the Universe at our disposal & the other "half" isn't within our reach. Our Universe has 3½ dimensions. Let us admit it (while letting other Mathematical computations & modeling take their own course. Physicists too need to live).
["Space and Time Are an Illusion" - it is what Jagadguru (Universal preacher) "Adi" Shankar`acharya said in eight century. He also said, "universe exists, as long as I exist", reducing the Universe to perception. None could win an argument with him. He didn't live beyond 36, but did a lot in that span. Also Jiddu Krishnamurthi (1895-1986) defined Past, Present & Future as the perceptive layers in mind]
I do not see how you can get lengths from abstract mathematical structures. I mean for example S^3 can be any size, so how can you get a length like 1 metre. I think time would be even more difficult.
People toss around the word 'Illusion' too easily (not to mention the way we toss around 'reality', and 'consciousness'). We hardly begin to understand how the brain constructs our experience of living in the world. All we know for sure is that what we perceive has more to do with the brain than with our sensory inputs. The brain maintains a conceptual model of the world, which doesn't have to be at all similar to the 'real' world; it just has to be functional for our suvival. Time & space make a functional framework that our brain's reality model can navigate within. Most brain function is below our level of awareness. Does our ignorance of our own mental processes make our projection of time & space 'an illusion'? I say no; it's just the human brain, operating as intended.
Space-time is real to me but not as described by pop scientists, instead, it is something like dS/dt (rate of change of space). So, if we pick a certain (hypothetical) volume of space with a certain (hypothetical) shape, at a certain point in time later, the volume and its shape may no longer be the same. That change is caused by matter. But to imagine time as another dimension of space, oh dear, I can never make sense of that.
ENTANGLEMENT OR SPOOKY ACTION AT A DISTANCE IS STILL A PROBLEM. DOES THE MACH EINSTEIN GRAIVTY OF ALL IDEA PROVIDE AN ANSWER ?
If time is an illusion, how did all the separate individuals of your audience know when to show up for your lecture? If space is an illusion, how did they figure out where to go? I realize these questions must sound silly to someone who has decided space and time are "illusions", but no sillier than such a frivolous assertion as the subject of your lecture.
Time is the measure of the rate of entropy. Space is where pre-entropic and post-entropic energy is stored. If that's not real then we aren't real either.
Pardon me sir but your entropy is leaking out.
Time _cannot be_ the measure of the rate of entropy. You probably mean: _the rate of change of entropy!_ But entropy can be constant! A container containing gas in equilibrium has a constant entropy. If your definition of time would be correct, then for such a container time would not exist!
A hypersphere could be the influence that will eliminate all the constants of nature.
That's my hope :-)
@@TheMachian Going after the assumptions that the constants of nature are based on, will be a big step towards eliminating the constants. Perhaps an experiment that has already been made by Professor Michael Manfra measuring ayons, will eliminate some assumptions. Is it possible that besides discovering ayons, he may have found a path faster than the speed of light by creating flat space with a shorter and quicker pathway?
His experiment reported in ScienceNews as: "Physicists have 'braided' strange quasiparticles called anyons", and was concluded ayons were created when the electrons' two paths in the 2D material were reunited after their one path were split into two by a device and then measured the resulting electric current having acquired an extra phase.
There could also be another explanation for the acquired phase as the device was blocking (such as coming from a hypersphere) which then caused "flat" space for the pathway, in which a shorter distance was made possible, as compared to the normal curvature 3D extremal-distance path?
If this is the case, then possibly this is like folding a piece of paper and sticking a pencil through it instead of taking the longer path on the sheet of paper?
@@TheMachian How do you define a hypersphere?
Does "space" self-define illusion?, ie of solid-liquid-gas-plasma relative-timing ratio-rates substantiation structure contained by i-reflection No-thing, actually Singularity positioning AM-FM transverse trancendental=> probabilistic correlations shaping integration.
I was really in to that but it stopped abruptly. I have a question if I may?
Your at point A and your in one of the busiest and noisiest cities in the US, people are walking some with animals and suddenly everyone even the animals are frozen in place and you can hear a pin drop no traffic no noise except for something massive overhead above you that you can’t see but it sounds like an echoing medal sound that sounds liked it’s momentarily come to a stop in the sky. This last through a conversation and your looking up in amazement and it seems like 15-20 minutes passes then suddenly the people, the animals, and the sounds of the city come pouring in again as before. When you research that in the records of those who track every fluctuation in time you find there was a few seconds of time differential that day at that exact time frame. Is that an example of space and time are an illusion even though it was a real occurrence? Are you talking about how we perceive space and time that may be how we are taught to perceive something but it doesn’t mean that’s necessarily a constant? Is that what you mean by space and time is an illusion? / Do you think there’s more to the theory of relativity for instance outside forces can change inertia, velocity, and vortex’s changing energy wave patterns? If that was a class of students they are so lucky to have you I’d have tons of questions to ask you.
