How Hermann Minkowski Led Physics Astray
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Talk given at the DPG meeting 2019 in Munich. The correct spelling is "Hermann". I apologize for the wrong slides.
Follow also my backup channel: odysee.com/@Th...
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/
LOL! I couldn't help but burst out laughing when I saw the quote from Einstein, "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore."
He just wasn't that good with math. Einstein learned tensors from Marcel Grossmann. If he didn't, there would be no general relativity and nothing to invade. So kind of stupid comment. Also special relativity was invented by Poincare, another mathematician.
Dirac was much better with this and a better physicist too even though he was technically an engineer by degree. Another example of otherwise very bright person who just wasn't into math and therefore hated it would be Richard Feynman. Those are exeptions though. Since 1970's, unless you working in something like condensed matter, you have to learn at least some algebraic topology.
But when did he understand it ? When his relativistic universe contracted from its own gravity, or when he introduced a cosmoillogical constant to make it steady ? Or when he removed it to make it expanding, altough innitially he understood that it was contracting under its own gravity without that constant ?
@@hrsmp Keep in mind that at that time (1905-1915) differential geometry (then known as "absolute differential calculus") was very much unknown to almost everybody except a few mathematicians. So Einstein was by no means an exception: this was the rule among physicists back then. In fact, such basic considerations of the geometry of the Schwarzschild solution as the nature of the horizon were not understood by physicists until 1920s.
Obvious statement for a plagiator who copy and pasted everything he released, who followed the trends even if this contradicted his previous statements. There is no theory of relativity. Functionally it was still lorentz aether theory with poincaree math. Every frame of reference is valid until i say otherwise.. speed of light is constant, until is variable..
@@KabelkowyJoe Everything you say is incorrect. You are free to create your own theories but you cannot alter facts.
For those people wondering whether to watch this video... The section beginning at 22:50 is really interesting and agreeable to any physics perspective. Every revolution in physics is associated to a reduction of the number of constants of nature: 1. Newton: Gravity g and G are related 2. Electrodynamics: e0, mu0 and c are related 3. Thermodynamics: k and rms v are related.
Very interesting and had never pondered this.
thanks a lot
Few months ago I was wondering about the same thing, what if we haven't found Gravitational law, we might be studying planetary motion through empirical equation with variables raised to some powers and some constant and these equation would vary for various planets and systems. But just because we have a law all such equations are unified in harmony.
Interesting video. It's a point worth considering: if c wasn't treated as a factor for translating time into spatial units, people might well be more open to the idea that it is a variable quantity.
"Interesting video. It's a point worth considering: if c wasn't treated as a factor for translating time into spatial units, people might well be more open to the idea that it is a variable quantity."
It is quite clear you do not know General Relativity.
@@kensandale243 he stole ideas from poincare and wrote horsehit about time dilation
Think about it. Every instant that passes more space is created, conversely, as space expands, the time flows, also, events don't have and specific order, they happen a sequence that depends only on your velocity relative to them. So, space and time are some kind of dual structure. As mass and energy, particles and waves, electricity and magnetism. That's what I believe.
I think the problem is that light is effectively part of the dimensional framework in special relativity. It would be a bit arbitrary like varying our standard of measurement for the meter, say, by some other unit of length and imagining it has physical significance. We need some accepted standard or the curvature/distortion has nothing to be a distortion relative to. By measuring geodesic deviation relative to assumed straight standard of light speed which we presume as steady based on some universal physical law, we are able to measure distortions within one coherent framework that all observers can agree upon, if we vary light speed, we have no standard of straightness we are agreed upon, and so making different observers perspectives coherent will be likely impossible, for what universal physical principle of straightness as our standard bearer, could we all appeal to in this case?
Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants, that's why he saw further. In other words, the birth of the theory of relativity could be compared to when the finished parts of an engine are lying about on the floor of a car repair shop, but no one knows how to assemble them. And then came Einstein...
Even then you are over crediting Einstein. Einstein's real genius was in his self promotion.
@@rl7012It is likely that Einstein had little to do with the promotion. He was the performer. 🎉
mercury precision was due to barycentre of solar system
and light bend due to refraction of stars liquid/plasma midium
universe follows Newton rules not Einstein and
Einstein copied E=mc2 from previous scientists & pasted in front of world 😂😂
Except Einstein created a theory that is logically inconsistent within itself (the twin paradox has never truly been resolved) and despite getting some new predictions right which other theories did not it gets some of the basics wrong (such as an apple falling to Earth, aka near Earth gravity).
This guy is idiosyncratic to put it politely , Minkowski helped greatly with the mathematisation of Einstein’s ideas about general relativity ,thereby he made a great contribution to physics, and the title is just clickbait.
Minkowski's version of "space" is certainly dominant. An infinite number of directions are replaced by three "dimensions," and then time is tossed into Pythagoras with a negative sign, and here we are.
The problem is that while it all works to 24 decimal places it fails right away when it bumps into the two-slit experiment.
Einstein's Universe, our current view of the world, is deeply useful and elementarily incorrect.
Adding time as 4th dimension is one of the biggest disaster in physics.
I think there is a big elephant in the room that was activly avoided to mention. The success of Noethers Theorem which gave quite a good reason to go for a 4D Spacetime model instead of variable c.
Hmm... no. Noether's theorem is fine, but it doesn't explain why nature appears in such a particular fashion of 3+1 dimensions.
@@TheMachian My point was that Noethers Theorem give a strong correlation between physical properties and mathematical mainly topological properties. So using a topological modeling which would keep all that correlarions and just describe a curved spacetime seems alogical decision especially for a group where Noether and Riemann worked.
Did the variable c theory has something identical to the Lense-Thirring effect? I really does not know so i ask as this seems to be in reach to be measured or ruled out in a foreseeable amount of time and could then be used as an indication which model should be preferred.
@@TheMachian I'm not a physicist sir. But to me, 4D space-time always seemed to be just a convenient coordinate, nothing else. Does this interpretation makes any significant change?
@@TheMachian Yes it does. Noether's theorem is a statement relating symmetries to conservation laws, and in relativity, there are numerous conservation laws. The most appropriate law in this case is the invariance of the spacetime interval. You cannot get this invariance with a variable speed of light, and a spacetime in which space and time are related by a Lorentz transformation. The treatment of space and time on equal footing is implicit in Maxwell's equations. Without that property, you cannot have a constant speed of light. Based on numerous meticulously conducted experiments, the speed of light is constant in every reference frame, hence, you must have space and time as functions of each other, rather than absolute. I assume that you have an issue with this, as you mention the constancy of c in your video. But if Galileo was right, then Maxwell was wrong, because his equations would depend on the reference frame. You are channeling the Aristotelian way of thinking, which gives certain position or time coordinates too more merit than others. If you are okay with Noether's theorem, then why do you have a problem with 3+1 spacetime?
@@Techmagus76
Except there's not any experimental evidence for variable c. It's just an idea that doesn't have any data or observational evidence to back it up. Kind of like string theory. Ultimately, physics must rely on observations.
10:18 But isn't, say, Hamiltonian mechanics using similar abstractions? To describe for example 3 particles, it uses a 6-dimensional space which on top of that behaves like an incompressible "fluid". So in what way is Minkowski's idea so different than Hamilton's?
Time is not a spatial dimension. It is a metaphorical one. Time = distance/speed making it a relationship.
Like many other people, Unzicker is so convinced of his own infallibility that he doesn't think that his slides need to be proofread by someone else before they are presented in public.
Presented in public… from the applauding in the end you can hear that he is talking in front of 3 people. 😂😂. So much to the impact of this guy. He doesn‘t give any physical arguments anyway. His slides are just full of quotes.
That’s because you cannot prove something new peer review. Because if you can’t compare your discovery to something already existing then the discovery is not true. It’s called fascistic conformity which is anti science. And there for peer reviewing is a circle jerking of assholes who constantly agree with each other with out question.
If u like this stuff i suggest Mythos weltformel by jochen kirchhoff. Both selfconvinced Idiots from the political right edge that seem to have a Problem with Einstein being jewish and try to top every Single physician of the 20tiest Center with psychotic conspiration theories
Reißen Sie sich gefälligst zusammen, sonst haben Sie ganz schnell eine Anzeige wegen übler Nachrede und eine Unterlassungsklage am Hals. Wahrscheinlich auch von Herrn Kirchhoff.
Jetzt hab ich aber Angst. Was halten sie beide davon wenn sie den Unsinn den sie verbreiten mal begründen anstatt auf Drohungen zurückzugreifen?
