How Superposition Causes Length Contraction -- And Explains the Principle of Relativity

[@ScienceClicEN]

I think I'm not getting the point you're trying to make in this video. Yes, the electromagnetic field of a moving charge can be calculated either in the static frame, using a Lorentzian boost, or directly in the moving frame with classical electromagnetism. And yes, both calculations agree, because classical electromagnetism is compatible with special relativity (in fact the latter was discovered due to the former). To me this doesn’t show that relativity is superfluous, but on the contrary that it is powerful : it allows us to change frames without having to recalculate the electromagnetic field each time. It’s not because the calculation can be done in two different ways that one of them is superfluous. What you’ve presented in your video is the way we solve the wave equation for a point charge (□φ = δ). It applies to any field that obeys this equation (gravitational waves, sound waves, etc). Let’s note that the wave equation assumes the speed of propagation is the same in all directions. In the context of special relativity, this always works for electromagnetism because the speed of light is isotropic in all frames. But in the context of your interpretation, this is only valid in the "aether frame". It is much more restrictive and feels much less fundamental, all the more so as this "aether frame" is purely arbitrary, and physics still works the same if we change it. My criticism has actually not much to do with special relativity, so let's forget about it for a moment, and just think about Galilean relativity : Galileo's idea was simple : there is no way to measure absolute motion, so motion is relative. In other words, deciding whether an object is in motion or at rest is a pure matter of convention, no experiment can distinguish the two situations. This is strong : it implies that any frame we use to write the laws of physics is an arbitrary choice. The “absolute motion” of a frame cannot be measured in any way, and it has therefore no reason to appear in the laws of physics. It is superfluous. Of course, you can still pick one specific frame and declare it "the absolute frame". The “Earth’s frame” for instance. Then you can still describe the whole world with respect to this one frame. That's what physics allows you to do. But what makes relativity so great is precisely that this could be any frame, the laws of physics don't care which one you choose. Imagine a planet of aliens located light-years away from us. These aliens would have no reason to use the Earth's frame like us. Of course they could still do it, but the laws of physics that would result from it would look extremely weird, because they would have to account for the relative motion of their planet with respect to Earth. A better choice would instead be to choose their own planet as their frame of reference. Relativity is here to ensure them that the laws of physics would still work the same in this frame as in Earth's frame.

[@tulpjeeen]

The point of this research is to show that there is a mechanism for why motion is relative. It could have been that there is an ether and that motion through it is detectable.

[@tulpjeeen]

What should an isotropic speed of light be worth if you can't observe it? It just different assumptions leading to the same results. Just like the interpretations of quantum mechanics

[@dialectphilosophy]

Hey ScienceClic! Glad to see you stopping by our channel again and thanks for checking out the video! We would strongly agree with one thing you wrote here. Special Relativity IS powerful -- and especially it was so a hundred years ago, when it provided a way to make predictions and correlations between observed phenomena without having to account for what was causing those phenomena. That was extremely necessary back then, when nobody had a clear working picture of the microscopic world. Now, if you defined relativity today as simply a mathematical formalism which allows you to choose any inertial frame to be your "ether frame" and not have to worry about whether you picked the right frame, we would agree further, that it is indeed still very powerful. But that of course that is not actually modern relativity. Modern relativity is the assertion that relative space and time are brute facts of existence, consequences of an intrinsic Lorentzian geometry that structures reality. But since Lorentzian geometry is clock synchronization convention, this interpretation cannot be correct, and it both hinders and impedes us from asking what the actual nature of relative space and time truly are. And we are by no means disagreeing that the principle of relativity is incorrect, but relativity is forced to postulate that principle as an axiom -- whereas here we deduce it. If you can deduce something from a deeper principle, why would you bother postulating it? That would not be good science. That is what makes special relativity unnecessary and "superfluous". Lastly, to the best of our knowledge, NO ONE has ever presented the math of retarded potentials this way. This derivation is completely original, and it is unquestionably the shortest derivation possible. Textbooks generally derive these potential fields by first invoking relativity, wherein the transformations are simply postulated, and so the majority of the math is shortcutted. Heaviside and Lorentz derived it through more abstract and roundabout manners which do not make the physical picture clear. Feynman derived it in an utterly abstract manner, completely failing to notice that his "correction factor" to the retarded potential of a point charge was in fact just a doppler shift. So please do not try to discredit us by pretending this derivation is somehow already out there and common knowledge, because it is most definitely not.

[@BarriosGroupie]

@@dialectphilosophy Potentials can't be physically measured like the velocity and acceleration of charges. Note that it was lienard and Wiechert who first derived these potentials with one of these authors giving a physical argument -- I don't know who. I don't understand why you believe Feynman derived the potentials in an 'utterly abstract manner' when his picture involves giving a physical argument as to why the effective charge density changes as it moves relative to an observer. This is given in Section 21-5 of Feynman's second Lecture volume.

[@ScienceClicEN]

​​@@dialectphilosophy Ok I think I understand your approach better. In a way, I agree that what you are doing is very interesting. Your argument seems to be that we can take all the ingredients of modern physics, remove the principle of relativity, and miraculously still recover the same phenomena (correct me if I didn’t understand correctly). If this was true, then of course by Ockham’s razor I would agree with you : the principle of relativity would be “superfluous”. However, I don't think this is true. I don't think we can remove the principle of relativity and still predict everything correctly: For instance, let's say I throw a radioactive particle with a certain velocity. I will observe that its radioactive decay time is greater than that of a motionless particle. In relativity, this is explained by time dilation. But I am not sure how your theory would explain that? Furthermore, it may work nicely with special relativity, but what about general relativity? I am not saying it's impossible, but I'm doubtful that your approach can be generalized to general relativity without any additional axioms. ------- About the calculation with retarted potentials, I remember doing it as an exercise during my undergraduate course : it's the Liénard-Wiechert potential (its derivation can be found on the Wikipedia page). It is indeed a very interesting calculation (I think that may actually be what helped Lorentz find his transformations in the first place). When I said that it is common knowledge, I meant it in the sense that the retarded potential is just the Green function of the wave equation, and is therefore the most commonly used technique to solve the wave equation. However you are right that it is rarely presented as a “physical cause” for length contraction. --------- Overall, I have an issue when you write: "modern relativity is the assertion that relative space and time are brute facts of existence". I don't think that's what relativity is about. The notion of "existence" is purely philosophical, and a theory never states whether something "is a fact" or not. They are just models after all, they only tell us how we can describe the world, but not what things really “are” (I tend to think that ontology is a matter of interpretation, and doesn't depend on the theories themselves). I do agree though that in pop-science we usually present things less subtly, and it might lead to frustration for those who explore these philosophical questions. The problem is that we often want to explain things by identifying their “cause”. And this is highly dependent on how we interpret the models. One might say that the Moon orbits the Earth because of the centrifugal force, while someone else might argue that it is because of the inertia of the Moon. They would give two different causes to the same phenomenon, and still, none of them would be wrong.

[@Bulbucario]

RIP Valerie - your work has not been lost, and your troubled existence was not in vain. Thank you, Dialect, for bringing light to her efforts.

[@TheApsodist]

Who is she? I missed her in this video. Would like to read up on her

[@HuxleysShaggyDog]

@@TheApsodist You ever find a timestamp?

[@duytdl]

RIP Valerie, whoever you were. It seems you lived a very troubled life, and I hope you've found peace. Dialect continues to excel, not only in creating stunning visuals and delivering powerful explanations but also in uncovering remarkable individuals and sharing their mind-blowing ideas. Truly exceptional work, everyone.

[@HuxleysShaggyDog]

Timestamp?

[@jaktrip6093]

Unspeakably beautiful way of looking at relativity. I cannot wait for the further development of this interpretation. Deepest respect for sharing it here and presenting it so well, too.

[@talonquizon1636]

By far the most explicit and coherent science channel for relativity. 👏👏👏👏

[@KennyT187]

Not even close, he makes his own wonky tonky and untrue interpretations of how acceleration in general relativity works, for example.

[@KennyT187]

@@ExistenceUniversity Yup. And he throws away length contraction of spatial distances even though it's as much frame dependant in relativity as measured proper time. He just interpretes the theories to his own likening and represents his views as truths.

[@TheApsodist]

​@@KennyT187guy has a hate boner

[@nettewilson5926]

It’s awesome that two independently developed theories converge on the same conclusion

[@mrhassell]

Lorentz transformation equations and Special Relativity. Not Superposition, which in quantum mechanics, is the ability of a particle to exist in multiple states simultaneously.

[@enotdetcelfer]

It's so nice to finally get the real answers to the questions I had in school 20-30 years ago... Thank you for such a fantastically beautiful video! The animations and formulas and what all the variables are, as well as postulating potential questions/reactions and their intuitions, footnotes, mwah. Can't wait for the next one!

[@KennyT187]

He is wrong about most of it, he just makes his own non-canon interpretations of relativity and represents them as truths. For example, he said that there is no length contraction of spatial distances - which is false: spatial distances are as much frame dependant as measured proper time.

[@Gabriel-mf7wh]

​@@KennyT187 what you're saying is only dogma. Dialect is not alone, there were well respected physicists who had similar views as his. Have you read John S. Bell's "How to teach special relativity" chapter? It gives a mechanistic approach to special relativity, where contraction/dilation are actual physical effects (as long as all forces in the system are Lorentz invariant). He has the exact opposite view of the standard spacetime doctrine: it is the Lorentz invariance of the laws of physics that causes objects to shrink and clocks slow down when moving (with respect to the ether). Quite similar to Dialect's ideas. The nice thing about this small chapter is that it starts off with a thought experiment in which those trained in standard spacetime doctrine (which btw is not what Einstein came to think when he got older) tend to get wrong, while those that have a more classical training (Maxwell, Lorentz, Larmor, etc) tend to get right

[@KennyT187]

@@Gabriel-mf7wh I don't even know where to start to dissect the ignorance of people who support the Lorentzian ether view. But just a couple of notes: 1. General Relativity is formulated on 4-dimensional Minkowski spacetime and it's currently our most accurate theory of gravity. It's also used to model the standard lambda-CDM model of cosmology, and it explains things such as the accelerated expansion of space, the element abundance of the universe and the properties of the Cosmic Microwave Background with incredible precision - just to name a few things out of over a dozen measurables. 2. Quantum Electrodynamics is the most precise theory of physics there is, and it is formulated, again, in (flat) 4D Minkowski spacetime. The theory has a symmetry called Gauge symmetry which defines how the electron field interacts with the photon field, and this symmetry _requires_ a background independent spacetime with Lorentz invariance in order to work - and it will not work in any non-background independent model such as the Lorentz Ether Theory. The theory matches observations within a precision of 1/10¹², or 99.99999999999% accuracy. Also saying the Minkowski view is "dogma" is just ignorant of how theories in physics evolve, and as the Minkowski spacetime is the foundation of all Modern Physics and all those theories work with incredible precision, there is no need to assume the Minkowski framework is wrong - unless somebody will prove by some experiment that it is actually false because, you know, physics is an empirical science based on measurements.

[@Gabriel-mf7wh]

@@KennyT187 you're dogmatic, that's why you can't even give a chance to a different idea. I gave you an article by a very respected physicist John S. Bell and you disregarded him as ignorant, without even giving a chance to what he has to say. You're argument is summed up by: the mathematical formalism of pseudo-riemannian manifolds fits physics well, **therefore** the spacetime manifold is an ontological truth. This is a dogmatic argument

[@Gabriel-mf7wh]

@@KennyT187 for some odd reason, my reply was removed. I was saying that I gave you an article by a well respected physicist, John S. Bell, and you disregarded him as ignorant, without even trying to understand it. Your argument comes down to: the formalism of pseudo-riemannian manifolds fits our theories well, *therefore* the spacetime manifold is an ontological truth, rather than an abstraction. This is a dogmatic argument

[@Daetelus]

I've often imagine the electromagnetic field as waves emanating from the source but never had the conviction to try to prove it nor knew enough physics to do so. Well done!

[@auriuman78]

You know what I love about these dialect videos so far, besides the nicely paced explanations and beyond uninitiated content? The fact that there is so much time in between them. I feel it communicates the research is being done real time and we are getting the latest updates as they are discovered, maybe with some output delay. That's even accounting for video production, editing and post-processing. Just like the universe, there seems to be a very naturally ordered structure to the way the videos are released and how they connect from previous to next. It's continuous and beautiful ❤️ Basically the exact phenomenon that we just learned about in this video 😅 but applied to the transmission of information. Which, in the lowest analysis, all any of what we're experiencing is - the movement of information described as frames of the passage of time on a field of something. I now understand Maxwell's equations enough to realize we don't need an ether for em waves to travel through like sound needs air or water. Just because we don't need it doesn't mean it isn't there, though. Just one guy's opinion based on philosophy and current empirical science. I feel that this video opens the door to aspects of this. Many of the ideas I have cannot be tested yet and some may never be testable, landing them in the philosophical arena rather than the empirical. Just because it's untestable philosophy doesn't make it false, though. Just untestable through empirical peer scrutiny. What is logical to us may seem magical to an ant, so in the same way what seems mystical to us is likely no big deal to a higher thinker 🤔

[@-_Nuke_-]

I was about to say the exact same thing! Thank you for having already said it, because you saved me a lot of time 😂

[@juliavixen176]

This _can_ be experimentally measured, and _has_ been experimentally measured many times over the past century. The Ives-Stilwell and Mössbauer rotor experiments in particular are direct measurements of the relativistic Doppler effect.