Not sure I got the question. Everyday life seems not much affected by all this. What I am saying is that we need to question the notions of space and time. Theymay not be real in the sense that they do not provide insight to the very basic laws of nature or even hinder such an insight.
Iris Essex
Interesting"West side" story. I'll tell you an oriental story here. Sri Krishna though was a human & a legend, is taken as God by many. He too demonstrated that. His ardent "divine" devotee, Naarada asked him once "Krishna ! explain me about time". Krishna said, "Is it the way you ask me, after all your wanderings all over? Go take a bath in that river & come back while I sit here on this stone". Naarada entered the river. He took a deep breath & went under water. He saw himself that he was born as a baby & was growing, as a girl. The girl has been pampered by her parents, a small time king & his queen. The girl grew to marriageable age. The king & queen found an ideal match & married her off. She became a mother. Sixty kids were born to her. And at last she died as old woman. After experiencing all this, Naarada lifted his head out of water & saw Krishna sitting on the river bank. Puzzled, he asked Krishna, how much time elapsed, when he took the dip. Krishna said "just one moment". Puzzled Naarada narrated the whole story to his Guru who laughed it off. He didn't press Krishna about Time. He knew it. The sixty kids were time herself. Each of the sixty is a "year" (its name) till all the sixty start over again. This year's name (New year's day on 23 March) is "Shobhakrt" (the 37th). This is Time in which Naarada's perception & experience isn't that of someone sitting on the river bank.
@@MrPoornakumar What are you waffling about? How does your story explains time? Why did you feel the necessitiy to shove your puranic story in here?
@@AmanSingh-nt3ll
A young woman asked Einstein to explain his "Special Relativity " (time dilation). He said it is the difference between 10 minutes you stand before your husband, with no clothes on, in your bedroom & the same 10 minutes without clothes on, on a busy street crowded with people.
You're piqued since I narrated a Puranic story. That coloured your reaction. I thought you'd be without bias, to concentrate only on the stuff of the story (expectedly I can't find fault with you on that). It isn't waffling.
@@MrPoornakumar Just so you know, I myself consider to be a student of puranic stories. As I am part of the very same culture. However, I still don't understand the relation between your previous answer and the Time.
Are you trying to say that, time is just a feeling? or perception by "us"(consciousness)?
To me time, is just a an emerging thing. Like, an object moves from point A to point B, the duration of the travel *IS* time....Right?
i wonder what you know about Halton Arp and what you think of him...
If you want to use pure math, you just use Planck units or some other similar dimensionless units. People do that all the time without making a big fuzz out of it.
Mathematics is it discovered or invented, I'm with Feynman on this one too. Reality escapes measurement in every case, unless you like rounding off. If you're hell bent then you start down the road of the ridiculous trying to make propositions into theories. Like something here is an illusion and that's why it doesn't work.
🪐🌏💫💥 and 🕰⏳⏱⏰ are fundamental constructs for scientific and technological progress 🧬⚙️🛠🔩⚗️🕳🧫💊🌡🔭🔬
Our u usual concepts of
Time and 3-D Space.. Derived from sensory world
May not be good enough
In dealing with Quantum physics....
I am accounting prof. I like this.
You replied to my remark. "Newton is dead."
I was surprised a wrote back a little more seriously.
This was mainly far over my head! but when eliminated G, it made sense that you could probably eliminate C and H from the equations collapsing a lot of modern ideas of physics...
Two question, Mr. Unzicker: Do you think that Time could in fact be a separate, fourth dimension. logically?
And taking all this uncertainty into account, do you believe that the paranormal is some phenomena bleeding through from the micro-micro world to the macro world? (I believe in a very tiny way, it is part of our lives.)
1. I am not sure. Certainly time is not a 4th dimension AS space dimensions. 2. No (in an agnostic way)
@@TheMachian Thank you, and I guess that was about the paranormal question, too..
Time = change. Of what & where? The totality of universal energy, the 'field' (or sky-ocean) of being.
When does it happen? Now.
How & why? The universe of energy phenomena (& all properties of being) is an on-going event enabled by intrinsic generative/enabling principles of its nature; and it seems to be this way (as is) because of its nature (its intrinsic enabling principles). For example, physicality & mentality are principles and properties of being, enabled by the primal principles of activity, form, structure, functionality, relativity (i.e., complementarity, reciprocity, etc.). Because they exist, magneto-dielectric ['static'/intrinsic & dynamic electromagnetic] energy and phenomena and forms of being exist, like elements, molecules, DNA-RNA, prions, viroids, cells, etc.). Hence, even primitive forms/expressions of mentality involve the principle of intentionality, at least as a potential/virtual property of intelligence. So...