Very pleased to discover at last somebody interrogating the scientific trends of physics and its consequences. We just spend too much money to find proofs of non sensical théories. The leads that could help knowledge are far less sexy and are very difficult to fund.
Not a single deep thought, not a single careful analysis of basic physical concepts.
This is deep: ruclips.net/video/ELjgTs7BFC4/видео.html
25:10 Maybe Minkowski is also responsible for buggy enumeration functions in modern text processors
This is just a quatch getting attention over other people's work, clearly only visited wikipedia to take screenshots, and sees himself as an eye of god when on stage as he grabs the attention using dark psychology of scape-goating a voice from the past that cannot answer in this monologue controlled hallucination this man is in; thinking he understands Richard Feynman when he statet "Science is a culture of Doubt, Religion is a culture of Hope". Well this man is in camp hope, hoping to see what these people have seen whilst discovering and applying universal "beliefs" of how quantum space-time relate to each other. He says so himself; it takes a long time to figure things out, and by just patronizing the words of the unique people of ages, he pushes himself to a certain "eye of god" that is actually worth-while to listen too. Oh ps, Unzicker's Real Physics... What kind of physics would need the name REAL applied to it; that's totally relative in space-time
Exactly. He spouts a bunch of stuff, but backs nothing up with observational evidence. Not really a valuable talk.
Well, imagining that physics might have developed differently, and thinking about what a plausible alternative theory might have been isn't a meritless pursuit. Modern physics has become engulfed with mathematical obscurity. There is at least some merit in looking at how to simplify it conceptually. I think the appropriate thing to do is to develop the theory, and compare it to the other contenders for explaining gravity. In particular, one might see if this theory has some merit from the perspective of combining it with quantum mechanics. He says that variable speed of light physics has some differences from mainstream physics. See what those are and do experiments to see what is ruled out.
Maybe if we look at the speed of light more as a rate of induction versus a speed ….
(Correction) Temperature is BOTH Potential Energy (PE), while its higher radiation is Kinetic Energy (KE). Just saying Temperature is KE is bogus. PE manifests KE, not KE manifests PE. All matter, no matter at 0 Kelvin or extreme temperatures, is PE. KE then is radiation manifested from the PE based upon temperature. But Temperature - IS - KE is false. Temperature as an external force manifesting UPON a PE object, then manifests and outward KE force. Just the same as light laser (laser ablation) upon a metal and having particles fly off (kinetic particles). No KE laser, no KE particles. Only the inherent PE object manifesting KE radiation from temperature changes.
16:47 No, it's not "underestimated". The reason the variable speed of light (or refractive medium) approach is not used in general is that certain geometries (notably, the Kerr geometry) _cannot_ be formulated in those terms. The Schwarzschild geometry can, but the Kerr geometry cannot.
Many people, I am afraid also you, judge theories according to whether they are compatible with known formalisms. Yet the ultimate arbiter is observation. The variable speed of light formulation of GR is in perfect agreement with all tests.
@@TheMachian It's not around a rotating body - that was my point. This means simulating GR with a refractive medium is impossible. You are welcome to come up with another theory replacing GR, of course. But if you introduce a medium, you'd have to pull out all QFT stops to get there because any traditional medium leads to all the usual late-19th-century difficulties, chief among them ensuring such medium cannot support longitudinal waves. This was deduced from experiments even before Maxwell got his equations, and many big names tried to describe such a medium: Navier, Cauchy, Poisson, Lord Rayleigh, etc. All media constructed that way were extremely exotic, with properties simply cooked up to obtain the desired results. So yes, it did work, but it wasn't good science.
@@TheMachian Err, this would also imply dispersion according to frequency (like a rainbow effect) in the presence of a gravitational body bending the light waves. Which does NOT happen.
@@TheMachian Yes, but speed of light we know from law of Snell bends and changes velocity when passes through media with diferent consistency and this has nothing to do with the space and time bending by e mass. So in e Universe full of matter with different consistency, if someone investigating the bending of light with no respect to Snell law even if he is Einsein, and his math are giving at the end correct result this means only one thing. A math cooking, a fraud. I don't know if a mass bends space-time sheet, and light bends because falls in this hypothetical bending but the law of Snell end the chaing of light speed because of the passing is e fact.
@@JanPBtest The medium exists is all material and is stars winds, dust, neutrinos and so many other particles that create material in space, and full of it but with a different consistency. Not like the Ether of the end of the 19th century, but like this that the two Voyager probes continue to describe. See the site of NASA about that and even the Sun's magnetic field with bigger and biggers gaps between, reach their positions. The gaps are because the Sun's field is produced by an impulse and isn't constant. So you see my friend just to these distance everything is occupied by, let say, Sun's atmosphere. This atmosphere like the Eart's one has different in content probably like the Earth's in layers. And every physicist knows what happens to the speed and the direction of light when passes through layers. It bends and changes speed. Snell's law and Maxwell's for the electromagnetic wave. I think light is also something like that, waves of moving energy pieces that we call them photons.
The part of mach principle honestly blew my mind, thanks a lot for your talk, I think that modern physics ignores very ofter its phylosophical fundamentals and that leads to two problems, first is a wild west of speculations about its subject that leads nowhere because they ignore the fundamental ideas in which the already tested theories are built and second, to focusing too much on their desire for an idea to be true instead of the empirical experience for it. I like when someone puts into question basics notions in a deep and profound way, thanks a lot.
Thanks. Indeed, one can learn more from the old papers than from the modern stuff.
@@TheMachian Very well said.
@Shimmy Shai In relativity de causality is determine by the space time interval, which determines de space time relation between things events, maybe I am wrong but the description you just made of Mach's principle makes me think of it.
15:18 I dont understand what the spinning water bucket has to do with understanding gravity. Isnt that the centrifugal force at work ? When you spin the bucket you create a rotating mass and a displacement of water from the center to the edges driven by the centripetal force. So when it hits the bucket at an angle, it tends to go up on the bucket, because the bucket has an inverted cone shape i.e. a slope which allows the force vector to dissipate upwards. If you take a cylinder shaped bucket with straight walls the effect wil not be the same (if any). The displaced water will be pushed from the wall back to the center with an equal and opposite force to the centrifugal force. Which is the centripetal force. So what does have to do with 'all masses in the universe' ?
Hmmm, yes!
The slope of the bucket's wall has nothing to do with producing the concave shape of the water.
The biggest takeaway from this video is whether Nature needs time to exist. That is, does Nature need time to create reality. Since Nature is defined by frequency, wavelength and velocity and uses it to create the universe the answer is Yes. Without the concept of time we would understand out universe far less than we do now. That's because time allows us to ponder the questions of the universe. If there was only space, then energy would never be able to bring order from chaos and there would be nothing to observe. Even observing takes time.
Re-evaluation of GR should have begun 50 years ago, when science stopped progressing. It is obvious that physics took more than one wrong turn, following the discovery of electricity; but we are interested in understanding the turn that eliminated all possible others. You can locate it by checking if it requires the principle of cause and effect in order to be explained.
? What are you talking about?
The success of a scientific theory is not evaluated based on our ability to develop more accurate theories afterwards. And science has not at all stopped progressing. After the discovery of electricity, science has advanced in leaps and bounds to accuracies that used to be inconceivable. Quantum field theory, a theoretical framework which requires all the modern physical concepts you seem to discredit, is the most successful scientific theory of all time by FAR. And it has opened countless possible avenues of further investigation. We are not in the slightest painted into a corner, in fact things are looking better than ever before with respect to the future of physics. The only difference now is that in order to probe the physics more accurately, we need more and more sophisticated experiments. The difference between an experiment-lead science and a theory-lead science is that If there is an abundance of unexplained experimental data, theory just has to explain it, which is a lot faster process than having a lot of theoretical possibilities with scarce data to use to determine which is most accurate. Before we eliminate possibilities we cannot use the leading theory to predict further experiments in order to get better data and repeat the process. It used to be that a few relatively simple experiments provided profound data that required new models to explain, then the leading models would quickly lead to further methods of falsification, which again were relatively easy to adapt to experiment. Simply put, the bottle neck in physics at the moment is politics. Funding, resources, feasibility, strategy. Theoretically we have perhaps the richest diversity of possible, often beautiful candidate theories(even potential theories of everything) we have ever had, and this spawned from the theoretical and experimental/observational success of special and general relativity.
RedTriangle53
The problem is politics. In the absolute opposite way you claim.
Junk science is funded. The stuff that is funded will lead nowhere.
Massive government over funding is exactly what has broken and corrupted academia and the university system.
