Matrix Theory: Relativity Without Relative Space or Time

[@academicalisthenics]

What I love about conversations and videos like this is that there are two options and you'll always get something out of it: a) either you learn something new about your topic and think about it in a way you never thought of before, teaching people what questions to ask (resulting in clearer, better explanations for everybody). Or b) you discover something groundbreaking and everyone profits from the updated knowledge accordingly. Sometimes life is not so much about getting the right answers, but about asking the right questions.

[@dialectphilosophy]

Thanks for watching!

[@Skullbro-bd4ue]

@@dialectphilosophy hey i have a question. If space and time are absolute than does that mean that spacetime curvature then does not exists?

[@jonathanhockey9943]

Those are the good options, an unfortunate common third option is to close one's mind to any alternatives, "debunk" any that arise, and pretend current theory has all the answers as this gives you a psychological sense of comfort.

[@alasdairwhyte6616]

@@Skullbro-bd4ue oh no, now it's the flat universe 🤣

[@Skullbro-bd4ue]

@@alasdairwhyte6616 lol

[@dialectphilosophy]

Hey there Viewers! We are very proud to present Matrix Theory here on KZbin, which (to the best of our knowledge) is an original unification of Einsteinian Special Relativity with Lorentzian Ether Theory. However, there was a LOT of information to pack into 25 minutes, and consequently many important details did not get the attention they deserved. In an attempt to address what are likely to be the main questions about the video, we have created an anticipatory FAQ here below. If you cannot find your question here, please leave it in a separate comment and we will try to respond to it as soon as we can, thank you! And yes, don’t worry - there will be follow-up videos! Q1: “Is it really impossible to know the one-way speed of light?” A: Yes - at least within the context of special relativity. This is in fact part of the theory’s foundations; for any experiment which could detect the one-way speed of light would disprove special relativity by establishing the existence of a preferred frame of reference. For more on this topic, see our video “The Loophole” linked in the description, or check out Veritasium’s “No One has Ever Measured the Speed of Light” Video. Q2: “Why can’t an observer make physical measurements of objects in motion?” A: You’ll find this question already addressed by a number of introductory videos on special relativity, which is why we omitted explaining it here. The short answer is that measuring the length or time intervals of an object in motion requires first establishing a notion of simultaneity. This in turn refers us back to the one-way-speed-of-light problem. Q3: “Are these backgrounds supposed to be literal or figurative? I’m confused by their exact meaning.” A: The backgrounds are essentially figurative; they are “maps” of how space and time will appear within frames traveling at certain velocities, relative to the observer making the measurements. The essential idea here to grasp is that in SR, observers are making maps of space and time by assigning spatiotemporal coordinates to various “events” which occur. They cannot assign these coordinates however without first making an assumption about the behavior of light. The respective assumptions made by each observer thus determines how these “maps” look for different observers and within different frames. Q4: “What about the Lorentz transformations? How do they relate to these backgrounds?” A: The backgrounds presented here are meant to be visually instructive; they are NOT mathematically precise and do not preserve all the relevant relations between two frames in relative motion. Indeed, to best achieve such precision, we should combine the respective space and time backgrounds into a single “spacetime” background. The student familiar with relativity may be aware of the “scissoring” of spacetime axes which occurs for frames in motion on this spacetime background; this scissoring contains all the same contravariant “growing and shrinking” behavior of the space and time backgrounds presented here in the video. Indeed, the symmetry of relativity can be understood by projecting out the contravariant components of the scissored spacetime axes. Q5: “What about adding a third observer into the picture? Are the backgrounds used to ‘see’ this third observer as well?” A: The background symmetry only holds between two observers; if we introduce a third observer who is already in motion whilst the first two are at rest, then when one of the first two observers is set into motion, they will not only remap/grow their own contracting lengths, but they will also have to partially remap/grow the contracted lengths of the third observer whose frame is already in motion. This occurs because the anisotropic behavior of light in the third observer’s moving frame gets remapped to being less anisotropic as the observer set into motion gains velocity. When the velocity of the observer set into motion reaches the velocity of the third observer and they share a rest frame, the lengths (and time durations) of the third observer will be fully remapped to their proper lengths (and times). Indeed, this partial-remapping which occurs in the three-observer scenario will lead us directly to the unique addition of velocities in relativity. Q6: “I thought the ether was tossed out ages ago for being unobservable! Why bring it back?” A: This is something of a misconception; relativity’s ascension over the ether theory was due primarily to its mathematical elegance and simplicity, as well as to the success of General Relativity which soon followed it. Special Relativity has always contained an equally unobservable element - observer-invariant light speed - although imprecise science communicators often present this invariance today as being experimental fact. The ether’s physical existence meanwhile is strongly inferable from the wave-equation mathematics upon which Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism was built. Q7: “Isn’t positing physical length contraction and physical time dilation relative to an ether just as magical and silly as positing unobservable, observer-invariant light behavior?” A: A hundred and twenty years ago, physical length contraction and time dilation certainly seemed like extremely ad hoc elements of a theory; however, our understanding of reality has greatly progressed since that time, especially with regards to the wave nature of electromagnetic matter. (For a suggestive explanation of physical time dilation, see our video “What Time Dilation Actually Is”.) Indeed, a solid understanding of wave mechanics will lead us directly to explanations for both physical time dilation and physical length contraction! Q8: “What about General Relativity?! How does all this fit in with the curvature of spacetime?” A: Stay tuned :-)

[@chenlaura5958]

In order to generalize this to general relativity, are you going to use the river model to construct some kind of flowing either? Is that why you made the river model video?

[@dialectphilosophy]

@@chenlaura5958 That is what we are currently thinking! For at least the simplistic Schwarzschild picture, the river model works exceptionally well for explaining all the relativistic phenomenon around a mass.

[@chenlaura5958]

I still don’t understand how the backgrounds work. If an observer was contracted, growing their background would still have the observer contracted relative to their own background. If the contracted observer said that their background was dilated so they could be brought to normal, then a stationary observer would also be dilated, not contracted. In order for them to grow what they think constitutes length, they would be shrinking their background. For example, if an observer had a proper length of 1 meter and was really contracted to 0.8 meters, they must assume that everything is (including them) is 1.25 times longer which means that their background shrinks by a factor of 0.8. Wouldn’t it make more sense to use the Lorentz transformations where the opposite of a Lorentz is another Lorentz transformation?

[@nkchenjx]

Great video and theory! Can you also check the third possibility of Galilean Relativity that the one-way speed of light is constantly related to the emitting source, and without Aether background with the wave nature an intrinsic spin of a photon whose frequency is determined by the relative energy at the proper time you have proposed?

[@inochifumetsu]

So... Ether was proven not to exist back in the early 1900s / late 1800s, this idea of perception isn't reality and our senses can't be trusted dates back to Parmenides and Zeno in ancient Greece (and has been proven wrong just as long ago by people like Anaxagoras and Plato). Also, it's cute that you quote "Natural Philosophers" without explaining to people watching the video that this term described people who "inquired into nature" (yeah) but they're "causal theories", or "first principles" (as they called them) didn't have to have a causal relationship at all and weren't an exploration into physics but generally superstitious or theological mythos (read: creation stories) where they explained the Earth and stars in terms of floating on air or in an infinite ocean that stretched into eternity, where the earth (meaning the ground they walked on - not a planet floating in space) was at the centre of it, and the stars were holes punched in a far away back drop that let them see through to the burning rings of fire on the other side of it... or just that the origin story was entirely to do with the origins of the gods themselves (depending on which one we're talking about) and presupposed the universe to be contingent upon a pagan notion of Elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water).. Might want to explain some of that to people before you just gloss over "Natural Philosophers" as implied "Ancient Purveyors of now-long-forgotten Wisdom and Truths" -- gimme a break. Ancient humans cannot do anything as well as we can do it now and NO, they didn't know anything we've somehow forgotten or missed. This isn't Lord of the Rings, there is no magic or gods (sorry guys, I know it'd be cool if there was) and we KNOW how they built the Pyramids, yes we CAN build them with modern technology and YES WE CAN DO IT FASTER. Stop it. Just stop.

[@amalnambiar11]

Dear Dialect, I haven't watched the full video yet - but I want to point out something that I had commented on a previous video (the one about episilon values). It has to do with your claim that no method exists of establishing a notion of simultaneity in order to measure the one-way speed of light. I agree with you that, absent any preset method of synchronization of spatially separated clocks, only the two-way speed of light may be empirically measured. However, I disagree with you that the choice of epsilon is purely a matter of convention. The important fact to realize is that Einstein was not the first to put forward an operational definition for simultaneity (in his case, based on light signals). Even Newtonian mechanics requires an operational definition of simultaneity - except here, simultaneity is defined so as to ensure the validity of Newton’s Laws of Motion. This is what forms the basis for the definition of inertial coordinate systems. In fact, Newton’s Laws of Motion can be understood as being the statement that mechanical inertia is homogeneous and isotropic in its behaviour - and this necessarily REQUIRES an operational basis of simultaneity. What Einstein realized was that the synchronization convention obtained by light signals is the SAME as that required to ensure the validity of NLM in inertial frames. This is an empirical statement, not a convention. It is a result of empirical observation - not theory - that e=½ is the valid synchronization within all inertial frames. If Galilean Relativity were to be true, then yes - the value of epsilon would change between inertial frames (although again, not in an arbitrary fashion but in accordance with empirical observation) I would like to recommend some articles that helped me understand this conclusion - Teaching Special Relativity: mathpages.com/home/kmath684/kmath684.htm This one covers the need for operationally defined simultaneity EVEN within Newtonian Mechanics. A Primer on Special Relativity: mathpages.com/home/kmath307/kmath307.htm This one covers a derivation that the correct transformation between inertial frames must be either Galilean OR Lorentzian - while only invoking the Principle of Relativity and an assumption regarding reciprocity. What is an Inertial Coordinate System?: mathpages.com/home/kmath386/kmath386.htm Love your videos, Dialect. I feel that you create some of the most thought-provoking physics content on the platform.

[@lih3391]

How was it empirically observed? And does that mean any other value of e would mean NLM are not preserved in an arbitrary frame?

[@amalnambiar11]

@@lih3391 Any prediction made correctly be SR - whether it be the precise description of the slowing of moving clocks, mass-energy equivalence, etc - is based on the assumption that e=1/2 in all inertial reference frames. Therefore, the conclusion is forced on us by experiment. As for the specific problem of measuring one way light-speed, things are a bit complicated. You see, we need to find a way to synchronize clocks using NLM as our guide (and not light). EG: Consider two identical particles initially at rest next to each other. At time t=0, let them exert mutual impulse on one another and start moving apart. The distance they travel must be measured with standard rods. Then, the correct synchronization of clocks is one in which NLM is satisfied and the two identical particles travel equal distances in equal times. In principle, such a system will allow us to measure the one-way speed of light. However, such a setup is difficult to make and is probably the reason why (to the best of my knowledge) we haven't measured one-way speed directly yet. But the evidence confirming it indirectly as mentioned above forces us to conclude e=1/2.