[@babynautilus]

something ive found helpful for pondering is figuring out what aspects of someting are falsifiable(even just hypothetically), and what aspects of it are not. i find it helpful bc it gets me thinking about potential ways certain things may be observed( or not).. im rly curious about the spin axis of a smbh distorting part of a dark matter halo😱

[@auriuman78]

@@juliavixen176 , thanks for the rotor experiment reference. I knew we had measured and proved it but had never read the how. Though I was more referencing the testability of the presence, or non-presence, of an 'ether' field. My gut deep down tells me it's there, but so far there is no test which has confirmed yes or no either way. The math doesn't care if it's there or not, but I still wonder. It's still in the taboo realm in physics but it just feels like it should exist, and if it does could be the key to the something that is beyond space-time mechanics, not just curled inside it. There's definitely something there, vacuum density suggests it. Is it Plato's aether? Idk and I don't think it has any sort of acceptably testable measurements, it's just a gut feeling that it's there. That's all I meant, thanks again for the rotor reference! I'll be doing that tonight lol, reading not performing.

[@juliavixen176]

@auriuman78 I mean, it depends on _exactly_ what you mean by the word "aether". There were several dozen aether theories in the 1800's which had exact definitions and made exact predictions... which experiments did not measure... except for Lorentz's aether theory, which is mathematically equivalent to Einstein's Special Relativity. The difficulty that Lorentz and Larmor were having, as Poincaré explained, is that the aether in Lorentz's version of the aether is fundamentally impossible to measure. It can not be measured, at all. Einstein's big things was that he showed that the aether _doesn't matter_ You can ignore it entirely. It has no effect on anything, and you can avoid the need for it entirely by simply setting the speed of light to be a constant in all inertial reference frames, just as Maxwell's equations say that it is! Oh yeah, there's a big chunk of nineteenth century physics that gets left out of the pop-sci explanations of Special Relativity. The actual problem that Einstein was trying to solve was to make magnets work. You know how moving electric charges create magnetic fields? How do the charges know they're moving? That's what Einstein was doing, and Lorentz, Heaviside, Larmor, Fitzgerald, Poincaré, et al. Oh yeah, I was going to mention earlier that theories about light being a mechanical displacement in a material aether have some intractable logical problems... which you don't have to deal with if there's no aether. For example, the speed of sound or any wave through a medium is directly related to its elasticity and tension and stuff. For the speed of light, the aether will need to be millions of times stronger than steel. But also, the planets can orbit the sun for billions of years, passing through the aether, without slowing down. Also, since light is a longitudinal wave (as Frensel proved), the aether must be a solid, because longitudinal waves don't propagate through liquids or gasses. yeah, anyway, there's over 200 years of history about this, and adding an undetectable aether to any theory just makes it worse.

[@jakob3270]

I just want to say thank you! What y'all doing is fantastic! Just knowing that there are people who actually question and give explanations that are logical puts my mind at ease. Thanks!

[@Rationalific]

Guy on KZbin finds a unified theory/proof of Classical physics and Einsteinian relativity and still doesn't put a word in all bold in the title. Much respect. I would put a saluting face emoji if it could show up here...

[@serversurfer6169]

🫡

[@umbraemilitos]

Just wait for physics channels to peer review this one too. This channel seems to be more entertainment than education.

[@KennyT187]

He is full of sh*t

[@umbraemilitos]

@jorgejimenez4325 Physics is applied philosophy. Pure philosphers and pure mathematicians thinking they are doing science, without scientific peer review, is a great way to mislead people.

[@KennyT187]

@@jorgejimenez4325 Relativity, time dilation and increase of relativistic mass are proven facts - and are effects which are constantly being measured and taken into account in high energy particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider. If relativity and relativistic quantum field theories would be false, we would have seen that decades ago in such accelerators.

[@gianlaager1662]

Absolutely amazing video usually I have to watch lecture style videos on KZbin to learn something I didn't already know. But this was completely new to me, finally I got to watch a well animated video with simple explanations again without knowing where it will go. Amazing video thanks.

[@silentcartographer7685]

Outstanding video! I wrote my thesis based on Heaviside's work on retarded potentials and derived models for gravitational radiation. Doppler's experiments with trains and horns had me thinking about relativity and the analogy between high potential wave fronts and high pressure wave fronts. I often relate the doppler effect to relativity and it seems they are more intimately related than I initially thought!

[@rodschmidt8952]

Note that the doppler effect depends on which direction you are going -- there could be a redshift or a blueshift or neither one -- but length contraction happens no matter which direction the relative travel is. Also, in the doppler effect, your observations depend on WHERE you are, but relativistic effects depend only on velocity and are independent of location. Also, both redshift and blueshift exist, but there is no such thing as length expansion (that would require, what, imaginary speed?)

[@declanwk1]

Is it possible to access your thesis on the internet?

[@williamwalker39]

I did the same thing and showed the speed of gravity is instantaneous in the nearfield and reduces to about the speed of light in the farfeild, about 1 wavelength from the source. The same is true for EM fields. See my video: William Walker, New Interpretation of Relativity, and the paper it is based on. My thesis and paper is linked in the description of the video.

[@silentcartographer7685]

@@declanwk1 Yes, a search for Gravitational Radiation: Maxwell-Heaviside Formulation should bring it up

[@silentcartographer7685]

@@williamwalker39 Very interesting. Historically, others have calculated the speed of gravity to be much faster than the speed of light. La Sage calculated ~20,000X if I remember correctly. Will be checking out your thesis.

[@hernandezdiazjuanpablo9817]

Im doing my thesis about a very related topic, thanks so much for this quality video, it really helps me a lot. So great to have channels like yours. Congrats for your work.

[@michaelkreitzer1369]

I'm not able to follow the math entirely, but this type of presentation does help me glean conceptual "bits" of understanding. If science moved from the obscure realm of journals to presentations of this quality it would go a long way toward increasing scientific literacy. I imagine a world where even your opponents were as capable as communicating as you. It worries me that I'm getting a very one sided view.

[@dialectphilosophy]

We'll be doing a shorter summary of these videos in the future, aimed towards general audiences and featuring less math and more conceptual discussions. These videos are intended to be "semi-rigorous" -- a balance of mathematics and conceptual discussion -- in order to exhibit the evolution of our research and ideas.

[@gheiberg59]

@@dialectphilosophy Keep up the good work.

[@alexgonzo5508]

Soon, you will be able to feed an AI some scientific paper, and it would produce an entire interactive documentary about it. You could ask it to explain things in a way that a 6 year old can understand, and it will.

[@auriuman78]

That math, the way he presents it here, isn't terrible to follow. If you took calculus 1 and understood derivative and integral concepts, then you got this. Learning Maxwell's equations before watching this helped a lot. I'm still trying to put that all together, by the way, I do not want to sound like I got it figured out at all, but so much of this unlocked for me once I checked out the Maxwell set. It blows me away that having gone through years of history, chemistry, electrical engineering and physics classes that I never was given a proper study of Maxwell's equations, like probably the most important scientific discovery of the 19th century, it's why I can tell you all this over an electronic wireless link! How could that get left out? By the way, humorously enough, it was a history PhD holder that taught me the Maxwell equations to my understanding.

[@asifalamgir5135]

@@dialectphilosophy You are the exact type of KZbinr I was looking for. You know most youtubers simply skip the heavy math altogether and some academics focus too much on equations. What I needed was a balanced semi-rigorous approach, which I got from you. Thanks for your wonderful videos and making knowledge more accessible!

[@razerblade2308]

This is a great video! It is important to have all the math that you can include without taking away from mathematica beauty, but important to break down any chance you get. I suggest making two videos to satisfy both of these conditions. Thank you!

[@brucedeo1981]

This has to be the hardest video of dialect for me to follow.

[@KennyT187]

It's because he makes his own interpretations of relativity and complicates matters for no reason.

[@umbraemilitos]

​@@KennyT187Yes. Fans of this channel need to check out the peer review of their other videos.

[@Mr0rris0]

It's like when kid learns to drive and hits the brake and gas a lot the car gets shorter

[@Mr0rris0]

And pretend there's water involved and its not baffled so you get retarded waves or something. I don't actually think the car gets shorter when kids learn to drive though. Some do but differently.

[@Mr0rris0]

It kinda feels like bond yields

[@benruniko]

Ok taking notes on myself as I watch: 2:35 - my guess is that the charge and the effect of it are moving together because they are just one thing, not two. A whole wave, not a wave and a field effect. 13:13 - Ok, there is some confusing oversimplification being used as the basis for logic here i think. You can’t pick a point and say an electron “is here”. Electrons are never in a single location. The electron is everywhere nearby that point, but will interact with other things with a certain probability at any of those places. It isn’t because we don’t know where it is, it is because it isn’t just right there. That potential location doesn’t change at constant speeds except with 1/lambda. 14:50 - Oh I see that was the whole point! You were illustrating why that way of thinking without superposition cannot be correct! Nice, well explained!

[@fawzibriedj4441]

Insightful video! Even though I didn't like some of the previous videos, this one is super good!

[@geoffreyshmigelsky7784]

WOW! I always thought it was something like that, but I never considered it in terms of superposition in wave mechanics. This is so cool; my initial assumption was a delay in communication between two points led to some form of contraction, but I never thought of it in terms of wave mechanics. The fact that you can derive special relativity through this approach is incredible. I have asked this question (re: length contraction)about a dozen times to physics experts over the last 20 years without finding a satisfactory answer; this is the best explanation, backed by formalized equations, I have ever seen. Thank you for doing this - please do another video showing how the increase in mass (and its mechanism) plays into it. - g

[@soopergoof232]

There was some contention in earlier comments about the author presenting the particle as _literally_ emitting wavefronts and 'pinging'... even though he used the qualifiers "lets imagine" and "as though". The qualifiers imply the model to be allegorical or heuristic. And clearly, a _non-accelerating_ charged particle 'coasting' frictionlessly at high relativistic speed is not gonna emit any waves (unless it happens to hit a random magnetic field). But IF it were emitting the waves and 'pinging' as described, a profound heuristic emerges which the author elucidates brilliantly with math. Someone else might well have deduced the 'pancake' effect mathlessly from an entirely different perspective, based on the space medium being a superfluid. Newton's first law attests to its superfluidity, enabling an object to 'coast' frictionlessly even at high relativistic speeds. In a such a scenario, the object's atomic lattice, particularly the electron 'shells' (orbitals) of its atoms cannot 'reach' fully ahead (no short bus jokes, pleeze) against the fixed speed of light, thus retarding or 'pancaking' the forward face of the object. The object being not under acceleration precludes its trailing end from 'stretching' axially, so the whole object remains pancaked in both the forward and aft directions. Having such a physical model, bolstered by descriptive math, is how physics SHOULD be done by academia. But they'd first have to posit the space medium being real and literal, _which it is_ .

[@TheOnlyGeggles]

Awesome, but what about the weak and strong nuclear forces? At the time Lorentz et. al. came out with this ether-theory, physicists thought that gravity and electro-magentism are all that there is to mechanics. But with the advent of quantum mechanics, we found out that there is a lot more going on than that. Does all that still fit with this interpretation, or do you plan to only explain electro-magnetism in this series? Either way, I'm as hyped for the next video as always, it just keeps getting better!

[@MarshmallowRadiation]

I'm curious to know if there's actually any experimental data showing how the strong/weak nuclear forces interact with special relativity, given the inherent expense and danger of performing nuclear science at relativistic velocities lol. Maybe plasma confinement fusion reactor experiments? Though maybe not, since the strong nuclear force holding nucleons together is a pseudoforce carried by mesons, not the true gluonic strong force itself (which is so strong at measurable distances that pretty much everything we've ever directly measured has a neutral color charge). As for the weak force, I don't know if anyone's put a bunch of heavy elements into a particle accelerator and measured whether they decay slower, or whether the decay is somehow pancake-shaped (whatever that would mean). That said, my naive assumption would be that they'd follow the same logic, since they're all wave mechanics and follow the same superposition laws.