Evidently, being (the cosmos) is and does what it does because its nature (generative/enabling principles) makes it like/love being, changing, and evolving.
@@TheMachian Rite! Yet, 'space' and 'dimensions' are reified (thingified) conceptualizations of perceptual illusions & artifacts of maths. Both are enabled by the principle of dimensionality, a subsidiary principle & property of form, a primal enabling principle of being's nature. So, from a semi-agnostic, non-theistic Buddhist perspective, paranormal phenomena -- like NDEs, OBTs, prescient Visions, etc. -- could be enabled as expressions of the potentials of 'the field' (or sky-mind-ocean) of being (the cosmos). In other words, they may be enabled by Being's intrinsic principle of mentality, among other enabling principles of being's nature (universal nature). Does that help?
ua-cam.com/users/shortsNf3A_pYbppI
For how intricate physicists are when it comes to method and calculation, their thinking is shockinly simple, even primitive. I think it could be solved on an institutional level if phycicists were educated in the philosophical foundations of the field they endeavour to study.
I presume your superior grasp of the “philosophical foundations” of physics has led to great scientific discoveries. Let me know when you revolutionise the field.
To eliminate all constant's of nature we could simply eliminate all numbers from physics. :)
I'm being serious, and getting rid of numbers has been suggested e.g. by philosopher of science Tim Maudlin. Starting from the hypothesis that much if not most of the persistent problems of physics are artifects of numerical measuring etc. numerical math, the recipe is simple: instead of trying to "solve" and "fix" the problems, stop creating them...
Here's an example of a revolutionary equation: If A is neither more nor less than B, then A = B. Does that equation contain any numbers? Does it implicate and presuppose the Law of Identiry? Nope, all that is needed are relational operators.
We have a Creator, gods seem to be determined by
Humankind.Our Creator created a 10 world Universe
Unfortunately Humankind invented Universities
To exclusively competed to determine what Physics meant to Humankind.Actually they took away the Creators concept of His understanding of Physics when in reality it was meant
To be understood by everybody.Please go back to basics
MBraithwaite Yorkshire
Viking.
Constants emerge from the quantised nature of the close packed underlying subspace field of +ve charge balls (quanta, subspace field cells, +1) held together by free-flowing -ve charge 'gas' (for want of a better word, this is not an ether theory...). There is an absolute fixed clock and light 'field cell blips' that make up photons travel at C. light moves from cell to cell in a fixed time.. The variable cell size/gap model can deal with relativity plus time and mass dilation and dark energy too. The speed of light varies absolutely with gravity strength but always measures C locally.
Micro spaces mathematical conected made particles, structures. All The Time we teleportate. Time is quantised, reality îs with frames, 10 to 44/ sec.
All this talk about time...what about negative time? Like when you leave for work 5 minutes late. And you come against the contstant T (traffic). Now tell me constants dont exist.
One danger physics runs into is that reality is not a coordinate grid system. Math is a language for describing relationships. The relationships are real; the math is only a model of them. The grid is only a framework on which to model the relationships. We do not live in a 3+1-dimensional reality. We live in a reality that we can somewhat model using a 3+1-dimensional grid. I doubt you will ever find a grid system that perfectly models reality--but maybe you can get closer--maybe.
I have a feeling Hopf Fibration doesn't work out here..
I hundred percent agree.
I'll be having a copy.
Many people want everything to be math, and it can mean different things to different people. If you use Planck units or something similar, then everything is just integers, and so that is pretty mathy. No physical units. But maybe you want it to be even more mathy, and so you might want a continuous physics where everything can be infinitely divided. We know that the real world is quantized. I guess a pixelated version of Newtonian physics is what you want. At the end it is quite silly to try to impose your will on nature.
I think everyone agrees that constants should be derived. Everyone also agrees that string theory is nonsense. You shouldn’t take it serious when they pretend they believe in string theory. That is their job.
The three dimensions is,
Micro- Medio- and Macro-Cosmos.
Time is the 'shadow' of Motion.
All Stuff is Motion,
space is 'tiny' Stuff.
Time do only exists in the, Mind of Living Beings.
Empty space, is space-less space.
Life's Eternal Nature, is Not physical.
If we are to write down a purely mathematical physics model, we ought to understand math properly. Quarternions are not the most general and simple system. Due to hystorical mishaps the true algebraic system for doing geometric calculations has been lost. People like heaviside and Gibbs aided in the misplaced faith in vector algebra while the true vector algebra was developed by Clifford and grass man, it's called Clifford algebra and has now been used to prove some if the most profound theorems like adyah singer index theorem. In onreder to apply it to physics one needs to understand its subtleties.
Quaternions are the simplest 3D-manifold, there is no doubt. You might be interested in the book by Hestenes.
