Real Physics Talk: André Koch Assis - Mach's principle
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 ноя 2023
- Homepage of Prof. André Koch Assis: www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/
0:00:20 Introduction
0:02:21 Working in 2023 at Augsburg University on Weber’s Electrodynamics
0:03:00 Newtons own "Machian" concerns
0:04:23 The meaning of the acceleration in Newton’s second law of motion
0:06:00 Leibniz against Newton’s concept of absolute empty space
0:07:10 Performing Newton’s bucket experiment
0:11:25 The concavity of the water is due to the rotation of the bucket relative to what?
0:19:37 Mach’s critique of Newtonian concepts
0:23:43 Mach: the concavity of the water is due to its rotation relative to the distant masses
0:24:10 Mach’s famous thought experiment: Influence of distant stars?
0:29:50 Predictions according to Newton and Mach and the subtle difference.
0:32:45 Galileo’s free fall experiment and the anticipation of the equivalcence principle
0:38:28 The gravitational constant G and Mach’s principle: inertia and gravity
0:42:20 Dirac’s large number hypothesis
0:43:25 Schrödinger’s paper of 1925 on Mach’s principle
0:44:40 Sciama 1953, Dicke 1957 and Einstein 1911
0:46:45 Newton’s prediction of the flattening of the Earth due to its diurnal rotation
0:51:10 Thought experiment: What would happen to the shape of the Earth?
0:52:40 The rotating universe : Opposite predictions of Newton and Mach.
0:56:37 Foucault’s pendulum experiment
1:02:00 The remarkable coincidence people usually do not reflect upon.
1:07:10 What would be the shape of the Earth without distant galaxies?
1:09:20 Einstein’s general theory of relativity does not implement Mach’s principle
1:11:00 Ernst Mach rejected explicitly Einstein’s theory of relativity
1:14:45 Relational Mechanics and Mach’s Principle with Weber’s Gravitational Force
1:16:10 English translation of Weber’s works on electrodynamics
1:16:45 Unification of gravitation with electromagnetism
1:19:20 Local experiments with Newton’s bucket
First talk with André Koch Assis: • Real Physics Talk: And...
playlist Mach's principle and variable speed of light: • Variable Speed of Light
Schrödinger's 1925 paper: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...
Sciama's 1953 paper; academic.oup.com/mnras/articl...
Dicke's 1957 paper:
journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract...
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@TheMachian:c
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/ 
Наука
Wonderful video!! Thank you both for sharing you passion for physics with me. Thank you for teaching me. This video should be 1st of a series. Think of all the people (including home schoolers) that could become excited about the roots of physics by seeing a video series such as this. Just wonderful. The 2 of you are terrific together. Thank you.
Thank you so much for inviting Mr. Assis
I had the honour to meet prof. Koch Assis some years ago at the Electric Universe event in the UK and we (a small group) discussed these same topics. Great to see him on your channel!
Electric Universe Event?
@@rogeriopenna9014 conference
This video is a event for me. The three great NMS are three parallel on the sphere of G.
Einstein converge to Newton but diverge from Mach's principal.
Your dark coffee experiments clearly pointing how much dark the subject is. We are still their where they had left Physics. We are still in that inertia space -vacuum and absolute media.
Real Physics is time & Gravity @ zero.
Thank you for me it is extremely important what is before 3laws.
Both of you are very blowing.
I bought Andre's 'Relational Mechanics', and read it with great enthusiasm about 5 or 6 years ago. I recommend it - really enjoyable.
Where can I still buy it?
So interesting...! Thank you!🌈
Fascinating discussion. I hope there'll be more of these.
Wonderful discussion. Please invite him again!
Please suggest your guests use a microphone, not just their laptop mic due to reverb
This content is important and deserves more attention to audio
Very pleased to see Dr Assis again and i like the historical emphasis on observation i.e. empiricism. Modern physics seems to have become a collection of competing theories the outcomes of which cannot be observed and therefore not confirmed in the real world.
That was great. More please. newton B, mach B+, einstein F-, weber A, assis A+.
Dr Assis, you are the guy who made me think differently about physics and gravity in 1998 when I watched your interview with Jo Soares! I’ve just found the interview here at RUclips!
I haven’t stopped thinking about it since then and I think there is a practical way to measure speed of light anisotropy. Perhaps you are interested. I’m going to watch this interview now.
Btw, I didn’t know that until I started watching this interview and I remembered “someone” doing the buckle experiment in that Jo Soares 1998 interview. Even before luckily finding the old interview in RUclips I realised chances were obviously high.
He also inspired me in that Interview in Jô Soares. Fast forward some years, i get my PhD in physics!
Nice discussion. Informative. Thank you for sharing.
Rotational motion is not relative. For nucleons, toroidal motion generates mass while poloidal motion generates charge. Such motion explains a proton's size and magnetic moment. For details, see "Ground state quantum vortex proton model" published in Foundations of Physics on January 23, 2023.
Have you read Carl F. Krafft? Several of his books online free. I'd be interested in your assessment
"Rotational motion is not relative." - what do you mean by that? :) How is it even motion then if not relative to something.
@@0626love Relative to the assumed non-rotation of the quantum vacuum.
@@rogerscottcathey Thanks for informing me of that historical work. To be taken seriously, a modern vortex nucleus theory needs to mesh with both quantum field theory and general relativity.