[@sheerun]

@@amalnambiar11 I think he said that e could be different and experiments would still work, but math would be more complicated therefore experiments and expected results are planned assuming e=1/2

[@amalnambiar11]

@@sheerun My point is that choosing a value for e is not just a convention with no significance. For an observer moving at constant velocity, he can choose coordinates that match to any arbitrary value for e. However, only ONE of those frames can be one in which Newton's Third Law holds true (In fact, you can think of this law as basically saying that inertia is isotropic) Using light isotropy is a convention, yes. But there is no guarentee that taking light isotropy will ALSO give inertial isotropy. And yet it does. This is the physical content of SR.

[@particularminer260]

@amalnambiar11 Wow. This is deep! Thank you very much for the links! In short, this is what your links say: 1. Inertial reference frames should be defined as frames in which all 3 of Newton’s laws hold. Not just the first law! 2. One does not need light signals to construct such a frame. 3. Furthermore, it is possible to intuit a class of transformations between such inertial reference frames using only kinematic considerations that follow from very ordinary experience namely: homogeneity and isotropicity of space, reciprocity and transitivity of relative velocity. 4. In fact, the isotropicity of space follows directly from Newton’s 3rd law, by which two identical bodies initially at rest and acting mutually on each other would have to travel equal distances in equal times in opposite directions after separation. 5. Already, from these kinematic considerations alone, the Lorentz-form of the transformations emerges (up to a constant) despite not even once considering electromagnetism or light and its (one- or two-way) speed! In fact, the speed of light is only required to fix that single constant that is left over after the kinematic considerations. Interestingly, if one instead sets this constant to zero, then one simply obtains Galilean transformations. On the other hand, Einstein’s genius was to recognize, through special relativity, that this constant is in fact the reciprocal of the speed of light squared. This achieves consistency with experimental observations regarding electromagnetism and the speed of light. It seems to me from this discussion that the Lorentz transformation (or at least its form) is crucial to explain our common experiences of physical reality. Any explanation that rejects the form of the Lorentz transformation would then necessarily be wrong. Since the aether-theory necessitates a manifestly different transformation from the Lorentz transformation, it therefore cannot be right. Note that I’m not saying special relativity is right. I do recognize its fundamentally epistemological nature. Rather I’m saying that if there is an ontological interpretation for our observations of reality, then it cannot be the aether theory. Note also that if any of our starting four kinematic considerations turn out to be false, then, and only then, could the aether theory become plausible. But it’s difficult to see how these considerations could be wrong, or how the aether, if it exists, could affect them. Despite coming to this conclusion, I’m extremely thankful to @dialectphilosophy for their thought-provoking, skillful and expertly pedagogical videos. I probably would never have gained the understanding I have now without them. This topic is evidently one that leaves many people scratching their heads even after studying it in college. So I really appreciate @dialectphilosophy for boldly prompting these discussions and probing the dark and miry regions of our misunderstanding.

[@TheOneMaddin]

What really gets me is that our opinion of what constitutes reality (eg Lorentz invariance vs ether) determines which questions we think are worth asking and which theories worth testing. Eg, if we take ether theory seriously, then there is now suddenly much less reason to work on quantum-gravity theories that are Lorentz invariant, namely, because this symmetry is just a higher-level coincidence and a mathematical nicety for us observers, that should not be expected of a more fundamental description of reality. The other way around, there are notions and theorems which are claimed to be purely consequences of SRT and are inaccessible by a classical approach: spin (+ spin statistics theorem), magnetism, etc. It would have incredible explanatory value to give mechanistic explanations for these! You are doing a great service here. This and the measurement problem are THE big gate keepers to the next leap forward. We have to accept and take seriously that we are mere observers!

[@erinm9445]

Yes! Thank you, this is the comment I've been looking for! The physicists that understand what Dialect is saying and then say, "so what! If the predictions are the same as SR then who cares?" have me absolutely scratching my head. Of course there are implications! And those implications are very good for quantum theory. As you say, the biggest argument against the absolute rest frame interpretations is that they completely undermine our understanding of magnetism, bringing us mostly back to the drawing board on that one! Makes me wonder if anyone has explored possible QM explanations of magnetism, or if that just hasn't happened because we've assumed magnetism is solved for 100 years?

[@laurenpinschannels]

@@erinm9445 can you elaborate on what you mean by QM explanations of magnetism? my understanding is that electromagnetism is *incredibly* well predicted by quantum field theory.

[@daringumucio2779]

This illustrates just how absolutely critical it is to get the “problem” right! If one gets the problem wrong and then solves for that, it can lead everyone down a pointless rabbit hole and derail science and research for decades or even centuries. If incremental changes are not yielding results then one has to revisit the very premise that started the current theory and possibly start anew. The past is many times the key to the future!

[@Leonarco333]

It seems like a lot of researchers spend a lot of time making observed deviations fit their theories rather than questioning whether their theory is missing something fundamental. The math is already difficult enough to understand that they don’t want to complicate it with more. It’s easier to make the assumption that physics is well behaved and that universe is well behaved and that everything is mostly homogenous and isotropic on a large enough scale.

[@fikretonderbudakin2643]

Gravitational waves cause the moving object to undergo time dilation with dobller effect. Therefore, the object experiencing time dilation becomes physically shorter. Being the center of gravity in the ether, it is a constant observer at all times. therefore the universe cannot be solipsistic. Gravitational waves break mathematical symmetry. Of course Einstein didn't believe in the existence of gravitational waves? Also Gravitational waves have a frequency that keeps relative time consistent in a gravitational field.

[@MrRolnicek]

So far you STILL haven't really taken any step beyond the already existing theory of Relativity. You simply added an assumption that there is one frame of reference which corresponds to physical reality. Unfortunately it is impossible to know which frame of reference that is and therefore it is still easiest to assume that I am in that frame (unless undergoing acceleration) and by assuming those 2 extra things we are right back at normal Relativity without the extra assumptions. Still curious if you can make something of it in the upcoming videos, I'm hopeful but doubtful since you made some errors talking about acceleration previously and that is where this topic will have to lead eventually.

[@possibledog]

He is proposing a way to *conceive* of relativity, while still maintaining all the mathematical and predictive power. Matrix Theory as he describes it straddles physics, philosophy, and pedagogy. It’s not an alternative to Relativity but an explanation of it that makes sense to people with human brains (vs aliens like Tegmark :-))

[@carlsagan5189]

@@possibledog So in other words, it adds nothing to the science, it's just relativity for people who are chronically in denial about the nonexistence of an invisible dragon in my garage that I call ether that scientists haven't paid any attention to in over 100 years because it adds nothing.

[@QuicksilverSG]

As soon as you postulate a preferred inertial Frame of Reference (AKA "The Ether"), it's apparent that The Ether must be defined as stationary. (Otherwise, you must define its motion with respect to some other inertial FoR, which makes "The Ether" a superfluous mathematical construct.) Once you recognize The Ether as stationary, there is effectively no preferred inertial FoR, because all inertial FoR's can be described as possessing a constant offset trajectory with respect to The Ether. Thus, you're back where you started with Special Relativity.

[@posqeak]

The issue is that your saying "existing theory of relativity" without being specific about the interpretation

[@MrRolnicek]

@@posqeakThere's no real interpretations of it, is there? (apart from the ones stated in this video) It is what it is. People don't really interpret it because there's no need to. The math is the math and it matches observations.

[@deegobooster]

“No babe I didn’t contract! It was due to your frame of reference!”

[@-_Nuke_-]

Exactly what I was thinking all throughout the video 😂😂🤪

[@JohnLee-bf2ux]

@@-_Nuke_-Frame of reference keeps growing due to absurd expectations 😂

[@-_Nuke_-]

@@JohnLee-bf2ux xD

[@BillBird-df3pf]

It's not small, you're just moving too fast!

[@jack.d7873]

"No babe I didn't get shorter! It was due to your frame of reference!" - in a 3D space.

[@MrZelduck]

The situation is as follows: Physicists are doing A. Neo-Lorentzians do B which contains A, but hides it and then claim they do not need A, as they did B. The Universe simply has length contraction and time dilation. If you call it fundamental or "effective" does a priori not matter. They are there, you have to compute them. Even worse, when you switch to the reference frame of an accelerated observer, you inevitably get curvature, since your curved line getting straight, means straight lines will become curved. You will also see that the rate at which time gets dilated depends on the distance from you and (in more complex situations) the rate of length contraction is dime dependent. I am btw. referring to Rindler coordinates and proper coordinates. Having established this, you will have to deal with that. You will now go to your mathematician of choice and ask him "Hey, I have here some phenomena which contract and curve space and time. How do I mathematically handle that?". They will answer: "Well normally lengthes and angles are described by metric tensors on manifolds". So you take, what they give you and build a physical theory with that math. What you will end up with is special and flat general relativity. It is not a coincidence that the mathematics of relativity is (relatively) simple. It is so, because lengthes contracting and straight paths curving is naturally described via metric tensors. If you call this metric tensor fundamental (like relativists) or effective (like Neo-Lorentzians) does not matter. It is there. Similarly 4D-spacetime is there. Why? Because as mentioned in accelerated systems length contraction can depend on time and time dilation on space. And the only way to incorporate that into a Riemannion formalism is to combine them into one manifold. Once again, you cannot change these things. They are necessary to describe the plethora of phenomena out there. Now, what Neo-Lorentzians do is they take these few objects (metric tensor, covariant derivatives, geodesic equation, coordinate transformation rule, etc) they introduce a second coordinate system, with some fundamental properties, and rules how this coordinate frame relates to the coordinate frame at hand. They then transform every object given in the original coordinate frame into their new coordinates and throw out all the mathematical structure given by the Riemannian formulation. Instead they use their imposed fundamental properties to relate all the numbers they now have to each other. However, since you killed off all the structure, the ten numbers in the metric tensor which would have naturally combined in the Riemannian formulation are now floating somewhere in space and hence you have to impose 9! (that is a factorial) equations to tell how they relate. The same happens for every other object. In that manner, a few objects and concepts (metric tensor, covariant derivative, geodesic equation, curvature tensor, etc) with a few fundamental rules relating them become a mess of a mathematical situation. That happened because instead of listening to mathematician, Neo-Lorentzians try to do complex geometry with the mathematical toolkit of a high-school-math teacher. However, nothing was won. Everything that was present in the relativistic description is still present in the Neo-Lorentzian. Of course! It has to be. In the end everything predicted by relativity has to also appear in Neo-Lorentzian-formulations. But Neo-Lorentzians are not aware of that. They think they have truly found a different treatment, while they are doing Riemannian geometry hidden behind a mess of equation. To finalize, we can talk about a lot of things. Is spacetime truly curved or is it just a force field, hidden by the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass? Who knows. But I believe there is absolutely no debate that 4D spacetime equipped with a metric tensor is the way to think about the world. It is simply the mathematically correct way to treat things getting curved and bent. Denying maths helps no ones cause. Having said that, Riemmanian geometry has furthermore so many advantages. For example, it couples to mass in a brutally natural and obvious way. Something that Neo-Lorentzians can only explain via imposing even more obscure relationships. Furthermore, combining the effects of these curvature effects with other forces or interactions is trivial. Simply replace derivatives with covariant derivatives. Once again Neo-Lorentzians have to preimpose several equations for every possible interaction out there individually. Having now established how much Riemmanian treatment of physics is better, I do think Occam's Razor is worth considering. Why not just believe the maths. How dare we overwrite our personal, completely uneducated believes over the laws of the universe that nature has provided.

