On the Origin of the Constants c and h

[@randykuhns4515]

Finally,.. one who is in the know and speaks honestly,...

[@mankind8807]

And how would you know what is right?

[@randykuhns4515]

@@mankind8807 When you discern all that is out there being pushed, you know most of it is conjecture based on interpretation, and many times it's far out, so when someone gives a refreshingly new twist on the field of theoretical physics with the obvious credentials this man has, you can think at the very least he doesn't toe up to a line given, so you ask then "how would I know what is right"? none can truly know, but those he speaks of go too far out on theoretical limbs, and this is why Unzickers honesty on this is so refreshing,

[@mahoneytechnologies657]

Thanks for showing that Science always requires Deeper and Continuous thinking - There is no room for Group - Lemming Thinking, Just as in Control Systems - Negative Feedback is always required.

[@michaelmoorrees3585]

... And those with only positive feedback are unstable.

[@accidentalscientist9820]

"Good physical theories are simple. The standard models of cosmology and particle physics are complicated. Real progress in physics has always eliminated arbitrary numbers. Consequently, a complete theory of reality must do without any constant of Nature." A. Unzicker, 'On the Origin of the constants c and h'.

[@AltonMoore]

We are very much in agreement on the matter of fundamental constants. It surprises me that so many so-called "scientists" are more interested in the study of effects rather than causes.

[@TheDummbob]

Well in a sense that is build into the physics as we know it, since Galilei and Newton for example. The latter famously couldn't find any good explanation of how/why it is that gravity acts on a distance, so he resorted to just describe *how* it acts, and voila, he got his law of gravitation and humanity got "modern" physics

[@ferdinandkraft857]

We have no access to the causes. Our senses only feed us the effects. Causes are human constructs, our interpretation of perceived effects. That's why no physical theory should be regarded as "established fact", it is only our best interpretation so far.

[@AlirezaAsgari270]

Your conclusion is the best starting point for returning from the dreamland of expressionist science and the cosmology science fiction on the true path, the path taken by Galileo Galileo, Isaac Newton and Maxwell.

[@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858]

... of Dewey Larson

[@caveyful]

Occam's razor is ignored by physicists

[@johnlord8337]

The Standard Model is "basically" designed from atom smashers, particle smashers, etc. What these machines do is both destory atomic material to see what is inside, but they also CREATE short-lived material (quarks and exotic material). It is this that the Standard Model actually shows what the quantum foam of the Aether create as a frothing cosmic foam, creating short-lived quarks etc - not the source of higher physical matter. So these machines do destroy the orignal impacted matter - but they create in these extreme pressures and energies, their own quantum foam and shooting out all these quarks and exotic material. So particle physics based upon these machines only show that the Aether, cosmic foam, and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) are the active processes seen happening from the Aether (Dark Universe) on the boundary of the Physical Universe of matter, energies, and forces. Also cosmology, cosmogeny also have faulty data and logic within their foundation, making a final faulty statement of astronomy, astrophysics, expanding/steady state/collapsing cosmos with red and blue shifts, ... Big Bang etc.

[@zippymax1]

Ugh...this tempts me to dust off my 1990 B.S. in Physics and go beyond. A friend of mine set me up with a Nuclear Engineering fellowship in '91. Oregon State was partipating in a proposal for a nuclear reactor for the I.S.S., but when I showed up, for my research they put me on a super boring Fortran simulation of a radiation detector another student was developing. I became depressed and dropped out, losing my fellowship. And then of course I messed around in English gradschool for a long time, just following the vein of fun. But if I had known about Einstein's variable speed of light idea, I might have stayed in Physics. My fellow students worshipped Feynman, of course--but me: I was deeply suspicious of the speed of light and the colossally large supposed age of the universe. I was interested enough that it might have fueled a Ph.D.--but of course there was no school or lab investigating that stuff... and that's the point. But now at 56 I could just fund my own damn Ph.D. in another fun-but-likely-useless field lol. Ah...life has been good to me. I've also raised three rebel children who are embarking into academia with the sole goal of fomenting ideological/philosophical rebellion.