@@stevenverrall4527 : Sure. Are you aware of Hilgenberg's works? For example:
Ott Christoph Hilgenberg
Quantenzahlen, Wirbelring-Atommodelle und Heliumsechserring-Aufbauprinzip des Periodensystems der chemischen Elemente
Translation: A Quantum Number, Vortex Atom Model and Hexagonal Ring Construction Principle of the Periodic System of the Chemical Elements.
Available on WorldCat
Hilgenberg worked from Krafft's model
Daumen hoch für Euch zwei, zwei der wenigen Physiker!!!-)
Mach's experiment can be done. If you have a big enough bucket or tub that you can sit inside, place it centred on a small turntable not significantly wider than the diameter of the bucket/tub, fill it with water and sit inside the bucket, you can turn the whole universe around the bucket by using your hands to push against the ground and make it spin around the bucket while the bucket remains at rest. In rotating the ground in this way, we find it also rotates the rest of the universe, and that induces the water inside the bucket/tub to be pushed out against its walls.
Universal Expansion EXPLAINED!
We are the water spreading out from the guy in the middle! 😂
AWESOME, have lots of reading to do. Seems to tie into what Robert Distinti is doing.
Thank you, Prof. Assis. Excellent.
They keep saying "what would we see if we rotate the whole universe around the object, what would we see?"
But according to Mach that is impossible by definition. What would you rotate the universe relative to??
If Mach's principle holds, gravitation should be position-dependent in a finite Universe! (...because mass distribution would only be approximately spherically symmetric close to the centre of the Universe.)
Possibly, but with the scale of the universe, how would this be tested?
I think like Newton that what matters is the rotation of the bucket in reference to the empty-space/aether; however, this empty space is not absolute, but locally dependent on the whole Universe around it, like gravity.
The body can rotate with respect to its axis of rotation as long as it has size. By contrast electron has a spin but does not rotate. It does not have size. The rotating body has particles which remain at rest. That is the ones that stay on the axis of rotation. From their perspective the universe rotates. So the effect is Machian but explanation is not. For the rotating bucket of water causality explanation speaks to me better. That is the water is not rotating with the speed of the bucket. The causality speed makes the particles further from the bucket wall to rotate slower. The effect is too fast for the naked eye. The Foucault pendulum is a tough one though…. Great video, thank you very much!
The peririphery of the water has more TIME than the center. This time gradient is obtained from the Galilean transformations. The force in the center is obtained from the time angular momentum L = -m*r^2*c (a parabola curve), c is the angular velocity of time. The water will not go to infinity extending the wall. It will go a distance c meters. Systems at rest have potential energy equal to -m*c^2. -G*c^2/r is the force field created by distant masses. G depends on the average radial density of mass in the Universe (G=M/r). G*c^2 = U is the Newtonian potential.
It was pleasure to listen this discussion. Dr. Mike McCulloch has an interesting theory for the asymmetric Casimir effect. When object is accelerated, due to Einstein, horizon on back of the object have smaller distance and less information is reaching to the object then from front side which causes inertia.
awesome talk
Prof. Andre Koch Assis agrees!
I don’t get it!
The water in the spinning bucket will experience a centrifugal force i.e. it tends to spread out, but because there are walls from the bucket impeding its way laterally, the water has no other way to go but up vertically along the walls.
It’s a simple case of centrifugal force in an enclosed medium.
What exactly Newton and Mach derived from this i don’t understand.
I’ll try to help. If you are already picturing a world in the thought experiment in which there is a centrifugal force and using centrifugal force to explain the experiment, you have already flown past the point. The point of the experiment is to try to explain why there is a centrifugal force (really the point is to try to explain inertia, which is a prerequisite concept for the concept of centrifugal force). With Galilean Relativity in mind, the question Newton and Mach are posing is: what is it about the frame of the rotating bucket and concave water that is different from the still frame of the non-rotating bucket and flat water? Another way to phrase it: What knows that the frame is rotating and causes the concave shape? Newton answered that absolute space knows the bucket is rotating. Mach answered that the distant mass universe knows the bucket is rotating. In other words, it is absolute space (Newton) or mass of the Universe (Mach) that gives rise to inertia, and thus centrifugal forces.
Here's an idea. Record with 2 channels like stereo only each person has a separate channel dedicated to him alone. That way the listener could shut off the channel of the person he doesn't want to listen to. Then he might want to listen to the other person on a second pass so he would shut off the opposite person. Maybe RUclips could keep score for the listeners! 😅
Incomplete analysis:
Loved the conversation. Missing emphasis on the fact that if the bucket is spun on Earth and compared to it spun on a larger planet, even in proximity to a black hole, it would require greater spin force to create same effect, hence concluding that the effect is entirely due to gravity and its variation. Then we can say that the bucket experiment is relative to the gravitational field. But, instead of a bucket or shampoo bottle one used a glass container they is same circumference on top and bottom but wider in the middle; then this would tell us that the force/s on the water are exerted in some direction outward. To determine this direction we perform the experiment with a ball on the string rotated about a centre and released. This will tell us that the force on the ball and hence on the water will be perpendicular to radius line as this would be the trajectory of the released ball. And this is the crux of the bucket experiment: how does this perpendicular force arise?
To answer this question one can think of water as representing the atoms in any substance spun, and why does the water keep spinning when the bucket is stopped?
All this is related to satellite motion, the spinning top, the gyroscopic motion, and the answer to dark matter.
And it conclusively rejects same rate of acceleration of falling bodies (subtle effect).
