THIS is How we BUILD Special Relativity
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- In this video, I want to walk you through the process of discovering special relativity. The problems that lead to this discovery, how physicists tried to tackle them and how Einstein finally resolved everything.
If you enjoyed this video you can buy me a coffee here www.buymeacoffee.com/pprobnsol Much appreciated :)
I came back to watch your very early video. I must say you have improved in your delivery greatly. I love your work, please keep doing them. 👍
Heh this was the first on camera test it feels like quite some time ago :D Thanks the kind words :)
Hyperbolic is the magic word. Maxwell’s equations are a hyperbolic system. They are invariant under the hyperbolic Lorentz transformation. Special relativity is a theory of hyperbolic perspective. The twins’ paradox is just the hyperbolic triangle inequality. The Fitzgerald contraction is the hyperbolic counterpart of the elliptical Uccello contraction.
If Special Relativity is a theory of hyperbolic perspective why then does it use Euclidean Mathematics like Pythagoras? Honest question.
@@jewulo SR can either use a hyperbolic rotation on a space-time diagram, or it can use a simple rotation on a complex plane, as proposed by Minkowski. These approaches are isomorphic to each other. I prefer the former which is less confusing.
Yes, keep going and I look forward to the book! Keep the brain oxygenated too
the future million+ subscribers channel... in my reference frame at leasl
The short answer is as follows.
MMX was built on a wrong concept of Aether responsible for the null detection. Following that, Relativity was built on the false null.
You are so good at this bro
Excellent!
Can you maybe talk a bit about "neo-Lorentzian" theories which allegedly still permit aether and have physical causes for Lorentz transformations, but are abandoned with time because Einstein's relativity is simpler and more elegant?
"naive approach" , best disproof of aether i have heard so far , and i am not kidding 🎖👏👏👏.
Well, there is a huge history around the dragging aether approach so it would deserve a whole new video about it and I might do it one day but basically dragging aether at least to me seems the same as trying to save the geocentric model of our solar system. Physicists proposed many different ways this aether behaved in the proximity of matter to keep it consistent with the experiment but there was always some issue in the end. Giving the aether away completely resolved everything so elegantly that it reminds me of finally accepting a heliocentric model of our solar system. I just wanted to mention that this approach existed and maybe later I will expand on that.
@@lukasrafajpps pls , tell me those issues .
@@lukasrafajpps just skip straight to the gravity entrained aether.
@@m.c.4674 we,, the problem with these hypotheses is that while you can explain a negative outcome of experiments like Michaelson-Morley which have a negative outcome. You have problems with experiments that are capable to measure non-inertial effects of our planets like its rotation those are called higher-order effects. If the aether is gravitationally bound to our planet, we should not see a positive result in the Michaelson-Gale-Pearson experiment. You convinced me that I need to talk about it more so I will do a separate video on this but I have already planned the next two videos so maybe after that.
@@lukasrafajpps do you know that the earth core rotates faster than the Earth's crust , yet both the earth core and crust make a orbit around the sun in one year .
I also imagine the ether ,or field or whatever you want to call it, to be be made of extremely small "substances" (loops/strings/ or whatever again) that its movement is determined by the "density" of matter. The higher the density, the higher will be the displacement of the ether (or whatever you want to call it). A black hole would be dense enough to cause complete displacement of the "ether". Therefore, being a place in which there is not mixing between matter as we know it and "ether". Because of that, when big massive black holes move or converge together, they are able to cause significant "wind" of the "ether", which is now detected with a different name, gravitacional waves.
A mechanical elites was asked what vacuum means. In his reply - vacuum is empty of matter.
An electrical engineer was given the same question - he replies, vacuum is empty of matter but Aether.
Theoretically an electric source fail to construct or launch e field in vacuum not filled filled with Aether.
How to proof Aether exist in vacuum?
It is unnecessary to use the MMX, just measure the permittivity of Aether in vacuum and you can tell us if Aether exists.
Aether is a fluid that has no physical but electrical property, with a permittivity, e0, measuring 8.8541817128*10-12 Farad per meter.
Therefore Aether is a component necessary to permit (e field) and (displacement charge q) to launch into the vacuum for light to propagate.
Furthermore, Aether always attached to matter, size from subatomic particles, to atoms, to molecules, to ions, to solid, to liquid, to gas and to plasma. When gas, liquid, solid moves Aether drag along with it, also drag with the MMX apparatus.
On the other hand, from a macrocosm scale, Aether as a fluid (but solid) continues to flow and drag remotely and indirectly at a mean velocity dominated by mean distance and mean mass of bodies in the vicinity.
Ignorance and avoid to this comment is not a nice way to defend this channel.
If Newton and Einstein have their mathematics, I have mine.
In Michalson-Morley experiment no shifts. Due to SToR easy to explain: wawelength of light shrinks the same rate as space in direction system travel, so when recombine in detector = no phase shift.
But Q: from Earth point of view: no movement of system and so light travel to spliter/mirror/detector in straight lines. But what is the view of outside observer for which systems? When you emit light isn`t mirrors will be displaced? Whats going on?