[@sensorer]

I would think that the argument would be similar, replace light signals with other exchange particles

[@dialectphilosophy]

We can't speak too greatly to any quantum considerations at the moment. However, we will say that quantum physics and special relativity are of course naturally compatible, and nothing present in the retarded potential formalism or presented in our videos elsewhere makes any differing predictions from special relativity (as of yet). So although we feel that this interpretation will still hold once we move to QM, much more research is still required.

[@mathoph26]

I am working on relativistic quantum mechanics, without second quantization, and I swear it is a Titan's work... So before incorporate weak and strong interactions (which are very ill-defined with 100 lines Lagrangian, with Yukawa magic potentials... ), a good comprehension of relativity with electromagnetic force is largely good enough.... and the animations here are really amazing.

[@Number6_]

​@@sensorernope no particles. Particles are just your interpretation of wave phenomenon. No particles to see here!

[@Nuindakil]

Spacetime physics must be an emergent phenomenon from matter physics, generally speaking. This is a principle which is getting increasingly clear. This is a good demonstration of how that takes place. I've had criticisms of prior videos, but this one was quite good.

[@BarriosGroupie]

Physicists adopted the philosophical positivist strategy in trying to discover _mathematical_ descriptions of the world we live in with pictures as a guiding aid. As John Bell pointed out in his paper _How to teach Special Relativity:_ Einstein's and Lorentz's approaches are different philosophically, but give identical results. Also, the 'superposition' of the potential you're describing here is a consequence of the 'effective' charge density which changes relative to its static value. Section 21-5 of Feynman's second Lecture volume has more to say on this.

[@bartelsmore6285]

I want to thank you for all the videos so far, ​​⁠@dialectphilosophy, as I look forward to them with anticipation, not because I believe everything you put forward (I don’t have the physics knowledge to make that judgement), but because I was a sound engineer for 20 years and I’ve always thought about the universe in a similar way to my knowledge of sound waves. Your work is so closely aligned with my knowledge, it makes me feel closer to being able to understand more about this amazing thing we live in…and I do hope you’re right too. Good luck! :)

[@debrainwasher]

This is a beautiful path to derive relativity from Maxwellian electrodynamics, superposition, Doppler's law and Gamma, however, there are much more implications. The very same observations and conclusions account to gravitation. And yes we can use the gravitational potential too.

[@mrhassell]

What? Have you been on the toilet for so long, that all that comes out your mouth is s**t.

[@williamputnam281]

Netflix needs to sign this guy, I am hooked 😂

[@vF_AIMER7]

If I understand properly, you're claiming that: 1) information is traveling at constant speed in every inertial frames (you assume the medium is inertial, so the charge moving at constant and linear speed with respect to the medium is inertial too) 2) there is no space nor time contraction, hence the frequency at which the potential of the moving charge pulses is the same as the one from from the charges at rest with respect to the medium 3) because of 1+2, the frequency at which the potential pulses seen from the medium, on the front and on the back of the charge is characterized by the classical doppler effect 4) you get a pancake shape 5) you get the wrong amplitudes orthogonally I suppose you can fix that by forcing a variable charge too, instead of mass? If you look at the lorentz force classically, say, ma = q(E + v x B), then you cannot discriminate the motions of a (m,q) physical object with a (m',q') one, for m/q = m'/q', so you get this freedom too, right? I think relativity is stronger because it'll force that mass and charge is the same in every inertial frame, while to save yourself, you're forced to make it variable

[@-_Nuke_-]

What I don't understand is... We use relativity every day at CERN and LIGO and other areas... Why is only Dialect who is bringing all that up? If relativity is incomplete then how the hek do we spend billions of dollars and euro on these experiments if we haven't at least done the math right? How can we still be getting groundbreaking results (finding of the Higgs field, photographing a black hole, discovering gravitational waves etc...) with so MUCH incomplete knowledge? I don't get it... I seriously want to see the Dialect team writing an actual scientific paper one day, one that can be peer reviewed... Videos like these are absolutely amazing and I can't get enough of them, but we the audience can't be the final judges... A paper needs to come after this.

[@myca9322]

​@@-_Nuke_- i study physics at phd level. if i understand what is being said in this vid, the reason is that physicists already understand it. more precisely, the 'retarded' potential is just one of many valid potentials that can be used to calculate the physical effects of (classical-not quantum) moving charges. this one has a nice interpretation which is explained here, but the various potentials which can be used for a given physical circumstance are all equivalent and some are more useful for certain calculations than others. (choosing a certain potential, or a class of potentials, out of all the valid ones is called fixing a gauge.)

[@apolo399]

@@myca9322 Maybe I didn't fully understand the reason you emphasized "(classical-not quantum)" but I'm commenting so that if anyone gets confused like I did they get a clearer picture. Retarded and advanced potentials (Green's functions) are used in QFT in the form of the propagators, so these concepts do survive when quantizing.

[@myca9322]

@@apolo399 yes, they do appear. but there are many complications. in the classical case to find the equations of motion the prescription is: find the electromagnetic field associated to the potentials and integrate flows. this doesn't hold for QFT. in the perturbation analysis for scattering (ie feynman diagrams) it's eventually required to integrate over possible intermediate photon states, and there are different ways of doing so. usually the feynman propagator is used but presumably the advanced or returning could be used instead. here though these are not global potentials, not even proper local potentials, so it's not really an apt comparison.

[@myca9322]

@@apolo399 and there are other complications besides, involving self-interaction, quantization of the electromagnetic field, renormalization, and the fact that these calculations are all perturbative about plane-wave solutions, hence not really applicable to bound states or proper wave-packets. so, in all, these green function potentials do show up at 'virtual' level, but it has nowhere as nice an interpretation as in the classical case.

[@chrysovalantiskamprogianni541]

Great video people! Keep it up! Finally, a point of contact between quantum mechanics and special relativity!! I'm greatly looking forward to your next video

[@declanwk1]

Every physics theory subsequent to SR, including quantum field theory had to be relativistically invariant. So your comment makes no sense. QFT was a first attempt to take the initial QM and make it compatible with SR.

[@gravitationalvelocity1905]

Dialect's response is very good, but I want to rephrase what I think he is saying to perhaps provide even more clarity for some. Dialect is saying, special relativity is 'right', but it only describes the math that results from an underlying physical system. Ignoring that physical system was fine for a while because we could make all sorts of great predictions. However, now that we are at the last stop of trying to create a theory of everything, we can't seem to do it without a physical model. So, we need to go back 'under the hood' and create models that match what we observe while also giving us the insights we need to create a unified theory. So, while Einstein let gave us an excellent short cut with amazing insights, it is now holding us back.

[@dialectphilosophy]

Excellently put! Einstein's theories are best summarized as mathematical shortcuts giving us correlations without having to dig deeper into "under the hood" causations.

[@Peoplearedumb47]

I wouldn’t say his holds us back. Human constructs are followed. Not just Einsteins. Humans hold us back

[@tablettorrensabellan]

We don't know what was on Einstein mind.... Remember that science is reflected on papers that are peer reviewed, and reputation is destroyed for those who go against the current consensus of knowledge without a sound mathematical explanation. I don't know the thoughts of Einstein about the fact that we are unable to measure the single way speed of ligth (what allows the transmisión of ligth waves) and what is space itself, maybe you'll be surprised with Einstein thoughts... But, by now, let's thank Mr. Einstein for his mental clarity in ordering and quantifying nature observed behavior rules, at least for the most of this last century... Before even being possible to experimentally probe and prove them. And big thanks to Mr. Dialect for pouring clarity on the details of such huge implications of special relativity and GR.

[@Peoplearedumb47]

@@tablettorrensabellanthat’s gibberish

[@Aggregator_]

its so satisfying. its by far my favorite Video on this topic

[@DM_Curtis]

Honey, wake up. New Dialect video dropped.

[@chrimony]

Why is Honey always sleeping?

[@Isma3el]

Literally just woke up after a nap and saw this.

[@DM_Curtis]

​@@chrimony Pacific time zone.

[@tomholroyd7519]

Honey, did that AI voice startle you?

[@soopergoof232]

She got narcolepsy Dialect make her wake up quick😀

[@tablettorrensabellan]

Woooaaah!!! Fantastically straightforward explanation of how a moving wave emitting particle or an object is perceived as contracted by static observers at the rest frame, assuming that the speed of ligth, (speed of causality) is equal to all observers!!!! The contraction of objects is seen different from different frames of reference. Thus, relativity which causes real effects on observers is just a matter of how do we see phenomena that happens at relatively moving frames... The big mistery is why c is independent of the speed of the observer himself... Or is not? Maybe the observed speed of ligth from moving objects/observers is just an illusion from their moving point of view.. I keep thinking that the world (locally) is simpler than our mathematical calculations, which cleverly integrate and quantify the relevant effects quantities and phenomena. In this sense, GR may just be a marvelous way of mathematically describing the overall effects of what's happening at the subatomic level. I take this video as one of the strongest stronghold for understanding physical nature. Thanks Mr. Dialect!!! I really appreciate your critical stance on the state of the science divulgation on KZbin and in the mainstream education.

[@saudmahgoub8702]

Dialect I am a student in my third year of undergraduate physics and i appreciate your videos since they offer new perspectives to my studies of physics. I also like the fact that you show the niddy griddy mathematical details instead of just ranting philosophical conjectures. However, one criticism that I have regarding this video is that the steps used to rel the retarded potential of a charge in uniform motion to that of a stationary charge require the speed at which information travel (C) to be the same for both observers. Otherwise the scaling factor 1+-v/c wouldn't make much sense as it would be a function of both the relative speed v and the speed c which you will have to calculate in each respective frame. Second of all the most important assumption you have made is that the speed of propagation of information is not instant, that is it travels at a finite speed c. This assumption is a statement of causality which is heavily burried in Maxwell equations by those time derivatives. What i am trying to point out is that those two implicit assumptions in this video are exactly the assumptions of special relativity which Einstein simply put forth as postulates based on Maxwell equations. So no Wonder you got length contraction and the principle of relativity of inertial observers. In other words you derived SR without calling it SR. Infact SR says more than the principle of superposition used in this video. For example, special relativity asserts that the form of the laws of physics (field equations) is invariant under lorentz transformation, this is not a consequence of superposition neither retardation. Also, special relativity can handle accelerated reference frame and provides the necessary tensors to transform the E and B fields to those frames. This leads to a phenomenon called the rindler horizon, an event horizon similar to that of a black hole. This cannot be explained by wave mechanics of any sort, it's a causality partition of spacetime which you ignored in this video. Thanks for reading my constructive criticism!!

[@Milesian2003]

Ask yourself: Which kind of theoretical physics do you want--do we all want? One which only seeks the mathematical "laws" that can be used to describe and predict the observer's measurements? That's all that Einstein attempted to do. Consider that the Ptolemaic astronomy is another fine example of observer-based physics that worked. Or do we want a theoretical physics that actually theorizes--that attempts to explain what exists in this Cosmos and how it causes the phenomena that we observe and measure? Dialect is showing that the latter kind of physics--a truly theoretical physics--is not only possible, but far superior. To go beyond observer-based physics requires a theory of Cosmic space--of the electromagnetic-inertial/gravitational substance from which particles, electromagnetism, gravity and inertia arise. This space-physics revolution is long overdue.

[@mrhassell]

The proper length is a product of its contracted length Squared by relative velocity / the speed of light. A Lorentz transformation (using a Lorentz factor). Result of relativistic speeds and Special Relativity. That's all. ZERO relationship to Superposition or Quantum Mechanics, in anyway. It's even pretty straightforward..

[@mrhassell]

@@Milesian2003 Ask yourself, what am I saying. Before you begin typing. The equations to resolve this petty issue, existed before I did. I'm not that bloody old!

[@jibeshbeura7572]

Great. You have simplified the situation so beautifuly.very nice

[@CasperBHansen]

Not sure I follow the first part about the field needing time to react. Isn’t it the other way around? That the particle is a result of the field, or a physical manifestation thereof? In that case no time is needed between them, as there is no “them”, it is one and the same? Admittedly, I haven’t read the quantum field theories yet, just a bit of regular quantum mechanics.

[@erinm9445]

Even if something "is one and the same", if different parts of it are a some distance apart, those parts will still need time to communicate. It's like how it takes time for your brain signals to get to your feet event though they're all part of the same body.

[@-_Nuke_-]

I thought the exact same thing... The "particle" IS an excitation of the field... And it's not even a spherical thing... It's a spread out probability wave... Probably a manifestation of the underlying physics of many parallel universes interfering with each other...

[@apolo399]

The, say, electron, is a perturbation of the electron field, not of the electromagnetic field, which has the photon as its perturbation. So both fields do need to interact causally. Dialect doesn't understand how 1) classically, fields and matter interact, and 2) how quantum fields interact. The "paradox" presented here isn't a problem. Phycists do understand how all of this works, and we do use retarded potentials extensively.