Why is only the gravity force considered? The shape of the earth could be influenced by the charge distribution, it is certainly not uniform.
An aside: Dr. Unzicker (not unsicher or what, mein Deutsch ist kaputt lol) and Professor Assis are interestingly talking past each other and considering the universe and its mean mass density from two 'diametrically' opposite positions while discussing the equivalence of orders of magnitude of G ~ c square times Ru/Mu. Mr. Unzicker is viewing the density as a function of the expanding universe (with the increasing length of its radius) while Mr. Assis approaches the issue from a stationary or momentary, 'still pic' point of view (sub specie aeternitatis if you will), in vitro as if with its mean mass density and/or mass being an arbitrary or unknown quantity you can give any value you want and then "see what happens". Or something along those lines. For the Brazilian professor the mass of this still universe is a construct you can change by changing the mean mass density of the 'imaginary universe' - it doesn't change the radius of the universe, just its mass where as the German 'doctor' the density is dependent of the changing size /radius of the real dynamic universe while its mass remains a constant. Thus the discrepancy.
Sorry guys but the constant interrupting and talking over one another makes this almost unwatchable. This should be fascinating, not irritating. I can't even make it to the end....
Absolutely. Grateful (but grating).
Sounds like you are looking for a lecture not a discussion.
I was surprised to not see any reference to a key feature of Newton's Bucket experiment and how you could possibly ignore it. You covered the water not spinning when the bucket was spinning, and the water and bucket both spinning. You consider the water in reference to the ground and gravity, then move on to the water and mass of the Universe outside the bucket to consider what causes the water to take on the parabolic shape.
You have NOT considered, as a separate issue, the key aspect of the water spinning and maintaining the parabolic surface shape even after the bucket spinning is stopped as a separate issue. I understood that as a key to Newton's concern.
You should also consider that IF the water is aligning with some Absolute Frame of Reference for Rotation, that then perhaps that frame could also release it from the grip of gravity when the water is spinning fast enough to hold the parabolic shape and the bucket is not spinning.
Consider the case of a bottle of water being suspended above the ground with some holes in the bottom. The water, as expected, is flowing out. But when the bottle is released, the water STOPS flowing as shown by Professor Greene discussing General Relativity in a Stephen Colbert Report show about eight years ago. He claims, per Einstein's General Relativity, that the water in the bottle no longer can feel gravity.
Another perspective is to say the bottle is now aligned with its new accelerating reference frame although the bottle could say it is in free-fall and not accelerating in its inertial reference frame. There is no gravity, and the water does not flow out.
An alternative experiment on Newton's Bucket is suggested at the General Science Journal to test further for the presence of Newton's Absolute Space.
www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/9781
Newtons laws are interactions among entities that are in motion relative to each other. Action relative to empty space are… actions, not interactions.
Hello, is there any meaning in saying that water is rotating relative to water at rest seconds ago aka its previous state ?
Is Einstein's general theory of relativity had any inconsistency? Please can you make a video on it . And many scientist are talking about it on youtube. One I have watched on sky scholar.
If two photons move apart what is the distance between them after 0.001 seconds?
Thus the velocity between them is?
If you apply SR time dilation to the photon it would stop moving entirely.
If you only apply that to internal properties of the photon then its frequency would stop!
If you claim that photons are not valid inertial reference frames then you contradict the fact that photons have inertia because inertia is momentum!
If a photon departs my nose then relativistically my nose departed the photon at light-speed.
Thus my nose would have infinite mass relative to the photon!
The photon could not escape the black hole in my nose!
Google 'instant gravity proof' for a debunking of GR.
This is fascinating thank you but can someone explain to me please what is the mystery about the pendulum at the north pole? Surely it is the observer who is rotating. You would expect it to go clockwise at one pole and anticlockwise at the other?
Yeah this one is a head scratcher for me. Unzicker says Newton doesn’t explain Foucault’s pendulum. I don’t know if that means Newton just didn’t happen to explain it in his writings or if he is saying Newton’s laws can’t explain it. I’m not really sure what was expected to happen with Newton’s laws, and how, if at all, the results of the experiment support Mach. It is a fact that the plane of the pendulum is maintained with respect to the fixed stars, but I just don’t know that this fact is surprising. And so I don’t see how it supports Mach as would not Newton say the plane of pendulum stays fixed with regard to absolute space.
You are correct, the rotation changes depending on whether one is at the north or South Pole.
Would be great if the guest took a breath and let the host talk eventually
My answer to the question is that Mach is right when we consider massive objects in the local environment and Newton is right for integrating the overall effect of the cosmos. Spinning with respect to the earth has the mass of the earth symmetrically distributed wrt the plane of rotation. so the net effect of the increased attraction is cancelled out .and we only see the pull to the center of the earth. Why would it be that the rotational effect with the rest of the cosmos also be cancelled out when at rest with respect to earth? The earth , solar system and galaxy are so organized so as the minimize the effect. That is why the planets and moons and shapes are orbiting the way they are. Spinning the water at the north pole locally unbalances the system and so the water molecules have to follow the influence of the Sun which is the largest significant mass at a relatively close distance where forces are proportional to the inverse square of distance but linear with mass.
Is there any limit to tangential speed? Sitting in a rotating chair at the north pole observing the sun traversing the horizon I would only have to spin once in 2Pi x 150 x 10**9 meters / c = 2Pi x500 seconds for the sun to be moving at the speed of light. That is a long 52.4 minutes per rotation.