I am a senior PhD physicist and Relativity is wrong! Once this is understood, unification is possible. When are scientists going to wake up and look at the experiments and theory that prove that the speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, which has now been verified by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Can u talk about Time… what is it? QM has it going both ways forward and backwards!
please keep the series going ❤️
Before I ask, I want to say that I am not a physicist. I am just a curious person who enjoys physics and is trying to understand what is going on. I like your videos a lot and I look forward to the future ones.
Now here is the question. What if the speed of the ether is so small compared to the speed of light that we would not be able to detect any interference with the dimensions of this study?
What if the amplitude created by displacement caused by earth is neglectable and only a displacement cause by massive black holes can be measured. Why isn't that at least possible?
well there is a minimal speed aether must have since the earth is orbiting the sun with 30km/s and therefore we are constantly changing our direction so if the aether wind is zero now it wont be in half a year. Knowing this minimal velocity we can determine the sensitivity our measuring aparatus must have
Thanks; I really enjoyed this introduction (and already also some other video ;-)).
Nice video but I feel kind of sick seeing the rope hanging from the lamp having a friend that did it. Might be just a decoration but please go to see someone if you have these sorts of idies, dont stay alone with them. I care about what you do, since I've found your channel I've been watching many of your videos and they have been very interesting and helpful
Oh, I am sorry for your friend but this rope has nothing to do with such thoughts. Originally my roommate brought it to train making knots for climbing but after we learned the 8 know we hanged the rope on the lamp. Then my other friend saw it and made it look like a real hangman's noose as a joke but I forgot to remove it while recording the video.
So very clear! More videos please.
What to me was an eye-opener in special relativity, is that it is, philosophically speaking, a _much more profound change in understanding the world_ than general relativity is!
General relativity is, mathematically speaking, much more complex because you need to learn about calculus of several dimensions first, and then Tensor Analysis. For special relativity you need no more than high-school algebra.
There are still huge puzzles in special relativity that nobody has resolved philosophically. For example the strange fact that Einstein in his original paper stated that electromagnetic waves can move _through empty space _*_without_*_ requiring a medium!_
But this begs the following question. Is _empty space itself_ not a medium?
Also, notice that electromagnetic waves have the curious property that they can generate themselves! They indeed _do not need_ any medium. Not even empty space! This is something Einstein missed!
Maybe electromagnetic waves are not just moving _in_ space, but they _even construct space?_ That is my hypothesis. And if so, then they, indeed, do not require any medium! But then the theory of electromagnetism itself is a far deeper theory than we all think! Still, this hypothesis opens a huge can of worms of new questions!
Another problem is that in special relativity the (moving) present is seen as a moving point on the time-axis in Minkowskian 4D space. Moreover, the direction of this (moving) present canno be reversed. So, according to special relativity, the past, the present and the future are equally real. So, in principle, time machines that can make us _jump_ to ay point in the past or in the future should be possible. But we only _observe_ in the present.
Why is that?
_Basically,_ this means that the whole idea of spacetime of Minkowski is refuted by observation! This _does not_ prove that special relativity theory is wrong. It only shows that _the spacetime modeling_ of the equations of special relativity introduced by Hermann Minkowski allows for more than what we all observe. Namely, the simple fact that we can only observe _in_ the present points to the simple fact that _maybe_ the present is all there is! Therefore we do not observe _in_ the present, but we simply observe _the present,_ because it _is_ all that is _really real!_ And that is why time machines that bring us to the past will never exist. You cannot make yourself appear to a place or time that does not exist!
Einstein was aware of this very obvious fact, and it was a real headache for him. He showed this when, on the funeral of his friend besso, he expressed this frustration as: 'believing that only the present is real is a persistent superstition'. Besso died a year before Einstein. So Einsten apparently struggled with this problem almost during his entire life. He didn't see how he cold free himself from this 'superstition'. And that for a simple reason. _It isn't a superstition!_
So, there are big things missing in the special theory of relativity in its present state of development and understanding. There is _really_ more to investigate! Even in the special theory of relativity. _Because_ it is, mathematically, so simple, almost all physicists overlook how much questions the special theory of relativity still rises. Something can be mathematically very simpole, but philosophically still tremendously deep!
There are many things in special relativity that many haven't noticed because of its mathematical simplicity. For example, take the appearance everywhere of sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). Notice that this can be decomposed into Sqrt[(1 + v/c)] * Sqrt[(1 - v/c)]. You might say: _so what?_ Well, these factors, (1 + v/c) and (1 - v/c) are formulas for _Doppler shifts!_ There exists a very interesting approach to special relativity, which is based on something called k-calculus, which offers a very elegant way to derive the Lorentz transformations, and which is based on this idea of doppler shifts. It took me several decades to see how relevant this is, because it hints at a connection between special relativity and quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is, after all, all about waves!
At present I am working all of this out in a book I am writing about spacetime and its connection to quantum mechanics. Einstein tried to derive quantum mechanics from his relativity theories. This cannot be done. But the converse, deriving the special theory of relativity from quantum mechanics _can be done!_
By the way. I am a physicist.