[@panayiotisskolokotronis1630]

It was a very influential presentation. It just helped me realise the only answer to every hard question. That is "May be this or may me that ! Who knows ? "

[@jooky87]

Brilliant, thank you for bringing to light many new and old ideas by the original free thinkers, and free us of the new church of the standard model

[@PlayStore-qs7os]

I appreciate the hard hitting presentations and lecture. I witnessed a lake in the badlands of South Dakota, about forty miles East of the Homestake Mine, which was Chernobyl beam blue, and though it was a bright midsummer mid-day, what I will never forget is not Cherenkov’s self-lit, glacier magic blue (to me) pure water, but far beyond it in cause for wonder and wilder be; after a gap off the body of water,; above it, was a visible six feet thick at least, green radiance phenomenon, no visible thing has ever come close to the wonder of it. I tried to discover what could bring about this phenomenon; and I was attracted to it, so across the Badlands I took off with a jar with a lid, to get a scoop of the water there, to see if I could walk around with a jar of green radiance as I had enormously seen. But when I walked toward the green radiance lake of the Badlands, I felt like I walked out of this world into another one, and though I planned the way from high ground, I walked toward a lake fifteen minutes away from me one world transitioned to the next, but after two hours of trying, past the threshold of the world change, I could walk endlessly that way and never get to to it. I turned back eventually; but somehow the walk back was a twenty minute thing to reach my truck again., but it was quite surprising when I had to accept it, some kind of magic phenomenon so blatant it reminded me of the infinite staircase in Mario 5”6. I wish and beg you to describe to me the lake you can’t walk up to no matter how long you walk up to it,, IA real magic; please teach me about that kind ifvhenomenin

[@otakurocklee]

I do not understand the criticism of Minkowski. He just simplified the mathematics of special relativity. Nothing he did contradicted Einstein.

[@ableone7855]

Speaking Truth instills fear.

[@zyltch1]

GR & QM share a common fault - the notion of continuity (space-time & wave-function resp.) and hence physically real infinities. For logical reasons, there can be no physically real infinities. A key problem facing orthodox empirical-based theory is that one cannot extrapolate laboratory-scale physics to understand the largest and smallest physical entities. Moreover, many of the so-called fundamental constants are consequences of this laboratory-based parochial perspective - we have convinced ourselves they are 'real' when in fact they are simply convenient 'fictions' arising from our particular interpretation of the physical world.

[@mohammedj2941]

These presentations are deeply entertaining

[@accidentalscientist9820]

"Ill-posed problems? Wave-particle duality. The measurement problem. Collapse of the wave function. GR-QM unification. Nonlocality. Violation of causality."

[@billyoldman9209]

Reminds me of Henry Bergson's method of intuition. False problems always arise from bad composites in which different qualities are equated. Once these bad composites are deconstructed and the logically clean problem is stated, according to Bergson, the solution will immediately show itself.

[@texasaustin3155]

Please talk about the article "The Ultimate Sophistication of Special Theory of Relativity " published in IJFPS, which talks against special relativity even proposes some paradoxes as well.

[@TheUnknown79]

Planck constant no more constant if monopole field permeates the universe It is the monopole field that permits the block Space-time universe just a part of the multiverse

[@TheBinaryUniverse]

Fascinating lecture. I completely agree about his view of the constants and how progress always involves the elimination of at least one of these. I also share his views on space and time and have concluded for myself that time is a process and that space is emergent from this process. Time is the process of change. Time is energy, change is energy. In fact. let's get rid of the idea of time altogether and replace it with an wavelike energy field within which everything resides. By default, the energy field will move objects (particles) into the next (future) state, but when a particle uses more energy than just to sit there and move through time, this extra energy must come from the field. This is why kinetic energy automatically involves time dilation and it does not take too much work to show that the degree of time dilation must obey Lorentz when moving through a wavelike field. This also explains why time slows down local to large masses. Here, the energy being used by the internal kinetic energies of all the particles within the mass is also taken from the field and becomes measurable due to the size of the mass. Where there is mass (where there are particles), the field loses energy and time must slow down. There is much much more that derives from this view. Read my book, "The Binary Universe" - A Theory of Time. - uppbooks.com/shop/product/the-binary-universe-a-theory-of-time/

[@jamesblank2024]

This theory dovetails nicely with yours: www.amazon.com/Tronnies-Mr-John-R-Ross/dp/0578138522

[@davorkralj79]

Nikola Tesla measured in some of his experiments (I believe in Colorado Springs) 1,4c, 50c and even infinite speed (instant transmission) in relation to longitudinal waves - the instant transmission was also seen later in Alexandersson antenna. This shows that speed of light is not a constant but rather that Mileva Maric (Einstein) needed this particular value in order to make the special theory of relativity to work.