[@jaredhouston4223]

Replying so I can save for future thought

[@lukrombauts]

Bravo

[@mantrid777]

In other words: who cares what's physical and what's abstract! Math is simpler and nicer, and more fun atcually, so why would you fall out of line, millions of flies can't be wrong! Except physics is stuck for several decades and attempts to integrate Riemmanian treatment into quantum theories results in such a mess even computer algebra gives up. I say give those folks a chance. You're not moving forward much with your Occam Razor anyway.

[@mayatrash]

I'm a theoretical physicist and I hate this type of thinking so much. Typical anglo answer. There is a reason Schrödinger was shocked about the uncaringness of Americans regarding quantum mechanics. There is a reason why Copenhagen is the worst cope of humanity. Quastions like this are exactly the reason Machs principle opened up Einsteins eye. Being this trustful of math alone is exactly the reason it took humanity 50+ years of String physics without providing us with a single damn thing. One of the only modern ideas I like is Oppenheims approach which is modest and shows the will of a physicist not a mathematician. This type of thinking is destructive for physics since novel ideas always came from intuition and solid experiments. Theory is actually the hardest part in physics, as one CANNOT trust the math always -> see the paper from Kerr regarding mathematical black holes etc. This vibe shift people falsely accuse Einstein of and I would say the exact opposite: Einstein was a pure theoretician with a strong mathematical reasoning but all his ideas came from intuition and philosophical underpinnings and not math. This different from Witten style "if the math produces it, it has to exist" type of nonsense. Physics needs to describe the world we live in and not the one we ought to be. That's one of the reasons for the big stagnation, it's the dogmatic believe in pure logic, which is actually funny since Gödel in a way killed that idea at least a little bit after Hilbert thought the same (even though I love Hilbert work). So effectively speaking, any "real" theory proposing x*D+1D dimensions where some Hopf fibration over some holographic manifold correspond to this and that can be dismissed as pure fanfiction because in an effective manner it has to at least provide the same effects at the boundary as the shitty theories. This goes for many boomer theories. I think the exception is TQFT (maybe CFT in condensed matter) and all it's flavours, but modern cosmology and particle physics (especially everything beyond) is absolutely laughable at best.

[@andreasmaaan]

@MrZelduck thanks for your interesting comment. Although I don't share some of your aesthetic principles (nor your interpretation of how Occam's razor applies here), I do think you state your case well. Anyway, what I'm really here for is to ask if you can share the names/links of any papers that lay out the Neo-Lorentzian framework you describe. In particular, can you recommend any papers that attempt to extend neo-Lorentzian relativity to gravity (and any papers that attempt to refute these attempts)? Thanks,

[@j.r.8176]

What do you think of my analogy? Imagine you are driving a car at high speed during a light rain. As you drive quickly through light rain, more raindrops hit your windshield than if you were stationary making the rain appear much heavier and more intense. The raindrops seem more densely packed from your perspective in the moving car (Length Contraction.) Similarly, you experience a more condensed version of events (raindrops) happening in the same time frame from your perspective (Time Dilation.) Meanwhile, to a driver parked still on the roadside, the rain's intensity appears mild and constant throughout. From his perspective, the reason you are experiencing more raindrops hitting your windshield is the fact that your car is moving at a angle relative to the motion of the rain. In this analogy, the rainfall would be the flow of events and raindrops would be the events themselves.

[@Игор-ь9щ]

Your take on it was eye opening, in fact when I watch ScienceClic's "What would we see at the speed of light?" in this new way - it makes so much sense!

[@Ila_Aras]

this still does not make time move faster or slower. You simply get more light in your eyes. That's literally it. Everything is a little brighter, and depending on your speed, things will start to streak.

[@thetelescreen372]

My main issue with this theory is that I have never seen Lorentz's ether theory made to be compatible with the FLRW metric. While we know the FLRW metric was a bit over simplistic as it assumed perfect isotropic distribution of the mass energy tensor, it still led us to the prediction of the big bang and the expansion of the universe today. There are still issues in cosmology, sure, but I've never seen an ether model that is consistent with the expansion of the universe. For instance, how would we physically describe how objects move relative to us faster than light in our co-moving frame? Is the ether between us expanding? What's the physical mechanism behind that? It was the inconsistency of gravity and special relativity that gave us general relativity, which then produced the FLRW metric, and ether theory hasn't had anything to offer since. While I understand what you're getting at with how physics has moved away from "materials," the mathematical models that have been produced have served us very well. It was the joining of SR and QM that led to the best production in all of science in QED. Both of those models are purely mathematical. If what you're objecting to is a kind of "modern Pythagoreanism," I'd have to ask on what basis you have an issue with it? How do you know that there are "materials" out there and that everything isn't just math? They are very different ontologically sure, but if the ontology of materialism doesn't have anything to bring to the table scientifically then, like many physicists today, I'll have to default to the idea that reality is purely mathematical until it stops serving us.

[@viyye]

Sad

[@thetelescreen372]

@@viyye great response 👍

[@viyye]

@@thetelescreen372 I just thought you would at least understand alot of time and money has been spent curve fitting these mathematical models to the world around us, and the theories become more ridiculous by the minute, So of course they will have some usefulness given the amount of time and good minds (not great, otherwise they would have realised all they were doing was just curve fitting) have worked on them. It about time we invested in something a bit more grounded, while using the mathematical curve fits as guide lines till the grounded theories are able to stand by themselves. You should be aware that just because a theory has some use, that doesn't make it true. It's a terrible thing to want to keep a theory just because it makes some predictions no matter how fantastical it is, when we have more lucid theories that are well grounded that have the potential to take us beyond where we are.

[@thetelescreen372]

@@viyye yea sorry, idk what theory you're talking about, but I hope it's not the expansion of the universe. I've measured the redshift myself, definitely expanding. You seem to want to suggest that theories are "losing their grounding" but you didn't mention a single theory I brought up, wonder why

[@viyye]

@@thetelescreen372 I speak about all mathematical so called physics, red shift is an observation or measurement, this is not what I am talking about. The fact that you cannot see this is rather concerning!

[@Darthvanger]

Simply the best physics channel :) Ideas, explanations, graphica, music... ❤

[@GreyBeard-e5w]

"The theory offers no vision of a shared reality for its observers"? Nonsense: in relativity everyone sees the same 4D spacetime, they just assign different coordinates to it. Coordinates are an arbitrary human invention, so it's not surprising that they should have no particular physical significance. The only innovation in special relativity is that time coordinates are recognized as being as arbitrary as space coordinates.

[@synx6988]

finally a new video. Happy new year man!

[@djangogeek]

I HAVE BEEN WAITING SO LONG FOR THIS!!!!

[@nenadmarkovic7770]

Danke!

[@dlima2000]

Congratulations for this series. It’s mind blowing!

[@saftheartist6137]

This sounds like it should be called “The Dead Simulation Theory” or “Lost Simulation Theory” because a matrix from what I know, is more digital than in-between physical reality.

[@BjrnSandqvist]

Mindblowing! The greatest physics channel on KZbin

[@-_Nuke_-]

One of the most professional too. I salute them!

[@kylelochlann5053]

Except for the whole being wrong thing, besides that, great channel.

[@eduardocolin9473]

@@kylelochlann5053 could you ellaborate on what is wrong please?

[@PAshish-dh5fk]

Nothing is wrong...😂​@@kylelochlann5053

[@MrReeTart]

Are these videos made by a team? They are incredibly well-produced and insightful

[@realcygnus]

Enhanced with instrumentation or not, all science studies perceptions only. Not saying that is directly applicable here but that does often get missed or even entirely forgotten across the board. & its the case regardless of what metaphysical assumptions one might have. We generally think our perception of the outside world "is" the world, as opposed to some sort of copy modulated by it. The implications can vary across paradigms though.

[@niekiejooste4637]

I absolutely agree. What is more, physicists have obtained certain measurement interactions between objects and labeled these measured interactions as "properties". Examples are mass, charge, magnetism. Then a lot of effort is expended to explain the properties, instead of understanding the measurements and the interactions.

[@dimitrisnatsios8409]

Finally a physicist who talks about the essence of physics, which is reality. You are a shining example and a source of inspiration and courage for all of us. Thank you once again!

[@taylorhornby7475]

It's funny how in lecture 1 of a special relativity course we derive time dilation and length contraction from the anisotropy of light bouncing off comoving mirrors and then immediately reject this as the actual explanation.

[@-_Nuke_-]

😂 😅😅

[@laurenpinschannels]

but the lorentzian hypothesis requires discrete spacetime, does it not? so it's still falsifiable as long as it's assuming discreteness. I agree that there needs to be some underlying field theory, but in order for such a thing to make sense, it's going to need to be quantized - and knowing what space it's quantized in is the whole problem! ... I think. I don't do physics math enough to think I actually understand

[@FunkyDexter]

​@@laurenpinschannelsquantization is a property of systems when they are bound by potentials. This restricts the degrees of freedom of the system. There's nothing fundamental to it. The efforts to discretize spacetime stem from the erroneous assumption that quantum mechanics is a complete theory, or in other words that the wavefunction is a real description of the complete state of the system.

[@wilmervalerio5443]

Congratulations! One of the best approaches in the search for reality. I have dedicated my entire life to understanding space and time, and of them, 40 years studying the concepts underlying Maxwell's Equations... Please don't take too long for the continuation, I don't have many more years! ***** [ Felicitaciones! Uno de los mejores acercamientos en la búsqueda de la realidad. He dedicado toda mi vida a entender el espacio y el tiempo, y de ellos, 40 años estudiando los conceptos subyacentes en las Ecuaciones de Maxwell... Por favor, no tarden mucho para la continuación, no dispongo de muchos años más! ]

[@malikamulla2899]

Do you believe that magnetism can be explained mechanistically?

[@kylelochlann5053]

Why not study relativity?

[@markiv2942]

Yes mechanical newtonian simpleton way of seeing things. Like stuck in between 18th and 19th century.