RedTriangle53
Also the public shouldn’t be exploited to pay for all the crap. They are exploited enough, and the assholes demanding more exploitation are *never* satisfied. They always more rent extraction, more rent seeking vampirism. As the common man gets devoured.
@@solank7620 I am not sure what junk science you are referring to. But physics is frankly underfunded compared to the long term economic benefits of improved technology. It's baffling how miniscule the funding of physics is compared to the economic growth which has occurred thanks to it. It is essentially the best investment of all time.
You cannot even conceive of space without time. You cannot perceive time without space.
Thats not treu at all, at a Math level yuo can build Anything , but in ower reall word its make sense to think in 3 spatial dimensions + one time dimension , becouse we experiment that everyday.Yuo cuold esey build 1 ,2 3, n space dimension cordinate systems , like a 2 dimension world , like a plane , but yuo always need the time dimension if somehing move (speed : distance/time)
@@noway8233 That is math dude , physics is differnt. I have built predictive models with over 10 dimensions, but we also learn to avoid overfitting so we try to reduce the number of dimensions thus reducing complexity. Spacetime is different, they are intertwined, In the reality of the physical world, we cannot measure one without a change in the other. We cannot measure distance without a tick of a clock and conversely we cannot measure time without advancing across distance.
I am not sure to whom the following statement should be attributed:
"No one has experimentally created, nor even imagined how to physically create, an inertial system of reference."
Wow! This totally helped me with a model I'm working on. H and C don't have to be constants? Oh, boy. It all fits!
Biggest question is whether space fabric (and distance) creates the time dimension ... or whether gravity (gravitational objects) create(s) the time dimension. The time problem was solved with satellites at high elevation with lessened Earth gravity on them, showing that there was a recognizable time difference (no matter how small), ... and all the issues of light speed travel life ... and conventional life aging faster (on a planet's gravitational properties). So this would propose that gravity is the source of distance and time, not the space-time fabric.
This then gives credence that light speed photons and neutrons/neutrinos do not age ... like other particles in a gravitational field or light speed gravitational lensing and escape ... while smaller photinos with variable light speed having gravitational capture but slower aging ... (or particulate/particle matter destroyed in a black hole).
So, if humans occupy space, with 0 gravity, do they have minimalized aging on the space station, ... or with man-created gravitational properties (Star Trek Enterprise all floors have their individual gravity, these people would age.) Having an Arthur C Clarke rotating space station (centrifugal force and no gravity), people in space would age slower, (depending on whether they also reside at a LaGrange point (Earth, moon, and Sun equal gravitational region) or orbit around a gravitational object (space station around the Earth).
Admsittedly, (it is said) that gluons in special conditions can display mass (gravitational attraction) and gluons make up quarks, which are the foundation of all space-time mesh fabrics, then space-time does have a very small gravity, but not like greater physical matter (made up from gravitons). So up/down quark space-time fabric has smallest gravity factor, while charm/strange fabric has a higher gravity factor, and top/bottom fabric has the highest gravity factor ... but not anywhere near physical matter gravity, Up/down space-time fabric is more predominant in our location at the end of the galactic arm, with less charm/strange fabric, and minimalized top/bottom fabric. At the galactic core, there would be maximum top/bottom fabric density (and cosmic tension), with minimal up/down fabric.
What's special about velocity c is that it's invariant under the Lorentz transform. Without 4D spacetime, there is no proper time, which is what's needed to form S, so spacetime "distances" are invariant under Lorentz transformation. Same holds for energy/momentum 4 vector. Now if you wish to argue velocity c slows down in a gravitational field, it also can be argued time also slows for the measuring device. Therefore the apparent measured velocity c remains constant.
Why are you rejecting 100 years of proven special relativity?
Because spacetime is a joke. It's a made-up fantasy with no proof at all, like phlogiston and caloric. The only proven facts are the Lorentz transformations and the invariants that are calculated from them algebraically. Apparent velocity is not actual velocity.
E/C = MC Energy slowed to the speed of light equal Mass accelerated to the speed of light. They are two expressions of the same Dialectric -- Electricity -- Magnetism nature of the Universe.
Time does not exist; time is experiential. Space does not curve -- that is simply a visualization to aid in understanding the "square of the distance" rule -- which applies to the Dialectric, too.
Light does not "Travel" but perturbs the ether. Yes, first there was an either, then there was no ether (Einstein), then there was (see Tesla).
Force and Motion. Acceleration and Inertia. Space and Counter-space. Charge. Field Theory meets Quantum Theory meets the Electric Universe.
It looks like c is invariant under the Lorentz transform precisely because that is one of the assumptions that the theory of special relativity makes: “Later in the same year Albert Einstein published what is now called special relativity, by deriving the Lorentz transformation under the assumptions of the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light in any inertial reference frame”
"..proven special relativity". Relativity is a THEORY. The fact that Some of its consequences have shown up in our observance of nature makes it plausible: conditionally correct. But no theory is ever proven because knowledge is always incomplete. What we THINK we know today may be shown to be incorrect or imprecise tomorrow.
We all criticise things which we don't like. But if this dislike is coming out of incompetence in understanding then I think there is a problem.
I see your critique :-)
So, this is the fifth Unzicker video I've watched this evening. My impression so far is that Dr. Unzicker really doesn't *say* anything. He's very good at kicking over the sandcastles of others, but I don't see anything put forward to take their place.
My impression is that you don't really know what to do with your time if you watch five videos you don't like. And yes, some castles - I would say in the air - have to be removed before thinking about buliding reasonable physical theories, which I tried in "Einsteins Lost Key" and "The Mathematical Reality".
@@TheMachian I guess I was just really hopeful of finding some good juicy Mach's principle material. It has a very strong "sense of rightness" to me, but there's not a whole lot on RUclips that covers it. I wouldn't say I disliked them - I feel pretty sympathetic toward the idea that some parts of mainstream physics are off in the weeds. I didn't really mean anything terribly critical - I was just sharing my thoughts. You have to admit that in some places you pause and search around for words to some degree. The biggest thing, though, is that I can't really tell exactly what it is you're saying. You seem very supportive of the variable speed of light position. As far as I could tell general relativity already predicts the effects you were referring to - they just wrap them up in something different (length contraction, time dilation, etc.) Would it be fair to say that you object to the concepts of time dilation, for instance? Just exactly what position are you espousing? It's not clear to me, beyond "the mainstream is wrong, somehow." Oh, and you seem to like Dirac's large number thing. I find that interesting as well - is your position on that just that no one's paying it any attention and they should?
Anyway, take care and stay safe. I appreciate the replies. I was just trying to give honest feedback - I apologize if I upset you.
@@TheMachian Oh, sorry - I forgot. I also wanted to say that admire the heck out of your willingness to stand up and speak out about the problems you see in physics. Not many people would be that brave. I'm really glad there are some people that will.
@@KipIngram It's fine don't worry. I think SR is correct, nothing to change. Relating Machs principle to GR (and its 1911 VSL version) needs a longer discussion, and interstingly, it is closely related to Dirac's large numbers. I believe to have shown this relation, and also the close resemblance to ideas of Schrödinger 1925 and Dicke 1957. The best place to get more familiar with this is my book www.amazon.com/dp/B01FKTI4A8 of which i am happy to send you a pdf if you contact me per Email.
Thank you sir for your informative perspective. You presented your points extremely well.
I know this is an old upload, so forgive me for posting on a 4 year old presentation.
I am well studied but I am not a physicist. These problems have been bugging the back of my mind for most of my life. I have recently dived into the rabbit hole in an attempt to investigate for my own peace of mind and in having done so realized many problematic "assumed" assertions in the fundamental physics and geometry.
The following are my personal notes while watching your presentation. Note the time marks relative to my comments.
>
~1:50 Henri Poincare
Debate over the 4 dimensional geometry with Minkowski.
Newtonian mechanics are preserved in the underlying 4D space-time coordinate system.
Axle: The above appears to be problematic in respect to the different natural geometries available to choose from.
>
5:50 A kind of union between space and time. But what is this union? And how do we accurately describe this union? What fundamental properties are we unifying? What is space? What is time?
What IS space-time? I have identified a number of natural geometries that satisfy the broad description of relativity and space-time, so which is correct to the natural universe?
>
~8:00 This light cone is a very problematic geometry.Axle
>
~9:10 I fully agree. Albert was correct to question this geometry proposed by Minkowski as I don't believe it accurately described the conceptualisation of space-time that Albert has in his mind. Minkowski recreated Alberts space-time relativity in his own image instead of Albert's.
>
10:45 Is space and time the same thing?