[@ScienceReDiscovered]

Just started my channel because I was inspired by your work! Excited to see what comes next

[@dialectphilosophy]

That's great -- best of luck and don't give up!

[@Tsskyx]

yaaay, I understood nothing but I feel smarter regardless ❤

[@soopergoof232]

Unless I'm mistaken, this line of enquiry is also leading into the property of the space medium that underlies Newton's first law, enabling a physical object to coast frictionlessly thru space (unless acted upon by an intervening force). Obviously the medium is a _superfluid_. But it loses a bit of its superfluidity in the presence of acceleration, exhibiting resistance like a 'viscosity'. The object's atomic lattice (electron orbitals in particular) comes under tension, resisting being 'stretched' in the axis of motion, generating the resistance we call inertia. So the space medium could rightly be called an 'acceleration-mediated quasi superfluid'. A rough analogy is found in non-Newtonian fluids (like oobleck) in their stress-mediated variable viscosity. Dialect's line of enquiry could probably expound deeper into the mechanism of this unique property of "space". The very same property would come into play when _space itself_ is flowing *and accelerating*, conferring 'weight' to an object (provided it's prevented from falling). But that's a whole 'nuther chapter, and would congrue squarely with the 'River' model of gravity. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nnfPq4Ssdt57bck It would follow that this unique spatial property underlies and unifies _not only_ Newton's laws of inertia and conservation of momentum, but also gravity/acceleration equivalence (monkey in rocket ship) AND the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. All in one neat little package. 🎁

[@KaiseruSoze]

Nice graphics. What engine are you using?

[@TactileTherapy]

a V8

[@markpmar0356]

Love this channel and this series on relativity.

[@doctormeister]

How does this explain the actual contraction that's happening? It perfectly explains why the EM field of a moving charge does not "lag" behind and also why it is stronger in the transverse direction, however, in these calculations we see that the effect in the direction of the motion perfectly cancels out. So why is it contracted in that direction?

[@lih3391]

I'm sure it's in the math somewhere that in the end, theres a factor of gamma whether you're doing it classically or relativistically, but also, if you imagine a particle going closer and closer to the speed of light, the front end of the particle must have very compressed potential waves that die off quickly, because they haven't gotten very far in a relatively long time. If the limit is it being infinitely pancaked, then it must smoothly transition there from not being pancaked at all, the function being a factor of gamma.

[@doctormeister]

@@lih3391 yes but that is the usual STR explanation, and the point of the video was to justify that with classical arguments i thought

[@lih3391]

@@doctormeister what about that was not classical?

[@doctormeister]

@@lih3391 yes sorry its classical but the "must smoothly transition" to somehow get the gamma factor is very unsatisfying and similar to the usual arguments.

[@lih3391]

@@doctormeister You shouldn't expect so much from thought experiments, only when you think through it slowly along with the math will you get the full picture. That's also the best way since everyone is satisfied at different levels of understanding, and physics is inherently about making *mathematical* theories to get actual numbers for predictions.

[@Loxodromius]

Great video, as yours always are. Recently I read a paper about "the speed of gravity" by Tom Van Flandern, and this video rang a bell.

[@nicolai_gamulea-schwartz]

Well... The way I see it, there's no "charged particle", there's only the wave packet, or what Dialect calls here the "(pancake) field". The "particle" is merely a conceptual, abstract placeholder, and it doesn't generate the field, instead it's a convenient approximation of the field itself, just like a centre of mass is merely an approximation of a mass. Of course, "superposition" here means "addition", it's not the quantum superposition that we commonly associate with "particles". Oh, and it's a Smartie, not a pancake. Know your sweets.

[@0NeverEver]

​​@@jack.d7873 I don't see the need for such a hard beating Here. However I feel the title IS a Bit Tclick bait Here, AS I thought this would truly related to qm Superposition.

[@mksmellsbetter5425]

​@@jack.d7873​ I think this is an unfair comment. I'm not sure if you've been following, but this is one in a series of videos that Dialect has been producing for at least 6 months now if not longer, with the explicit purpose of carefully analyzing and articulating this new perspective of SR / GR. As such approaching topics such as QFT / QED is still a far ways off as the foundations are still being developed for the viewers, and therefore should not be considered as a weakness of the presentation given here. Dialect, as well as many of the viewers, already know about QFT and the resolutions it makes regarding issues in classical particle physics. The reason many are excited about this new theory (it's actually an old theory really) is because in contraposition to QFT, which many would argue that as a metaphysical explanation of reality is intellectually nonsensical, this new theory is far more intelligible and tangible. In addition, Dialect is one of the most monotone and concise scientific speakers on KZbin, and if anything is too 'unemotional'. They very rarely state their opinion on anything and for the most part take viewers along a journey of scientific questions and analysis. A character attack such as being "irrationally emotional" and an "unscientific thinker" are unfounded to say the least. In fact, it is exactly scientific to be investigating and developing new theories, challenging paradigms with new ideas, and following the facts, math, and explanations to where they seem to naturally lead. It seems to me that when others challenge the scientific dogma, it is those who retort with "irrational" character attacks who are being "emotional".

[@benstallone6784]

I don't see how the electron being a wave packet and not a point particle changes any of the arguments in the video. Red herring?

[@jack.d7873]

@0NeverEver Yes, after re-reading my comment, it is too tough. I acknowledge he is exceptionally knowledgeable and has gifted presentation skills. Click-bait is forgivable online. I will remove my comment because it is too harsh. I'm afraid the public will accept "interpretations" as facts of the universe without having knowledge of the original theories and the evidence supporting them.

[@davidschroeder3272]

Oh my gosh, this is a fantastic video! Since about a year ago I've wondered why potentials are so important in understanding the electromagnetic field. Last year I came across the Aharonov-Bohm effect, which requires potentials to understand. I'm at the 9:35 mark in the video and am assuming the connection will come up later in the video. But have to stop watching as am heading out the door shortly. Thank you for this enlightening video!

[@sugarland1729]

You just showed Maxwell's equations are Lorentz invariant. This was a known fact way prior to Einstein. That's what motivated him to arrive at SR.

[@erinm9445]

Dialect's ideas don't argue against SR, they are a different interpretation for what is physically happening that creates the math of SR that we observe. It really comes down to: is light speed invariant in all reference frames but space and time relative? Or are space and time invariant, but it's light speed that changes (relative to you) depending on how fast you are moving? They result in the same math, but the latter is far, far simpler. But the latter only works if length contraction exists as a physical phenomenon independent of relativity.

[@sugarland1729]

@@erinm9445 the two way speed of light is constant and that's been verified by many experiments, you can assume the one way speed of light is variable, but that will remain an unprovable hypothesis.

[@erinm9445]

@@sugarland1729 Agreed. But the current assumption that the one-way speed of light is invariant is also an unprovable hypothesis. This leaves open two different possible interpretations.

[@petersmythe6462]

But it is equally unprovable that the one way speed of light is constant.

[@mantrid777]

Having two models dual to each other is potentially more informative and inspiring than having just one.

[@1Adamrpg]

Excellent video. You are making truly astounding animations. I would try and turn down the affirmations of an absolute reference frame and physical reality however. What you are presenting is a consistent alternative interpretation but just like the QM interpretation problem, one cannot say for certain which is correct.

[@averege_math-and-physics-major]

yes finaly a new dialect video

[@Inductica]

What about the transverse doppler effect? The frequency of a moving light source is reduced when the source is in motion. Would this reduction of frequency apply to the continuous emissions of the potentials you describe in this video as well?

[@orbitalshawn0625]

The multiplying by f, reminds me of the Lorentz or static gauge. Is the field-theoretic equivalent of this argument just a gauge artifact? I'd have to seriously check out some of those papers, parsing the arguments, to know.

[@orbitalshawn0625]

@@ExistenceUniversity I didn't come to that conclusion. Are there other places where he espouses Flat Earth ideas?

[@orbitalshawn0625]

@ExistenceUniversity I've seen some pictures in older videos showing stuff that looks like flat earth at first but I think he is using the usual Principle of Equivalence of GR. Acceleration is equivalent to gravity. In this video, I'm not seeing anything that is weird, other than Doppler shifting the non-physical frequency. From what you've seen, what quantity do you see is different between rest frames, explicitly?

[@洪瑜隆]

23min long Video takes me almost 2 hours to catch the idea. Enjoin it . Good job

[@jmcsquared18]

0:14 "The theory of special relativity is notoriously ambiguous on this subject." You're off base from the get-go. Length contraction and time dilation are direct consequences of the Lorentz transformations, which are hyperbolic rotations on the manifold. Therefore, length contraction and time dilation are caused by observers using relatively-rotated coordinates (i.e., relative motion) to describe events. These two effects are completely unambiguous, both mathematically and physically. I want to say up front, I'm a huge believer that relativity and quantum mechanics are almost certainly intimately connected in ways that we have yet to understand (see Susskind and Maldacena for more on that brilliant development). I just think the work done on this channel would be better contextualized in the larger picture of modern theoretical research if it could drop the grandiosity that seems to be unnecessarily attached to it all. When I have a free day this week, I'll take a look at this video's details more closely.

[@dialectphilosophy]

You're incorrect on this point. The Lorentz transformations do not cause time dilation or length contraction -- they merely describe them. And thanks to the one-way speed of light problem, we need not even adopt the relativistic description of the Lorentz transformations at all -- Lorentzian geometry is indeed merely just useful convention. See our videos "The Loophole in Relativity" or "Matrix Theory" for more on this topic.

[@jmcsquared18]

@@dialectphilosophy I never said the Lorentz transformations "cause" time dilation or length contraction. I said they are consequences of them. I also stated explicitly that time dilation and length contraction are caused by motion, being modelled as rotated coordinates. Read better. (Special) relativity models motion as a hyperbolic rotation in Minkowski space. The language utilized here is that spacetime comes with a Lorentz/Poincare group invariance so that the laws of physics are unchanged under such transformations. But in that language, absolute motion is not well-defined, and motion itself is modelled by the action of specific rotation elements from that group. Time dilation and length contraction follow immediately from this framework with no additional effort. If you're asking why spacetime comes with a (local) Lorentz invariant structure, that's a fine question. But asking why length contraction or time dilation occur is not as useful. They are direct consequences of modelling spacetime using the language of relativity. It is no more peculiar than why cars seem to move past you when you take an exit on the interstate even if you and the cars are moving at the same speed; it's because you changed directions by taking a diagonal exit. The same exact mathematics implies time dilation and length contraction (and the relativistic velocity addition result, I might add).

[@se7964]

@@jmcsquared18 dude, “is a consequence of” does mean “causes” - what else could it mean? You sound really butt hurt because you clearly got schooled here 😂 maybe you should choose your language more precisely, because this whole response just reads as “hyperbolic geometry cause time dilation and whatnot and that’s all you need!” But if you think that, then you seriously don’t understand relativity in the slightest. The hyperbolic geometry comes from observers always choosing epsilon synchronicity value 1/2, but observers do not have to choose that. Therefore, length contraction and time dilation ARENT “consequences” of hyperbolic Lorentzian geometry. So your whole argument is wrong, maybe try taking your head out of your butt for a moment and try sorting fact from feeling 😂😂

[@dialectphilosophy]

@@jmcsquared18 If you did not mean “causes” by “in consequence of” you might have the courtesy and manners to more explicitly state what the difference between those terms is precisely, since they are often synonymous, and you certainly have not clarified the distinction between them here. Moreover your response is still incorrect, as you argue that time dilation and length contraction are caused by, or “consequences of” the invariance of light. This demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of relativity; length contraction and time dilation occur no matter whether you assume invariant, isotropic light behavior in all inertial frames (epsilon 1/2) of some other anisotropic behavior (epsilon not 1/2). Therefore it is not “a consequence of” light invariance/hyperbolic geometry; such geometry is merely descriptive convention. We’ve covered this topic quite adequately in prior videos, we recommend you give them a watch. However if you continue to show such lack of integrity and dishonesty in your approach to discussions with creators, I doubt you should anticipate receiving any such replies as gracious as this one in the future.

[@jmcsquared18]

@@dialectphilosophy it's becoming apparent to me that you're not actually interested in understanding this subject matter, but instead just about being right and putting down responses from others. I doubt I'll reply more to this thread in the future, but I woukd prefer seeing an effort to engage with this fundamental physics more honestly.

[@armandooliveira3712]

This is better than a Marvel movie...I was at the edge of my seat

[@RyuGood0]

But you still have to add the idea that a particle "pings" the field. So do you explain that or is it simply assumed ?

[@timjohnson3913]

Seems assumed so far, but maybe Dialect has an explanation for the mechanism behind the pinging.