Thanks for the comment. I think almost any theory in modern physics can have almost arbitrary number of interpretations and the equations can't distinguish them apart which is kinda frustrating and interesting at the same time. It is only when I started doing these videos I learned a lot about more fundamental things about special relativity and still there is a lot more. As you mention the sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) it is kinda interesting that such terms are not restricted to special relativity but if you learn about topological solitons as described by Sine-Gordon equation you will find these terms there automatically and it will be Lorentz invariant but the way how people derived the equation has nothing to do with special relativity, it is just a series of pendulums and you study how perturbations move in this system.
@@lukasrafajpps Thanks for your remakr about this Sine_Gordon equation and its soliton solutions. I had never heard of it before. Solitons, yes. But not this equation.
By the way. I think you are wrong in thinking that these solutions have nothing to do with special relativity. In fact, your remark solved one of the things I was wrestling with in developing my own spacetime theory.
To give a hint. Have you ever wondered where the laws of nature themselves come from? If you can answer this question, you might find out the connection by yourself.
To give another hint. Look at what Feynman had to say about the phases of quantum waves.
@@lukasrafajpps *I think almost any theory in modern physics can have almost arbitrary number of interpretations and the equations can't distinguish them apart which is kinda frustrating and interesting at the same time. *
Ever wondered about what a differential equations _without_ initial conditions actually tells us?
They tell us_what is impossible!_ They are _exclusions!_ That is why there are, indeed, infinitely many interpretations of any theory of physics.
The laws of nature alre all formulated as differential equations. And, again, without initial conditions, tell us what is false, and not what is true. They tell us what to exclude, and not what to include. They are what you might call universal falsifiers.
The same applies to axiomatic systems of mathematics. They tell us what to exclude.
Seen like this it is not surprising that the equations of quantum mechanics are not such, that they lead to several outcomes which actually occur, even with a complete set of initial conditions. Reality is just not strictly causal. Something that physicists had, and still have a hard time to swallow. They _insist_ on just _one_ interpretation as _the_ model. That is why there are so many interpretations of quantum mechanics. They are all formulated by physicists who have an (often totally subconscious) belief in the validity of the strict principle of causality.
Especially the Many World Interpretation of quantum mechanics I find totally ridiculous! And that for one reason only. If the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics would be correct, then this implies that the law of conservation of energy would not be valid, because all of these worlds need the total amount of energy present in any world. So the total energy of the world would constantly multiply.
Is it so hard to accept, that at any moment many outcomes are only possible, but only one or a limited number actually materializes? These people just do'n't understand basc probability theory, just because their understanding is blocked by their blind unconscious belief in strict causality. They try to conform reality to strict causality, instead of adapting their thinking and to dare to doubt strict causality.
Ever since I think in both inclusions and exclusions I no longer have been frustrated by the many interpretations. I see it as a power, not as a shortcoming.
Within mathematics there are these two camps, called the Intuitionists, or Brauwerians, who believe basically that only that what can be constructed makes sense. And there are Hilbertians, who think that mathematics is all a matter of excluding or, as they say it, 'only not being wrong'.
I see both as complementary. The intuitionists construct. And then the axiomaticists test whether those constructions are logically sound, through making clear what these models exclude, _through_ axiomatization. That is why there are applied mathematicians and theoretical mathematicians. And why there are engineers and physicists.
@@konradswart4069 Well, interpretations can be useful as we can make some connections in the model we would otherwise not be able to do but those interpretations are coming just from our intuition given by evolution to survive on this planet. Different species would have different interpretations of the same physics. So I think there is simply not one universal correct interpretation as there is not one universal frame of reference. But this is not just a problem for physics. Mathematics is the same and just simply different notation can give you a different interpretation of the equation.
@@lukasrafajpps My point was that our brain does not only understand through interpretation, but also through eliination.
An infinite set cannot be interpreted or visualized, for example because infinite just means _not finite!_ The set of natural numbers for example is infinite because it _does not have a largest number!_ So, you understand what an infinite set is by first picturing a finite set with a largest menber, and then you 'look over the fence' so to speak, and see that there are more numbers further removed from zero, no matter _whare_ you set the fence. This is what you understand as infinite = not finite.
Let me dare to say something else. People are confused about consciousness, because they do not make a distinction between experience and elimination. We can experience without being conscious, something that happens in dreamless sleep.
The function of consciousness is, I think, _elimination!_ The distinction of being awake and being in dreamless sleep is that when awake we also _eliminate_ the absurd, by logic and by the data of the senses. That is why when we are awake our brains are less active than when we are in dreamsleep.
So, you have experience and you have consciousness. The function of consciousness is to eliminate mistakes.
Setting up models is the same as making constructions that allow us to _experience_ our theories and hypotheses through visualizations. And differential equations and abstract algebra and the like as consciousness-based, and are _eliminators!_ That is why you cannot build 'a' model of a group, for example. The axioms of a group just tell you what you must _exclude_ from the concept of group.
I see 18 and 19th mathematics as 'experience based' And the emergence of abstract algebra, the axiomatic method as 'consciousness based'. It is thanks to higher mathematics in the form of operators and the axiomatic method that we succeeded to make our own consciousness as a tool of understanding.
My point is: there is not just understanding through models, but there is also understanding through elimination. Understanding through models is experience-based and understanding through abstrations like axioms and operators like the differential and integral operator is consciousness-based understanding, and therefore _is not_ about models. Model building is just _half_ of mathematics!