Axle: The first question is does time exist of it's own accord as fundamental to the universe which we only seam to have a subjective human answer to.
Second, can we have time as fundamental, or just an emergent illusion of the maximum value of motion.
If time is fundamental we have a kind of Pseudo 4D space-time which has a few possible geometries. Only one of those geometries appears to encapsulate a true space-time union with relativity (causation) and the Minkoski model does not fit.
An object with zero velocity in space may still have a minimum velocity in time as an equation of 'c'm/s.
The other geometry is space only (we could apply an abstract 3D (x,y,z) over this) were Space is static and time is only an illusion that emerges from motion of objects where motion has a maximum rate.
An object with zero velocity in space will have no inherent expression of time. Time is not fundamental and does not exist without motion.
Which is correct may be difficult to establish.
>
11:29 Note the use of 3D+1D This has many geometric interpretations and we have to be extremely careful about how we construct those geometries and even more so when translating those geometries back to a human readable form as it breaks the fundamental space-time concept.
>
12:24 This fundamental construct of the speed of a photon is critical, and currently quite likely incorrect at the moment.
[Note that the reference frame for 'c' is ambiguous. Is it global (universal) or local to an object... Or both frames at the same time? This is a conflict in physics which is ignored, and leads to all fashion of weird time dilation illusions in SR]
>
~14:38 This is an exceptionally important problem that is overlooked, complex, ignored with an assumed solution.
P.S. I don't actually think light speed is variable to the universal frame. [See following comments]
>
19:20 I think all of this comes out of a human illusion that we have about distant objects. We tend to conflate a photon (which is not the object) with the actually object. The limited speed of light will always give the illusion because of the blurring in motion or time.
It is just a human visual illusion.
>
19:57 Albert clearly states the problem here between SR and GR. The claim of time and length dilation is an illusion in SR and does not appear to exist in reality. Axle [GR and time dilation is a different matter. See next comment]
>
20:20 Variable speed of light in GR (gravity). Light speed is variable in different densities of a medium, so we have to ask is light traveling through a high density medium in a gravitational field. We know all physical objects are at a higher density state, but how far does that density state extend in the gravitational field when we include all forms of particles in space?
>
21:36 Mikowskis space-time seams to be a fundamentally incorrect description of the math and geometry.
>
21:48 This is Albert Einsteins acknowledgement of the problem with the "Human Condition". We have imposed assertions over physics based upon subjective human beliefs.
>
27:05 What IS the constant 'c'???
>
29:52 This is a reasonable summary of the problem.
We have to make an attempt to define the following 3 things as they exist in nature (nor for us, but nature) and then also inspect our limited human ability to describe these things in a human way without damaging there natural (non-human real) context.
Speed of a photon: What does that even mean to the universe?
Time: What does time even mean to the universe?
Space (empty void): What does a void, universe even mean to the universe? What is the universes concept of our neat human box like x,y,z? What are boundaries or infinities to the universe?
An idea of an object: What is an object to the universe? Does the universe even know if they exist?
All difficult questions.
>
The above is a somewhat raw summary of my own investigation and thoughts. They may be a little ambiguous to the reader. If you need clarification on any point feel free to ask :)
Axle
Unzicker is clearly not on top of relativity and obviously has no understanding of the spacetime concept ..this talk is a lowlight at that DPG meeting way back in 2019 ..
So, to someone in a vessel in free fall towards a high gravity `source' the speed of light would not change, but for an outside observer the speed of light would be changing, right?
The idea of varying speed of light works for a far observer of a gravitational source. For such an observer, a light falling into a black hole will take longer to reach the event horizon, however, locally, the length along the radius is elongated, so locally, the speed of light is the same. So yes, this idea can work if correctly used, however, the theory will be equivalent to ordinary General Relativity. The challenge, however, is to locally describe the field that the "mass" generates such that a far observer will see a lesser velocity without the use of Ricci curvature.
Yes because "ordinary" General Relativity yields the same result, not just for falling but deflected light rays at perihelion (lol a friend and I calculated these a few weeks ago for fun and to learn how this stuff _actually works_ ). The problem is that Unzicker's version is _more_ contrived -- not less -- than GR, and all due to the dread that gravity is nothing more than spacetime curvature (or more precisely that there's no gravity _only_ spacetime curvature). He's as bad as the physicists he criticizes because they, too, abhor GR and claim to have a better theory (they call theirs "quantum gravity").
@@dubistverrueckt Unzicker's idea is correct in the coordinate system of a far observer. Not sure it is simpler. It seems equivalent to GR.
Instead of criticizing well-known contributors to the field of physics, why can't Unziker try to tell what HIS correct answer is? He seems to be rather unpleasant to be around as he struts around thinking he is the only one who knows how things are connected. But really? What are HIS contributions other than saying everybody else is/was wrong?
1. Do your homework when searching sth. 2. Anything factual you have to add?
Space-time is a hybridisation of space and time into 1. Just as the eye hybridises 3 dimensions into 2 by projecting 3 dimensions onto a 2 dimensional plane.
Much needed rethink of the blind worship of the new absolutes, such as the speed of light being the speed limit of the universe. Needless to say, it is ridiculous. And Minkowski's transformation of distance into time multiplied by the square root of -1 is simply unprovable.
The models of showing the Einstein rocket and a light particle flying through the rocket is a false drawing. The particle appears to fly upwards and outwards from its point at the rocket's shoulder. The reality and correction of this drawing should show the light particle first at the shoulder, but the 2 right-most rockets, should have the particle falling down the side of the forward rocket, and the same curvilinear pathway should be shown. Again, 2D models, with false concepts of drawings inside them have waylaid many a physicist. One in the physics field should correct this drawing once and for all, albeit Einstein's words accurately present this experiment.
I’m assuming he has the slides shon on the podium, but he still continues to turn around and look at the screen. Something that really detracts from the presentation.
As a theoretical physicist, I also advocate that students of physics should only be exposed to experiments, not dictated by theories, which should be considered by researchers.
Rupert Sheldrake has given a talk called The Science Delusion where he presents that the "constants" aren't constant.
I prefer Einstein's equation in this form: E/C = MC
Energy, slowed to the speed of light, equals Mass, accelerated to the speed of of light. Thus, Mass and Energy are two expressions of the three-phased
Dialectric -- Electricity -- Magnetism. All of our notions of Gravity, particles, and waves, are in need of adjustment. The very model of the atom, needs to be revisited with this new light. 1/Phi^-3 -- that's the reciprocal of the cube root of the Golden Ratio. It helps to define and to reveal "counter-space," and the Unified Field Theory.
Actually, now that you mention it, there is similarity between Sheldrake and Hunzicker. Both present bold claims with absolutely no arguments or evidence to back them up. But I think Hunzicker makes you take longer to realise it, so good on him!
For example unstable isotope decay rates are not constant, and follow a seasonal cycle, and correlate to CME. Going in the other direction, you can personally cause this effect with ELF and ULF.
Quoting people, and particularly the people of the classical and Old era, is not scientific......so your representation is not scientific
I don't understand what's wrong with quoting intelligent statements. A way to learn from history, which is certainly not bad for science.
Spacetime interval is lorentz-invariant and the spacetime formalism leads in GR to correct prediction of mercur precession. A variable speed of light theory cannot achieve that.
Well, space & time are abstractions. Reifying abstractions is the basic logical fallacy underlying modern physics and relativity. Elementary logic is sufficient to refute relativity.
Space and time are useful concepts for everyday purposes. They have real meaning. For instance if I say something is very far away, there certainly is meaning to that, not abstract.
For the purposes of physics, these concepts can be extended beyond their usual domain. In relativity we use the fact the the speed of light (distance/time) is always the same to extend the definition of time and space to moving objects.
Well, if space and time are not seated in our reality, it pose a great problem when dating someone don’t you think?
@@NicleT "Seated in our reality" is wonderfully ambiguous. Space and Time can be subjectively real - so you can make your date - without having objective reality - without, that is, being parts of the furniture of the external world.
Looking forward to your explanation to the precession of the orbit of Mercury, gravitational lensing, time dilation (e.g. cosmic rays particle decay times, GPS adjustments) and a few others. Come back once you have it peer-reviewed and experimentally verified.
Einstein's STR is krapp, & GTR is mostly krapp. But there are lots of relativities. I have my own kind, which naturally i like best.