[@reedie2000]

Or is every point in space “broadcasting” pings and reflecting off of particles, the way rocks in an ocean reflect waves?

[@maxoobbxxx8032]

The "pinging" he refers to seems to be the virtual photons that are always exchanged between all charged particles.

[@APaleDot]

I think the "pinging" is just a representation that the particle is in constant communication with the field. It's like it's connected to the field, but instead of instantaneous communication which is normally assumed, it communicates at the speed of light.

[@timjohnson3913]

@@APaleDot Instant communication isn’t normally assumed

[@liamhagan4434]

I look forward to these so much. Thanks for all the hard work!!

[@hsanabria777]

Wouldn’t we find experimentally that charged particles have a “pancaked” field only when measured by an observer that sees the charged particle moving relative to themselves? A second particle moving at the same speed would observe no pancaked field at all, and thus would experience an electric field and corresponding force equivalent to that of a stationary particle. In order to recover the variable field that results in physical length contraction, we need to reintroduce a third particle at motion relative to the first two that observes the pancaked field and therefore observes the second particle move closer due to forces it experiences via the field.

[@timjohnson3913]

The answer to your question is yes, but I’m not sure what you are confused about. In normal relativity, observers moving in relative motion to each other see each other length contracted and have no issues with objects moving with their same relative motion. Why do you think there is a problem with two observers moving together under the explanation of this video?

[@erinm9445]

I mean, that is what we find experimentally, no?

[@diemme568]

@@ExistenceUniversity I'm not sure, from what you wrote, whether you understand it correctly, so let me put that in a more correct form. *1)* the guy sitting in the car observes nothing special about himself; *2)* you - outside the car, and "standing still" - observe: --- the car, the drivers and all the things moving "together" with the car as being "pancaked" in the direction of motion; but everything is pancaked by the same amount, so nobody notices anything strange; meters are pancaked just like everything so they measure the same lengths; --- everything in the car, or moving together with it, experiences time as ticking slower: all clocks AND all physical / physiological processes are slowed down by the same amount so they notice nothing weird: they seem to be experiencing a slower time passage and not realizing it; --- (last but not least): the clocks ahead of them (in the direction of travelling) and in their rear do not show (TO YOU) the same time. This is a tie to *general relativity* , and is due to the car driver's (prior) *acceleration* phase that brought him from being in "your" frame (standing "still") to their final, constant, velocity. While accelerating, in fact, the car experiences an instantaneous and uniform gravitational field (equivalence principle) pointing to his rear, with a magnitude equal to that of their acceleration with respect to you standing still; the clocks in the rear then *slow down* (being deeper "down" in the gravitational field) and the clocks ahead *run faster* (they're more "up" in the gravitational field); then the car stops accelerating and the situation becomes "frozen", with the clocks ahead and in the rear showing different times *but ticking at exactly the same (yet slower) pace* . *3)* the guy in the car, when looking at YOU (standing still) has an exactly symmetrical experience of YOU (pancaked, slowed down, and with your front and rear clocks _ticking slower yet in sync_ , and showing times ahead and delayed, respectively).

[@diemme568]

@@ExistenceUniversity NO. and I feel sorry for your "students" if you're a teacher. You evidently do not understand relativistic physics... or .. well physics for that matter. I was right to take the time to show you the right picture. I'll repeat just ONE more time, then I'm done: According to Dialect - and I don't share the same view - the drivers *pancakes* physically. Dialect says, I DO pancake when I'm driving. and YOU DO TOO. But - again Dialect says - : there is NO WAY of detecting this "pancaking" because every pancaked sensor (be it nerves, meters, any instruments that you can think of) ALSO PANCAKES in the very same shape and amount. And this pancaking is absolute. it happens. the argument "do you feel pancaked when driving?" is nonsensical in EVERY physics reasoning possible. You are a layman, therefore YOU SHOULDN'T TEACH anyone about physics. But... I repeat: I don't share the same view, but for other reasons! I'm pro-relativistic view, so spacetime is really contracting and time is slowing, and all that jazz... only my view is that physics is made of RELATIONS and this has some deeper implications about spacetime etc.. but you wouldn't understand, cuz you're an absolute ignorant of the matter.. LET IT SUFFICE that your view is WRONG. don't tell anyone please! don't "teach this stuff"... please don't.

[@Clover-qz8nl]

What a beautiful video of great value 🫶 it’s amazing how you can make this work 🍀 thank you for sharing this beautiful piece of artwork with us all ♾️ keep it up 👍 sharing is caring

[@jeromemalenfant6622]

This is complete BS. A stationary charge does not emit 'waves' that travel outward to form its electrostatic potential. Nor does it when it is moving at a uniform velocity. It emits outward-traveling waves only when the charge is accelerated. At 11:27 he mentions 'frequency'. Well, what frequency do these waves have? How would you measure it? More importantly, if you had two equal, separate charges, both at rest, both 'pinging' at the same frequency, you would get constructive and destructive interference of these waves. As a consequence the combined potential would not be simply phi_1 + phi_2; there would be places where it is larger and places where it is smaller. Length contraction (and time dilation) has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. The way we know this is that Planck's constant, h bar, does not appear in the equations for length contraction or time dilation. When an electric charge is moving (or equivalently is viewed from a moving frame of reference) it is not just that its electric field is compressed in the direction of motion, but also there is the presence of a magnetic field, a magnetic field that did not exist when the charge was at rest. Any explanation of the compressed electric field has to also explain the existence of this magnetic field. Length contraction is not all that mysterious, and does not require a mechanistic explanation. As an analogy, consider a 3-dimensional object like a rectangular box with 6 sides. How you 'experience' this box depends on the angle you view it from. Viewing it one way you only see one side of the box. Rotate it by 90 degrees you see another side. Rotate the box by 45 degrees you would see two sides but their widths would be contracted. And so on. In a similar fashion, a charged object like an electron has an electromagnetic field associated with it. When you view the field in a frame at rest with respect to the electron you are viewing it from one 'angle' in spacetime, and you experience one aspect of the EM field, namely a spherically symmetric electric field. When you view the electron from a moving frame you are viewing it from a different angle in spacetime and you experience a different aspect of the EM field, a squished electric field as well as a magnetic field. And that's all there is to length contraction. No need for some complicated mechanism such as claimed in this video.

[@soopergoof232]

@jeromemalenfant662 wrote: "This is complete BS. A stationary charge does not emit 'waves' that travel outward to form its electrostatic potential." If you notice, he presaged it with "Lets imagine"....the emitted wavefronts and their "pinging". In other words, it's not meant as literal, but as a heuristic visualization. It threw me too, until I watched it a second time and picked up on the "Lets imagine" part (right after the short bus zinger).

[@jeromemalenfant6622]

@@soopergoof232 The claim is that superposition causes length contraction; i.e. superposition of these waves. So he does take these waves as literal.

[@tomerwolberg37]

​​@@jeromemalenfant6622he seems to model it as many deltas with some frequancy that way there isnt any destructive interference. And im pretty sure that it doesn't matter if you imagine them in phase or out of phase if you model it by looking at how many unit pulses pass at certain point in a certain amount of time. You'll get the same formula which he showed. That being said, modeling the potential like this seems to me like an assumption (or postulate) so he just replaced the postulate of relativity with another postulate, so he didn't made the model "simpler" in any way. Sorry for bad English.

[@jdjdkddkdkdkkf3390]

Time dilatation and lenght contraction is dependent on acceleration. If an object is travelling past your frame at near speed of light it will accelerate from you (doppler effect).

[@jeromemalenfant6622]

@@jdjdkddkdkdkkf3390 No, time dilation and length contraction are dependent just on relative velocity, even if there is no acceleration. An object traveling past you will just move away if it's moving at constant speed; the wavelengths of light it emits will be blue-shifted as it approaches and red-shifted as it recedes by the Doppler effect.

[@itzchi]

Simply amazing and intuitive explanation!

[@zvikabar-kochva3641]

Truely mindblowing, Dalect. Thanks!

[@sifeyanis591]

Great video as always, however its really hard for me to just shift my entire understanding of SR & GR, on one hand there are the grounding formalisms of SR & GR that we know for over a 100 year and tought at every academic institut in the worlds, as well as all the remarkable predictions that these formalisms predicts and have proven been by many experiments, they're the fundation of science as we know it, on the other your theory look like a breakthrough to our understanding of those formalisms & their interpretations, I cant wait to read your paper, I hope you publish it soon

[@garson8217]

i have gone through the cannot believe due to 'the remarkable predictions' and 'every academic (institute)' argument phase myself. How can this possibly be true? then all these people must have missed it? It took me a while, but this feeling will subside, if you will be persistent and critical and never take anyones word for it, certainly not the last citizens with titles. Lee Smolin summarized this (and a shocking number of other mainstream scientific pseudotruth's (as history in physics ed. is called pseudophysics - but is actual verifiable falsification, i will keep that term), that it is truly mind boggling how many intelligent people can be truly convinced of something of which they later independently come to see is so obviously wrong... Relativity is one thing, but how many MD's actually do not have a full grasp of what a p-value is, leads to what is called death-by-significance. 'The cult of statistical significance' written by the amici of SCOTUS on the subject is as unbelievable as well as irrefutable。 All I can coclude is that social subjective reality and something with the development related to consciousness or cognition is being missed by our academia and our culture. The term modern science has not been appropriate for at least 200 years. Humility and soul-searching for science... and thank Brahman for AI.

[@empireempire3545]

As an actual PhD, this is jaw-dropping. I wish my uni lecturers we 10% as good as You

[@-_Nuke_-]

PHD in relativity or some other field?

[@connorodonnell5641]

Great video but there is a few mistakes properties of a charge moving at constant velocity are derived by the Leonard weichert potential and the transformation of the physical fields,by the Lorentz transformations of the EM field strength tensor it is not simply a translation and contraction. Also the derivation of the invariance of the potential is invalid as the electric potential can mix with the components of the magnetic vector potential. Maxwells equations are a spin 1 representation of the Poincaré group. Any theory respecting the experimentally tested transformation properties of electromagnetism can only be representations of this group.

[@Philipp-v4n]

Correct me if I'm wrong but does this not just show that a moving object is streched in direction orthogonal to the direction of motion instead of being contracted in direction of motion? So the faster the object, the wider it gets?

[@timjohnson3913]

No, the video is providing an explanation for length contraction. If you can show which specific part of the math/video is making you think there is no length contraction, it would be easier to answer your question.

[@Philipp-v4n]

@@timjohnson3913 It is shown at 19:16: The equipotential surface is elliptic but compared to a resting particle it is just streched vertically rather than beeing compressed horizontally.

[@APaleDot]

That's what I'm wondering.

[@Philipp-v4n]

Also, the electric field is the gradient of the electric potential field, so the electric field strength should decrease in vertical direction if the potential field streches in vertical direction

[@timjohnson3913]

@@Philipp-v4n I think he just didn’t show the horizontal compression in this graphic because he was focused on the vertical explanation at the time you linked. 6:38 and throughout the video he claims length contraction is real and shows horizontal squishing.

[@Quadr44t]

The hippies were so right though! Everything really is just.... like.... waves man! (like a background in physical/organic chemistry and plenty of spectroscopy really helps me in my hobby of music production. Waves be waves yo!)

[@robertpaterson5477]

Are there any working physicists in here that can back this up or refute any of these videos? Where's Brian Greene when you need him.

[@TheOneMaddin]

I'm a PhD theoretical physicist and all he says is sound. In fact, it is not different from standard school book physics in its predictions, just different in the interpretation. It is more philosophy than physics and thereby something most physicists are not trained in (but should be if they are working in the foundations).

[@pradyuman9151]

I am doing my Ph.D. on something similar I am able to explain both gravity and the CMBR as well as cosmological redshift with aether and this is exactly how I explain Electro dynamics to my juniors

[@viyye]

​@@TheOneMaddinit's a little more than philosophical if they about to do away with relatively and unify electromagnetic and mechanical physics

[@chem7553]

He's correct

[@viyye]

@@OhPuree42 Einstein disagreed with most of his work just before the end of his life, his theories rely on nonsense concepts and give outlandish conclusions Anyone who things the CONCEPT space bends should not call themselves scientists, I don't care how many degrees and PhD's you have or nobel's you have won, you are an idiot

[@hu5116]

Very nice and intriguing! Sounds like you are onto something! Love this channel! Bravo!