@@TheMachianim quite familiar with his work, unfortunately it's considered to be on the fringe side.. I thinkHestenes deserves credit for his immense contributions, though not any original discoveries, but what's equally as important is that he reintroduced Clifford algebra and articulated its geometric interpretation. quarternions are revealed to be simply rotors in GA,lending them even more efficiency. For example multiple reflections, 2 for example, in GA naturally reveal that a composition of 2 reflections gives a rotation by twice the angle between the normals of the reflecting planes. This hints and eventually reveals the half spin nature of spinors, which no longer need to be hypercimolex in nature, which is only so in 3d anyway.
That's what I meant that math needs to be understood better in order to understand and unify physics. GA, or Clifford algebra, when done right, unifies all of geometry related mathematics including all of algebra related to geometry. So as you want in Physics you get more and assume less, or nothing basically. That's one giant leap towards unified physics.
I'm in the looney part of UA-cam again
You're also in the Genius part of UA-cam
1:10 "Numbers 'arbitrarily chosen by God' do not exist and [that] their 'alleged existence relies on our incomplete understanding' ".
Concerning the notion of "incomplete understanding" it's useful to mention Gödel, a good friend of Einstein.
The idea or existence of "divine dice" is unfalsifiable now; and could remain unfalsifiable forever. Rules should have a hard or impossible time describing spaces without rules, to say the least. If "divine dice" are unfalsifiable, this may be equivalent to saying: we can't know if the world is deterministic or non-deterministic.
Age? You mean “h”.
Lassen Sie sich nicht beirren und seien Sie weiterhin skeptisch. Ihre Podiumsdiskussion mit dem Herren vom Cern war klasse. 1:0 für Sie :D Seit Jahren denke ich über die Zeit nach. Mein Denkfundament geht bis zur Einstein-Pauli-Gödel Grenze. Mehr Output bitte.
I said this from like from 2002 😀 But I have completely different explanation, why space and time don't exist as a dimensions.
It's not "depressing" to me
👍
Mathematics is the true illusion. In reality, there is no such occurrence as equality. Everything is different in numerous subtle ways, yet we claim they are exactly the same in mathematics so we can count them. We convert things and phenomena into symbols which we then perform mathematical functions on which have no basis in reality. In reality, you cannot add one apple to another apple or multiply one apple by another apple or subtract one apple from another apple or divide one apple by another apple. Even if you cut an apple into two pieces, no matter how you do it, those pieces are not actually equal. Yet this system is what physicists claim reality is based upon and many think mathematics is reality itself.
We are talking about atoms not apples. Although perhaps no atom's mass is exactly the same.
@@earthenscience Mass is not the only characteristic, attribute, or property of an atom. No two atoms are the same, either. We just assume that they are for convenience.
I think space and time are observably real. Neither is a substance. But we, and things, are observably able to change locations in 3 dimensions of position and in 1 dimension time. I think this implies these observable locations, in 3 dimensions of position, and in 1 dimension of time, are observably real.
G doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist in quantum gravity.
There is too much mathematics used in fundamental physics. You told that good theories should be simple. I am shocked after seeing this channel. No one says standard model is crap. Sometimes I feel physicists are using too much math and making things too complex.
And being fed grants thru my tax dollars while I can't afford home repairs
The fundamentals of a theory should strive to be simple ideas (and idea of Einstein), however an important point is that this still does not (nor should it) guarantee that the mathematics to describe such theory should be simple or easy -- take GR for example, there is nothing simple about solving Einstein's equations with the use of mathematics of differential tensors.
_"No one says standard model is crap."_
Lots of people say standard model is crap.
@@cesarjom Well mathematics and reality are different. In my opinion the underlying physics concept of the universe GUT should be simple. But the math may still be difficult. Here is an example: A bunch of marbles. It is easy to understand the concept of the marbles colliding on various shapes, but actually doing the math of simulating it is much more difficult.
Being a super platonist is the philosophical equivalent to a string theorist. It doesn't help at all
Immanuel Kant: "Metaphysical principles of natural science" 1786 (Metaphysiche Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft). Space and time are our coordinate systems in which objects and events exist. They are not objects or events. They are necessary ("a priori") presuppositions of thought. Of any object you can ask: where and when, but of space you cannot ask: Where is it, and of time: when did it happen. Kant's title is of course polemical against Newton. Kant defends the concept of absolute space because we always need a coordinate system. You make the coordinates with the help of objects which are measuring instruments, but the coordinates are not objects. Unlike Einstein who identifies the coordinate system with the object (The ray of light _is_ the straight line, and because the ray of light bends in graviation, space bends). Kant would have answered: The ray of light bends in space. The ether is not some weird "stuff", but a metaphorical expression of the need for always put objects and events in the coordinate systems of space and time, which then must be be considered as if absolute.