9:51 This dude asks "How justified is this union of 3 dimensional space and 1 dimension of time..? Turns out that there's no real justification besides the postulate by Minkowski.," then claims "space and time are simply different phenomenologies of physics." [citation needed]
Appartently, this guy doesn't understand neither the math or the physics, or even the history of physics, because Maxwell not so long before Minkowski and Einstein showed for the first time that different phenomenologies in physics, namely electricity and magnetism, could be united and (nearly) completely understood by meshing them in orthogonal dimensions, i.e. electromagnetism. At this time in the really early 20th century, the only known forces were electromagnetism and gravitation, so when Kaluza-Klein proposed doing something similar to to unify EM with gravity, he was enormously excited by the prospect. Of course we know that the Kaluza-Klein model was not the correct one but Einsteinian general relativity, and its great successes both back then and 100 years later when he's been proven right yet again with the prediction of gravitational waves, which otherwise would not have been discovered and astronomers would lose a tool in their toolkit to search the heavens. This alone justifies it, and the fact that this guy is confused makes me immediately think he's the wrong one here, and Minkowski, Poincare, Hilbert and Einstein are correct.
What school does this guy teach at?? this is embarrassing...
I do teach math and physics indeed, as Balmer, Weierstraß and Ampere did, if you happen to know these guys. You can do teaching in two ways: make yoiur students parrot or make them think. I chose the latter option, if you like it or not. Your argument with Maxwell's equations is flawed, because just as space and time, electric and magnetic fields are different phenomenologies (despite the Lorentz transformations). GW have nothing to do with it.
@@TheMachian Question existing theories with new hypotheses is justified as well as making your students think. Still _the way_ you responded to ℂ∀ℳiℒ∅’s Notebooks comment above is questionable:
"I do teach math and physics indeed, as Balmer, Weierstraß and Ampere did, if you happen to know these guys"
--> referring to social status; suggestion of lack of knowledge; defensive
"..., if you like it or not" --> defensive
"GW (gravitational waves) have nothing to do with it" --> suggestion of lack of knowledge(?); no explanation for this point
actually there is quite sufficient reason to consider (at least a priori) that its possible space and time are different phenonemologies. because traversal of space is symmetric (can go back and forth in any spatial dimension), whereas traversal of time is not (can only go forward in time, entropy etc). show me a time machine and ill be gladly proven wrong. so perhaps you are the one that should be embaressed? given both Einstein and Dirac also considered variable light theories, there is no shame in doing so. unless you want to be embaressed by Einstein and Dirac, then by all means. the proof however is always in the pudding. the best theory is the one with most evidence. but an inability to think of new theories to explain unexplained phenomena is the death of science. an example of unexplained phenomena is dark matter. Gravitational waves are indeed not necessarily indicative of a meshed spacetime. a newtonian gravity could also conceive of gravitational waves. yes einsteins theory predicted them but it doesnt rule out another theory explaining them.
Einstein did not predict GWs. And when GWs were predicted Einstein said that they could not carry energy.
GWs do not exist.
And if they did exist they would not travel at c.
I wouldn't say Minkowski led physics astray, I believe it is our misunderstanding of time. Time is both linear and Non-Linear. Einstein's "co-ordinate time" is the objective, linear observation of the present moment, from a conscious perspective. Einstein's "proper time" is the subjective experience of the present moment, from a conscious perspective. When you understand these two temporal dimensions of the universe and apply it to the minkowski space-time diagram, it becomes five-dimensional and an electromagnetic sphere or torus. The linear, constant progression of time is represented by the sides of the light cone whilst the non-linear passing of time is represented by the volume of a light cone. Kaluza-Klein theory is very close but it's not an extra spatial dimension. It's an extra temporal dimension that allows for time dilation. It's an inverse relationship between the progression of time and the aggregation of information - a spiral or vortex. If you consider the rate of information processing as being Einstein's "proper time", It is infinite at the zero point. As you move away from the zero point at the progression rate that is Einstein's "co-ordinate time", coherent information gathers with an inverse relationship between frequency and amplitude, where frequency is the rate of processing and amplitude is the amount of information being processed. This applies to every dynamic electromagnetic field, including humans. From a universal perspective, it would mean that the universe is flowing at a constant rate and our rate of flow in the universe is relative to position. This is to say that our current Hubble tension is not a result of the universe expanding faster, rather a result of our perspective slowing down as our informational complexity increases.
At between 10:30 and 11:10 you are absolutely correct. It is a denial of reality and is just playing with math. Real physics is Aristotelian in its logic. Every answer is there in the behavior of matter and EM. Something can only be A or not-A. If it is A it is non non-A. If it is false, it is not true and vice versa. Any truth established outside the basics of Newtons Laws of Motion and the lowest math that describes the motion, i.e. the fundamentals, equations for mechanics, motion and kinematics and other similar terms items that are the fundamental truths, including measurement; is unlikely to be the truth. A mathematical model is not the truth. Even Einstein in his GR postulates, said about the remarkable property of the gravitational field to accelerate all objects equally, If we modify the coordinate system, we can create the gravitational field. This is not reality. This is the creation of math. This is nonsense and not physics.
But, unfortunately, the Lorenz invariance acts on 'space and time' and not 'space' and 'time'
'absolute speed in space and internal speed of clock'. Clocks arrow move slower, not time.
This was pure quotes, appeal to authority only.
It's an appeal to sanity. Space and time are completely different things.
@@Raging.Geekazoid Replacing the "and" in "Space and Time" with a hyphen is just a conjuring trick. Whenever you see a hyphen - anywhere - think "conceptual impurity".
Bottomline... We don't actually really know what Space and Time fundamentally are. And even though the mathematical union of Spacetime was very successful for classical physics, such as Relativity and Electromagnetism, in the Quantum World, these concepts seemingly breakdown somewhat!
And since we really don't know the fundamental nature of the Universe... I.e. Space and Time... Then it's little wonder why Quantum Gravity will always remain elusive!
_Of course_ relativity needs 1+3D spacetime because simultaneity of spatially separated events depends on the reference frame we use!
Moreover, the spacetime concept itself does not require relativity, NM can also be formulated using the spacetime terminology.
The GALILEI transform can be understood as a spatiotemporal shear which leaves temporal distances invariant.
Such thing as absolute space does indeed not exist due to GALILEI's principle of relativity from which follows the _relativity of conlocality_ of temporally separate events.
What is space? It's the set of fixed locations which means positions relative to a certain reference body B. If another body B' which moves at a speed (v|0|0) with respect to B is chosen as our new reference body, a position relative to B is no fixed location any more but a position relative to B' instead.
It takes a reference body to divide spacetime into (coordinate) time and space.
Of course, spacetime doesn't mean that time and space were pretty much the same thing.
Nothing to argue with what you're saying. But considering time and space as pretty much the same thing was precisely the ideology Minkowski advanced.
@@TheMachian
I'm not sure about whether MINKOWSKI ever took time and space as _the same thing._
What he really said _expressis verbis_ is the truism that time and space _cannot longer be considered independent._
And this is even _an understatement_ since the claim of an _absolute space_ is not even consistent with NEWTONian mechanics (NM), though NEWTON himself postulated such thing.
But there he contradicts his own theory which already contains the GALILEI principle of relativity (PoR) which includes the _relativity of conlocality._
Space is the set of all places and what is a place depends on reference frame:
If I drink a coffee within the board bistro of a space vehicle (in the widest sense, including Earth) which I consider stationary, this is a single place.
If we consider another space vehicle stationary with respect to which mine is moving, my bistro is not a place any more but just a relative position with respect to a moving object.
So we don't even need EINSTEIN's SR to affirm MINKOWSKI's famous words.
What's new in SR is that time is as little independent from space as vice versa but like conlocality, simultaneity of spatially distinct events is also relative and what remains absolute is only their weaker property of having a space-like distance.
So Boltzman's constant is irrelevant because it only defines a temperature scale. But then why is the speed of light so important if it only defines a time (or distance) scale? It seems the whole talk was centered in the premise that Minkowski led physics astray because he defined a time scale so that the metric tensor is diag(1, -1, -1, -1), but this was only a mathematical convenience, he could also have defined it as diag(c², -1, -1, -1) (or diag(1, -1/c², -1/c², -1/c²) as P. G. Bergman does in his relativity book) with no time or distance scaling and all of his arguments would stay the same.
I don't want to dismiss a possible formulation of a gravitation theory based on variable speed of ligh, but is seems that the concept of spacial speed makes no sense in general coordinate systems, but only in local infinitesimal Lorentz frames. In those frames, the speed of light is always the same (due to the principle of equivalence), no matter the surrounding gravitational fields. I don't know why Einstein considered dx/dt something meaningful in general coordinate systems (and there are no other possible coordinate systems in the presence of gravity), but he certainly knew very well that the speed of light is c in local infinitesimal Lorentz frames.