[@rd9831]

Absolutely right that standard model is rubbish. But what is an appropriate model according to you Dr. Unzicker. ? I would love to understand the atom more simply.

[@simonruszczak5563]

Structured Atom Model (SAM) structuredatom.org

[@lunam7249]

cricket chirps....

[@santerisatama5409]

Starting from computational/mathematical/etc. theory from processes/directions symbolized by relational operators < and > ('increases' and 'decreases'), the number of free parameters is none or indefinite. I don't think world is foundationally made of numbers, from the process of counting, from the measuring unit "1". On the other hand, the idea of numerical order is dependent from relational operators.

[@nkchenjx]

To echo the other video of Dr. Unzicker’s, if we assign energy density of vacuum which is a function of gravitational intensity and adjust speed of light with respect to the energy density as the variable speed of light as Einstein proposed. That is we may define a variable vacuum energy level and regain Newton’s fixed space and time definition, which are just units after all and no reason to redefine.

[@onderozenc4470]

A point to ponder is the phase velocity that can exceed the speed of light. So why not in macro sense such as via the entangled dark matter in the universe ?

[@TheMachian]

I agree that phase velocity V is interesting vV= c^2. De Broglie considered that in his doctoral thesis, which is a good point to start.

[@lunam7249]

i wonder this for years❤👏👏👏🏆

[@ruskinyruskiny1611]

"It is stranger than we can think" RBS Haldane.

[@roberttheiss6377]

Professor, what are your thoughts on the holographic principle to assist in explanation? In many ways, the surface of a black hole essentially converts 3 dimensions into 2 dimensions, making a black hole a circle. If so why do we not go further to translate to a 1 dimensional ring, using some sort of infinite fractal math? I would be interested in your thoughts because I have always been confused by the description of black hole interiors - why can't a black hole just be an actual 2 dimensional surface?

[@TheMachian]

I am afraid I cannot help you much. Pondering over the interior of a BH which is not observable, does not make sense in my view. There is not even quantitative evidence for BH's, that is, the Schwarzschild radius has never been determined observationally. The holographic principle is bunk. The coincidences, which are interesting, are best explained by Diracs Large Number Hypothesis. More on the latter in my book "The Mathematical Reality".

[@etienne7774]

View Stephen Crothers website, and videos, there are no black holes. The only black hole is hell after death should you miss God in this life. Read KJB!

[@JH-le4sd]

c is the curvature of the local "tangent space", thus gravity being "space-time curvature" is equivalent to it representing variation in c, just as Einstein had suspected.

[@briacroa6681]

" ... departing from your senses ... ". This is necessary in every kind of physics. Departure from senses is not in thinking that space and time are the same. Minkowskj did not say that. Space and time are part of a system of EVENTS that is not merely a space or a time.

[@AndrewWutke]

Very inspirational lecture. One should follow thus up and dig into details.

[@rd9831]

C is not constant and that is demonstrated in light passing thru different density mediums.

[@silent00planet]

in a vacuum

[@rd9831]

@@silent00planet But space is not empty. It has some finite density in every stars sphere of influence, albeit very low. And all intragalactics too is not a vacuum.

[@justinkennedy3004]

The light speeding back up after leaving, say, a crystal always seemed hard to explain for "light as particle".

[@TheLastOutlaw289]

​@@justinkennedy3004 lmao... That stops these guys in their tracks ALL the time. They always say "wow I didn't know" I will get back to you.

[@philoso377]

Page 24:43 Time is something we didn’t understand enough. Time is unnecessary to describe nature. Because time is embedded inside each motion. We need a special motion device, clock to scale the general motion. Clock isn’t time. General motion is. Time belongs to mathematicians but reality. Reality is always from motion to motion. Two boxer contestants in a ring cares of motion but time.