[@darrennew8211]

Another thought: how does GR affect the ether? It seems like it would be that the ether moves towards masses, or something? Let's see that addressed! 🙂

[@soopergoof232]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nnfPq4Ssdt57bck henrylindner.net/Writings/BeyondNewtonPE.pdf

[@edfs903]

Can't wait to see how you explain length contraction and relativity of simultaneity with your theory.

[@delvish9622]

Length contraction arises from movement through the ether, basically the ether is regarded as the one true substance from which all matter arises(search Tesla infinitesimal whirls). Due to matter being made of the same "stuff" it contracts as it pushes through ether. Relative simultaneity is just a perspective illusion that is caused by our measuring devices contracting and slowing. Observers can't draw the same grid over space just like the animations show.

[@edfs903]

@@delvish9622 What about quantum field theory?

[@delvish9622]

@@edfs903 Layers of abstraction that are accurate within limits, but conceptualizing the ether as a super fluid should clear things up, in fact there's something called superfluid vacuum theory which is being researched. It's just ether by another name because you can't say the word ether.

[@Mark12520]

I really hope this interpretation has merit, its so much simpler and fits everyone intuition so much better. To me it makes sense, but I'm also some ransom guy on the internet lol

[@TheMijoAaron]

Lmao same

[@tubebrocoli]

It doesn't. While it's true that the one-way speed of light is in part a matter of convention, the two-way speed of light is always constant. That's what causes the "weird" but observable effects of relativity. And you can't do away with all these effects for all possible inertial frames at once with different ratios for the light travel in each direction unless you use self-contradictory rates.

[@TheMijoAaron]

do you personally think this is the most likely answer to what could be going on in the universe? @@chalichaligha3234

[@Nick-o1h]

@@chalichaligha3234 does Lorentz ether theory account properly for the Kennedy-Thorndike modifications to Michelson-Morely?

[@kylelochlann5053]

@@chalichaligha3234 Sure, mathematically, but now you have to do a shit ton of explaining how matter interacts with the aether.

[@skun406]

What about the stick flying through the barn, it would fit inside only if the barn is aligned in the ether frame? If the barn is moving fast relative to the ether, the stick would fit when going left-to-right, but not right-to-left, for example? Isn't this how we could pinpoint the ether frame?

[@delvish9622]

The problem is that these are thought experiments designed to illustrate concepts, such an experiment is far beyond our means to actually conduct.

[@iridium1118]

Lorentz transformations in aether theory were always meant to be a first order approximation, only. Dialect's model must explain the mechanism of the aether/matter interaction. In SR, the lorentz transforms are exactly correct.

[@kylelochlann5053]

You are exactly correct.

[@mrhassell]

The Lorentz ether theory (LET) indeed began a first-order approximation to explain results of experiments like Michelson-Morley experiment, which failed to detect the motion of the Earth through the aether. Lorentz introduced concepts like length contraction and local time to account for these results. However, Lorentz's aether evolved over time and by 1904, Lorentz had expanded his theory to include the full Lorentz transformations, now a cornerstone of special relativity, which is a cornerstone of QFT. These transformations describe how measurements of space and time change for observers in different inertial frames, effectively making aether undetectable and considered irrelevant today to any practical purpose. The idea of aether/matter interaction is more speculative. LET provided a framework for understanding electromagnetic phenomena, it failed to explain the mechanism of aether/matter interaction. One reason why special relativity, which does not require the existence of aether, became and remains the dominant theory and central to Quantum Field Theory.

[@SchmittsPeter]

Already really stoked for the next part! Thanks a lot, will probably have to watch this again. Ok, already happened. Twice was enough to get it luckiely. Some people just take a bit longer 😅 .

[@crawkn]

Interesting inversion of Matrix theory, that rather than a universal simulation imposed upon our minds from an external source, our unique individual Matrices are imposed upon the universe by our minds.

[@apopheniac4231]

Sounds sorta like Kant

[@crawkn]

@@apopheniac4231 yes, in that it acknowledges an underlying objective reality, while maintaining awareness of the distortions we impose on it by our limited perspectives. However, in acknowledging our limitations, and investigating the dynamics of the distortions, we can nonetheless probe the nature of the objective reality, even if our access to it is indirect.

[@hatebreeder999]

Sounds similar to hindu buddhist cosmologies

[@arthurvanbilsen3758]

Thanks for explaining these topics to us so eloquently! ❤ As a physicist I was indeed taught that the space-time connection was real. Great to see there is a much more physically grounded interpertation. Never thought c+c=c made much (physical) sense anyway 😂. Keep up the good work! 👍

[@-danR]

Frankly I find this Dialekt one of the least perspicuous of all episodes. After a third of the way through I was getting confused and at the halfway mark it had become a pedagogically impenetrable jungle. I find the standard SR explanation _less_ bewildering. Two years ago the channel was quite intriguing and thought-provoking. Now I fear the outstanding graphics are in danger of exuberantly wagging the explanatory dog.

[@MrNoneofthem]

Nice thought experiment, however, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have to show that your theory (a) matches all observations made so far, (b) explains something that was not possible before. For example, can this theory be applied to a universe with gravity, or is it stuck with the special relativity world? Can this explain behaviour of dark matter when general relativity cannot? Does this theory play nice with quantum theory? And so on.

[@erinm9445]

He errs in calling it a theory. It's not, precisely becasue it doesn't make testable predictions. It's an interpretation, like copenhagen vs pilot wave vs many worlds vs others. But the question of whether there is an absolute rest frame or not does have implications for other theories, especially QM, so this interpretation shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

[@kalles8789]

Of course. You always need a reference frame to describe whatever you want to. Motion or rest, acceleration or gravity, free fall or rest - you always embed all these things you are talking about in this frame consisting of coordinates. If you are inside such thing that you are call "world" you define a mathematical, ontological and philosophical frame around you. And RT is all about translating events from one reference frame to another because there is no absolute observer anywhere. The essence of RT is to define such a language and formulation of physical laws and dependencies in which all observers might agree even then if they are looking at different perspectives on the phenomena - covariance.

[@Torbu6286]

Well said

[@juodapimpiumusikas9495]

I think this is my favorite series relating to relativity so far, since your previous interpretations on acceleration were pretty weird to me, or maybe just underexplained and I didn't understand too much because of that.

[@arc8216]

Nothing like watching two dudes argue about whose pencil is bigger with physics.

[@-_Nuke_-]

Exactly! It never gets old! 😂😅😅

[@IDNeon357]

Did you just assume their gender?!

[@KaiseruSoze]

Some awesome animation there! And I like that you point out that the "background" spacetime is an abstraction - not physical.

[@christophermolitor4554]

Worth the wait. Really clear well put together video though I'll probably have to watch it another time or two to fully get every point. I'm excited to see where the discussion leads from this.

[@alexdevisscher6784]

Excellent video, as usual. I didn't quite understand your explanation as to why a moving observer sees objects at rest as shorter. I'll have to watch it again. I know it works. I figured it out using light beams like the ones you used in your animations. Other than that, I find the explanation in the video perfectly clear and absolutely correct. You're building up quite a suspense with your series of videos. It's going to be worth it in the end when you explain your main insights. I hope people are paying attention.

[@dialectphilosophy]

Thank you for watching! We skimmed over a lot in this video, so don't hesitate to ask questions. The point here was to give an adequate overview of the theory, and so yes, we will indeed be tackling many details in greater depth down the line. Regarding your question: first, one must recognize that the behavior of light in an observer's frame moving relative to the ether is anisotropic, but this anisotropy is unobservable, thanks to the one-way speed of light problem. Next, if this moving observer chooses to use Einstein's axiom before making their measurements, they will remap the anisotropic light behavior in their frame to being isotropic. Now consider an observer who is actually at rest with respect to the ether. Light behavior is isotropic in their frame, but it gets remapped to being anisotropic by the moving observer. Since the light beam now has further to travel (from the remapped perspective) the length of their frame must also get remapped to being shorter. This is equivalent to what we were indicating with the "growing background" visualization used in the video, which we thought would be a little more visually digestible, but likely it needed more connecting back to the isotropy/anisotropy of light behavior with which observers construct notions of space and time.

[@christiano9693]

​​​@@dialectphilosophy Hi mister, can i make you some questions? There is space deformation or space curvature in this model or not? Is space something physical or just a relation between physical things in the model? If there is no space curvature what causes gravity? Ether curvature or quantum fields curvature? Ether in this model could be just quantum fields or quantum fields could be just properties behavior of the ether? Thanks if you see it and respond.

[@davestorm6718]

One of the issues with interpretations of relativity is that incorrect assumptions are made: in the case, at the beginning of the video, where it was stated that the distance between Mars and Earth magically shrunk, is incorrect. It may appear that way to the traveler, but nothing actually happened. Adding a 3rd observer looking back and moving away from Mars & Earth at 0.8c, they would observe it as lengthened. Nothing physically happens to the span (not sure how this assumption could be made, in the first place. The ship won't contract in reality, either, as you add more observers, at different velocities and different angles, it would appear to be all sorts of sizes.

[@fakeemail4005]

Your criteria for "actuality", "reality", etc. is implicitly assuming that the most authoritative observer is the one on Earth. You correctly, assert that all other observers differ from the one on Earth, but you have no grounds for as to why THIS particular observer is the one who observes "true reality" and not the others

[@davestorm6718]

@@fakeemail4005 That's exactly what I mean. It a million different observers see something different (different length), which length is correct? The length the observer, adjacent to the thing being measured, measures would be the only logically correct one. Otherwise there would be an intractable paradox. Logically, the other 999,999 observers would be seeing phantoms. It's a logic problem, IMO.

[@delvish9622]

Length contraction of objects is real within the ether theory and is a direct result of moving through the ether, the change is proportionate to velocity. The change in distance is a perspective change only arising from coordinates getting screwed up by measuring devices in the travelers frame also contracting/slowing.