Therefore, being a mathematician or a physicist is not _just_ about creating understanding through models, but _also_ understanding through elimination.
Well done !!!1
Wouldn't ether wind which blow from right to left slow it down on way to mirror than speed it up on the way from mirror?
Both, it would be c+v from the middle to the mirror and c-v from mirror to the middle. If this gets calculated you get that the time interval is dependent as 1/(1-v^2/c^2) where v is the velocity of the aether wind. In the perpendicular direction you get the same factor but squared and therefore time intervals are different.
For the folk of today, one of the main problems is that students are first taught to accept lies. For instance, they are told that if a truck is moving at 50 MPH, and someone on the truck throws a baseball in the same direction as is the truck moving, and throws the ball at 20 MPH, that the total velocity relative to the ground is 50 + 20 = 70 MPH. Of course this is total nonsense. And so this throws students way off track. And so the students don't even understand that when the baseball is thrown, it is not even going in the same direction as is the truck, even though it appears to be. Everything present within space-time is always on the move, and the magnitude of that motion is identical to the magnitude of motion of which a photon of light has as it moves across space. And so the only thing that can be altered, is the direction of that ongoing travel within the 4D environment known as space-time. And to prove that this is the case, if you create a simple geometric representation of this ongoing motion along with the changing of direction within space-time, you can use it to derive the SR mathematical equations, and complete this task in mere minutes.
It is true though most kids are not gonna use special relativity in their whole life but most of them will need to use Galilean transformations at some point so it makes sense to teach them this way. It is always about the majority. I know that using 4D representation gives you an easier way to think about special relativity but it robs you of the process of discovery and the problems physicists had to face at that time which I find very interesting. I will of course generalize everything in this 4D way eventually.
@@lukasrafajpps BY the way, YT deleted my exposure of my YT videos. do a little research, and you will find them.
not sure what you are saying .
it should be 70 mph if the ground is used as station frame .
if the baseball is used as stationary reference frame, then the truck would be moving away from the baseball .
i think it is going in the same direction relative to the ground , but not the same direction relative to the baseball.
@@m.c.4674 This is true just effectively but it is not true in general. If you are talking about low velocities meaning v/c
@@m.c.4674 Actually, the baseball is always in motion within the 4D environment known space-time. The magnitude of that motion is identical to the motion of photons of light as they move across space. All that can be changed, is the direction of that ongoing motion within space-time. Of course since we are always confined to the "NOW" time, we can no see this as so, but instead can only see changes in velocity across space due to not being able to see 4 dimensionally.
So if there is no wind there is no air?
The Earth is orbiting the Sun and therefore constantly changes its state of motion and therefore it is not possible to be at rest relative to the Aether wind. There are dragging aether hypotheses but they had problems with other experiments as well. Einstein showed that we don't need Aether and still reconcile electromagnetism with mechanics.
Sorry but every main claim you make here is deeply false! Starting with your promise to be « accurate », which is already broken immediately in your first least false claim that the four equations of EM that you exhibit are « Maxwell’s equations ». They are not, but Hertz’s ones, brilliantly reformulated in 1885 by Hertz, in this compact form of 4 « vectorial » (and « pseudovectorial) equations, from Maxwell original 20 equations. But ok it’s the least of your inaccuracy because Maxwell had done the main job. But Hertz synthesis nevertheless in such compact and fertile (almost) symmetric form, will be crucial for further discoveries in the field, in particular relativistic invariance.
More troublesome is your claim that Newton advocated for « absolute space » and « absolute time ». This is utterly inaccurate. On the contrary, Newton make it very clear in his writings that he distinguishes radically « absolute space » on one hand, which is mathematic, and « relative space » which is the imperfect physical space. Same for time. Clocks for Newton are therefore necessarily relative and imperfect, whereas « time » in his mind is an absolute god given chronos. But ok lets say that you were lazy to be accurate and said « Newtonian » without actually « thinking of Newton ». But you should know Machs analysis who debunked this common misconception about Newton views.
Then you claim that physicists created the concept of aether (at Maxwell time) to deal with their belief of waves propagating in a medium. This is completely false. The « aether » concept is old like humanity. It was the corner stone of all initiatic school : Greeks, Chinese, Egyptian, Indians, etc. To make a long story short it’s the « fifth element », or « «the fifth principle », or the « fifth essence (Quintessence). And it is not restricted to light and EM waves, though they necessarily fall in his reign. But that’s another story. So what is true is that Newton was more or less the « last » alchimist before being the « first » physician. And by Maxwell time, alchemy was underground and physicist turned more and more to exclusive rational mind instead of initiatic one. They turned their eyes less toward the inner self than toward the phenomenological world, on the impulse of Copernicus and Galileo. So they borrow, in fact highjacked the old central concept of aether, and used it in a very restricted and distorted way. Namely here, as a « luminiferous aether » with weird « mechanical » properties. In particular an enormous inner « tension » or « hardness » to let light vibrate so fast.