[@konradswart4069]

I am a physicist. Dialect doesn't realize it, but he commits the logical error of the circular argument: explaining something by using it, albeit in a very hidden way. That is, in a way he is not aware of. The flaw in this whole argument, and why he hasn't explained the Principle of Relativity as he claims, is that he invokes the Doppler effect in the form Sqrt[c + v)]/Sqrt[c - v], which is a formula that _follows from_ The Special Theory of Relativity. Therefore, this whole argument is basically explaining Special Relativity from Special Relativity.. Still, Dialect makes a point. He at least shows that The Special Theory of Relativity and Waves (quantum waves?) have something to do with each other. And, indeed, they do. Dialect's explanation is close. He needs to make just one step more to make his claim valid. He is in the same position as Andrew Wiles once was, who at one point thought he had solved Fermat's last theorem, until somebody pointed out a shortcoming in his proof. Still, Andrew Wiles later succeeded to prove Fermat's last theorem to the satisfaction of all mathematicians who understood him and could follow him, because Wiles was at least very close. In the same way, the argument of Dialect is very convincing on first sight. In fact, I watched this video because I believed somebody else had found what I had found. But he has not. Nevertheless, he is _very close!_ _Keep on it, Dialect!_ _You are almost there!_

[@se7964]

Dude you are NOT physicist. The Doppler equation is from classical sound physics, relativity requires a modified version. Even high schoolers knows that 🤦‍♀️

[@konradswart4069]

@@se7964 I want to point out, that the maker of this video first introduced the classical Doppler effect, and then introduced another formula, on top of this, which is the Doppler effect of special relativity, and not that of classical physics. He then uses it to eliminate the Doppler effect in the radiation in a moving particle. That second Doppler effect is derived from the special theory of relativity. In fact, it is one of the very many reformulations of the special theory of relativity. Look it up for yourself, if you don't believe me. You can find the explanation in the book: Introducing Einstein's Relativity by Ray D'Inverno, in Chapter 2, A Special Relativity, where the concept of the k-factor is explained. To be precise, in paragraph 2.8, 'Relative Speed of two inertial observers. you can find the formula for what is called the k-factor in that book, which is basically a reformulation of the Galilean Principle of Relativity in the context of a space where the speed of light is the same for all observers moving relatively with respect to each other. And those are exactly the two assumptions Einstein made from which he derived the Lorentz transformations in his classical paper of 1905. The Doppler formula in this video is just this same k factor, expressed in terms of Doppler shifts. I have a university degree in both physics and mathematics. High schoolers do not know anything about this k factor. Moreover, I want to point out again, that the maker of this video just introduced this modified version of the Doppler shift, and put that _on top of_ the classical Doppler shift. So, before accusing somebody of not being a physicist, _check your premises!_

[@erinm9445]

@@konradswart4069 Congrats--I've been following this series of Dialect's videos with interest since the time dilation video. I find them very compelling and they give me way better intuitions for SR than the traditional interpretation, which seems valuable all on its own. Logically his ideas hold up to an informed non-expert, but I'm not a physicist so I can't actually assess the quality of the physics. I've combed the comments of all of the videos seeking physicists who can find actual holes in the argument, not just vague acusations of pseudoscience without an argument. Yours is the first comment I've found that actually gives one! This is exciting! (The other critique that has been valid is that his ideas don't work without physical length contraction, but given that Dialect has implied from the start that such a thing exists and he will cover it in a future video--and he now finally has--that doesn't count as a critique to me, but rather a condition for validity). I am so curious about your own ideas on this topic. To me (again, a non-physicist), the relativity of simultenaity seems like a waving red flag that there is something we are misinterpreting about special relativity. Not that it's impossible that the universe should work in such a strange way, but that it is strange enough that we shouldn't accept it without extraordinary evidence. The evidence we have for the *math* of special relativity is indeed extraordinary, but if there is a physical interpretation of that math that restores simulteneity--not to mention absolute space and time--then that should be taken very seriously, rather than treating a relativity-of-simultenaity-etc argument as almost a reified article of faith, which is what I see from a lot of the comments from physicists here.

[@gbpferrao]

so the derivation of the doppler effect comes from special relativity now huh?

[@konradswart4069]

@@gbpferrao Right! Because according to Quantum Mechanics, all matter is both waves and particles. Therefore everything in motion exhibits Doppler effects. I can explain the slowing down of clocks, for example, when they move as purely coming from Doppler effects. I shall not show the derivation here, because it is, although mathematical simple, quite intricate, because to follow it requires a very deep understanding of time itself. Read Einstein's original paper of 1905, wherein he clearly states, that the special theory of relativity follows from two postulates. Postulate 1: The validity of all laws of nature (not only mechanics) of the Galilean Principle of Relativity. Postulate 2: The invariance of the speed of light for observers that move with respect to each other at constant speed. Both give rise to the formula k =Squrt (c + v)/Squrt(c - v) = Sqrt(1 + v/c)/Sqrt(1 - v/c) which is exactly the correction factor the maker of this video 'threw in' without any explanation'. It is this k-factor formula which corrected his Doppler shift explanation so that you see a 'squeezing' effect he shows in his animations, instead of the picture before that which showed something quite different. So he _used_ the special theory of relativity _to correct_ the Newtonian picture of absolute space and time. So, he _introduced_ the length contraction _to explain_ the length contraction. And that is why his whole argument is circular. Before you say 'huh?' making your question not a real question, but just a sarcastic remark, do something about your _ignorance_ about what physicists, especially Einstein himself, has published, and _try to understand it first!_ _Show some respect for people who understand the special theory of relativity better than you do!_

[@AstroPatel]

Brilliant video, and visuals. I wish this was around when I was in undergrad and taking E&M. It's not quite useful for a more mature understanding of E&M, you need tensors, field theories, and gauges atleast for that, but I think this specific derivation is quite original; the concept of using classical mechanics to derive special relativity is not (and you acknowledge that, to be fair). Treating photons as particles and using basic geometry can get a bright high schooler to understand special relativity just fine - introductory undergrad courses do it often. This video is pretty intuitive for any undergrad that has taken atleast two semesters of E&M. I also think that asserting that the principle of relativity is superfluous is a prochronistic claim, as (someone else pointed out) potentials are not observable. One could argue that the Aharonov-Bohm effect says otherwise, but if you knew that then you would've brought it up. Theorists try to avoid is treating mathematical constructs as physically meaningful unless they actually are: the electric and magnetic fields are real and observable (or you could say that the consequences of U(1) invariance on the dirac eq are real and observable). But the magnetic vector potential/electric potential is not. I'd be interested to see how this framework applies to something like free-neutron decay. Is there something about the strong force interactions of quarks that leads to the decay timing being what it is? You could start with something like the Cornell potential to make a similar set of videos/visualizations. I think the problem is that it's hard to perform QCD without using field theories to host your wave equations, but the wave equations are still there. 6:05 "There is no such thing as the contraction of space itself" - Sure there is, that's what GR is all about. Until this formalism provides an alternative for the *explanatory* power of GR in the context of: gravitational lensing, procession of orbits, gravitational wave *detections*, gravitational wave background, baryon acoustic oscillations, and a couple of other *predicted observations*, it is not fair to assert that spacetime does not contract. I agree that such contraction is not relevant to the flattening of the E-field in a relativistic frame though. Things play nicely in flat spacetime, but once you introduce curvature, you can still rely on wave-mechanics, you just have to provide a framework for them to operate in curved space.

[@w.o.jackson8432]

8:40 The short bus had me dying 😆

[@darrennew8211]

My thought was "Whoops, how to get canceled over a theoretical physics video!" :-)

[@willo7734]

it wasn’t short it was “length contracted” 😅

[@lorenzoa.ricciardi4264]

Your videos are absolutely exceptional! I smiled when you talked about retarded potentials, as time ago I read some brilliant but relatively unknown books from Prof. Jefimenko. I strongly suggest you read "Causaility, Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation", "Electromagnetic retardation theory of Relativity" and "Gravitation and Co-gravitation", if you haven't already.

[@apolo399]

I hate being a hater, but this video shows an absolute lack of reasearch into this topic. This "overlooked" formalism is anything but. Any good physics class _for phycisist_ will make use of retarded potentials to study the interaction of field and matter. This is not at all a 130-year-old mystery, it's either bad professors that you guys may have had or poor research from your part. This formalism is used today from EM to QFT, in the form of the advanced and retarded propagators, and more clearly, the Green's functions. Edit: to not seem overly negative, I'd like to propose how Dialect should, imo, retackle this topic. 1) Begin with how historically EM was srudied. How the ether was proposed (all the assumptions that the ether depends on) as the material medium for EM, how things were derived with this framework, how it didn't survive experiments (not only the Michelson-Morley experiment, all the subsequent ones as well), how it was tried to be explained with different assumptions and so on. 2) Explain the postulates of SR and the issues they might have. How the full Lorentz transformation is derived (not the one that's only in the x direction, but the full expression that works for all directions and includes rotations, I have the full derivation so you can contact me for it). 3) An overview of Maxwell's equations, gauge invariance (the Aharanov-Bohm effect is lovely but it might be too much too explain). Recast these equations in Lorentz covariant form and then solve them using Green's functions and show this video's thought experiment under this framework (you can contact me for this as well, I have the full derivation done already). 4) How your approach is different to the ether theory, if it is, how it's different from SR, what are the assumptions of your approach and what novelty brings to the table.

[@erinm9445]

I've been trying to understand your comment as someone without a physics education but with, I like to think a good analytical mind and reasonable amature background knowledge. When you say that retarded potentials are used on various areas of physics, could you explain how this contradicts what Dialect says? And are you specifically talking about retarded potentials for objects in uniform motion? Because I would think that for the standard interpretation of special relativity, retarded potentials wouldn't apply to a single charged particle in vacuum--because that single charged particle is always at rest in its own frame, and in vacuum, there's nothing for it to be moving relative to. Dialect is saying that it does apply though, because his videos posit some kind of spacetime medium. Obviously if you are ruling out a spacetime medium from the start then everything else he says is nonsense, but I think you have to take his broader set of ideas together as a whole, since they work together to give a heterodox interpretation of SR, and no one part works without all of the others.

[@apolo399]

@@erinm9445 The description of the video says "a long-overlooked formalism". The video also mischaracterizes how the study of fields is actually approached today, makes up how an actual high level physics class works (a professor that says "shut up and calculate" should be fired outright), and makes it seem as if retarded potentials aren't at all used today, as some sort of fringe concept that was forgotten but that miraculously is able to solve this issue. What Dialect portrays in this video is in contradiction to what is done in actuality in physics. Retarded potentials absolutely work for stationary particles, they aren't still, they are moving through time too. Retarded potentials and advanced potentials arise naturally in the study of differential equations, and what is remarkable is that Heaviside got to them with different argumentations. It doesn't mean that his argumentation or mechanism was correct, but that Maxwell's equations are consistent, as retarded potentials are just a type of fundamental solution to a differential equation. Also, you don't need a reference frame to do SR, the important thing is to keep equations Lorentz covariant, you only choose a reference frame when you want to extract data from an experiment. QFT as far as I have studied does take the spacetime manifold as the support for all other physical fields, there's no material luminiferous ether, that was already discarded by experiment in the famous Michelson-Morley experiments. And this I want to emphisize, what killed the ether wasn't SR, it was experiment.

[@erinm9445]

​@@apolo399 I almost mentioned MM in my comment, but it seemed superfluous. But MM did not disprove the ether. It proved that either there is no ether OR if there is ether, then there must be length contraction that perfectly cancels out the expected time difference in the MM experiment. Fitzgerald first proposed length contraction precisely as a solution to the MM results. To be clear, I'm not saying there IS an ether either (not a question I have an opinion on), what is important to me is that absolute space and time are in fact still possible. I did not interpret Dialect to mean that physicists don't use retarded potentials, but rather that don't use them in this way, in this context, to explain this thing. Your paragraph about using retarded potentials for stationary particles moving through time goes over my head to be perfectly honest, so I can't tell if you have convincingly argued that this is the same context in which Dialect is using them or no. Imporantly though, Dialect's style does him no favors. He is pompous, egotystical, and rude, and FRAMES what he says in dishonest ways about science and scientists. It's obnoxious and it deeply undercuts his credibility. I thought he was completely uncredible for a long time--until one of his videos gave me far better intuitions for SR than any of the many, many SR youtube videos I'd been watching over the years. I started taking some (not all) of his ideas more seriously, and I always look for the critiques of the physicists in the comments. The only critiques that have really stuck that I've seen, are the ones that amount to saying that his ideas don't work without length contraction becasue of MM. And he always implied he had a length contraction video eventually coming. And he's not the only person to put out these ideas (not giving enough credit to others is another one of his failings), some very credible working physicists have proposed similar things, but their papers are written at a level that I mostly can't understand (except for one wonderful short paper by the wonderful John Stewart Bell). It's a shame that Dialect's style undercuts him. I would really love for some legit physicists to take on his ideas--like really take the on critically, which is not the same as seeking to debunk them based on the starting assumption that they're wrong--so that if there are genuine holes in them, they could actually be convinginly pointed out and explained to laypeople like me.