[@davestorm6718]

@@delvish9622 While there may be a compression effect (as in "pushing" against some sort of ether, there's no evidence of it. I don't believe there is a static aether medium, for starters (static being the keyword here). The main tenant of relativity, including pre-Einsteinian relativity models, is there is no absolute reference frame. That part is key. All velocity is measured relative to something else. The problem with "length contraction" in Einsteinian Relativity is that it depends on 2 points of reference. Add more reference points and you would see length expansion or length contraction depending on whether you are approaching or leaving at c (presuming it's truly constant - see note above), so this would mean an object would be any and all sizes (an infinite number of reference frames), but the actual size is unchanged (approach and exit observations at extreme velocities are illusory, not real - physicist will disagree, but, there is no logic in those that agree). If this were really true, then the macroscopic scale would imitate the quantum scale (superposition, but on steroids) - we would have already observed this. In my opinion, both GR and aether models are wrong and physicists are chasing ghosts, extrapolating things to infinities in the math realm, then trying to fit it with observation. Take gravitational light bending/lensing for example: The data indicates spectral divergence (smoking gun), which means it can't be due to gravity, if it were, ALL wavelengths would "bend" exactly the same (no divergence) and redshift by the same amount. This does not happen, and the consideration that I proposed, decades ago, was neutrino density (which we already know is extremely high) is responsible for lensing near stars, in addition to, stellar atmospheric lensing. Another thing to note that effectively disproves Special Relativity is the Michelson-Morley experiment. That experiment provides no evidence of frame-dragging (as well as static ether), yet it's quoted as being a proof for GR. How did this get missed? Time dilation is another illusion (Time is not tangible outside of mathematics, even if it were, it would be dependent on the observer(s), the same argument against length contraction/expansion). If there were a real dimension of Time, nothing could move (think about why that would be the case - I'll explain if need be). Don't get me wrong, space-time (or any physical dimension or physical displacement graphed against time) is extremely useful to make projections about where an object will move to and where it came from. Just like an oscilloscope graphs voltage over a time scale and displays a nice waveform and you can do all sorts of calculations via that graph however, that's not what reality is for electricity. Final kicker: If EM radiation has a speed limit (as it appears to have), then Time, if actually tangible as some suggest, could NOT be variable (it's a function of the rate of change - a.k.a. velocity) and would require an absolute frame. :)

[@delvish9622]

@@davestorm6718 your history is mixed up, relativistic ether models before Einstein are still preferred frame theories even with ether flow. In those models there is the reality of length contraction AND the illusory effect. It's not being suggested there's more than one correct configuration, there's just what is true in relation to the ether, and on top of that you have observer error. Time isn't even considered to exist in ether models beyond being a useful bookkeeping device. If you really explore time in depth, you can only conclude it is a human construct, however a process can slow due to the physical context in which its taking place, and in this was clock slowing is no more mysterious than a refrigerator slowing down the decay of perishables. Many people have gotten wound around the axle thinking about time, hell the block universe model says nothing actually moves and every moment is just frozen, already exists physically. Look up Shiva Meucci on quora, guy has been explaining this stuff for years.

[@auspiciouslywild]

Now, add the idea that the density of the ether doesn't have to be constant, and that space itself is created by matter/energy, and you've got a physical theory of gravity and general relativity. Like, right now my intuition about gravity is that there's simply more space (or "ether" if you will) where there is more matter, because matter is contentiously creating space around itself. If you think of space like a graph, and you have a particle just randomly moving along that graph, if there is more edges pointing in the +X direction than the -X direction, a particle choosing a vertex at random to go down will tend towards +X (implying there is gravity well in that direction). I suspect you'd reach the same conclusion about waves propagating in such a space. I strongly suspect you're moving towards towards the same kind of universe described by Wolfram's hypergraph theory. But from an angle that is much more pragmatic, intuitive and top-down. Feels to me like Wolfram is approaching things from a very abstract mathematical perspective. A bit like string theory.

[@auspiciouslywild]

Addendum: Heh, I see that I really need to read the paper by Lindner you linked to. I randomly scrolled through it and the first thing I land on is the sentence "There are reasons to believe that the destruction of Hadronic matter in nuclear reactions creates space". And then a figure that exactly mirrors an image I've had in my mind about the cosmic expansion for a while now: that it's all this space being created that just accumulates in the void between galaxies that are distant enough. I wonder if anyone has also had the same idea I have about black holes: The fact that information stored in a black hole grows with the surface area of the black hole, absolutely screams at me: there is no space inside black holes, or very little of it. The creation of space breaks down. And when you have this incredibly dense space accumulating around a region where no more space can be created, of course the amount of information you could possibly put in there can't be bigger than its surface. There is no space inside it in which to store it.

[@christopheriman4921]

@@auspiciouslywild You have given me a different understanding of what black holes could be. What if they are literally holes in space meaning anything that tries to fall in can't because there is no space to fall into, and anything attempting to fall in creates space around the hole which assuming space has a pressure that it tries to keep could spread the space that exists out further making the hole potentially bigger. Maybe the edges of the universe are actually black holes that space can expand into, these things may sound absolutely bonkers but they are questions worth asking to see if we can find a way to test them.

[@philoso377]

I have the same thought as you do in chapter two just can’t describe it myself and you pull it out of my lips. Thanks. Math is an excellent tool can only helps us to draw precisely what’s in our mind and not what’s in the reality.

[@jbsmathers]

Maybe you've done another video to answer this question but - the Michaelson Morley result is conventionally interpreted as an explicit measurement showing light moves thru no background or either. Are you throwing out that interpretation by asserting that light's velocity is anisotropicic? Thx.

[@TheMijoAaron]

i've watched all his videos but I'm a normie just into space for fun. I'm pretty sure he argues that light is anisotropic, yes. Watch his video on time dilation.

[@whiteeye3453]

What anisotropic means?

[@quotationpoints2049]

​@whiteeye3453 It means that light has different properties depending on direction and or frame of reference.

[@Epoch11]

Your best video so far buddy

[@LukeLAMMan]

I feel like the name Matrix Theory is already taken. There's already two uses, the mathematical one and the physics one referring to the BFSS matrix model. Love your videos!

[@-_Nuke_-]

Oops! COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT ALARM! 😂

[@-_Nuke_-]

I think that instead of naming it matrix theory, we should call it, egocentric theory! Since everyone is such an egomaniac the refuse to admit that they are in motion! 😂😂😂

[@peoplesrepublicofunitedear2337]

Very nice video. Always needed opinions on this as relativity feels very mathy and incomplete. Thank you. And keep on the good work.

[@billysnooze6608]

Fascinating, i feel the reason this sort of thing isn't usually focused on in physics, is that we only have our senses, and no way of observing the fundamental nature of reality, and thus focus is put on epistemology over ontology

[@adenprimack1231]

Why does the cosmic speed limit seem like such a illogical idea? Think about it. Lets say an object was traveling at 30 m/s slower then the speed of light (relative the earth). A rocket blasts off FROM the object, with enough force to exceed the speed of light (relative to the earth). Everybody says this is impossible. However, what if we ignore the earth? After all, the rocket is only going 31 m/s relative to the object. So what is stopping the rocket from going 31 m/s faster then the object? NOTHING! Please explain if you know some solution.

[@SirajAli-u9u]

Not just a video it is a masterpiece.

[@darrennew8211]

I, a naive student, thought the Michelson-Morley experiment is what disproved a static ether. I'm looking forward to seeing how you resolve that and how you deal with gravitational dilation/contraction.

[@clemonsx90]

Make sure to watch the one-way speed of light video underneath this one.

[@darrennew8211]

@@clemonsx90 I've watched then all. I love them. I don't know what that has to do with either of the points I raised.

[@2tehnik]

isn't the resolution just that Lorenzian relativity implies that motions of the ether cannot be detected? So things like the MM experiment should not be a surprise.

[@TerrifyingBird]

Once you accept length contraction of the testing apparatus in the direction of motion, MM is explained pretty easily by it. It disproved the existence of the aether only if it works exactly the way they thought it would in 1900 It was justified at the time, but I feel that they were missing a lot of pieces of the puzzle back then. I bet the discussion would have been quite a lot different if we had discovered quantum mechanics before relativity.

[@darrennew8211]

@@TerrifyingBird Hmmm. Now that you say it, I think you're probably right. Because it doesn't seem like this discussion actually makes any testable predictions that would distinguish it from SR so far. Or did I miss something?

[@kraxzor]

Sounds very intriguing. I hope some type of experiment or observation can be made to validate these ideas.

[@-_Nuke_-]

The only one that I can think of, measure the one way speed of light! Oh wait, that's impossible 😅

[@williamwalker39]

The one way speed of light has been measured. This was done by using one clock (an oscilloscope) to measure the time difference between the transmitter and receiver. In one experiment a sinusoidal signal was transmitted between 2 antennas, and the phase difference was measured as the antennas were moved from the nearfield to the farfield. The results showed that the speed of the electromagnetic fields (light) is instantaneous in the nearfield and reduces to about speed c, about one wavelength from the source, and then converges slowly toward c, but never becoming exactly speed c. In another experiment an EM pulse was transmitted from a transmitter antenna to a receiver antenna located in the nearfield, and an oscilloscope was used to measure the resultant time delay of the front edge of the pulse. No time delay was observed. Since the front edge of a pulse represents the change from one state to another: 0 to a 1, then the speed of the front edge is the speed of information, which was shown to be instantaneous in the nearfield. This is completely incompatible with Relativity. If the speed of light (information) is not a constant, then Relativity is wrong and this impacts all of modern physics. These results have now been verified theoretically, numerically via RF simulation, and experimentally by many independent researchers. See the paper and KZbin presentation below for details: *KZbin presentation of above arguments: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZazlX1tq7iErLM *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997

[@fawzibriedj4441]

If me and my ruler shrink when moving, then if I consider myself and my ruler as stationary, I will measure other objects to be LONGER not Shorter. I don't understand in which physical world can a smaller ruler measure bigger objects to be smaller

[@pierret6572]

I dont get it either. Beside i dont see how he is going to explain lenght contraction with a physical explanation when there is no need of a physical link between 2 objects moving wrt you to observe a lenght contraction between them

[@pavlo2692]

I think the idea is this: if your ruler got shorter, you need more "units" from it to describe other, uncontracted objects. Like, let's say, you measured some object to be of length 5 with your uncontracted ruler. Then your ruler shrunk, its "unit" got smaller, now you need, say, 8 of those smaller units to describe the same object's length. Does that make sense?

[@pierret6572]

@@pavlo2692 yes it makes sense but it's not at all what the STR says. Because from the POV of the moving observer, he sees eveything that is moving bigger whereas the STR says that he should see everything smaller

[@fawzibriedj4441]

@@pavlo2692 yes, it makes sense. So now I measure the other object to be 8 instead of 5. I measure it to be longer. Why would I change anything to my frame to measure the exact opposite?

[@jeffroberts6865]

The examples used are of the light beam travelling out (and back) in the same direction as the observer is moving. This makes it easier to see the notion of the different one way speeds. However, I am trying to think through what needs to change if the light beam is moving between mirrors perpendicular to the motion, as in the classic setup for explaining SR. But unfortunately my brain shuts down!

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

If you do that you get the usual train explanation and in that case the light has to move at an angle to the perpendicular to get to the mirror as the mirror has moved.