The same spinning experiment done on the equator at noon on the equinox should also be unbalanced because the speed of the water particles relative to the sun on one side is added to the earths rotational speed and is subtracted on the other side. The water does not escape the bucket because a new balance is achieved due to the internal viscosity and mass of the fluid.
An experiment for space is a sealed partially filled sphere with coloured liquid. Perfectly spherical space inside and spun to cause the liquid to distribute aligned to one axis and by adjusting the spin try to establish what spin relative to you results in no pattern for the liquid organization then you might be able to find the equilibrium reference for that location.
Regardless if it is the rest of the mass of the universe which causes inertia, inertia is evidently a local phenomena. Either because of the past effect of all masses in a local experiment spatial coordinates or something else. If it is because of the effect of all masses, obviously there is something local which registers the information of all those masses as it is not possible to interact instantly with distant objects. Call it as you prefer. Instead of field, I prefer the “something else”, in accordance with B. Riemann. It is way simpler, more intuitive and also shines a light in many other open questions in modern physics.
Wenn man an die Achse eines Fahrrad-Rades zwei Griffe anbringt,sodass man es vor sich in die Höhe halten kann und es in der Luft drehen lässt, braucht man Kraft, um die Achse zu kippen. (Erhaltung des Drehimpulses?). Wenn man es am Äquator frei drehen lässt, würde das Rad dann in 24h um 360 Grad kippen? Das hätte dann nichts mit Schwerkraft zu tun, oder?
Ga = 4/3 π Diameter Density G - cosθ( V^2/Diameter )
Webber,Mach, Einstein, Schrodinger, Robert Dicke, Schiama, Carver Mead, Andre Koch, Alexander, all of you are conveying on simple message, that in the roots, "everything is connected", it is sad that modern physics has ignored this simple fact and discusses everything as an isolated disconnected system
I don’t think “everything is connected” is the conclusion they are headed towards. That is a leap past Mach’s principle that I don’t think most of these scientists would agree with because “everything is connected” is not what a beautiful explanation looks like. It’s not simple. It may just be unconnected interaction after interaction with emissions from statistically random mass in the universe.
It is the pressure differential at the outer area of the fluid, increased pressure which pushes up and down against the container wall, when it pushes down it pushes against fluid, so overall it moves up. Think about it from the point of view of the molecule of liquid, which has motion and would prefer just moving in a straight line. Overall the container and the fluid are spinning together, but each molecule of the liquid will spin around with some lag.., the molecules never reach equilibrium so there is always a pressure differential. 'centrifugal force'
@SciDeb I guess the source of inertia for the liquid molecules remains a mystery, maybe thats what Mach meant.
I agree that I want to know what’s wrong with your explanation. One question is what starts the fluid molecules moving in the first place in the case of a round bucket. I would say it’s some kind of frictional drag force on the water molecules touching the bucket that gets them in motion. And as you say, once they are in motion, there is now an inertial centrifugal force.
I don’t think Mach was wondering about the inertia of molecules as he did not believe in atoms.
@@timjohnson3913Yes the friction starts the liquids motion, but in this case we are just considering the simplified steady state, when everything has reached an equal rotational velocity. Inertia is obviously independent of gravity but personally i have no idea how it works. If it it relates to stellar masses then it would be influenced mainly by the closest objects, our sun, and nearby stars, maybe the galaxy. So saying 'the whole universe is pulling on the liquid' is being a bit pedantic.
Random thought... if everything is 99.9% protons and neutrons by weight, and they all 'spin' is there a gyroscopic effect that could create inertia. Does trying to explain inertia even make any sense?, becasue it is just the default state.
@@digbysirchickentf2315 “inertia is obviously independent of gravity” I think it’s quite the opposite. Since inertial and gravitational mass are equal, it would almost be surprising if the explanation for inertia didn’t have a deep connection with gravity.
I have heard it argued that in order to explain inertia you are going to need to have a theory of everything, and that just might be true.
Such a gift. I think they are preparing us for a breakthrough in anti-gravity and space-time travel. Maybe you could twist how space and time locally intertwined to change what are currently considered constants . Make precise measurements of the water shape in a cylindrical container at the center of the LHC when it is running at maximum energy versus not. I can't help but think about the problem of what it means to be an observer .
LHC is not what you think. It is a part of destriction network. You cant understand, if you cant feel it. They disguise their weapon use behind sun blasts etc. Nice excuse. Time of Luci.
The coincidence of the rotation of the pendulum coinciding with the far away 'shell of the universe' can be explained by the fact that the vacuum of space and also the vacuum within matter (aether or fine-grained interactions of virtual particles) is a +/- dielectric. The aether-vacuum of quantum fluctuations in between Earth and the outer shell hence is a dielectric. This dielectric has a field gradient radially outward or inward, it works either way. Ir either of the two spherical shells moves, or the quantum field moves, the field gradient will cause precession on the pendulum due to the radially outward field gradient in the dielectric which drags on all vacuum. The interaction and push is caused by quantum friction, an experimentally well studied phenomenon. (as all vacuum is dielectric of virtual particles which has their own quantum friction).
Kind regards, my two cents,, Joris Luypaert.
Tychos Brahe may be able to explain the pendulum
Lab frame: application of a law of motion(Fc) correctly predicts reality
Bucket frame: application of a law of motion(Fc) DOES NOT predict reality
Lab frame is quite general; anywhere on Earth the same results are obtained.