[@apolo399]

@@erinm9445 So, we absolutely use retarded potentials (or more properly, Liénard-Wiechert potentials, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential) in this context, to explain this thing. It's one of the things we analyze in an electromagnetic theory class. We might begin looking at the fundamental solutions to the wave equation for the potentials (Green's functions that are in essence a notion of retarded and advanced potential), and from there we have solutions to the wave equation with sources. We then unpack the solution by taking the source 4-current as that of a point charge and then all of this pops out. Retarded potentials in the context of solving differential equations in SR arise from the concept of _Cauchy surfaces_ (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_surface). I say this to emphasize that retarded potentials don't need the a charge moving in 3D space, retarded potentials come directly from the study of the _homogeneous_ equation with some boundary conditions. This exact analysis I have it done in my notebook, with almost the exact same drawing that Heaviside has on page 433 of the third volume of Electromagnetic Theory.

[@apolo399]

@@erinm9445 So, we absolutely use retarded potentials (or more properly, Liénard-Wiechert potentials, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential) in this context, to explain this thing. It's one of the things we analyze in an electromagnetic theory class. We might begin looking at the fundamental solutions to the wave equation for the potentials (Green's functions that are in essence a notion of retarded and advanced potential), and from there we have solutions to the wave equation with sources. We then unpack the solution by taking the source 4-current as that of a point charge and then all of this pops out. Retarded potentials in the context of solving differential equations in SR arise from the concept of Cauchy surfaces (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_surface). I say this to emphasize that retarded potentials don't need the a charge moving in 3D space, retarded potentials come directly from the study of the homogeneous equation with some boundary conditions. This exact analysis I have it done in my notebook, with almost the exact same drawing that Heaviside has on page 433 of the third volume of Electromagnetic Theory.

[@mathoph26]

Great vidéo ! And the charge interference or superposition, can explain: pauli exclusion principle, light emission from atoms and exchange energy in quantum mechanics. Keep up the good work 👊

[@Number6_]

Well that explains it then, if the guy didn't have such a heavy side the charge wouldn't have been flattened and they would have learned nothing.😮. Thus they avoided the retarted potential and came up with the theory.

[@markusm2538]

You are not alone. Energy Wave Theory (EWT) seems close to those ideas

[@stanieldev]

I strongly believe that with making such big claims on how one of the foundations for modern physics is misunderstood as bad as it is, without inclusion of a full theory in a peer-reviewed process, is grossly misleading. While I believe a LOT of the mathematics and ideas are very interesting, that doesn't make them any stronger. I love your videos, more-so for the "thinking beyond the dogma," but I cannot get behind a theory with, not only many flaws, a theory that would upend most of modern astrophysical science.

[@dialectphilosophy]

We appreciate your concerns, and if you feel that there are flaws please feel free to bring them up, as criticism can always lead to better mutual understanding. However you should note that we are only reinterpreting the physical picture of special relativity here, and none of our work predicts anything new (yet) so there are no immediate up-endings in sight. Unfortunately, the modern peer review process is rather corrupt, and acts mainly as a gate-keeping force for maintaining the status-quo. Thinking like ours is simply not allowed, and hence is unlikely to receive publication in any "reputable" journal. That is why we are here on KZbin, and indeed, we much prefer the KZbin peer-review process! Check out the "Physics Problems and Solutions" channel for instance, which provides good peer-reviews -- and ardent criticisms -- of our own work.

[@OhPuree42]

​@@dialectphilosophy that's it. That's the proof I needed to be sure you are a crackpot theorist.

[@konradswart4069]

Don't forget that 'peeer reviews' have rejected Chaos Theory, and continental drift! And let us not speak about Archaeology, with their blind hatred against the idea of Atlantis. These 'peer reviewers' are even destroying Gobekli Tepe!

[@Inductica]

While peer review is useful in that more experts evaluate a work, let's not forget the primary way you determine the merits of an idea: by evaluating it against the facts of reality for yourself. You may not have the requisite knowledge to do that, and in such cases you would rely on experts you have evaluated on the level you can, but keep in mind that when you do this you don't understand for yourself, with 100% certainty, whether you are right or not. The only way to have that is to understand it yourself, and in such cases, you don't need peer review.

[@stanieldev]

@@dialectphilosophy I do agree, a lot of modern peer-review is stuck in the "everything is perfect" mindset. I do enjoy the ideas and I'm glad you and a few others youtubers have been shattering the dogmatic ways of how we interpret the universe. I wish to see how you can rectify a few issues you've mentioned in the video, because having the groundwork for another interpretation for the physical world would be incredible :D

[@jonathandawson3091]

This is absolutely kind blowing!

[@erinm9445]

I love this autocorrect

[@jonathandawson3091]

@@erinm9445 lol sorry I meant mind blowing

[@erinm9445]

@@jonathandawson3091 I know! Like I said, a great autocorrect!

[@FunkyDexter]

2:55 No, the usual explanation is that there is no difference in moving inertial frames and stationary ones with respect to events IN THE SAME FRAME. Bouncing a ball on a moving train is no different than bouncing it on a train at rest. Never is it said that there is no difference between not co-moving frames, like observing from the station a ball being bounced inside a moving train. 19:00 same mistake. the pancaking happens only with respect to an observer at rest. In the frame of the moving charge, there is no pancaking, yet your model predicts there is.

[@erinm9445]

In the frame of the moving charge no pancaking will be *measured*, even though it does occur, because any instrument that is in the same inertial frame to do the measuring will be length contracted by the same amount.

[@zemm9003]

​@@erinm9445why would the length contraction be the same. This was the original reason why people were quick to abandon the immensely more popular (at the time) Lorentz's Theory in favor of the much more obscure (again at the time) Einstein's Theory. It's a huge assumption to think length contraction would always work the same way regardless of what actually constitutes matter or what other Physical forces there might exist (some of them potentially still not known to us).

[@erinm9445]

@@zemm9003Say for a sec that Dialect's theories are right, and that it's absolute motion (not relative motion) that creates length contraction. Now imagine that I use a ruler (a long one!) to measure your height while we are both at rest. No problem, I measure it to be X. Next imagine that we are both simultaneously accelerated upward until we are moving at a constant speed of 95% of the speed of light. Now we are both length contracted along the vertical axis. And if I go to measure your height, the ruler will be length conracted by the same amount. And so I will still measure your height as X. If it's only you that is moving at 95% of c and I am at rest, and can somehow measure you with the ruler, only then will I be able to perceive your length contraction with my ruler. I believe it works out so that no matter what kind of measuring device you use, no matter what kind of trickery you employ, the length contraction will always be obscured by instruments experiencing the same length contraction.

[@erinm9445]

@@zemm9003 As far as the huge assumption you cite, in one sense, yes, more study is needed. That makes sense for a new interpretation, no? But the question is, is it plausible? And--I'm not a physicist, so point out where I'm wrong, but--if all particles turn out to be wave packets that communicate and interact with each other at the same speed c, then it seems plausible, and consistent with what we know about QFC so far. And certainly no bigger an assumption than the assumption that light speed is the same for all reference frames, or that space and time are relative.

[@zemm9003]

@@erinm9445 the assumption is not that light speed is the same for all reference frames. The assumption is that all bodies travel with the same speed c in spacetime and that massless particles don't have proper time. Originally the invariance of light speed was the motivator but nowadays the set of Axioms we use for Relativity is much more profound as they are focused on the ability of exchanging time and space.

[@TheAAMvideos]

Something really groundbreaking is happening here. Excited to see where this goes!

[@wafikiri_]

Minkowskian spacetime is four-dimensional, a well known feature. What I found is not. Minkowskian spacetime is a subspace (a submanifold) of an Euclidean five-dimensional spacegravitime manifold such that the Euclidean distance between two gravievents (events with an additional "gravi" coordinate) in any gravitime plane containing those two gravievents equals the Euclidean distance in any spatial submanifold containing those two gravievents. Edit: substituted 'Euclidean distance' for 'spatial distance after 'equals.'

[@-_Nuke_-]

Wow, never heard about these terms before... Are they yours or can I find more somewhere about them?

[@mikakuna102]

why would you assume that there's a 5-dimensional space? aren't 4-dimensionsal minkowski spacetime enough? and if we are just adding extra dimensions, why stop at 5, i'd love to see the universe in a 24-dimensional manner

[@wafikiri_]

@@mikakuna102 Because just considering one more dimension, the Universe turns fully Euclidean. Curvature of spacetime becomes curvature of a feature of the universe, not of its own shape. Looking at things from another viewpoint often brings up answers to questions.

[@wafikiri_]

Oh, and the dimension I added, we can feel. It may well be called gravity. When spacetime is flat, the gravity dimension is 0. When not, gravity is what has to be geometrically combined with time, orthogonally, to get the same distance obtained from just space. Edit: I should correct the above. Where spacetime is flat, the new coordinate is constant. Between two gravievents, the difference in the new coordinate is what has to be added to time lapse, orthogonally, to get spatial distance. It is called interval in physics.

[@wafikiri_]

@@entrancemperium5506 To convey complex ideas, you use math. That is what I did. Consider Lorenz transformations between two inertial frames with a constant speed difference. Then you have the metric of the 4-dimensional spacetime, with event coordinates (t, x, y, z) ± (δτ)² = (δt)² - (δx)² - (δy)² - (δz)² wherein τ is the interval, t is time, and x, y, and z are spatial coordinates. δ, differential, refers to coordinate changes between two events. Now consider a 5-dimensional manifold such that the extra dimension is exactly τ. You then have what I called gravievents, points in the 5-D manifold with coordinates (τ, t, x, y, z). In these, just because we chose τ to comply with the Lorenz transformation, we have 0 = ±(δτ)² + (δt)² - (δx)² - (δy)² - (δz)² Or, moving terms, (δt)² ± (δτ)² = (δx)² + (δy)² + (δz)² The right member of the above equation can be easily identified with Euclidean distance, the Pithagorean theorem extended to the three spatial dimensions. And, if the sign of (δτ)² is positive, also the above equation's left member complies with the original Pithagorean theorem: (δt)² + (δτ)² is Euclidean distance in any plane containing the two extreme gravievents. As both Euclidean distances equal each other, by definition, and we have not bounded 5-D events, planes, or spaces, all submanifolds of the 5-D manifold defined are Euclidean and, thus, the whole manifold is Euclidean. If we choose (δτ)² to be negative, we have (δt)² = (δx)² + (δy)² + (δz)² + (δτ)² In this case, δτ is not a timelike distance but a spacelike one, and time lapse between two 5-D events in this new 5-D manifold directly is the 4-D distance between them, spatial coordinates then being (x, y, z, τ). I did not talk of this other 5-D manifold but it could represent the reality of our Universe: spatial Euclidean distance would be orthogonally combined with the new coordinate's difference between the two events, to give time. Also wholly Euclidean. Which proves what I posited first. Edit: Not all submanifolds of the above 5-D manifolds are Euclidean. Not those that have both time or timelike new coordinate and a spatial coordinate at least, like the Minkowskian spacetime. But the 5-D manifold is the product of the span of the timelike coordinates (time and τ or time alone) and the span of the spatiallike coordinates (spatial alone or spatial and τ, resp.)., which are each Euclidean and do not intersect each other. So, these 5-D manifolds are Euclidean

[@theosib]

Awesome video! A!so the graphics are absolutely stunning!

[@declanwk1]

Dialect's videos throw up a smoke screen to hide the fact that he did not have the patience to properly understand Relativity. An alternative interpretation might flatter people, by giving comforting answers as to why they do not understand it. But any alternative theory must fit the experimental facts. Relativity is one of the most tested theories in history, so far it has not failed any.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

He, textbooks (then also A.Einstein ,esp.H.Minkowsky as a mathematician in seeing that in a complex plane (x,ict) the distance in NOT path dependent - according to the plain calculus theorem) made a lot of crazy mistakes in interpretation: e.g. A.E in 1905 article was surprised with "peculiar consequence" for a traveling (mythical) clock but not surprised at "length contraction" because the situation is symmetrical for both systems one "at rest" and one "moving"! A total nonsense (of his interpretation!). He died without resolving this stupid still debated paradox (see info in R.Schlegel on the conversation with him in 1952, 3 years before his death; both were fooled in the same way: they replaced "so-called GR case of A.E.1918 argument as silly by 3-travelers (two of them just switch a direction to avoid the "acceleration" but this "switching" (they don't say in which system as all the textbooks !) is just:v-(-v)=2v, then divided by time it makes ...a plain acceleration again! Relativity is the theory of field and not of ...a "particle", rigid body or alive matter (twin)!

[@erinm9445]

Dialect is not challenging the math of special relativity. He is offering an alternative interpretation for the underlying reality that creates that math, and he's not the first to do so. It might be better to understand his argument before you acuse him of not understanding.