Ok but there is more of your first least accuracies, unfortunately. And a dramatic one indeed when you jump without transition from Michelson Morley failure experiment, to…tatammmm, the savor (in September 1905) : Einstein!??? What sort of junk historic inaccuracy is that? It’s complete fantasy. What actually happened is that Lorentz and Poincaré were watching very closely those experiments. The ones before Michelson and Morley one. And the two main ones that Michelson and Morley did. The first one check the « first order ». The « aether wind » was not dismissed but not proven either. So they pushed to the second order of precision. And same « null result ».
Lorentz still believed that the « aether wind » will be seen by pushing to higher precision. But Poincaré said no, this will not happen, because the problem is much more fundamental! And why did he knew that? First because he had previously realized, in 1885, that the aether concept played no actual role in Hertz brilliant theory of EM. He from then knew that the concept was obsolete, even though he knew well that physicist will keep using such rhetoric for some time.
Second he had created in 1885-1890 the revolutionary clock’s synchronization algorithm, which is the actual core of Relativity. And with that he had thus already the conceptual keys to know that a much deeper revolution was emerging.
And so, when Lorentz tried to make sense of the null result of MM experiments, he imagine an actual « length contraction » and came out with incorrect « space-time » transformations, that Poincaré corrected immediately and proved them rigourously based on crucial universal group theory arguments, which gives them their true universality and imposes a finite speed limit for information transmission. Which happens to be up to now, invariant light speed. This is the now well known Poincaré(-« Lorentz ») group which summarizes the entire theory of Relativity.
Poincaré corrected also Lorentz actual « length contraction » beliefs and showed that this was a relativistic effect of how things appears to a relatively moving observer. And Poincaré officially extended the classical Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei principle of relativity restricted to mechanics, to a universal principle reigning on all Physics, including EM and Gravitation.
And on « time », Poincaré never talked about silly things as « time dilation », since « time » as « space » are not physically observable. They are mathematical ones. Instead Poincaré exposed clearly the relative character of clocks, according to his 1885-1890 revolutionary clock’s synchronization algorithm which is the physical core of the theory of Relativity.
Finally, ending the century so brilliantly, in Mathematics and in Physics, Poincaré supported strongly Lorentz theory of EM (in competition with Hertz also brilliant one), despite the fact that it was suffering from a serious disease of violating the sacro saint principle of Action-Reaction. Better, he immediately finds a way to heal it and save it by postulating that massless light must carry nevertheless inertia. And in his famous article written for Lorentz jubilee, he brilliantly explore the consequences of such inertia to EM waves and established moreover the famous equation E=mc^2 (falsely attributed to Einstein in mainstream propaganda).
And so in 1900 the theory of Relativity is discovered and achieved after 15 years of brilliant work from Poincaré and Lorentz.
In 1902 Poincaré publishes his best seller world wide red : « La science et l’hypothèse », where he explores in depth the concept of « space », « time », « mass » and « energy », exhibiting the fundamental concepts of the revolutionary new born theory of Relativity that he often call « the new mechanic ». We know by Solovine direct testimony that such best seller was extensively red and studied by Einstein and his « Academia » team (Mileva, Besos, Solovine, etc). Which proves now that Einstein lied when he pretended ignoring Poincaré work on the theory of Relativity, which is even a blatant lye for someone payed in Bern to read all that was published and which was also a reviewer in the Annalen der Physics driven by Planck.
In 1904 on Poincaré recommendation, Lorentz checks all aspects of the coherence of Poincaré revolutionary theory of Relativity with EM. And Poincaré exposes publicly this new mechanics and the crisis on physical principles, in the international scientific conference of St Louis.
Finally the 5 June 1905, in front of the Paris academy of Science, Poincaré gives the final touch to the achieved theory of Relativity, by completing the 4-vector « space-time » quadratic invariant with the EM ones, and more importantly, applying the new theory of Relativity to Gravitation, by exhibiting its relativistic covariant form. And ends so brilliantly his 5 June 1905 article by proving the mathematical possibility (contrary to Laplace veto) and predicting gravitational waves (falsely attributed to Einstein, by the same mainstream propaganda).
And so the theory of Relativity was then achieved after 20 years of Poincaré and Lorentz revolutionary work, that Einstein and Mileva hadn’t even published a line on it. They simply admitted to have red some of Lorentz work, but lied blatantly on their alledge ignorance of Poincaré work. In their September 1905 « article » they fail to establish « Lorentz (incorrect) transformations » but surprisingly exhibit Poincaré correct ones without being able to establish them? How can since they ignore Poincaré work? And more dramatically they contradict their « own two postulates (that are Poincaré ones) » four times in the article, by adding to the speed of light (that they note V instead of c) other relative velocities. Which proves that they don’t even know what they are talking about.
It’s even awkward for Einstein and Mileva to state the invariance of the speed of light as a principle. Because what is actually the core of Relativity is the group structure of Poincaré transformations. Which structures imposes the existence of a speed limit to usefull information exchanges. Here is the revolution compare to (abusively) so called « newtonian physics », since in the later, it is arbitrarily supposed that something like a « God » can carry usefull information at infinite speed. This was a religious belief rather than a scientific one based on actual experience.
Poincaré formulation based on Poincaré group is far better and the good rigourous approach. It imposes, on very general group structure (that are physically extremely natural and awaited), the existence of a speed limit. Such speed is one in natural unit. The fact that light is up to now the « fastest traveler and information carrier » is « secondary ». The crucial thing is that such a finite limit exist. There is the core of Poincaré revolution of the theory of Relativity. It’s fully a new mechanic.