Bucket frame is also generic; any liquid may be used, the bucket can be a container of any size or shape and -most critically, the distance between Lab and Bucket frame is irrelevant.
Other similar test of laws of physics in the Lab vs moving frame, like Bennett’s Hiker, lead to this statement:
The laws of physics(obeying the Euler-Lagrange equations) are only valid in the Lab/Earth/ECEF reference frame.
This is the death knell of SR and GR, frame independence and covariance, creating paradigm shifts affecting higher order knowledge domains, like philosophy and theology.
What happens if you flip the bottle horizontally then spin? like a washing machine spin.
The water comes out
As much as I find Mach wrong I still found his principle useful to my model in that Dark Energy is proportional to and a result of all the Mass in the universe, or at least all the positrons and electrons... The idea of matter being made out of inwardly shrunk, trapped compressed field in a finite field (universe = giant ball of cells and gas), with 'field glue' flowing from empty field to matter lends itself to big Machian thinking.
--
Electro-Positronic Field: -ve gas binds a ball of +ve cells freed by Full Escape Energy as electron-positron pairs
Spin: particles pull gas in straight/pump out spirals at 90'. Motion increases gas intake, biasing spin at 90'
Magnetism: spin flows straight to a neighbour. Gravity, energy conservation, field balance preservation cause circuits
Mass: gas acceleration drags cells further apart inwardly but closer laterally. +ve shells, -ve gaps, packed core
Gravity: like mass but slower acceleration with drag on field cells cancelled by dark energy so cells remain equidistant
Dark Energy: more gas near mass shrinks field, expanded by less in voids + new matter creation / black hole growth
Heavy Force: mass multiplier mechanism pulls in field before annihilating all heavy composite cored particles but protons
Heavy Fusion: in the Big Bang (and stars?) 2 positrons oppositely hit 1 electron (more than 2 electrons hit 1 positron)
Antimatter: 1,2 e_p pairs annihilate. 3: proton+anti proton or muon+anti muon. 4: neutron+anti neutron. 5: tau+anti tau
Positronium: e_p. Muon: ep_e. Proton: pep. Neutron: pep_e. Tau: epep_e. Neutron mass is halfway between muon and tau
Lifetime: heavy force starts when (anti) muons/taus slow from C. Electric force speed (C) and Time slow with gas density
Beta- Decay: pep_e => pep e. Beta+: pep + new e_p => pep_e p. Weak Force: unstable atoms form and annihilate e_p pairs
Nuclear Force: neutron electrons bond to protons. Mass and magnetism compact and strengthen the nucleus
Black Hole: atoms cut into neutrons fused as tau cores (epep). Field spins, time slows, core annihilates, no singularity
Dark Matter: (anti) muons/taus last longer as the galaxy thins out? Solitary (anti) muon/tau cores? 'black hole spin'?
Photon: compressed, concentrated gas wave core pulls in field cells as it passes. Field warps diffract and interfere
2 Slit Experiment: photon/particle field warps diffract and interfere, guiding the core. Detectors interfere with guides
Inertia: energy lost moving through the field is returned as the field rebalances behind with a kick straight on
Entropy: simplicity. Time reduces closed system complexity. Universe's simplest state is perfectly ordered empty field
Entanglement: correlation broken by measurement? Physical link?
interesting. I can't wait to see the newer science that demolishes the shoddy dark-energy/NB dark-matter theories. 😅
@@deathsheadknight2137 .. It's an interesting unified model but it's not obvious how to solve the 'dark matter' discrepancy. At least Gravity and Dark Energy are two sides of the same coin and the inward expansion curve of gravity is added to the outward expansion curve of dark energy resulting in expanded universe but still equidistant field cells.
--
Having mass as 'trapped neutralised field' is interesting too. Particles could be almost entirely a 'wave' (field is warped by inward acceleration to a packed core as the particle passes). The core could be field taken from where the particle formed, and the +ve energy shells too.. My preference is for shells to form as the trapped solid core passes. Wave + particle..
--
I like the idea of +ve and -ve energy bands instead of the Bohr Model of hydrogen energy levels.. Same formula, different explanation. It's the same transitions for matter and antimatter measured but atoms and anti-atoms have slightly different ground states unless there is a compensating factor (electrons are on +ve bands, positrons on -ve bands). What we measure is the same (energy level transitions for photons, same charge radius, mass, spin).
Let Alex speak!
Excellent. I propose to do a thought experiment on rotation without thinking a priori of a frame of reference for it. What physical conditions are expected for a rotational experiment to be considered related to the reference systeme, absolute space. If it were possible, this experiment would supplant Michelson Morley's interferometric experiment.
27:36 the fine structure, constant? Where does this come in? The earth itself is a spinning bucket. It’s wider at the equator. The difference between equatorial radius, and the polar radius, divided by the mean radius is good approximation to the fine structure constant?
If you spin the universe around the bucket once per second, the water in the bucket will identify as Brazilian coffee and file a complaint with the HR Department.
Is it too trivial to ask, What is Mach’s principle? All this talk, but with no one defining the principal terms of reference.
Great discussion, thank you for it.
But the Mach principle doesn't quite make sense to me.
1. If the Earth were at rest, but the entire universe was rotating around it, distant stars would have to be moving at enormous speeds in excess of the speed of light, which is obviously not possible. On the other hand, if the Earth is rotating and the universe around it is at rest, there is no such problem.