Reality is subejctive, we only tune the radio to what we want to listen to.
Three types of relativity: Aristotle relativity, (absolute space, one preferred frame of reference exists, variable speed of light), Galilean relativity (equivalent inertial frames and variable light speed), Lorentz relativity (equivalent inertial frames of reference, c is constant in all inertial frames of reference). Ludwig Lange was the original introducer of the ‘equivalent inertial frames’ concept, which is useful. An inertial frame does not accelerate/rotate with respect to other inertial frames. Galilean relativity runs into troubles: variable light speed contradicts the idea of frame equivalence, thus remains Aristotle’s absolute space and Lorentz’ relative space. I think Aristotle was/is right. Special relativity can also been viewed as a ‘low speed approximation’ of Aristotle’s relativity, in stead of the other way around, see Alfred O’Rahilly’s critical review book on electromagnetism, which explains why Dirac could use SR in QM. E = Mc^2 can be derived via classical electrodynamics in Aristotle absolute space, no need for SR magic here.
I always think that c depends on the permittivity and permeability of free space so why is c considered fundamental and not the other two on which it depends?
yes, the variability of c implies varying eps0 and mu0, with interesting consequences for Maxwell's eqns. But it is a matter of taste which constant you consider fundamental. You can keep eps0 and mu0 fixed by c and the fine structure constant.
Unzicker's Real Physics - thanks for that - I still think you can’t vary mo or eo as they are fixed and we only use c=1 in free space to make the maths easier. FYI - My theory is the the universe is conscious and it knows when it is being observed at any stage so it collapses the wave function as it wants. I believe this consciousness can also bend spacetime to give the effect of gravity. Furthermore, I believe this is evidenced in dark energy and dark matter which manifests itself in a similar you to the information energy of Landauer’s Principle but it has no entropy and is many times smaller. This consciousness has to keep expanding in consort with the increasing reality and it drives the expansion of the universe with it - do you know if anyone else has suggested this theory?
@@richardmasters8424 Don't think c=1 is a useful choice. See arxiv.org/abs/0708.2927
@@TheMachian I think the way to unpack this is that because the electromagnetic properties of "free space" varies implies that it is not a true vacuum, nor uniform. More advanced observations show that voids in space are still laden with material that can interact with light.
Otherwise one can lever it to say that it makes no sense to have a physical property equal a true zero without causing cascading undefined values. Where there is electromagnetism there must be a medium, as far as Maxwell is concerned.
@@TheMachian (1) Does anyone ever consider that Einstein's (real/true) VSL is in the (real/true) world due to a change in eps0 &/or mu0?
(2) Do eps0 & mu0 depend on the nearness of mass (or (3) praps on gravity itself).
(4) Or is the standard equation re c eps0 mu0 incomplete (which is my belief).
But when exactly did Einstein understand general relativity ? When he predicted that the universe contracted from its own gravity, or when he introduced a cosmoillogical constant to make it steady ? Or when he removed it to make it expanding, altough innitially he understood that it was contracting under its own gravity without that constant ? I mean, if I make a theory which in my understanding predicts A, and then non-A, and then the opposite of A, at which point can I say that I understand it ?
My impression is that he starts with one very good point - that space and time are fundamentally different in our experience - and goes on from there to talk complete bollocks.
Well, the objection that the 3+1 dimension is somewhat cosmetic seems like a real objection. I understood that much. But this objection vanishes if 4D space-time is taken as a convenient coordinate, which is what it seems to me.
Alan Barnett: Bollocks? Complete bollocks?
Agreed. In his next talk he will probably show how science was led astray by abandoning the geocentric world view, and equally not back anything up with arguments or evidence XD
You should also mention his chaotic presentation and lack of practice
Where AREN'T there gravitarional fields in the universe? Help me, did I miss sonething?
This man uses a lot of words to say very little.
Appreciate if you can it phrase more concisely.
11:16 You say physics has swayed to developing sophisticated mathematical formulations instead of focussing on conflicting concepts. However, the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics were also merely mathematical re-formulations, and it would be foolish to say that they did not play an important part in the history of physics. How do you reconcile this with your statement, just curious?
Thanks.
Good question. Thought about that already. At the end, we need the correct differential equations. There migth be several Lagrangians which yield the same. it is an elegant formalism, no doubt. Personally, I do not use it very much, since I guess you have to develop an intuitive understanding first (see also the history of GR development... Einstein did not think about a Lagrangian first). What I consider an even more severe problem is that spacetime might not be R^3, but S^3. That means you have to throw away much of the linar formalisms and start over... use Lie algebras when talking about dericvatives and so on. Mathematically terrible, but maybe unavoidable. morein "The mathematical reality"
Special relativity will persist until the hero worship of Einstein burns itself out. So the apostles of Einstein will insist that clock A is faster than clock B and clock B is faster than clock A and the reason you can't understand that insanity is because you are not smart enough.
Whatever you migth believe, this video does not endorse doubts about time dilation.
@@TheMachian I haven't seen any evidence that time may dilate, I don't doubt that clocks can run fast or slow depending on physical (gravitation/travel) conditions. How does a machine's physical movement which is being influenced by physical forces have to do with time? I don't need to tell you that a clock has nothing to do with time anymore than anything else that moves.
@@sedevacantist1 Exactly. Well said.
Light as the singular factor making time is a false concept. Gravity, and transits through gravitational fields, are the source of speeding up or slowing down time.
Einstein did originally oppose Minkowski's idea. He said it is just a bunch of fancy but unnecessary math.
I have never claimed to understand relativity, even though so many popular science articles try to explain it to us laymen, clearly indicating an expectation that it is something that the general public should be familiar with.
But as far as I have understood it, the ieea that that the speed of light is the same in every frame of reference is the basis for everything Einsteinian in physics. From that does everything else follow as logical consequences.
So can the speed of light be the same for all observers, yet variable from place to place according to the strength of the field of gravity? This needs further explanation.
And how would this work for a black hole, where the gravitation is enormously strong and hence the speed of light should be terribly slow?
There is a fundamental flaw in the idea that a photon has the same speed relative to the universe and the same speed relative to a moving object which is why they have this unproven idea of time dilation and length contraction which ends up in a paradox. The problem is that time dilation asserts a different speed of light in the relative frame after it has already been asserted as a constant to work out the time dilation.
With variable speed of light, there is still the problem of the equivalence principle. Gravity is no more real than the jolt inside of a train pulling away from the station. GR correctly strips gravity of its status as a force, and puts it in the bin of 'pseudo force'.
GR is not unintuitive if you have always been suspicious that Newton let weight be defined by the acceleration of Earth, it's a total hack. Newton assumed the surface of EArth was an inertial frame. it isn't.
I agree. But I can’t blame Minkowski for being a disappointing person who couldn’t allow his student to outshine him and feel content that he contributed to his luminance. It’s Einstein who lacked the confidence in his own intuition and frankly mathmatical capability that let his teacher influence his theory. He could have put up a fight in the way he did against non locality, but I think it conveniently worked as an assumption and allowed enough explanatory freedom that with enough proven predictions that included spacetime, he grew ever more accepting of it despite it not making intuitive sense. To the great professor who made this important presentation I say propose a better explanation! One that doesn’t conflict with the observed phenomena but that also adds greater explanatory power! I saw you challenge Ed Witten in front of all those people, you have the guts! But being bold on paper isn’t enough, let’s see you publish. I’d welcome it!
I have a holographic model without using any space-time assumption.
Is it similar or different to the Reciprocal System by Dewey B. Larson?
@jflaplaylistchannelunoffic3951 Yes, the same principle. I didn't know about Larson's work. Thank you for pointing me to him. I will look for reading his work.
Don't you wonder sometimes about Sound and Vision?
I don't think that just because some theories emliminate a constant of nature this is always the case. You can't just explain nature with constants. Reducing your understanding into more fundamental axioms is also some progress. Did the Newtonian laws of motion eliminate any constant of nature? No! Did quantum mechanics eliminate any constant of nature? No! But they do predict newtonian laws from more fundamental principles. That's also a scientific revolution.
Besides, Minkowsi's work was not about making a scientific revolution. It was about formalization of special relativity, and the implementation of math in the theory as a tool, to make it more accessible. Thanks to these math we are able to analyze a more complicated relativistic problem without having to understand what's really going on.
Being focused on current events is an evolutionary advantage, bub. It's just human to do that.