Since you have posted comment like this to several videos I think I should say something. Firstly, if you tried to make a RUclips video with this much history it would be a 5 hour mess that nobody would probably watch (but maybe like 10 smaller videos could be interesting). The points you bring are just extensions that could be said if there was time but in a RUclips video there is not and you should take it into account. For example, the equations are known to be Maxwell's equations even though it is not the original form Maxwell proposed but calling them anything else you would achieve nothing but confusion. Nor am I saying anything except that Newtonian physics has absolute space and time since the equations of motion are covariant under Galilean transformations. (It is a common practice to regard the non-relativistic mechanics as Newtonian) The rest of your comment I don't understand at all since I didn't say what Lorentz or Poncaire were doing after the MM experiment and it wasn't even my intention. My intention was to mention that there was a failed attempt to find Aether wind and that Einstein was able to create a theory that did not need it. (Even though it wasn't due to MM experiment)
You can write a comment like this in every video which is fine but you should maybe consider regard your comment as extension knowledge for curious viewers rather than attacking me.
@@lukasrafajpps I’m not attacking you (because you’re virtual, but actually smart, interesting and passionate by Physics), but I’m attacking surely your claims, which way to often are false or « simply » inaccurate, in blatant contradiction with your explicit promised goal to be accurate, but moreover to scientific rigor and historical respect. Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.
The theory of Relativity has a very precise and now known history. And is technicality entangled in such history like a precious gem in rocks. So why don’t you learn it to make your record straight instead of repeating like a perrot a fake story that you have been told. Having a PhD doesn’t mean much, it’s like a black belt in martial arts, it’s just the beginning. And if you studied seriously, you probably didn’t have much time to read the actual papers on Relativity. And therefore you should follow Abel and Galois advises, not to ever learn, except from the original sources.
So what teaches these original sources on Relativity ?
1) 1885 Poincaré understands and advocates before everybody that aether concept is obsolete, after analyzing Hertz 1885 theory of EM where such concept proves in fact unnecessary. This crucial understanding will give him the key to interpret correctly the failure of MM experiments.
2) 1885-1890 Poincaré creates the revolutionary clock’s synchronization algorithm which is the core of the universal theory of Relativity. And his main teacher at Polytechnic, Le Cornu, makes extremely precise experiments on light speed, which confirms its invariant measure regardless the relative speed of the observer, just as Maxwell famous formula linking light speed to vacuum constants.
3) 1895 After several « failures » of increasingly precise experiments, especially Michelson Morley at first and second order, Lorentz still believes strongly in the concept of aether and aether wind, that more precise experiments will show, he believes, the reality. But Poincaré says no, this will most likely not happen, whatever the order, because the problem is much more fundamental, since he already knows, contrary to Lorentz, that aether concept is obsolete. In such crisis, Lorentz attempts to explain MM failure, by imagining an actual length contraction and « time » dilation, even if his « time » is just for him a mathematical artefact without any physical meaning, which he expresses in mathematical transformations . But again Poincaré puts the record straight, as a brilliant mathematician and theoretical physicist, by correcting Lorentz original incorrect transformations, and proving the right ones using universal group argument. Exposing here the relativistic quadratic space-time invariant in the Poincaré (« Lorentz ») metric (which have never been, Lorentz one!). This being the « Lorentz »-Poincaré group in which the entire theory of Relativity is sealed.
4) 1900 Poincaré recognize the superiority of Lorentz theory of EM over Hertz one, despite its critical illness, of violating the sacro saint principle of Action-Reaction. But discovers immediately a way to heal it and save it : by postulating that massless light and EM waves must carry inertia. In this crucial article written for Lorentz jubilee, Poincaré exhibit the consequences of such inertia and proves the famous formula E=mc^2 (falsely attributed to Einstein). Moreover, Poincaré officially extends the Galilean principle of relativity, initially restricted to mechanics, to all physics (including EM and gravitation), and calls it « the (universal) principle of Relativity, which reigns on all physics.
5) 1902 Poincaré publish his best seller « La science et l’hypothèse » where he discuss deeply on space and time, and exposes the main concepts of the theory of Relativity (based on his universal principle), that he often call « the new mechanics ». Best seller which is immediately studied extensively by Einstein and his « Academia » team (Mileva, Besos, Solovine, etc) until 1905.
6) 1904 Lorentz checks that Poincaré theory of Relativity is coherent in all aspects of EM and publish a long detailed article on this revolution. And Poincaré exposes the theory of Relativity (that he called the new mechanic) in St Louis international scientific conference, with Langevin.
7) 5 June 1905 Poincaré gives the final touch to the achieved theory of Relativity in front of the Paris Academy, by exhibiting the complementary EM quadrivector invariants to the space-time ones, and more crucially applying the achieved theory of Relativity to gravitation. And concludes his article by predicting gravitational waves by proving their mathematical coherence, contrary to Laplace « veto ».