So can the two views really be equivalent if one of them violates the basic rule of the non-transcendence of the speed of light?
2. The flattening of the Earth at the poles is due to centrifugal acceleration a = v^2/r.
If we assume that the Earth is at rest but the whole universe is rotating around, and if the flattening of the Earth depends on the amount of matter around it, shouldn't the gravitational constant G somehow figure in the relationship for centrifugal acceleration?
In regards to 1, they say the experiment is impossible, so I don’t think you need to take the thought experiment so literally. But to your point, yes if this thought experiment could be materialized, you would need to change certain laws of physics (allow for things to travel faster than C, etc).
1.
Equivalence is not important here. We don't require that equivalence for Mach's principle to be true, the same way you don't create equivalent rotating universes in return to seeing let's say spinning basketball on your table when exploring it with the help of standard physics rules.
Even in the case of rotating universe, the speed of light would not be violated anyway - you don't have any reference (outside of universe) to measure the speed of light in relation to. So there is nothing it exceeds the speed in relation to.
For the rotating universe with the central resting bucket model, what if the curvature forms without the vortex? Something tells me its not like mixing a cup of tea. Both Newton and Mach could be right
Dr Unzicker, please accept my apology for my overly rude comment recently on your last video. I’m not sure why were proned to such snarky and rude tones while communicating virtually anonymously on these platforms. I’m an avid listener, a fan, an autodidactic always searching for truth and knowledge. I respect your efforts and skeptical views as well as always searching for simplicity and conceptualizing for the laymen fundamental problems across the vast fields of physics. I often become frustrated, having a lack of guidance and being an outsider and having taught myself a great deal which took much longer than it should have as I navigated through a sea of both BS as well as over simplified versions of reality and even folks who act as if they are gatekeepers and no other lowly human could possibly understand such concepts.
You are not one of these and I realize your audience is most likely disproportionately laymen thirsting for a better grasp as i once was.
So again: I apologize for my overly dramatic and mean comment which was unnecessarily worded and I just felt horrible about it, to be honest it.
Much love from the US
Equation in Page 39:41 is incomplete.
It should be
G = (Ru/Mu) x (e0 x u0)^-0.5
Where e0, u0 represents Aether and where Aether has no mechanical but electrical properties.
Nice video and presentation.
Relative to nothing is ground breaking. Arbitrarily that nothing is something - the center of mass of this universe. But that doesn’t explain inertia or gravity.
How does the fluid know it is spinning?
Newton: “Absolute Space”; Mach: “Mass of the Universe”
That seems a relevant question but a bit too anthropomorphic or teleological.
I would like to see a mechanical model of the interaction of the molecules of the water with the sides of the rotating container.
Could the answer be that molecules of water near the edge are pushed tangentially by moving molecules of the side of the spinning container?
What if it was liquid helium rather than water?
How is magnetism connected to Special Relativity even though there are no particles moving near light speed?
What if the side of the container was modeled as a point particle with the mass of the moon?
Does a rotating bungee cord attached to a rock stretch at all if I rotate faster?
What would the Geometric Algebra equations look like if I used Spinor Particle Mechanics?
I thought of the rotating shell experiment before Andre described it, so it must be fairly obvious. Has this experiment not been done before?
;-)
Auch ich habe mal "Space" gemessen: einfach Lineal rangehalten und auch noch zugesehen, wie er "expandiert"-)
About the bucket of water i believe it was answered by Mike McCulloch who advanced the mach model via casimir and hubble constant connection. Nassim Haramein sealed the deal and corrected physics in casimir regions.
speculating Mike is correct and i interpret it as the density of the "space-time" is inflating/deflating and slowing/speeding up the light, so what we see - and according to Ron Hatch - since light does not gain or lose energy it means that at the moment the light was emmited apart from gravitational redshift would experience inertial redshift that follows hubble constant which should be red as a frequency of the universe or smth
It`s as if the legal maxim of " older law is stronger law " is being reversed in physics to " younger law may result in better modeling ". I think for that reason I say that Edwin Kaal New Atomic Model [ Edwin Kaal presents a new model for the atom based upon the principles of densest packing, balancing of electrostatic forces, symmetry, and the stable geometry of Platonic solids. Using this model, the sacrosanct “strong force” of the modern theory is not required. In addition, neutrons are redefined as a connection between protons and electrons. Thus, atoms in his model are just protons and electrons in electrostatic and geometric equilibrium. Following simple rules and postulations, a structured atomic model emerges ], is my favorite explanation for the inter atomic behaviour. Great show very enjoyable discourse I hope more will follow.
Since motion is relative, spin a spacecraft.
Mendel Sachs used the Mach Principle in his writings such as "Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity" where a flat Minkowski space of Special Relativity would be a matterless vacuum. So I'm wondering about how this bucket experiment would be modeled in Relational Mechanics compared to how Mendel Sachs would model it and write equations for it. People often talk about STR as if it always involves objects moving near light speed but STR is needed to explain magnetism produced by objects moving very slowly. So could there be something similar going on that is a fourth order effect that becomes macroscopically visible due to how large Avogadro's constant is? How does it look if one uses the Geometric Algebra/Calculus and gauge principles of Gauge Theory Gravity by Doran and Laseby at Cambridge?
We do need a proper understanding of emptines and aether, and these problems can be easily understood. Spin and accelerated motion can not be relative motion like rectilinear motion. Both have it's own significance.
Is the Lense-Thirring effect perhaps an expression of Mach's Principle in General Relativity?