I appreciate very much both Newton and Kant, yet I think that at the time they could not immagine anything else than the obvious. After all, it took mathematicians one more century to discover concepts such as the unit quaternions.
@@TheMachian Sorry, from which follows what?
If space and time are an illusion, then so is physics, because everything physical, which is what physics studies, is space-time phenomena.
Obvious joke, but what do you want to say?
The question is of the Matrix and of drugs. On drugs some claim there are more dimensions and once someone sees enough dimensions, the GUT is revealed until the drugs reach the duration. Then therefore there would be 3+1,4+1,5+1,6+1, maybe 7+1 or more dimensions. Then there is the question of the Matrix. What is real, how do we define real? Context. For example I say that in a human life, there exists a certain set of principles. Assuming the human lives a life of no drugs, and no Elon cyborg enhancement, that human would life a life consistent with the 3+1 dimensions. Therefore, in the context of that life, 3+1 is the reality, we would define 3+1 as real. On the other hand, if by drugs or cyborg enhancement, someone lived as 7+1 dimensions, then that is what we would define as real in that reality. Then there is the question of the second matrix...what can quaternions do that matrices can't? Are quaternions the underlaying reality or simply a way of human communication, to relay reality to other humans. How much of that relayment is the telephone game, or JPEG? What percent is 100% the full truth of reality? Does reality have an underlaying sensibility to be digested, comprehended by our senses? Or is the plank scale a mystery and always will be a mystery? Is space an illusion, created by our non-orthographic perspective? Or is there an ether medium? If there is no ether medium, what is light? Is light a wave, will a 10 hz light move to the side of walls? What causes light to wave, how does light move without a medium? Perhaps matter and light are one and the same. E=M*C^2. And still, what is gravity's connection to all this...
Die Zeit ändert sich nicht. Es sind die Uhren die sich ändern. Grundlage der Relativitätstheorie ist die Lichtuhr und die besteht aus halber Logik. Ein Computer der nur mit Nullen rechnet funktioniert nicht. Nehmen wir eine Lichtuhr und ein Raumschiff mit Fenstern fliegt hindurch. Ein Blitz wird oben abgestrahlt und trifft unten auf. Für den ruhenden Betrachter ist es ein kurzer Weg und für den bewegten Betrachter im Raumschiff ist es ein längerer Weg. Also genau umgekehrt wie das Beispiel in Wikipedia. Dann müsste die Zeit im Raumschiff nicht langsamer sondern schneller laufen.
Aber bei genauer Überlegung erkennt man, daß derselbe Blitz nicht die gleiche Geschwindigkeit für ein System in Ruhe und ein anderes System in Bewegung haben kann. Der Fehler liegt in der falschen Interpretation des Fizeau Experimentes. Wenn man es richtig versteht erkennt man den Lichtäther. Tut mir echt leid, daß Einstein und Millionen Wissenschaftler diese komplexen Zusammenhänge nicht erkennen/erkannt haben.
10:34 “there is no reason why nature should have such a peculiar 3 plus 1 dimensional”. Could spherical geometry explain why, we could have the speed of light c as a spherical wave that is interacting relative to its 2D surface? The 2D surface has particle characteristics forming the Planck constant ħ=h/2π of action. It would be logical to have to square the speed of light c² within such a process. Also I have seen info that says that the electron is spherical and we have to square the electron e². An emergent process unfolding with each photon ∆E=hf electron coupling or dipole moment could form our ever changing world forming the characteristics of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π within each reference frame. I am not a mathematician I am a dyslexic artist, but it seems to me that all your mathematics points towards this!
Theoretical Physics Nick Harvey
We were taught to tackle such problems using Spherical co-ordinates. Rectangular co-ordinates (x, y, z) got transformed as: x=r sin(ϕ), y=r cos(ϕ), z=r cos(ϕ). ϕ=phi. The 2D surface is "r" (on surface, 4π.r squared).
Mathematics & Physics give us tools to put our thoughts to cogent statements on paper, with which to play - and arrive at some solutions.
MrPoornaku • 2D is just a pure theoretical concept. If the 3rd REAL dimension of free movement is zero, then 2D real entity is zero.
Theory is one thing and REALITY is a completely different one.
The huge problem of the today's science is the terrible confusion between what is theoretical and what is true REAL.
You and many others make the same confusion.
Time exist, if not everything would have happened at the same time, thus space is ceated at the same moment as time to create everything in sequence as needed. This way we called spacetime.
ed ijzerman
"Happened" implies Time. Without If no time, no happening. Nothing "happens" to the rock in front of my home- may be over a million years; here I meant (introduced) Time.