Minkowski’s elegant reformulation of Special Relativity in terms of _geometry_ is _indispensable_ for mathematicians and physicists (like myself...) who prefer to think _visually._ When confronted with a problem in Relativity Minkowskian diagrams provide an _intuitive understanding_ prior to getting involved in the algebra.
Saying that "Minkowski Led Physics Astray" is a display of ignorance.
No objection that diagrams are a useful intuitive tool. Yet, you should realize that by introducing Minkowskis "spacetime" some problems becoem more tractable, but the deeper ones are beeing swept under the rug.
It is a helpful tool for humans, but also misleading as it makes some rather unpalatable subsumptions about the nature of space and time as well as the multitude of natural geometries that can describe the different space time concepts.
It's not as simple and straight cut as it all first appears to be :)
Nice video which prtovides the fundamentals related to Relativity... Is there any book authored by H. Minkowski
I recently predicted the muon mass with 99.91%, and the tauon mass with 100% accuracy.
There is NOTHING about the total sum of all laws of nature that requires them to be subject to mathematical (or even, perhaps, logical) manipulation. For the standard two-value logic system, the simple statement "I never tell the truth" causes the system to have a short-circuit, requiring a "sometimes" third choice to allow it to be resolved. Conscienceness may or may not be subject to regular mathematical tools to try to measure/subdivide/analyze for rules, yet rules can be developed about it, both describing its qualities and predictions as to future actions. The problem is that when you have a hammer, all problems start looking like nails, even if they obviously have screw threads on them...
Well said! I always laugh when I hear anyone say "it shouldn't exist!" Who is to say what should or shouldn't exist in nature? It's not up to nature to abide by your understanding, reasoning, logic, mathematics, or laws.
i would say minkowski helped chemistry out more than physics as a whole
Thoughts..We can move and stop in 3 dimensions but not in time. But perhaps somehow we do but our very limited earth biology is by its design not able to register or form memories of that process.
Time is change, so it's like the light speed is the "maximum frame rate" of a movie or game. Trying to move faster through the frames only deforms them, creates a very distorted movie while the frame rate remains the same.
Agree, maybe a better way is to consider the real relation of space... that is energy, not time. Energy is the one that acts over space as well over time. The invariance must be seen as space x+y+z +i *energy wavelength = constant. More energy implies a smaller wavelength as well as a smaller space (Lorentz length contraction). More energy implies more frequency or smaller time; energy is the one and Minkowsky mislead with the spacetime leaving out energy. You can read more in a small book on Amazon "Space, main actor of..."
I want to add a few thoughts here. First of all a good indicator that a theory accurately describes nature is by measuring and comparing the results to the expected results. We have found that Relativity is an incredibly accurate description in that regard. Secondly the statement by Einstein at 18:41 talks about the velocity not the speed of light. Given a metric geodesics have constant speed however not constant velocity. When light gets deflected in the presence of gravity i.e. curvature its velocity changes, its speed however does not. The geometrical interpretation gravity is also far from being mathematically constructed. Rather it unravelled completely naturally. The natural development of the theory, the incredibly precise predictions and last but not least the immense beauty of Geometry make a strong case that General relativity is an incredibly elegant theory that describes nature incredibly accurately. Will it be the end of the discussion? No! We know that GR cannot give us the whole picture but there is a reason we have used GR for 100 years now and it is not the ignorance of physicists and mathematicians
Does anyone here think that a 'photon' is similar to a 'slinky toy'?
Like a self perpetuating interaction, which can only occur at a certain pace/rythm. This would explain the constant speed of this process as it moves through mediums and vacuums.
Hope you understand my analogy
I think a light wave is made up of mini waves / photonic elements. I think there is one, underlying field in which pure energy travels at C.
phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html
Cool image!
Looks like the whole sha bang is a slinky
Just like partitions in numbers we have different space time. Leading to minkowski space.
Its funy how in Einstein's proving method everything is simple and easy, after a simple calculation you get this, after an easy deduction you get that, and then it turns out he doesnt understand his own theory and needs a math teacher or two to explain him what its all about. Like that guy Friddman who explained him that in his theory the universe is expanding, not contracting as he innitialy understood it, and not steady as he reunderstood it after he dreamed up a magic constant.
Alexander Gerhard Unzicker (* 13. März 1965 in München) ist ein deutscher Physiker und Sachbuchautor.
Man fragt sich, warum er seine (SUPER-) Vorträge nicht einfach in Deutsch hält!
Weil die Wissenschaftssprache grundsätzlich Englisch ist. Es gibt nicht den geringsten Grund, solch einen Vortrag in deutscher Sprache zu halten.
Ironischerweise war vor einem Jahrhundert Deutsch die Sprache in der Physik besprochen wurde. Zeiten ändern sich.
@Bob BWC Ich würde gerne wissen, wer hier herumheult. Aber wenn Sie nicht zu sachlichen Beiträgen zurückfinden, fliegen Sie hier raus.
Minkowski's first name, Hermann, is misspelled as HeRRmann everywhere: in the title and in every slide...
This is strange, as the owner of this site, Alexander Unzicker, was born and studied in Germany...
Thanks for notifying that error that nobody had detected in >15 months. Actually, the version with "rr" also exists, but not in the case of Minkowski.
@@TheMachian
> the version with "rr" also exists...
True, but it is mostly seen in last/family name
Minkowski is only a disaster for physics students who fail their srt exam
Congrats if you can do some SRT exercises, but you didn't get the point obviously.
everything moves all the time, speed of light cannot be constant in time and in geography, I guess, but how to measure such changes?
I honestly recommend for almost anyone to read "The Evolution of Ideas in Physics" by Einstein and Innesfeld (sp?). It is a very accessible book.
It's 'Einstein and Infeld' if anyone cares.
@@jakelabete7412 Thank you. I was doing it from memory.
@@antondovydaitis2261 well Einstein was a leader “innesfeld”
The really important question is this: can we accurately measure the variable velocities of light, if we may assume them to exist?
Since time and length scales adjust accordingly, it is not that simple. However, the bending of alight ray is already evidence for a variability of the speed of light. Shapiro time delay is another.
@@TheMachian Not really; bending of space/time also accounts for it. The issue is which makes better predictions and GR wins and variable speed does not. See Red shift, space dragging and an interferometer (lack there of any indication of speed variation depending on frame motion.)
Thanks for the video! Greetings from Iceland!!
Page 24:33
Suggesting to eliminate u0. Why?
Why not eliminating c^2 and keep e0 and u0 ? Since c is a dependent of e0 and u0.
perhaps a naive thought but the description of the photon as a wave always bothered me. Sure it is wavelike when measured but so is everything else. The wave is a measurement artifact. The photon should appear as a point due to relativistic contraction. It is the superposition of many photons that give rise to a continouous wave like radio waves
george jo
You are offering here a series of logical arguments, sound and solid as far as argument sake, can be traced to conclusion theories drawn by (highly celebrated) scientists who don’t scrutinize or understand the test apparatus with which their theories took root from. Why do we spend more time in learning and preaching (highly celebrated) theories but scrutinize it before we wear it?
@@philoso377 There is always another interpretation . Perhaps the rush to mathematical models has diminished the role of experiment.
george jo
Mathematic speculation in theoretical science is replacing the old school “science methods” today and beyond.
As long as there are funding provided for “mainstream celebration of targeted celebrities physicists and theories”, disciple and worshipers wearing scholar’s hat will grow in equal proportion..
@@georgejo7905 Man-made radio signals are carried by photaenos, they are not carried by photons.
A photon with a (natural) 10 mm wavelength (the length of its central helix), is a different animal to a radio wave with a (forced) 10 mm wavelength (which has no central helix).
Photons have a central/internal part (the central helix) & an external part (the photaeno).
The central helix has a front end & a rear end, & is 1 wavelength long. The wavelength is simply one turn of the helix (there is no wave).
The central helix is an annihilation of aether. Annihilation of aether gives gravitational mass & inertial mass.
The track of the annihilation forms a helix. The helical annihilation moves axially throo the aether at the speed of light c, & along its helical track at more than c.
Photaenos radiate out (to infinity) from the central helix.
Photaenos annihilate aether, hence they have gravitational mass & inertial mass.
Photaenos include a vibration (excitation) of the aether.
Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field & perhaps c in the far field.
Photaenos radiate from fixed locations in the aether, ie from fixed locations along the central helix.
Photaenos do not have a sideways velocity in the aether, ie each photaeno is shed from the central helix as the rear end of the central helix passes.
In a free photon every photaeno is initially attached to the central helix, & later it detaches.