First rule of science don't go on a holyday with a Mathematician or theoretical physicist. He wont be there half the time, you may has well have gone alone. He will work regardless.
Eric Weinstein said we need to escape from "Einstein's Prison". Perhaps, it is the prison of Newton's we must escape?
could there be a link between mach's principle and quantum entanglement?
😂. Better than that to ask is there any connection between Sex and Electrodynamics 😅
So is inertia different in various directions? has this been measured?
One last thing: your admiration of Newton might diminish if you read up on his other activities in life. Not only was he an alchemist, but also a *money forger*.
Guys, when you both talk at the same time we can't hear either of you.
But isn't there a logical fallacy here. If you cannot per Mach/Mach's principle discriminate the rotation of a small object around its axis from the rotation of the apparently still/fixed mass of the universe around the object in the opposite direction, then that is the definitive answer about the issue. (And disperse, theoretical physicists/cosmologists and find more meaningful questions to ponder.) No 'impossible experiment' of 'rotating the universe' is needed; since it is based on the contradicting Newtonian idea of absolute space, isn't it? Besides, is it even an intelligible notion as such, the rotation of the whole universe - in respect to what? - Well, just to those little things apparently rotating around 'themselves' and as if 'absolutely so'. Here or there it seems we hit the 'limit of our language' and capacity for reasoning. Maybe. then. at most and first we should get clear about the logic and if it cannot be maintained and clarified, either it is utter nonsense we are trying desperately to articulate in the given context or then something 'extra-ordinary' (cf. quantum mechanics) indeed must be figured out and formalized. Yet, this 'problem' sounds like belonging to the former unfortunate cases of nonsense. We might very well have hit the bed rock of our conceptual apparatus as if 'transcendental' boundary' of 'world' (unlike 'space' and 'time') and no more can be extracted about this 'deep insight'. Thus we may say our light-hearted, relieved farewells to theories of everything, pack our packs and go doing something more useful and sustainable. Wink wink.
André makes the point that Mach's experiment--rotating the Universe rather than the bucket--can never be performed. Does this mean that Mach's Principle is not testable or falsifiable? If this is the case, then Mach's Principle is not a scientific hypothesis. It is more metaphysics than science. It belongs in the same category as Plato's Theory of Forms or Aristotle theory of the prime Mover. It may be true, but it is not science.
That seems too nitpicky to me because it's known that the moon affects ocean tides. Einstein wondered once what the world would look like to a person travelling with a light beam that seems metaphysical but was useful for creating STR. So one could maybe look at effects of galaxies on a central black hole or maybe effects of rotating black holes etc. Mendel Sachs proposed the idea that the mass of a single particle could be reduced by removing all adjacent matter but to detect it, would probably require a galaxy size vacuum jar. Maybe there is a better way to test the idea but the untestable germ of the idea is there as motivation.
Well we have two kinds of motion -- lranslational motian and rotational motion. But according to Albert Einstien there is no way of proving that a particular state of motion is "at rest" any object not subjected to a force has equal claim to being "at rest" and this "kills" Mach's idea, because if Mach was correct we could then define absolute rest as being a system whose average velocity relative to all the other bodies in the univers is zero, and this contradicts one of the basic principals of relativity. So Mach's idea is killed by Einstien's idea. And the recent "gravity probe B experiment" proved that the rotaion of the Earth tends to drag the nearby region of space-time in the same direction as the Earth's rotation. And if SOMETHING is being dragged, that SOMETHING has individual integrity. So Newton was closer to correct in light of modern theory, only it is the integrity of space-time that is not NOTHING (but is SOMETHING) not space alone as imagined by Newton. Newton didn't actually anticipate relativity and the idea that time moves more slowly near a large masses than far from large masses which was totally foreign to Newtons way of thinking. But he sensed that space, though empty, nonetheless had integrity that could be usedto determine if motion was accelerating or NOT accelerating. And the gravity probe B experiment proved that this applies not just to transnational motion but also to rotatioinal motion! But the idea of Mach makes sense even though it turned out to be wrong.
It is true that Mach's concept that only relative motion matters implies that there COULD be a preferred frame. Even if we have no observational evidence so far for that, it does not mean that the observed Galilei (not Einstein) invariance "kills" Machs idea. Regarding Gravity Probe B, the Lense-Thirring effect is not the same as the problem addressed by Sciama; thus it does not contradict it; then, there are still some doubts on that analysis, since the original experimental design had huge systematic errors. Yet I agree that Sciama's intriguing idea has not been unified yet with GR. But that does not mean GR is a bible we must adhere to; as I said, in important aspects it lacks explanatory power.
PS If you are really inetrested, you should watch ruclips.net/video/BpQ0T7rDWm0/видео.html. My comment refers also to that one.