The Atomic Expansion Equation is as simple as it gets. Ye olde European Stone Age physicists- mathematical philosophers- couldn’t reason their way out of a wet paper bag. Juliana Mortenson- American- classicalized QM in 2010. Mark McCutcheon-Canadian- put all the rest in the outhouse.
Lol, you talk about SU(2), and yet you refuse the standard model.
space is obviously an illusion for the camera
Lol, “space and time are inappropriate” ... then stop moving.
Transform to other domain called quaternion but it the same phenomenon,just transform. Nothing happen.
Object can accelerate faster than the speed of light, it is just that the speed measured by a third observer will appear to never exceed the speed of light.
Acceleration and speed are not the same thing. Therefore there is no such thing as: 'an acceleration that is faster than the speed of light'.
If an object undergoes an acceleration, that is, a change in its velocity, then 'a third observer' moving with constant speed with respect to a second or first observer, would see _exactly the same acceleration!_ This is because speed might be relative, but _change of speed_ is absolute.
A _correct_ way of stating the connection between a speed of light and an acceleration would be this: You can keep up an acceleration, increasing its speed, until the speed of the object undergoing the acceleration is faster than that of light. And that is exactly what Einstein's special relativity says is impossible.
@@konradswart4069 The object and the third observer experience different time dilatation therefore they don't see/measure the same acceleration.
@@anteeko This statement has nothing to do with your original claim. It is as if you claim that rocks, when released, fall down. And then you prove that, by showing that the temperature on the center of the South Pole is much lower than at the equator. One has nothing to do with the other.
Nevertheless, I investigated this statement, which, I repeat has nothing to do with your claim. If you are right, then forces undergoing a Lorentz transformation, must change. And indeed they do.
However, your statement still mixes up speed with acceleration. An acceleration is a change in speed. And a speed is a change in position.
I think you _meant_ to say, that objects can obtain, through acceleration, a speed faster than that of light. And that is simply a wrong statement.
In fact, I have written a book about spacetime, which I am about to publish, in which I have _derived_ not ony the Lorentz transformations, but even have succeeded to derive the 3 + 1 Lorentzian structure of spacetime. Or, in layment's terms, in this book I explain _why_ space is, of necessity, 3 dimensional. Or, rather, why it is 8 dimensional, whereby one of the dimensions is time, three are rotational dimensions, three are 'straight' dimensions, and there is a volumetric dimension. In our space we can have change in general (time), translations, rotations, and expansions. That is what leads to 8 dimensions.
From that theory I can see, that a speed of light larger than that of light _is always impossible!_ The reason for that is, that _if_ the speed of a particle would exceed the speed of light, it would disappear from our universe. And such a fact is a logical contradiction, because the universe is all there is. Moreover, it would violate the principle of the conservtion of energy.
@@konradswart4069 Mass light equivalence. If a particle reaches near the speed of light, it will, in theory, become light. This holds true (imo) regardless if there is or is not any ether. If there is ether, then 500c may be achieved. 500c would not violate Einstein's equations because the object would not be moving 500c relative to the ether.
@@earthenscience
Ether is defunct (non-existent) now. In fact Michelson & Morley conducted an experiment to prove how light "moves" through Ether (along & across it). Nothing happened as per their thought & the experiment "failed". But it was a grand failure (without which Physics wouldn't have moved forward), from which Einstein derived his special relativity theory, applying Lorentz contraction with speed.
You equivocate between "explaining"and "describing" reality, because you don't understand that theorizing is about positing *unobserved* mechanisms that could result in the *observed* phenomena.
Mathematics will never do that. As long as you piddle around with math as a way of distract yourself from the hard work of thinking about physical mechanisms, you won't make any real progress in physics. You will at best describe observations with more detail and succinctness and make predicitions based on extrapolation. That's a gutless shadow of what science can do.
You can eliminate most constants, but you need a basis. Every dimensional analysis will tell you that. Trying to eliminate all is like trying to pull yourself out of a river from your hair.
Ok so this is almost certainly stupid but there are some concepts that popped into my brain watching this.
If there are 3 spatial dimentions maybe there is 3 temporal ones. Or another way to say it would be there is no temporal and 3 spacial/temporal. that spacial and temporal are the same thing or connected together in a way.
phenominalogically we measure distances in time daily. 5 minutes to here. an hour to work. maybe "space" is moving so that in an hours time even if sit still for an hour it took me an hour to arrive in that "space".
This is related to a thought experiment/question I came up with. Everything is moving. the planet is turning, also travelling at a high speed, around a star that is moving, in a galaxy that is turning and moving. how bloody fast are we going? and relative to what? Everything has a velocity. what would it mean to be still. to have zero velocity and to be not moving relative to all other matter, or space itself. how can we understand motion if we don't know how fast anything is actually moving?
clearly a lay person here just fascinated by the big questions :)
Define dimension.