So what do you mean by « on MM failed experiment, Einstein came »? Einstein hadn’t written a line on the subject that the theory of Relativity was achieved, after 20 years of Poincaré and Lorentz revolutionary brilliant work. It’s not because so many perrots distord the historical records that you have to be one more. And speaking about Einstein Mileva article, have you actually red it? First the two first principles are blatantly Poincaré ones. But the second on light show that Einstein and Mileva didn’t understand deeply the theory of Relativity. Because contrary to what you claim over and over, it’s not this fact on light which is crucial, but the very natural postulate that Poincaré transformations form a group. And because they do, this implies the necessary existence of a speed limit. That’s fundamental and revolutionary. It’s actual measure is secondary. Worse, it’s equal to one in natural units.
Moreover the rest of Einstein Mileva (September 1905) article is a joke. They fail indeed to establish Poincaré (« Lorentz ») transformations. But worse, they contradict their initial postulate by assuming four times in the article, that some velocities should add up with the speed of light (which they note V instead of c). Which is enough to prove that they don’t even understand what they are talking about and made up such an article in a hurry to try to claim others revolutionary work.
How then can you say straight face that « Einstein solved MM failure ». You can’t be more inaccurate historically and technically.
And finishing with GR, it was Grossman who discovered its field covariant equations in 1912, not Einstein in 1915, who rejected them radically, which brought an end to their collaboration. Einstein abandoned the subject. And only when he visited Hilbert in 1915, that he realized the great German mathematician had found the same equations than Grossman three years earlier, and by the same method : Euler-Lagrange equations for a pseudo Riemann metric Lagrangian.
Here again Einstein published in a hurry to claim his, the work of others. But he actually did nothing with those equations. Worse, he tried to justify them by predicting « with them » the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury. Bad luck again for him, Schwarzschild wrote him immediately a personal letter, to warn him that his approximations are incorrect (thus his article is a waist), but that it’s not so dramatic since he (Schwarzschild) just found an exact solution. Einstein will never publish a line on the subject.
Those are some crucial historical facts that changes quite a lot in the perception and transmission of such theory. The Theory of Relativity is the Poincaré group. That’s all. It is not « Einstein two postulate ». The theory was discovered and built by Poincaré with some help of Lorentz, from 1885 to 5 June 1905. It was achieved in 1900 with Poincaré universal principle of Relativity, revolutionary clock’s synchronization algorithm, obsolescence of aether concept and the Poincaré group. Applied to gravitation the 5 June 1905.
In conclusion it doesn’t take more time to spread the truth than misleading propaganda. But even if it did, Science has no time to waist with the last. This is why Poincaré starts his second best seller of 1905 « Science et méthode » by these prophetic words « the only goal of Science is the quest for Truth »
@@mpcformation9646 You clearly didn't understand my message so never mind
@@lukasrafajpps Here again you are wrong! I perfectly understood your message which is full of stonewalling, side walks and weird « excuses ». I didn’t detail the history of Relativity for you to make historic videos as you argue. But for you not to have anymore bad excuses to make misleading shortcuts. Like the front drawing of one of your video squeezing Newton between Maxwell and Einstein, with « sorry Isaac ». This is propaganda. You’re spreading fairytales in a cartoon form, not Science nor History. And the rhetoric inside the video is coherent with such pictural propaganda. Newton didn’t believe physical space was absolute. Einstein didn’t invent nor discover Relativity, therefore didn’t overtake Newton. And Maxwell, besides his first formulation of EM using quaternions, made attempts to « physically » describe aether with Descartes like curls. So everything is wrong in this front image of the video, and your contend follows this image. In other words for « selling videos » and making views, you are spreading lies and misinformation, misleading shortcuts and upside down historical facts. In blatant contradiction with you promised « accuracy » and pretention to « debunk» misconceptions.
Far from your « cartoon propaganda » the theory of Relativity is fully contained in the Poincaré group, not in those two « Einstein axioms », which first one is (a obvious plagiarism of) Poincaré 1895-1900 revolutionary principle of Relativity, and the second one an ill stated and misunderstood disguised of Poincaré fundamental group structure and hyperbolic metric (completely falsely « mainstreamly » named « Lorentzien »). All that which was settled in 1895-1900 Poincaré work. Where as a brilliant theoretical physicist and mathematician, he furthermore exposed that such (Poincaré) boosts were in fact rotations in hyperbolic metric, and that the Lie algebra of his Poincaré group, allows the theory of Relativity to deal perfectly with (properly) accelerated frames via infinitesimal Poincaré « coordinates » transformations, in other words working in the locally tangent bundle.
All that which was totally ignored by Einstein and Mileva which were students, amators and sadly, plagiarists. The reason why they made a total mess of Poincaré theory of Relativity. A mess that you continue spreading with massive inaccuracy, historic ones as technical ones. It’s heavily misleading to pretend as Einstein-Mileva did and as you do, that « their » two axioms build the theory of Relativity. They do not. You first need crucially Poincaré 1885-1890 clock’s synchronization algorithm which is the physical core of the theory. Then you need crucially the group structure of the Poincaré group, in order to do anything like composing boosts. And thirdly you need to explicit the « type of Relativity » the « (Poincaré) Principle of Relativity » is about. Namely the covariance of all physical laws under Poincaré group, which fundamental « space-time » invariant turns out to be the Poincaré quadratic hyperbolic one of signature + - - -.