In a confined photon the central helix has formed a continuous loop, in which case the photaenos do not detach (the central helix has no rear end).
Electrons & other elementary particle are confined photons.
Photaenos give us charge fields & electromagnetic fields.
An attached photaeno gives a high field strength, an unattached photaeno gives a weaker field.
Hence a free photon has 3 parts, the central helix, the attached photaenos, & the unattached photaenos. A confined photon has 2 parts, it has no unattached photaenos.
Man-made radio signals are carried by photaenos, they are not carried by photons.
A photon with a (natural) 10 mm wavelength (the length of its central helix), is a different animal to a radio wave with a (forced) 10 mm wavelength (which has no central helix).
Free photons are slowed by the nearness of mass (confined photons), as proven by Shapiro (Shapiro Delay).
Shapiro Delay is due to the photaenos (from the free photon)(& from the confined photon) fighting for the limited use of the aether.
Fighting/congestion slows the photaenos & this slowing feeds back to the central helix, slowing the central helix.
I call this slowing "photaeno drag". It contributes to the bending of light. It gives us diffraction near an edge.
Photaeno drag is very strong inside mass (air water glass). It gives us refraction, & reflexion.
Space is measured with a ruler, Time is measured with a clock, the two can never be combined into the fictitious substance called "spacetime".
@Robert Hunt I can show you electromagnetic transmission but you can't show me spacetime.
And how come that a Light second is a distance?
@@tttzzz1957 A light second is the distance a beam of light travels in a second.186,282 miles.
@@dreamdiction ähh, this was meant ironically. One coordinate of your System is time, the other Distance. Voila, heres your spacetime diagram. Whats wrong with that?
shout out for Gundam fans out there!
If VSL is correct, the curvature of light is accounted for, but what then is the explanation of gravitational attraction? Presumably in the VSL theory, space-time curvature due to mass/energy is absent and space is (pseudo-)Euclidean.
the gravitational field is due to a gradient of c2.
How can you separate Time out from Space Time ?
The rocket illusion on page 12:40 is attempting to educate us that
- light need no medium to propagate.
- rocket travel wouldn’t drag light along.
- passenger felt rocket g.
- passenger felt light bend.
Conclusion?
- g bends light
Demonstration?
- light bent by the sun’s boundary layers.
Question:
Does passenger’s perception makes physics?
Makes physics? Light bend by gravity? No
Consideration:
- light did not felt rocket g
- space walk astronaut did not felt rocket g
- so why should we listen to the passenger?
Acceleration force is a local phenomenon should not to be consider for g field substitution to make new physics.
Light bend around the sun from g field is a coincidence not to be consumed for physics proof. What Einstein kept us from? was the boundary conditions of sun’s atmosphere that increases the permittivity in vacuum from e0 to >e0 hence slow down light speed as if light came from deep space entering earth’s atmosphere, bends. Emissions? Materials such as plasma, ion, electron gas and molecules.
Special relativity is just a theory of hyperbolic perspective derived from an encounter with a hyperbolic equation. All the evidence says it is right. What’s the problem?
The problem is not finding mathematical names, but to explain why reality is as it is. And Minkowski was not helpful in this sense.
@@TheMachian Minkowski is just a formalism. It tends to present a hyperbolic theory is if it were an elliptical theory, and that had me confused for a while. We are starting to see videos on RUclips where the hyperbolic character of the Lorentz transformation is more obvious. My compliments to their makers.
If we could wind back the clock to a meaningful save point, what year would we be in? Is it possible to restart physics from that point?
Maybe in 1905, when Einstain first submitted his PhD thesis of GR.
Edit: ok, even winding the clock back to 400 years might not be even enough to solve this issue
1947 specifically June 2-4
The Shelter Island meetings.
The key point is the 4th dimension (time) is actually real. What's the physical basis of the notion of the '5th' dimension, etc.
Julian Barbour's book is excellent, highly recommend.
Time isn't real. You can't measure "time", you can only measure change. We assume that certain kinds of change take certain amounts of objective time, and that time is a characteristic of the entire Universe, but that is a convenience and not a fact. Time could vary, and if it was local and of chaotic character...or if it was a very large region...etc...we couldn't know it had happened. If varying time and the word "happen" are actually congruent. :-)
No, I'm not talking about gravitational or velocity caused "Time dilation". I mean any cause, including all the ones we don't know, assuming Time is even a "thing".
@@timothyblazer1749 interesting point of view. How do you think gravity works?
@@ultravioletiris6241 given that I studied physics, right now the standard model involving pseudo riemannian spacetime. But that model is currently under attack, and we may be going back to a variable speed of light model, as proposed originally in the early 1900s.
That model would be more in line with measurement.
I'm not saying change doesn't happen. I'm saying our concept of time is not reifiable. Nor is space, for that matter.
@@timothyblazer1749 what would cause the light to be variable? The medium it travels through? So would it have to do with the structure of space?
@@ultravioletiris6241 the gravity, according to the original theory. Since this introduced the possibility of a medium like concept, Einstein and others changed the theory to a geometric one. They wanted to end the "aether" notion.
I don't have a horse in this race btw. :-)
Unzicker is the best thing to happen to punk rock since Iggy & The Stooges.
Im James Williamson (iggys guitar player) and I endorse this message. Ok, not the Iggy one but he lives only a few miles away in Saratoga,Xa. So close enuf.
Is there a point to this or is he merely the male version of Sabine Hossenfelder.....?
No. Sabine Hossenfelder presents arguments, and does not fill time with claims and quotes that amount to nothing of consequence.
Hossenfelder is at least not ONLY for them clicks un here....
Reality on human is reality based on speed of light , Planck constant. So reality itself is conditional reality.
"c" allows the universe to be divided up into independent regions where what happens in other regions has no major effect. It may very well be due to a processing limit in the ability of the structure of the universe to absorb information about what is going on and calculate what should be the results (such as doing a computation as to what speed and angle a pool ball should ricochet at when hit bounces off one of the rails or another ball). This may seem odd, but SOMETHING has to occur that determines the calculated final results of all interactions going on at any moment in the universe; just saying that it "naturally happens" means nothing. The "Aether" was eliminated when it was found no longer necessary for figuring out what happens to light, but only when another mechanism could be found that did the same thing, but without the problems of that fictitious stuff. You could not just say that an amorphous concept created the final correct results of your measurements. If each effect was completely local about its immediate area, then the speed of light could be essentially infinite as its information could be used very quickly to cause results to distant objects, but a slow speed of light implies that their are global (long range) situations that need to be calculated too (entanglement results, for example). Does this imply that the universe is a computer program of some sort with the value of c being the clock speed?
Of course, saying any result "just naturally happened" is generally unhelpful. However, there is a lot of room between natural happening and actual calculation. Since nobody knows, you could say, like in your post, that this universe thing, program, multiple programs, whatever it is, is performing calculations to determine outcomes. I wouldn't personally, since I think calculation is far too high-level a phenomenon. Regardless of whether it's a simulation or not, I don't think the driving force of the universe is calculation. I think (and I have absolutely no proof or basis for this, I just find this idea very satisfying) that the driving force is incredibly simple. Irreducibly simple, even, but working in such massive parallel as to produce rules that look like our maths as an emergent effect.
The Galton board is a good analogy. The output is a normal distribution (binomial really, but for large numbers of marbles, it approaches normal). Plotting a normal distribution is a non-trivial thing to do, it involves Euler's constant, exponents, and the square root of 2 pi. Yet, out it comes, from some pegs and some marbles. No calculations of any kind have been done. The distribution comes from the simple event of a marble either going left or right at a peg, but multiplied by many marbles and many pegs.
It would be very satisfying to me if the universe were like this but far, far simpler than even a left/right choice. A sea of fundamental events, clacking away right down to the Planck length and beyond.
Let’s not confuse the model with the phenomenon. Mathematics is a model _only_
Lorentz??
1. In what respect does this new theory differ from Petr Beckmann's Galilean Electrodynamics?
2. If the simultaneous contraction of measuring rods in a gravitational field masks the variability in the speed of light, what exactly is "speed" supposed to mean? We don't need yet another principally unobservable bogus 'phenomenon'.
3. As Maxwell derived the speed of light from two other constants, why arbitrarily choose one of those as a constant to be eliminated, instead of accepting them both as fundamental (for the moment) and disposing of c? If c is then treated as variable, one would have to treat either or both of the other supposed constants as variable. If only one were found to be variable, it could perhaps ultimately be derived from the other and from the gravitational constant.
Of those two "constants" do recall that only one of them is directly measured - the other is derived from knowing the other constant.
Thank you