@@earthenscience x,y,z axis. Direction of movement
@@harry.calisthenics4115 " Everything has a velocity. what would it mean to be still."
Have a temperature of 0.
What would be required of an atom to be still? If theoretical chemistry is correct (or at least my interpretation of theoretical chemistry), then electrons move around causing certain chemical bonds. If electrons no longer moved there would no longer be certain things glued together.
"how can we understand motion if we don't know how fast anything is actually moving?"
We don't. Otherwise someone would have built 500c space ships and star gates by now.
This goes back to the notion of absolute space. An object cannot know if it is going 5mph or 6mph. Einstein relativity sort of seems to imply at first that there is absolute space, than an object can "know" how close it is to c. Or at least that's one of my interpretations of the theory. So if you are in a ship going 0.5 c, you know you are going 0.5 c because you need more fuel to get to 0.6 c, than you needed earlier to get from 0.1 to 0.2 c. Except you don't, if you are near an object going the same direction, then you perceive your speed as 0.3 c only, thus would not need as much fuel to get to 0.4 c as 0.5 to 0.6 c. This sounds like a paradox because there would be some way to measure absolute space because you could measure the location gridline you passed on a planet or something. Except this is unparadoxed because you couldn't for sure know the actual timestamp or something. Idk.
But then you could just have the objects 1 meter away from each other so there isn't any delay from the "lightcone" or something and then get the real timestamp. Idk. You could also just look at fueling your ship as not actually fueling your ship, but fueling the universe around you, which would create an even bigger paradox because the fuel seems directly proportional to the mass of your ship, yet also seems dependent on the objects around you. For this and other reasons I'm not sure I fully believe Einstein's theories but idk. There does seem something intuitive about the c light barrier. But you could look at it as you are actually fueling the objects around you, once you get near c they become light so you are fueling the objects around you to turn into light. Idk.
@@earthenscience Thank you for a detailed answer. It is a real mystery for me this movement problem. And I'm sure there will be new physics one day that will explain more than what we currently have. I was drawn to Unzickers approach in wanting to challenge these constants that are used. Why is C not bigger, or smaller? There are baked in assumptions when we use these numbers and it may show that space and time may not be the right concepts.
@@harry.calisthenics4115 Einstein was only half-right (or maybe 75%) correct, that is why there are a bunch of paradoxes. Space is either aether nonvacuum and/or Van Der Waals torque. Aether=magnetic vortex, Van Der Waals torque=EM propagation. If Van Der Waals torque=true, then my earlier postulate about inertia not being a thing was incorrect, although interesting as a thought experiment. Then inertia would actually be a thing as there would be absolute motion, not relative motion only, as objects staying in motion without a boost is no longer a given.
"Why is C not bigger, or smaller?"
My guess is C is related to the Aether density, or density of the quantum nonvacuum density.
"There are baked in assumptions when we use these numbers and it may show that space and time may not be the right concepts."
Ideally constants would be merely the ratios of other things, there would be no arbitrary constants added. If a number looked weird it would just be because the ratio of things happened to be that way.
The definition of space seems consistent, but time may vary. Perhaps time refers to the function of atomic clocks, or perhaps how fast an electron cycles, or perhaps how fast something moves due to gravity. Time is the comparison of motion to another motion, so seems inherently prone to measurement inconsistencies.
If we figure out the physics equations and the mechanisms then that solves the engineering science (Phase 1). However, Phase 2 would be solving the philosophical science, asking the big questions such as why are the physics of this universe in this way and if this is a simulation.
You have left out the thing that makes space possible.
C is postulated as a defeater for Newtonian physics, when C is an unverifiable quantity chosen to be a constant when others may have been chosen. This presentation asks a host of questions it leaves unanswered, uses the words "speculation" and "could" many times, and fails to even recognize or address his assumptions. So it absolutely fails to prove what the title asserts. Now, this man may be smarter and better at math than I ever will be, but it's time western cultural recover from Hawking's blunders and learn to distinguish philosophy from physics and math from science. Far too much in both physics and cosmology is based on unquestioned assumptions and math instead of observational science. If we're starting a cult, then this is fine, but if we're doing science, we're doing it wrong.
Actually I am not so far from your point of view. www.amazon.com/Bankrupting-Physics-Scientists-Credibility-2013-07-30/dp/B01K0TVXVU/ There is a lot of useless speculation in physics. Yet, try to analyze the situation soberly with constants of nature.
Time is real according to Bhagavad githa, not matter
Toothache is not an illusion, and it is within time and space. No time and space no toothache
I argue time is real, a consequence of vibration of matter/compressed ether and space/ether.
Ether physics is the future of physics. Space is not an abstraction, it is an -all pervading 3-dimensional "substance."