[@AndrewWutke]

One remark I would like to make is that, like in many other people's articles and presentations, it is phrased that Newton made an error. He created a model with a set of assumptions that brought physics from incoherent philosophies to science good to launch satellites into space. I see the progress of science as reaching higher upon the shoulder of giants, not stepping on the bodies of fallen heroes. Can we say Copernicus theory was a failure because he did not discover elliptical orbits? I would not argue about Minkowski. However, it was an unfortunate misrepresentation rather than an error.

[@EasyThere]

Matter has 3 states (excluding plasma which is an X where matter and energy meet) and Energy should have multiple states too. The answers are there. There are no electrons only charge (V) and flow (A). Stars and Black holes are just poles on a big battery, motion is the alternator.

[@lylecosmopolite]

Let e be the charge carried by an electron. Then alpha = (2pi x e^2)/ch is a dimensionless empirical quantity equal to 1/137.036. Alpha is the same, no matter the system of numeration and the choice of measurement units. The value of alpha is the fundamental constant governing the electromagnetic interaction.

[@philoso377]

Page 10:00 time dilation - is a theory constructed from misunderstanding of light wave and its medium, Aether.

[@thomaslove1420]

Sounds like a step backwards. h is a structure constant of so(3), c is a structure constant of so(3,1) G is related to a structure constant of so(3,2) the groups are necessary to obtain conservation laws; conservation laws are necessary to do physics. I based a unified theory on U(3,2) which yields these and other constants

[@gopanneyyar9379]

@Unzicker's Real Physics Does the concept of Variable Speed Light throw off the ideas of Time dialation and length contaction?

[@suokkos]

No. Time dilation and length contraction are from special relativity. The variable speed of light is general relativity. But time dilation and length contraction aren't actual physical changes. They are different measurements depending on relative speeds between observers. But as physical interactions are mere observations of surrounding world there is physical effects from traveling at high relative speeds.

[@TheMachian]

No.

[@jestongreenwood6815]

I enjoyed your lecture and agree. I would love to discuss the topic with you if at all possible. I have a theory I have written a paper explaining my work I would be honored to have you read and discuss with me. Thank you for posting.

[@Mikey-mike]

Dirac would walk away from any theory which didn't explain the Fine Structure Constant.

[@TheMachian]

Yes, a nice anecdote.

[@lunam7249]

Dirac walked away from "your mom" also!!!❤❤😂😂 he said she was toooo "hand-sey"!! 😹😹😺😸

[@rgaleny]

there is an ether. light is a form precipitated from the ether and separate. light can only move as fast as the drag lets it.

[@philoso377]

Responding to page 9;40 acceleration to and beyond C? Acceleration require energy and force. Theoretical force has no propagation limit. Practical force has propagation limit. The most energetic force in our universe qualify to accelerate matter close to C are E & B sources, nothing else is serve better. The propagation limit to E and B is C, and is governed by vacuum space permittivity e0 and permeability u0. Can you think of a better explanation?

[@TheMachian]

I don't have a good explanation, as you see... the video is more about asking questions.

[@philoso377]

@@TheMachianOK, I just offered a way to address your question of why acceleration has a limit C?

[@TheUnknown79]

Imagine a charged particle moving with speed of light Imagine that particle to be the source of magnetic monopole field confirming constant speed of light Imagine the fate of Planck constant when free space permittivity and permeability agrees with constant speed of light

[@theoreticalphysicsnickharv7683]

23:43 “ if we think about this three-dimensional picture of reality then all the laws of nature would be encoded in a connection on this manifold” What you are saying is similar to Huygens' principle: ‘Every point on a wave-front may be considered a source of secondary spherical wavelets which spread out in the forward direction at the speed of light. The new wave-front is the tangential surface to all of these secondary wavelets’. Could the manifold (the two dimensional spherical surface) be positive and negative charge? I have read that mathematically charge is spherical. It would be logical that the Universe would use the most simple geometrical shape to forms what we see as constants. This spherical 4π geometry could also explain why the speed of light is squared c² and the electron is squared e² it could be because we have to square the radius of the sphere to represent the surface area. The process is relative to the two dimensional spherical surface with "alpha" being a geometrical constant because it remains the same when their an exchange of energy with a photon electron coupling or dipole moment.