In summery the theory of Relativity is Poincaré 1885-1905 master piece, not Einstein’s one. It is fully contained in Poincaré group (and its several representations), not in « Einstein » two axioms, which are just incomplete and ill posed disguised ones of Poincaré ones.
We still believe in Ether
well, it's still a hot topic it seems :D
Hasn't modern science reinvented ether by claiming that a perfect vacuum is full of virtual particles?
Hi. No you can't take the vacuum interpreted in quantum field theory as Aether. It seems like it but the funny thing is that quantum field theory itself was created when physicists basically enforced special relativity into quantum mechanics. This was possible by introducing quantum fields but these fields are local the same as electromagnetic field. You can measure the value of these fields but if you want to know the values for different observer you have to use the Lorentz transforms. There is no objective way to measure the movement relative to these fields.
Hi Lukas, nice video! (... waiting for your future videos, they will surely be interesting
)
Certainly the ether does not exist, but In this message I would like to tell you about " the correspondence principle ".
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
The correspondence principle is related to Lorentz Transformations. (and to Galileo's Transformations)
Maybe you know this principle, ... and there is something strange.
The two main Lorentz transformations are::
a) x '= gamma * (x - v * t)
b) x = gamma * (x '+ v * t ' )
The other two Lorentz Transformations:
c) t '= gamma * (t - vx/c^2)
and
d) t = gamma * (t '+ vx '/c^2)
are obtained from a) and b)
In this case it is enough to consider the two Transformations a) and b), because c) and d) depend on a) and b)
At low speeds the Lorentz factor (gamma) is a number very close to 1,
and so the two Lorentz transformations a) and b) become:
a_1) x '= x - v * t
b_1) x = x ' + v * t '
Substituting a_1 in b_1 we obtain:
x = x - v * t + v * t '
v * t ' = v * t
t ' = t
" THE CORRESPONDENCE PRINCIPLE " IS SATISFIED:
x '= x - v * t
t ' = t
(At low speeds, GALILEO'S TRANSFORMATIONS ARE OBTAINED)
And it is not the same, if we consider the two Lorentz Transformations a) and c)
a) x '= gamma * ( x - v * t )
c) t '= gamma * (t - vx/c^2)
At low speeds, the two Lorentz transformations a) and c) become:
a_1) x ' = x - v * t
c_1) t ' = t - vx/c^2
But if we consider large values of x, then t ' is not equal to t. (AND GALILEO'S TRANSFORMATIONS ARE NOT OBTAINED)
Also in this case it is enough to consider two Lorentz transformations, because b) and d) depend on a) and c)
It's too weird:
1) if we consider a) and b) the correspondence principle is satisfied
2) if we consider a) and c) the correspondence principle is not satisfied
... And if we consider a) and b) the Andromeda paradox (at low speeds) makes no sense, (because t '= t)
in this case the relativity of simultaneity seems "an illusion".
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
I think about the Lorentz Transformation c) t '= gamma * (t - vx/c^2) ...
... If t ' = 0 then t = vx/c^2, it's really "STRANGE" !
If instead we consider x = v * t, then c) t '= gamma * (t - vx/c^2) becomes: t ' = t/gamma.
No frame is the privileged frame, but it seems that:
1) if we consider the uniform linear motion of a spaceship (in the frame of the Earth), then it is not possible to consider the uniform linear motion of the Earth. (in the frame of the spaceship)
2) if we consider the uniform linear motion of the Earth (in the frame of the spaceship), then it is not possible to consider the uniform linear motion of the spaceship. (in the frame of the Earth)
If you are interested in the subject, here is the link to a video by Roger Anderton:
ruclips.net/video/sy3Mlnoa6a4/видео.html
Well, in the classical limit you say gamma factor is close to 1 which is true but what is the cause of it? in the classical limit, we send the speed of light c to infinity which makes gamma to approach 1.
if you have t' = t - vx/c^2 where v is any finite number, you see that there is c^2 in the denominator and just linear x in the numerator and when you do a limit of x/c^2 where both x and c approach infinity, the quadratic term wins and the result is zero which gives you t' = t.
But it is strange to do such limits for quantities that are not dimensionless so I think the proper way of doing it is to consider the quantity v/c to approach zero, then you have to multiply the equation by v to get
t'*v = t*v - v^2/c^2*x
now v^2/c^2 goes to zero quadraticly so this would reduce to t'*v = t*v for any x which is just t' = t for finite v.
@@lukasrafajpps OK thanks!
@@lukasrafajpps I think your answer is great.
I'm waiting for your video about the twin paradox, my favorite paradox! Thanks again, I wrote to many and for now only you have answered me.
@@massimilianodellaguzzo8571 I am glad I could help. The next video is gonna be about postulates of relativity because proper understanding is crucial and misunderstanding leads to those paradoxes.
then it's gonna be about the relativity of simultaneity and then time dilatation and length contraction.
these are already recorded but I have not finished animations yet.
I am not sure when I make the twin paradox video exactly because I am not sure how I should make it.
Currently, I prefer that I make one that explains it just conceptually without math and then I do one involving math to calculate some concrete examples because I haven't even derived Lorentz transformations and I don't want to jump too ahead.
but I am glad you are enjoying the content :)