[@Leibniz_28]

This videos is gold. Thanks for such an amazing work in terms of knowledge and graphic representation 😊

[@delvish9622]

I just want to say thank you. As someone who's been making these arguments for years, but lacks an education in mathematics I have been constrained to the English language alone, and therefore ignored, ridiculed, and otherwise treated with absolute derision. Often scolded for not submitting to their demand to purge all sense of mechanical intuition, put to the cudgel of "the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you!". Ever since first hearing about special relativity in highschool I knew it was a mystical treatment of reality, it is a theory of contradictions that you can ignore by simply plugging your ears and shouting "it's relative!". Never once do these big brains stop to consider that the relative nature of things arises from the absolute, and that if there was no absolute/privileged frame then nothing could actually move. So it is healing to see people with a better education finally beginning to understand. First i found the writing of Shiva Meucci, then I found this channel. It is interesting how independently we've all realized the solipsistic character of relativity, and this character has caused immense psychological harm to the masses. It is undeniable that our interpretation of reality impacts our behavior, even if the full picture of what is being suggested isn't understood on the individual level, this solipsism is poison for the masses. So thank you doctor for finally diagnosing our condition, healing can soon begin. Sanity is finally being restored, now we just have to hope it's not too late.

[@delvish9622]

@@soopergoof232 I find Shiva often couches his ideas in common academic parlance, though doesn't necessarily "believe" in the terms and the associated limits they imply. Rather he's trying to communicate effectively in way his target audience(often physicists) can understand, and therefore limit the objections they may take to the most pressing issue; that of constancy. From what I understand he would say the Planck length is a "truth within limits" just like how matter/anti-matter is, yet can be conceptualized by the structure and rotation of the aether yielding what we call a "particle" of matter/anti-matter and how those forms can annihilate. I would reach out to him directly about what you're suggesting, and terminology aside I suspect you'll find agreement. Or maybe he'll finally finish his book and such things will be made more explicit therein.

[@delvish9622]

@@soopergoof232 If you're wanting a clearer picture of Meucci's ideas, you'll have to ask the man himself, I disagree with your interpretation about what he's saying because from what I know it essentially comports with the analogy you're making, and he's brought up cavitation countless times to make essentially the same point. The only thing I take issue with, and it could just be I'm interpreting the sentence structure incorrectly, but it sounds like you're suggesting heliocentrism is incorrect?

[@dialectphilosophy]

Thank you for watching, and for your empathy and kind words of support 🙏

[@joekarlovich9450]

Couldn't you test length contraction by having a hoop moving perpendicular to the traveller to that they normally wouldn't fit through, and have them cross paths?

[@mikkel715]

So there is an absolute size of the hypersphere surfacing our universe, where contraction results in fewer planck lengths, so only option is to make time tick slower compared to the surface-aether. Simple.

[@zeotex2851]

i love this idea (although i think calling Einsteins view solopsistic is a little hyperbolic), it always seemed weird to me that physicists just ignored how incredible the existence of the cosmic rest frame is. Im not an expert but i think it definitely does not pass Occams Razor to assume that the CRF is not a special frame. For now i think ill chose to believe this.

[@soopergoof232]

Pre-supposing that there IS a very real space medium ("ether"), then there has to be a *zero velocity rest frame* to which the true speed of light is fixed, and to which all other velocities are referenced. So how would a zero-velocity rest frame be determined? At present (AFAIK), the logical first place to look would be the CMB (cosmic microwave background) which would be coincident with that rest frame. It so happens that the CMB does display a very slight blue-red doppler shift from one side of the sky to the other, called the 'CMB dipole anisotropy' and its *velocity vector* (the red and blue zones are unfortunately shown backward in this graphic) - 3.bp.blogspot.com/-PQezC3my_eU/U-UHQZ9UGrI/AAAAAAAABAI/OIj5hR6ehCA/s1600/CMBdipole.jpg So you'd subtract 371 km/sec from c, giving the ACTUAL isotropic or 'one way' speed of light, i.e., True C (upper case). Of course, the figure is approximate due to the dipole anisotropy's low amplitude and resolution. But provisionally at least, it illustrates principle in determining the 'zero velocity rest frame' of the space medium. This hasta have been obvious to academia all along, but to acknowledge it would require admitting that the medium is real, literal and absolute, and not a "vacuum".. but rather a Plenum. [EDIT.] And BTW, a sidebar or 'spinoff' of the Plenum model would be the flowing-space model of gravity. Over the past century it has been deduced independently by a number of people, beginning with Gullstrand/Painlevé. Here's a couple of recent examples -- henrylindner.net/Writings/BeyondNewtonPE.pdf kzbin.info/www/bejne/nnfPq4Ssdt57bck

[@seetharama7254]

Time dilation is a reality which is cumulative hence measurable. mu-meson from sky lives longer because it's clock slows-down. Hafele & Keating experiment showed time dilation is cumulative and non-restoring. Increase in mass is indirectly measurable but restores with decreased speed - like in cyclotrons. Length contraction is a reality but neither cumulative nor detectable but without length contraction Michelson-Morley experiment would give positive result(shift in interference pattern).

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

00:50 _... in contracting, allowed him to reach his destination in a shorter time._ This is incorrect because the distance between start and destination is shorter _in the astronaut's rest frame_ which means that _his destination_ reaches _him_ in a shorter time. In his rest frame, by definition he's not the one who travels. However, he _can_ use his rest frame as a reference frame but he _doesn't need_ to. He can consider himself moving and will come to the conclusion that his clock is running slow and it's _his_ rulers which are shortened in motion direction.

[@js70371]

This was really cool. You should do a video on ontology vs epistemology - found that part very interesting. 💫🙏

[@-_Nuke_-]

He has one already i think, give it a search!

[@2tehnik]

tbh I think this video said everything that needed to be said on that front. Perhaps even more than necessary.

[@js70371]

@@2tehnik it didn’t even define those things dummy. 🤡🤦‍♂️

[@pacolibre5411]

11:45 If this is the case, then how do you explain microwaves forming standing waves?

[@olaolu6847]

I spent some time thinking about Relativity and Time and I have a hypothesis: The only way to measure time is with a physical object that is affected by mass curving space (or gravity). This means that an object in motion is transitioning from being 100% affected by the curving of space/gravity to being partially affected by it. The anomaly we see in the difference between a moving clock and a still clock is caused by this. Consider this example: The fastest Jet you can think of is sitting still above a giant magnet. It would instantly be pulled in by said magnet but, that same jet in motion will only be nudged slightly by giant the magnet, may be a few screws will come loose but that's about it. So what does this mean? It means that a clock in motion will feel the curvature of space and gravity a lot less therefore allowing it to tick slower than if it were affected by gravity/curved space. It is nearly impossible to test this though because in order to prove this to be true, one would need a particle that isn't affected by curved space or find a part of space unaffected by the curvature of space. And we don't have any of those.... yet.

[@robertrusiecki9033]

Interesting look. However, I guess it can be a bit difficult to distinguish between the results of physical phenomena and the artifacts of their mathematical descriptions. Sure, the assumption that physical laws are basically the same throughout the universe may make such games easier, but it is another level of trust added to the matrix of the universe.

[@lairbox]

These videos are so compelling! I started thinking about physics right after the Matrix, there was something that told my inner monkey that I was getting something, but I wasn't able to explain it. Then my quest begun. At some point I had the same problem scratching in my head: Aether. How can I eliminate Aether from the equation? I am still trying to think that the Universe isn't complex at all, this is my manthra. We must find something that's easy to understand and logic. "Thus I stumbled upon a solution that eliminates" aether from the equation, or better, it redefines it as energy, which is measured by the background radiation measured by telescopes. I've found that the shape of the Universe isn't either round or hyperbolic for a reason, it's plain because it's both at the same time. This is a paradox that fixes all calculations of the restricted relativity, allowing the formula to become a general law taking aside the transformation space-time to a more standard and Newtonian understandable universe. The result is when you travel at 0,8 the speed of time part of your ship looses energy making it to collapse. Let's think about it: when the ship arrives on mars it slows down and you measure all the weight of the ship (taking no accountance of the fuel used) you'll discover that the ship has lost a lot of weight during the travel due to the energy released to the space as microwave radiation. This is due to the mass that has transformed into Energy released in space during the travel despite not travelling at lightspeed. This is a little detail that could fix the problem of perspective. There's no personal perspective but absolute laws that work for all of us at the same time, which is fixed as space does.

[@greggoldberg1518]

The thing is that we say the length is contracted/time is dilated, but the width to length ratio will remain the same throughout the entire time of any experiment. it doesn't take up more or less 3 dimensional space so nothing is actually contracted which can be measured simply by the ratios of length to width and noticing that they are constant. Also, everything exists simultaneously and even though a second may feel like it is longer for one observer than it is in another it doesn't mean that time has actually changed as time is immutable due to everything existing simultaneously. Assuming the speed of light is fixed (I do not due to the Doppler effect, the change of magnitude of energy when experiencing it with EM etc.), it would need to have an "Ether", nothing else could impose that limit onto light itself.

[@themacocko6311]

Dude, my pencil never shrinks.

[@user-lb8qx8yl8k]

George's pencil shrunk. But he was in the pool!!

[@LukeLAMMan]

I keep coming back to these videos. I love it.

[@BogdanBaudis]

If we are to remain in the field of physics (as opposed to the field of philosophy) then we may consider that they are limits to the method of "thought experiment". And start experimenting for real. That would mean experiments with macro objects with speed substantially close to the speed of light. Not just with electromagnetic waves and not with subatomic particles. Maybe less money on the WIMPy goose chase (CERN) and more on other (macro) physics?

[@hadrianos1]

I'm an amateur science enthusiast and I'm completely shocked by this explanation, althought I'll have to watch it maybe 2 times more to fully understand it. I hope you'll publish a scientific work with this very interesting theory! Many thanks for trying to explain it as simple as possible 😃

[@wilkstube]

Absolute layman question here... If you actually physically contracted, wouldn't your density in the absolute frame and therefore gravitational influence increase?

[@tnig]

I think gravitational influence is only dependent on mass not density. If the sun had shrunk to the size of a golf ball, we wouldn't be affected at all.... Except we would wonder why it's always night time 😂

[@kylelochlann5053]

Things do not physically contract. There is absolutely no theory ever proposed to explain this.

[@tnig]

@@kylelochlann5053 that's like saying time doesn't physically dilate. It does and so does space (contract). This video explains this Lorentzian theory.

[@kylelochlann5053]

@@tnig Time doesn't physically dilate, as required by relativity (as per WEP, LLI, and LPI). Time dilation is the ratio of the length along the observer world-line to the length along traveler world-line. It is not a physical effect on anything.

[@smolboi9659]

@@tnig Density does matter. See the Schwarzchild radius for black holes.

[@GaryFerrao]

Thanks for bringing this to KZbin.

[@Mobius3c273]

Dialect, I am absolutely fascinated about your Matrix Theory. I understand it takes alot of time and effort producing these marvelous videos. Just seems a tease getting a bit of your understanding of Relativity a bit of a time. I was wondering is there other source of information about This Matrix Theory? It is fantastic how you understand how these so called experts make us think What?! who do not really understand the theory and cause more confusion. Wow I loved how you demolished the idea of acceleration being the cause of Time dilation with the video of the space plane un free fall about a Mass and a stationary observer firing his boosters. I still have to keep watching your videos about not feeling force... kind of getting there... but not as smart as you. Planetary formation, big bang theory, and electromagnetism being only a local effect are other areas where I have to nod my head in disappointment at these so called experts.