@@l.rongardner2150 I agree whole heartedly.
I posit that time is not a constant, rather it is a observation dependent on other things. Therefore time is sort of an illusion yet is not an illusion. This holds true (imo) regardless if ether does or does not exist.
@@l.rongardner2150what do you think ether really is as a substance ? Superfluid ? Supersolid?
@@theoriginaltroll4truthwhat do you think ether really is ? Superfluid? Supersolid?
The title implies that this guy is merely a Hindu, but I'm anxious to see if he provides quantifiable observation to support his claim. Or if he pulls a Hawking and just tosses out "imaginary numbers."
It's amazing. With all due respect, but you managed to speak for 18 minutes and never mention the material or physical reality of time and space. I think it's a fundamental issue. Contemporary physics treat space and time as absolutely real and physical things. What if they are not? After all neither one of them possess the minimum of physical properties to be a material thing - mass and size (volume).
How long can we carefully dance around these facts? I have no doubts that time and space exist as a very important and useful mathematical construct. But if the space isn't real or material we can't talk about "warped space" outside of Science fiction. If time isn't material why are we talking about a "time dilation"?
When I saw the title of this video I've hopped that Dr. Unzicker will seriously tackle this issue. I guess I was wrong. It's a shame.
The common perception of space and time is precisely what I am challenging. Not revolutionary enough for your taste?
Unzicker's Real Physics Doctor Unzicker. I truly appreciate the fact that you spent some of your busy time to reply to me. Thank you sir. But even after your reply I'm still not sure of your position on this subject. Would you please, write a few words to clarify your position.
Thank you in advance.
What we call time dilation is actually electromagnetic hysteresis. See Ken Wheeler's book the missing secrets of magnetism. Tesla was correct. Space has no properties. It's a byproduct of the dielectric field's magnetic component, just like the dielectric component removes space. (Like when you polarize neodymium metal balls, and they fly towards each other at ever increasing speed, same rate as inverse square.) It's not a coincidence. Gravity works the same way. It's the dielectric potential of mass.
@@paaao Are you referring to this Ken Wheeler?: taipeigeek.blogspot.com/2018/08/downfalls-of-the-angry-photographer-epic-fail.html
@@thomastmc yep. I like his theory on magnetism being only a repulsive (aka expansive) force, and the dielectric field being the yin to it's yang so to speak. (The force that accelerates the same way falling objects dropped to Earth in a vacuum do). Plus, I've never seen a more detailed picture of magnetism laid out in any book prior, along with the hundreds of experiments he did over the years on his youtube channel. Obviously the guy is insane. Obviously he is not %100 correct on every word he says. Obviously he needs to make a living and if youtube is cutting checks, why not...? But yeah, his theory of magnetism and the dielectric field sure make a boat load more sense to me, than curved space time, gravitons, virtual photons and higher dimensions. I'm biased though as an electrical engineer. Physics went off the rails from my point of view a long time ago, and it's not for a lack of effort. Just too many people not really thinking much about things, nor questioning the foundation for possible cracks. Everyone's trying to bend the standard model into some theory they have, or add some new particle wizardry to confound things further. Nothing is being simplified. It's sad
constants are real physics.
G, c, h=qM, z=M/q are core of
the Universe!
constants are a result of our arbitrary units of measurement, nothing more
@@jonbainmusicvideos8045 as I understand it science has given up trying to find out the reasons why the constants are what they are? too difficult or impossible to find out?
Constants are fudge factors to balance equations. They don't really exist. They are an illusion. Space & time most certainly are not illusions. If they are, then everything is.
Constants are an admirable stepping stone for the future. But in a complete theory there should either be no constants or constants that have some kind of mathematical reason for being there. If an equation has a bunch of constants it means there is some kind of data out there that we are not detecting, maybe some kind of substance eluding our sensors.
the only real illusion is that academic physics has had anything meaningful to say for the last 100 years
C'mon, multiverses explained by string theory aren't meaningful? ROFLMAO.
They've been excellent at career-building
Kuhn and parameters is BS.
Vielleicht sind es die Wechselwirkungen, die unsere Realität darstellen. Gibt es nur durch Unterschiede, die durch unterschiedliche GeburtsZeiten der Kondensation (Materie) in der Inflation , entstanden sind. So könnte die Zeit eine übergeordnete Kraft sein, hierarchisch. Bei Wechselwirken entstehen ZeitSchleifen , eine Art Vermischung oder dominantes Zusammenbrechen der Zeit. Dadurch könnte das Universum sehr klein sein. Weil die Realität, Veränderungen, sozusagen eine Funktion der Zeit sind. Beständigkeiten sind hierarchische Blasen in der Zeit , welche sich selbst erneuern durch zeitliche Vermischungen. Oh , Mann.
🙈