Thank you for replying to my comment. And thanks for the link to something on the topic that I might find of interest. I tend to believe that GR is close to correct and there is evidence due to gravitational red shift that space and time are "married" and the constancy of the speed of light can only be explained by this "marriage". But when I have time I will check out the link you sent. The arguments of Newton and Mach seem to still be releavant if spacetime has "stillness" with regards rotation even if there is no means of nailing down transnational motion. Your video was very good at making people aware of this historical controversy in which Newton attributed "integrity" to empty space and Mach felt that "emptiness" could have no "integrity" and acceleration could only be measured by the integrity of the totallity of the ambiaent matter in the universe. And GR (as far as I understand it) does not "kill" the integrity of the rotation of space which was more relevant to the argument based on the flatness of the surface of a spinning pail. But the "frame dragging" caused by Earth's rotation (which was the smaller of the two effects discovered by Gravity Probe B) tends to support the idea that the rotation of space in regions devoid of spinning matter is static. But I could be misunderstanding the true meaning of "frame dragging" -- I am not close to being an authority on theoretical Physics and only have a very rudimentary understanding of GR. I was a high school teacher of Math and Physics many years ago and am now retired at 86 but still trying to keep up with the new discoveries of Science. Your video was more "thought provoking" than most other youtube videos on Physics. It was very well done, and I enjoyed the bottle with the coffee experiment. Very well done!!
One thing in the lecture that I had no clue about is the idea that the gravitational constant G would be effected in any way by the total amount of mass in the universe at large. I see absolutely NO rationale for that idea. Anyway, read my earlier reply to our reply@@TheMachian
This Prof. Assis the Brazilian talks too much and too fast and interrupts Mr. Unzicker and his articulated, lucid and sober comments after first few words in only too often, chronically, epidemically, with cosmic certainty so much so that we can conclude Prof. Assis's temperament and enthusiasm takes over and subdues calm reasoning rendering the subject-matter of matter and energy etc. a matter of personal energy and passion rather than that of clear-cut argument and exposition. The professor is like a sympathetic, goofy mad scientist trapped inside his own private inner perpetual centrifuge demonstrating thus human mind's capacity to break and transcend the laws of nature (thus ironically human mind can also error in its conjectures and hypotheses about the laws of nature): As we know only too well the motion of the mind is perpetual and the inner space relative to and around which the motion happens is most absolute if not completely solipsistic and thus the only real space there is. -- Too bad Mr. Unzicker, a profound thinker and apparently a most congenial human being, cannot finish even one of his clarifying thoughts amidst that frenzied cross-fire, the unceasing gab of the mad professor. Meanwhile American physics is frivolous quasi-metaphysics if not only too a pragmatic technological spin off what works will do kinda we know it all and don't care about the rest (and philosophy sucks anyway, besides all intellectuals are commies!). I guess we are doomed for good as a civilization and will never advance further in the fundamental questions of physics. Maybe that is also a token of the nature of the current state of the art. We have reached the edge of the abyss and face such formidable challenges upon our intellect that they go high above and deep beyond human reason, problems requiring from us cognitively disclosed extra terrestrial hyper math only ugly aliens can figure out thus coming up with those mind boggling flying saucers powered by gravitational propulsion tech jumping through space-time in higher order dimension like intergalactic grasshoppers no probs!
I have never seen a person mispronounce every single English word, plus points for being a physicist and pronounce body as 'buddie'
also, try to shut up when the other is speaking
Would be interesting to know how many foreign languages you pronounce perfectly.
The rotating bucket and water accelerates relative to total mass of the universe. Anything including the bucket of water in the universe accelerate against the total mass will experience an inertial force.
Newton was ahead of himself in thinking that the total gravity force in the center of total mass experienced by the bucket of water - is zero and hence not responsible for the parabolic curve in the water. Instead he should be thinking that the water accelerate against the total mass and not total gravity.
Newton was not that smart after all. He preferred to believe in "magical" equivalence between gravitational and "inertial" mass, than give up his simple Gmm/r2.
Stop interrupting with "YES!". So annoying! We can't hear the conversation!
ok.... glad that I cut out already half of my noddings :-)
It was actually more of a problem on his side, but thanks for the editing!
The main issue with the Mach's view is that it can neither be tested nor disproved and thus is not a physical theory. I understand that it makes not much sense to speak about the motion of a single body into an empty space, and to some extent it makes more sense to measure a mass relatively to other masses, but I think that Mach went too far with his reasoning when he stated: "[t]he [bucket] experiment [with the rotating fixed stars] is impossible, the idea is meaningless, for the two cases are not, in sense-perception, distinguishable from each other. I accordingly regard these two cases as the same case and Newton's distinction as an illusion".
But it`s possible to show that inside a massive body, effective inertia is bigger, showing that gravity causes inertia. Otherwise mach`s idea could be 'proved' wrong by experiment or at least for that amount of mass no visible changes was observed. Anyway, there is no problem in postulating things outside 'visible range', but it must be necessary to deduce something 'visible'. This is more than normal in science, it`s needed to go beyond observable effect.
So far my interpretation of that experiment. Particle matrix bucket rotates about it's axis of mass, magically rotating the water, causing a concave depression due to some magical force! You saw the bucket! And guess what, the bucket saw you too! And then he presents the known equations of the time because there was a guy with some German l name too, into a hardcover textbook. Woooooooooo trippy! You get paid for this? Hahaha. But this is just first impression. You know, I'm just some dumb guy. Hahaha.
1:09:22 let’s do more than get rid of everything in the universe. Let’s also disappear the mass of the Earth. And replace the mass of Earth with a Massless giant balloon that’s inflating radially outward at 9.8 m/s squared. Then … ?
So interesting, and so annoying. Prof. Assis needs to be told firmly to get a grip and stop interrupting.
The uselessness of this video: imagine an empty sphere. This is the universe. Now fill half this sphere with brick, half of it with water. Now spin it all. What would happen? What weighs more, a ton of feathers or a ton of brick?
Hehehe empty spheres...
Warum nicht in deutsch ?
"real physics" is an oxymoron.