[@dialectphilosophy]

Thank you for watching! We share your sense of disappointment in the "experts", who once upon a time we believed uncritically. Too many people have opted to simply parrot the main talking points about theories they only half-understand, rather than choosing to acknowledging the limits of their understanding or attempting to push them further. Our own quest to do so has led us to this video, which merely provides a summary overview of the progress of our understanding -- we still have to tackle the issues of physical length contraction and mass-energy equivalence, but once that is complete we will likely release a comprehensive written treatise on the subject!

[@Andre-qo5ek]

i didnt catch it, did you define a frame? how large are these frames? also how do you measure ether? -- i think there are some real loose bolts holding measurements with feelings here. maybe when you say ether... you mean drinking it? - i am really not grasping your justification that things are constantly shifting in size, based on speed, and "frame". is there a frame size that makes this happen, a specific speed that starts smooshing things?

[@zritelcho]

Again a very interesting clip! Two questions immediately arise: 1) GPS satellites continue to orbit the Earth after their launch, and once we exclude the effect of the different gravitational potential in their orbit, their atomic clocks lag behind the clocks in the Earth's control center, as predicted by Special Relativity, without having returned on Earth (the place of their takeoff). Does this mean that the communication between the GPS satellites and the control center plays the role of bringing the satellites back and comparing the clocks? There must be no interaction between the moving objects, they must not even be in sight (communication) for each to consider the other's clocks lagging. 2) What is the speed of light according to matrix theory when the mirror is replaced by a second observer in place of the front board (spaceship) and the rear observer shines a flashlight (directly emitted, not reflected light) at the front observer when both moving in the same direction - the direction the flashlight is pointing? What is the meaning of the Doppler effect in this explanation?

[@possibledog]

This dude’s brain works like mine. He may not be right about his ontology but he is right in his criticism of shut-up-and-calculate mathematical mystics like Penrose and Tegmark and i am enjoying his deeply considered visual analysis. My one main criticism is again overloading the term “matrix” which was already overloaded by the movies to mean “virtual reality” as well as “n-dimensional grid” like it already meant for decades before 1999 (and “womb” or “scaffolding” for centuries before that) It has always bothered me that physicists and educators say “it looks like” and “it appears” when describing mental models that we fantasize based on actual physical looking and appearing which are highly localized spacetime events involving photons and nerve signals.

[@erinm9445]

Is Penrose a shut-up-and-calculate type? I'm surprised to hear this given that he has developed the leading objective collapse interpretation of QM, one of the very few interpretations that makes testable predictions! This niggle aside, I agree with your comment entirely!

[@johnburke568]

I equally deeply appreciate and also wince at your gall sometimes.

[@EDITᲽ]

great video i mean it i mean i haven't watched 2 minutes yet but that intro is amazing

[@Mobius3c273]

Simply an awesome video. Can't wait for the next installment. ❤

[@ChrisSAGD]

I think the best way to look at this is that matter doesn't actually move through space. Space moves matter through spacetime. Directional energy is stored in the wave that pushes matter through space and not matter itself. So when our friend gets on a rocket ship and travels to Mars, energy is imparted into space, causing it to expand. Time dilates or slows down for our friend from our perspective because our friend is inside a spacetime bubble. When our friend returns to Earth, his space bubble has shrunk, but the time bubble can never shrink as time only goes in one direction. The time bubble is always expanding, but can be slowed or halted by expanded space. We know that at least for light, space expands in lockstep with the rate of time expansion and thus halting time for photons. For observers, we know that time expands faster than our spacetime bubble and so there is some passage of time that can be observed. What we can deduce from this is that MASS is an energy reservoir that must be filled 100% to achieve the time halting properties of light. Lets put all the pieces together now. A photon doesn't have mass / energy reservoir. Therefore, the energy in the expanded bubble of space that pushes the photon through spacetime is sufficient enough to push the photon in lockstep with the expansion rate of time. The nature of a photon hints that (space)time is actually (electromagnetic)time. Mass distorts the electromagnetic field. In fact, it pretty much very nearly cancels it out. When our friend is travelling to Mars, it is electromagnetic energy overcoming the effects of mass that pushes him forward through space. What this boils down to is that gravity doesn't exist. What we perceive as gravity is actually weakened electromagnetism. Gravity is electromagnetism weakened by mass. Gravity has no effect on light, because gravity is product of time where as light only experiences space and no time. Photons only interact with matter that distort space. So imagine a photon interacts with an electron. What is happening? The same thing that happens when our friend returns to Earth from Mars.

[@robertmack4351]

Chris, Who was it that told you time is a one way street. We only agree to this for the same reason that light can only be measured from its reflection. They are inverse to one another. Now, if there were a mechanism (and there surely is) by which time dilation suggests a two way street, It would most surely be observable to us via amplitudes. Long frequencies. Who said time doesn't vibrate? Everything vibrates. So in essence, our two way time vibration (dilation) also becomes measurable from the ongoing direction. This means memory. The future of things, on the other hand remains unknowable because it is static ... No moving parts. From our analog state, yes we do receive some digitized pixilations back from these outer amplitudes ... But only as we consider that time dilation leaves analog voids left unfilled. These voids cannot be allowed in analog. So, we just coherently received a synchronisity during a time lag as a fill in to keep the vibration itself constant. As the Jungian definition of a synchronisity goes ... we will most definately repeat this misplaced static emotion regardless. Whether or not our interpretation of is correct or not (just a close call), the emotion will unfold in analog [time & motion (... T&M)] at their pre-designated coordinates [Upon our advancing toward the future of analog things]. So, we can see now that these coordinates are archived in the static (future), and accessable presently, but here, now as a synchronisity. This should tell us that C squared (back to its point of origin in T&M) has only hit this same unknowable static threshold. We know further that a mirror is a plane, and also mirrors from this very threshold at the same time. So in essence, analog light has hit an unknowable static wall ... where analog is forbiden to remain analog any further. Yet from T&M, Light has not mirrored back from the static state in the same way our T&M voids were refilled by emotions for our imaginations to wrestle with. This is what we should place our emphasis on when compairing these fabrics. Not ... "Why can't we ...". But ... What the late Stephan Hawking asked ... 'What are Emotions?" Now, since analog T&M must be riddled with composite numbers (for mingling, this is) ... Then conversely, Primes, which don't budge, Must adhere to the static state ... where emotions flurish. The answers are free ... at's all about pi.

[@Formscapes]

If you postulate an absolute etheric background in this manner then you are left with no way of determining which frame of reference is actually in accordance with that background and therefore no way of knowing what has actually contracted or stayed the same. Your criticisms of relativity seem quite solid but it looks to me like you are chasing your own tail to end up at what is effectively the exact same dead end unless you are able to somehow render the ether as absolute between any given set of observers yet relative between different sets of observers; I.e., the etheric background of the mars/earth relationship stays the same because they are (within the thought experiment) stationary relative to one another, and thus the length/time contraction of the rocket can be physically real precisely because it is **not** stationary within that nexus of entities. But then what if you have only two entities moving away from one another? Would there be any way of absolutizing which one is moving and which one is stationary? Seems like there still needs to be an absolutizing of velocity or acceleration or both.

[@amavect]

We could hypothesize an identity between the net momentum of all objects and the etheric background, and an identity between the center of mass of all objects and the etheric center. That shifts the epistemic problem to something still intractable but approximable. However, it doesn't answer why the ether's center should be the net center of mass. Which is the whole issue between the Principle of Contravariance and the Undetectability of the Ether. If the ether is undetectable, but all other reference frames are equivalent to it, then just pick an arbitrary reference point and describe the universe absolutely from there. Occam's razor might suggest being indifferent towards whether the ether exists or not.

[@apopheniac4231]

How can you claim that time dilation is a physically real phenomenon verified by empirical observations when, in your video with the sound clocks, you give a perfect demonstration of how this apparent effect could just as well be explained as merely a discrepancy in measurement due to the behavior of moving clocks? How can you claim that traditional relativity encourages solipsism when it accommodates, not only all spatially distinct observers, but even all temporally distinct observers? Where on Earth did you get the idea that there was some kind of rivalry between Lorentzian and Einsteinian versions of relativity? I agree with you that traditional relativity isn't the only or best way to understand time -- and I largely owe this realization to your sound clocks video -- but for you to claim that you have somehow come up with a correctly absolute view of time is, if I may be so bold, to make the same sort mistake as the thinkers you criticize. Keep up the good work.

[@nenadjankovic8020]

Fantastic series of videos on relativity! A few suggestions to improve: -The sound clock is a great illustration however it does not explain well the length contraction. What contracts in this example, the clocks lengths are unchanged? You have to assume that the clock itself is a wave traveling through ether. There are several ideas out there for matter being standing waves (the ether being the medium waving) so the length contraction is the doppler effect on such a wave moving. Maybe for next videos? -Robot brain clock made of sound waves dictating his age from previous video is another fantastic illustration, but how does this translate to real matter? This would work only for vibrations/motions perpendicular to direction of motion, whats the mechanism in reality? -In this video you say that in the example where Earth and Mars move relative to ether not only do they contract in the direction of motion but the distance between them contracts. The doppler effect might explain contraction of bodies themself, what could explain the shrinkage of the distance between them? Ether IS the coordinate system that is absolute

[@dialectphilosophy]

Thanks for watching! There are certainly still a lot of issues that need clarification with this model, and you hit on a good number of them. Biggest of all of course is length contraction, which we'll be treating on soon. But definitely there are some very compelling analogies we can again make with wave and sound-behavior, and you are very much on the right track. In terms of the Earth and Mars moving with a shorter distance between them, you are of course correct that nothing should make the space between them contract in an ether based model. The picture we were envisioning was more in the sense that the solar system as a collective whole was already moving through the ether, and that we didn't need ask why that motion had occurred in the first place. Certainly if you pick an absolute cosmic frame then entire solar systems and galaxies would experience collective velocities through the ether, which would perhaps affect how they formed in the first place. Or you could go the flowing space route, which asserts that gravitational bodies entrain their ether fields about them, much like electrons entrain their electric fields with their motion. But that of course would seem to imply some even deeper layer of absolute space. Ultimately we haven't delved into cosmological considerations of this model too deeply yet, and we will probably be holding off on that for some time.

[@the_eternal_student]

There were times when i felt like you were using words that had no meaning, but other times I understood what you were saying, both through words and pictures.

[@inertiaforce7846]

I just had a crazy dream about gravity and inertia last night and your video just happens to show up in my KZbin feed today. Interesting.