[@declanwk1]

even if you listen to all Dialects videos, you are left none the wiser as to his own theory. He spends ages saying that there must be a better interpretation to Relativity, that is less confusing blah blah blah. Finally he reveals his cards, he thinks relativity can be explained in terms of QM wave superposition. Anyone who gets this far has wasted a significant amount of their time.

[@willy8285]

​@@declanwk1 Hey I'm learning physics right now and seem to find a small portion of somewhat sized youtube channels professing their theories and new interpretations of supposedly already decided physics, with comments mentioning the controversial popularity of such opinions. I've been using mainly books and luckily haven't spent too much of my time on channels like these hoping to not possibly fall into a rabbithole, but this sparks the question of who am I going to trust? My current plan is not bothering watching videos where the comments are filled with criticism's and instead sticking strictly to formal rigorous books and popular lectures and acclaimed youtube channels. This advice would help a lot on how skeptical I should be. Thank you!

[@declanwk1]

@@willy8285 I think that you are doing the right thing. I struggle to understand physics solely from textbooks and find KZbin very helpful. If you are working on a particular topic, say electromagnetism, there are university lecturers who have posted whole lecture courses onto KZbin. I also use KZbin videos such as MinutePhysics, The Science Asylum, Veritassium and Fermilab to keep me inspired and not to give up, because Physics can be tough and difficult. When it comes to spotting charlatans, one rule of thumb is do they respect the physicists that came before them? When Einstein correctly predicted the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, something that Newton’s equations could not do, he had enormous respect for Newton, knowing that Newton had done the best with the tools and data available in the 17th Century. Charlatans also tend to go after the big guns, such as Einstein, since they are looking for a shortcut to fame and also would like to discredit the whole physics community for not entertaining their brilliant ideas :)

[@niteshsapkota335]

Went right over my head 😅 The complexity of the nature of our existence and reality I hope I don’t die before human understands gravity , dark matter and energy

[@KimOyhus]

Wrong! Einstein carefully explained how to synchronise clocks with light signals and how this shows relativistic length contraction. And I found similar explanations in most of the physics books that explained relativity when I studied physics. So, length contraction is no mystery, like Dialect wrongly believes. We also use time delayed fields when calculating electromagnetic radiation, as opposed to what Dialect believes.

[@alexjohnward]

Einstein used convention that the round trip speed of light was the same as the one way trip.

[@KimOyhus]

@@alexjohnward - No, he did not. Einstein used the definition that the time for light to travel back and forth is the same time to travel forth and back.

[@erinm9445]

You are correct in your description of the standard interpretation of relativity, which you will find in all physics textbooks, and which is the accepted version by probably 99.9% of physicists. Dialect's is an alternative interpretation--and he is not the first or only to try to show this type of interpretation. If Dialect's version can be shown to be as logically correct and internally consistent as the traditional version, then there are no experiments we currently know of to distinguish them, they are both valid interpretations.

[@marc-andredesrosiers523]

Good progress Sharing supporting authors is quite important. Thank you for that on your revolutionary journey. I think it's time that I share my piece of the puzzle. Einstein missed one equivalence principle. You can form a mechanistic story of causality using only efficient cause; but, you can also form a full story of causality using only sufficient reason. I'm not saying that they're both as enlightening to our minds; but, they can both be created and provide a full account of phenomena. In short, this provides a new line of inquiry for physicists to follow to complete physics. You'll need this as you attempt to get relativity to work with quantum entanglement. It'll help you to get a macroscopic analog/model to what's happening in there. Similar to what you've been doing for getting relativity out of Newton and Maxwell, by being more careful about how you piece the puzzle together. Good job! Keep it up!

[@88888888tiago]

Gold

[@bawdyanarchist8261]

Bro you are the most badass physicist on YT. Perhaps in the world

[@Aufenthalt]

Already the start"the special relativity is ambiguos on length contraction" means that the maker of the video us not fit on the argument

[@noobyfromhell]

Dialect is a philosopher. If he understood physics, he would be a physicist.

[@countwilly1]

I love that you're able to do the math and deeper reasoning for the things I'm becoming increasing suspicious of. Like the possibility of all 'laws' or measurements in physics being explainable through wave dynamics. Right now I'm blank on how interacting wave 'pings' could yield attraction vs. repulsion. I'm remembering bouncing droplets videos. Maybe some kind of combination of different types of waves in the medium? That's pretty much where I get lost (like, at conception).

[@timjohnson3913]

You’re in good company regarding getting lost when asking deeper “why” questions. I imagine any good answer to your question will also result in the possibility of another deeper why question. Every theory at some point has to draw its line in the sand and give its “just because” axioms.

[@Gringohuevon]

Nice piece of circular reasoning. You assume the velocity of c is finite and the same for all observers. Now, someone else famous did this but his name escapes me?

[@Darthvanger]

How assuming the velocity of c is finite and the same for all observers makes a circular reasoning?

[@juliodeluna2774]

@@Darthvanger Because the direct result of it is Special Relativity.

[@jdjdkddkdkdkkf3390]

@@juliodeluna2774the two way speed of light is constant and that was well known before relativity. Einstein’s theory of relativity is simply aether theory minus the aether plus the incorrect spacetime. Every prediction made by theory of relativity can be made using aether theory. What this video shows is that relativity is not real, and aether theory is real. If you can explain time dilatation and lenght contraction mechanically then you don’t need the theory of relativity and can discard its framework of spacetime.

[@onedeadsaint]

8:32 the title card followed by the appearance of what seems to be a short bus was just too much for me and i just burst out laughing. 🤣

[@JOAOPEREIRA-nu5rw]

Do you realize you used the second postulate of relativity implicitly? Afterall, the front waves you draw travel with the speed c irrespective to the charge movement. An easter egg can not be found by the person who hide it.

[@timjohnson3913]

Huh? The wave fronts are traveling at c with respect to the graphed background, not with respect to the charge.

[@erinm9445]

Exactly. Dialect's interpretation posits that EM waves always travel at the same speed C through the background medium, but that their speed changes relative an observer in motion. This is the opposite of the second postulate of relativity.

[@delvish9622]

Congratulations for understanding the second postulate in a rational way, unfortunately in SR constancy basically means "no matter how fast you go light always goes faster by that exact same amount, but also you're actually always at rest so no light didn't inherit the velocity of the source!"

[@JOAOPEREIRA-nu5rw]

Can you tell what object is moving? Is it the charge or the background? Either way the wavefronts would present the same behavior.

[@romanburtnyk]

That was very great. So many cool questions i haven't asked, like why inertial motion didn't make EM field to lag. But for me more natural to ask " why this math is perfectly cancels out?".

[@user-lb8qx8yl8k]

If a charged particle is in " "uniform motion" my only surprise is that someone educated on this topic would be surprised of the fact that the electric field vectors are in sync with the particle. Say that Bob is an inertial observer who sees the charged particle in uniform motion. He will see that the field is also in uniform motion and traveling at the same constant velocity as the particle. Moreover, "uniform motion" is a relative term. Say that Alice is at rest with the charged particle. Well she has equal right to say that herself, the particle, and the field are at rest, and it's Bob who is in uniform motion.

[@user-lb8qx8yl8k]

@@DrDeuteron-, Huh? To say that X is moving in uniform motion is to say that X's velocity is constant. The term "uniform" is an adjective meaninng ''unchanging.'

[@jcihanj9099]

In some of the literature, it may appear that length contraction and time dilation are presented as axioms, but that might be due to the style of the authors who presented those ideas. In Einstein's own writings as well as other more scholarly writings, those results were actually derived from experimental result of the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames.

[@seditt5146]

7:00 Yeah, that was always what my family called me. .. Retarded potential!

[@seditt5146]

Or was it potentially retarded? Idk, something like that, all I know is I am special and always had the King helmet when I played with all the other kids on the playground!

[@-_Nuke_-]

😂😂😂😂

[@nemvus_]

Wow, at this point I would say a published paper by the Dialect team is overdue! (or maybe I missed where this is mentioned?) If you'd like to change the trajectory of how Relativity is discussed, I see this as a good way to do it. Even a self-published paper or essay would be useful.

[@omvishwakarma3410]

There must be some reason why physicists doesn't consider these type of interpretation. These things may works in equations but there must be some observed experimental contradicton in real life that's why we don't see these interpretation in our textbooks 🤔. Maybe making relativity unintuitive just free ourself from arising experimental contradictons 🤔🤔. Sorry for the grammar I am not native speaker.

[@naromsky]

I studied at a very respectable university. The physics classes have always appeared as overly dogmatic to me. I'd attribute it basically to a shut-up-and-calculate attitude.

[@delvish9622]

Spacetime is unfalsifiable pseudoscience but like most people who get swindled, its adherents get mad at the person pointing out they've been fooled and not at the actual source of the deception.

[@Person-ef4xj]

An alternative reason for this type of interpretation to not be used might be that it ends up making more assumptions than the more accepted interpretation as generally an interpretation that makes more assumptions than necessary doesn’t get accepted even if it isn’t contradicted by evidence.

[@apolo399]

This interpretation, as it stands, fails to explain the emission of electromagnetic waves by an accelerated charge. It also misrepresents how EM is studied in higher level physics. The concept of retarded potentials is common knowledge between good phycisist, and it is used extensively today all the way to QFT. There is no paradox in SR, it is explained causally without issues and it has much more power to describe the interaction between field and matter.

[@erinm9445]

@@naromsky I wonder if it's left over from the fight that led to SR being accepted in the first place. Scientists like Heaviside and Lorentz and others had been wrestling with all of this stuff for so long, getting close but not quite being able to make it work. Then Einstein comes along and proposes SR, which must have seemed completely bonkers...yet it inarguably *worked* in a way that nothing else quite did, and led to incredibly accurate predictions and, with GR, predicted new physicals. You just can't argue with that. So suddenly you had to almost take a leap of faith and just believe the bizarro world that is relativity, or get left behind. Suddenly previously mainstream ideas like spacetime medium (ie ether) are seen as regressive and shunned, as is anyone that doesn't want to take the wackiness of SR without explanation. And things have been stuck there, even though our knowledge of wave mechanics actually gives us new tools to marry the math of SR with a more sensical view of physics--that is, to give an actual explanation for the weirdnesses of SR.

[@k_dankov]

Thank you for sharing this groundbreaking work. I was thinking on this problem for many years, and was close to the same reasoning, but never finished it the way you did here. It is unique to bring wave pinging idea to the problem. However I have one objection, maybe not serious but at least I want to bring it here. If we want this entire model to work we need to have a constant time pinging of the wave fronts, from the moving charge. If the actual pinging of the waves is time dilated then we will have a problem. Do you have any comments on this? I hope you will be able to bring soon the video about relativistic mass effects as well. It will be quite interesting to solve.

[@dialectphilosophy]

That's an interesting point, thank you for bringing it up. The wave pinging does essentially need to be continuous, or at least near-continuous, for this model to work; so this would indeed seem to imply that the process of the pinging cannot itself be driven by internal light-speed processes, else we ought to observe additional time dilation effects as you suggest. An alternative solution would be to suggest that the medium/ether itself is somehow doing or driving the pinging, and since the ether itself is not in motion, this would not lead to time dilation complications in the emission of electromagnetic disturbances.

[@sensorer]

This sounds compelling. Why don't you publish this in a peer-reviewed journal?

[@timjohnson3913]

Maybe he will someday, but he seems pretty busy as is. Also, the math is out here in the open, non-paywalled video format for anyone to peer review.

[@sensorer]

@@ExistenceUniversity there are videos where Dialect was wrong, but there are ones where they show others to be wrong. And also some just all-around good videos. "Entirely and unequivocally wrong" goes too far, IMO, but with these kinds of claims it would be nice to not only rely on my own judgement, but to have it reviewed by others

[@apolo399]

@@sensorer This one leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, as it shows a lack of comprehension on how exactly this topic is studied in SR. This supposed paradox does not exist in SR as it can explain it causally without issues whatsoever. Retarded potentials are taught today and are used even in QFT. I'll have to wait and see what the next video brings to the table since, as of right know, this has no substance.

[@sensorer]

@@apolo399 I don't think the goal is some kind of new physics, but rather showing that the same mathematics can be coherently interpreted in a non-standard way. I don't really like how it's stretched out over month with every video saying "but next time.....". We'll see how it unfolds

[@idegteke]

An ancient Hungarian story has that, on the marketplace, two tricksters exchange goods blindly (a bag of walnut to a bag of poppy seed) that turns out to be not else but nutgalls and ashes. Two arbitrary assumptions are making a good pair because neither relativity nor wave theories have tangible physical meaning inside our actually discoverable universe. Also reminds me to the liking competition where the winner is the one who likes a certain thing more than anybody else.