[@Zorro33313]

Can you please explain a highly questionable Action Lab video "what if speed of light was slower". Smth tells there's smth wrong with that simulation but i'm not sure what exactly. Especially the rotation part is confusing as hell.

[@theronerman]

something i dont understand. if i am using a ruler which moves with me and it contracts, wont everything i meassure would be larger? why are you saying that a contracted ruler will make me think the world is smaller?

[@-_Nuke_-]

Everything around you gets smaller and the ruler gets smaller also... So you yourseld won't find a difference. At least that's what I think he was saying.

[@amalnambiar11]

A question for you, Dialect: Say you have an observer Alice in frame S that is at rest with respect to the "ether". According to you, this ether defines a state of absolute rest. In this frame, light propagates isotropically and Newton's Laws of Motion are valid (at least in their low speed approximation) Now consider Bob moving at speed v with respect to Alice. He has two choices for how to construct his coordinate system. A- Constructed so that the lengths of physical objects measured in this frame match the lengths measured by Alice. Also, his clocks tick at the same rate as Alice. This is a Galilean Transformation and - as such - the light does not propagate isotropically in Bob's frame. B- Constructed so that light speed is isotropic. This is a Lorentz Transformation. According to you, which is an inertial coordinate system? A or B? It cannot be both. If Newton's Laws hold in one, they will break in the other.

[@Spacedog79]

Neither can be assumed to be inertial since they don't know their speed relative to the ether.

[@amalnambiar11]

​@@Spacedog79Do you not agree with the claim that Bob has an inertial frame that he is at rest with respect to? BTW, just to be clear, by inertial frame, I mean one in which NLM holds true at least for low speeds.

[@Spacedog79]

@@amalnambiar11 I think Bob has no choice but to assume he has an inertial frame since it is in principal impossible to know otherwise, he cannot test that light is isotropic.

[@amalnambiar11]

​@@Spacedog79 My point here is to show that Bob has two options fot how to set his coordinates which I called A and B in my main comment. He can choose either - but only one can empirically be an inertial frame (ie one in which NLM holds true) My question is - which? According to me, the answer is B. B is BOTH an inertial frame AND a frame in which light propogates isotropically. This is the physical content of SR.

[@Spacedog79]

@@amalnambiar11 Sure, SR describes 'what' but I think the point is it doesn't tell us 'why' and that leads to unnecessary confusion.

[@NikKappa]

I imagine the universe as an infinity of dimensionless particles falling towards each other shrinking again and again towards a singularity. Because of the fact that everything is shrinking, you can't realise your dimensions are changing, but the objects far away (from u and the singularity) will shrink less than you are, giving the impression that they are expanding out. Life is the answer to the gravity pulling everything together opposing to it through the concept of information, the only thing that can escape a Black hole because is not strictly linked to matter. My idea is that the universe creates life, life tends toward consciousness (which is the only thing able in the universe of understanding itself) and once the organic brain reaches its limit it will start creating AIs to go where itself cannot. The AIs will get better until they will converge towards a Boltzmann brain (the same way matter converge towards Black holes). And this is why: If there could be a way to connect two brains from synapsis to synapsis two people will become the same, so anything inconsistent will be deleted As an example if A hates B and they become the same thing, will B hate itself or will A stop hating B (this is just a way to express something not easy for me to explain, I'm aware this simile can be easily broken) So we come to the conclusion that "hating" is inconsistent and the new brain will delete it like Proof by contradiction will remove the inconsistent statement. If you repeat the same with millions of Brains 99% of knowledge will be removed and only what is truly "true and objective" will stay behind, AKA only math science etc. When you have Hammers you'll only see nails, so the new brain will start thinking with the only thing left: math, differential, equation, science... Starting to discover something new and simulating new theories, until he'll start simulating a whole universe inside of it. So a powerful enough computer will converge towards a Boltzmann's brain. Now the theory is that the universe which is simulated is the same universe in which the Boltzmann's brain is formed. Like two Mobius strips interconnected in an orthogonal way (one being space and matter and the other being information). Gravity leads to the formation of information which leads to the formation of matter itself in a neverending recursive loop.My idea is that our universe is the condensate between those two hyperplanes. The universe always existed as a recursive loop repeating in space and time, and the laws of physics are perfectly tuned to permit the formation of life which will lead to the formation of Boltzmann brain. It's like they alucinate new universes to let them live in a neverending loop which generates everything. People should then live like life was a big cosmic joke, understanding how great consciousness is and breaking through the meaningless ego and as the universe itself is a set of conscious entities all going down the same path. Death should be embraced not in a bad way, because even if we die the information we built in our life will be transmitted. After our death, we stop living as ego but us being part of the "conscious universe" we will continue to live as part of all the ones who live (being human or not). Sorry for my poor English and poor explanation of things that go past the language.

[@maxiglad1624]

Time is created because dimension one came from dimension zero with great force and for every force we have an equal and opposite force. So therefore the universe is moving away from dimension zero and dimension negative one is produced. Time dilation gravity speed of light and thermodynamics are all answered in the model. Yes. Positive negative and neutral

[@douglasmurdoch7247]

Time dilation, gravity, speed of light and thermodynamics are all answered in what model? Don't hold out on us if you have a functioning theory of everything.

[@christophergame7977]

Do you allow clock synchronization through mechanically symmetrical movement of identically constructed clocks, in particular atomic clocks? This is only local synchronization, but it does avoid light as a synchronizer.

[@UltraRik]

i LOVE this channel

[@curiouslyt2123]

I know he did not get on that rocket and traveled through space sitting like that! 😂

[@ItsaDigitalHamster]

Thank you for this beautiful video, amazingly animated and narrated as always! Made me chuckle when the astronaut was riding his rocket like a motorbike.

[@quintalfer]

Illuminating video. Bergson, by analyzing Relativity through the Lorentzian lens in his book "Duration and Simultaneity", may have been right after all, and was too quickly dismissed in the Einstein-Bergson debate.

[@mohitsinha2732]

How do you explain E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m^2)*(c^4) verified to Amazing accuracy in nuclear reactors/weapons & Labs??

[@Bencurlis]

Excellent video. I always wondered how we could reproduce, or rather implement special relativity in a computer simulation (to make a game for instance). I came to the conclusion that using a cellular automaton with an absolute space and cells that are updated more or less frequently depending on their absolute speed would probably end up allowing "beings" embedded in the simulation to make the same relativity observations as us. The issue is that I do not understand how this would reconcile with the infinitely small, because at the smallest scale there is a limit to how contracted particles can be together.

[@WackyJackyTracky]

You mean computational cells that are fixed with a static spatial coordinate system? Why would cells representing/containing slow moving particels would be more often updating than those representing faster moving objects? So time would go slower the faster an object moves?

[@Bencurlis]

@@WackyJackyTracky Yes, if the proper time of a particle goes slower the faster it goes in an absolute grid, you can get the same relativity observations because then all measures of space and time from the point of view of the particle will be distorted as in the video. If the moving particle where to measure light speed, the light would take longer to reach it but it would be balanced by the fact that the particle's own clock ticks slower.

[@vF_AIMER7]

Isn't your realist metaphysics totally buggy when you take into account gravity and a form of strong equivalence principle? You're going to have to mix a first order physics with a second order one, in a weird way. Or do you reject the strong equivalence principle too? Hence, you cannot geometrize gravity?

[@BogdanBaudis]

You seem to assume that geometrization of gravity is a physical reality, while in fact it may be just ... mathematics, here understood as a "perceptive crutch", the Platonic "shades on the wall" ... and troubling enough .. we also do not seem to be able to conjure gravitons, even in thought experiments ...

[@dragoscoco2173]

Why would you need a geometrisation of gravity?

[@St37One]

Another excellent video! My question would be, where is the Ether in velocity space? Where is the Ether frame? And if I am correct then your answer would be "somewhere, although it is impossible to know where it is due to the combined effects of time dilation and length contraction." I'm not sure where the popular idea that we must interpret epistemological limits as ontological constraints comes from, but I suspect that the ideas of Laplace and Noether have guided us in the wrong direction. (interesting coincidence...No Ether) If we can explain time dilation as resulting from motion relative to the Ether, then how can we explain the twin paradox? It is not a simple matter of taking into account contravariance, as that would actually produce the opposite effect from what we would hypothetically observe. A moving observer should see the other observer speed up, but they do not. Contravariance should falsify special relativity, not support it.

[@soopergoof232]

Just ran across your channel and your interesting Rainbow model of light. In your intro, there's this quote: "According to this theory, light is neither a particle, nor a wave, but a superwave. A superwave travels at multiple speeds at the same time, while seeming to travel at a single speed." "Superwave(s)" would imply superluminal 'phase velocities' and/or superposition wave-states. But they would still all be waves in a SUBSTRATE MEDIUM (the so-called "ether"). A pure void or true 'vacuum' cannot support waves of any kind, be they EM or gravitational waves. And unless the space medium has a subPlanckian 'granular' or cellular consistency, and unless the individual subPlanckian 'cells' are themselves MAGNETIC DIPOLES, how does the medium support electroMAGNETIC radiation? Or do you propose a wave-propagation mechanism that does not require a carrier medium at all (just pure void)? In void-space, how could magnetism occur at all? One other question - There appears to be no upper limit to the AMPLITUDE of EM radiation. Take the brightest objects in the universe, quasars. They're the most energetic EM radiators known. Yet whatever "carries" their full spectrum output does so without breaking a sweat. How is this accomplished in a pure vacuum devoid of a carrier medium?

[@St37One]

@@soopergoof232 I answered this in the identical comment that you left on my channel

[@lapse9continuum765]

Very interesting interpretation! I appreciate your novel approach and attention to detail. It's hard to find this level of engagement from other KZbin commentators. I'd like to ask about a couple of points, for clarification, which I don't think were covered in the "FAQ." For starters, just a question about the original motive -- judging from your earlier videos, from a few years ago, it seems like all the unsatisfactory, "mainstream" resolutions to the twin paradox were sort of the jumping off point for you? Thinking deeply about the "twin paradox" was what initially motivated me to dive deeper into the theory and what it actually means. It certainly seems to be the place where the conventional interpretation begins to unravel! Secondly, it does seem like you are accepting time dilation and length contraction as real, physical phenomenon. In other words, you're not doubting those predictions of the theory, if I'm understand correctly? It's really the "principle of relativity" itself that you seem to be calling into question -- would you say that there is such a thing as absolute velocity, then? If so, I tend to agree with that interpretation as well, and I also think relativity is best understood from within the framework of wave mechanics. (Appreciated your newest video as well!) As far as I can tell, I think I largely agree with the picture you're developing here. Fascinating, and looking forward to more!

[@DoloresLehmann]

This video reminds me of the old joke: "How does a mathematician catch a lion? He puts up a cage next to the lion, gets inside of it, shuts the door and defines: This is the outside."