[@TheMachian]

Not sure I got your point, but might sound interesting. Feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo, if you are interested in those concepts which are outlined in "The Mathematical Reality"

[@theoreticalphysicsnickharv7683]

@@TheMachian My point is that the three main constants c, h and G can arise out of a process of spherical symmetry forming and breaking. Light c radiates out in all directions as spherical waves. The speed of light is squared c² representing the radius r² being squared because the process is unfolding relative to the two dimensional spherical surface. This two dimensional surface forms a manifold that forms the Planck constant ħ=h/2π at the smallest scale of the process. This two dimensional manifold also forms a dynamic boundary condition for positive and negative charge with a concaved inner surface for negative charge and a convexed outer surface for positive charge. We have a probabilistic future continuously unfolding with the exchange of photon ∆E=hf energy and movement of positive and negative charge. The characteristics of three dimensional space and time are emergent properties relative to the energy and momentum of each object. This dynamic spherical geometry forms the Inverse Square Law of gravity with Newton’s Universal Law of Gravity being a secondary force to electromagnetism. Within such a theory Quantum Mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself as a physical process with classical physics representing processes over a period of time as in Newton’s differential equations. We have to square the probability of the wave-function Ψ² because the surface area of the sphere is equal to the square of the radius of the sphere multiplied by 4π. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π represents a potential sphere 4π of future uncertainty as the future comes into existence with each new photon ∆E=hf electron coupling or dipole moment. The wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer. This forms an interactive process continuously forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual. This gives us the potential to form ever more abstract mathematics! Nothing has lower entropy than a sphere therefore a process of spherical symmetry forming and breaking will naturally form a potential for entropy to increase with time. But such a process will also form the potential for ever greater symmetry formation, right-angle triangles, art, poetry and love.

[@drkerynjohnson]

He-BEC isotropic universe model provides a first principle concept for h and c

[@PaulMarostica]

Among solving many other problems, my unifying theory, matter theory, will permanently solve all the problems listed in the slide titled, "Conclusions (2a) Ill-Posed Problems?", at about 24:20 in this video.

[@jonbainmusicvideos8045]

What is the relative velocity between 2 photons moving in opposite directions from a light bulb?

[@lowersaxon]

Jon Bain 2c

[@aressilverfox]

That's a tricky questions... photons do not have a relative speed at all for the simple fact that there is no inertial coordinate system in which either photon is at rest. ^^

[@PiRaHelTur]

You know photon dont actually existe ..neither waves....

[@bulentkulkuloglu]

More interesting question Assume i was successful in making a cannon that can shoot a projectile to ,51c I built two of these. In the space with no nearby object, i place these two back to back so that they will shoot at 180 degrees. What is the relative speed of these two objects shot? 1,02c? Let's assume from my position in the middle, I confirm that both cannons worked successfully and both bullets are moving away from me at speed > 0,5c.

[@rbc812]

Is there any proof for the claim that the ultimate speed is c?

[@deepblack67]

Implicate Order, Explicate Order ?

[@davidwilkie9551]

An example of the Socratic Method of Teaching and Learning reiteration, to answer a perceived question with what is apparently a wider context, ie This Universe. WYSIWYG. If Newton demonstrated optically and mathematically that the Universe is composed of infinitesimal fluxion (singular ONE-INFINITY Singularity), ie made of Math-Physics making Metaphysical compositions of functional Materialistic perception paradox observation orientation Origins, then the preposition of the first Questioner as to the terms of inquiry should be established in recognised terms that may be tested. What point is there when the critical issue is Observable in the original demonstration? Failure to recognise the examples of the original perceived context and restate a relevant Actuality Conception is the actual testing process Q&A required?

[@byronwatkins2565]

In that case c is some kind of interdimensional coupling constant...

[@rer9287]

The obvious mistake in Newtonian physics is considering mass as fundamental, but that is easily rectified with Lagrangian Mechanics and from there using EM we can derive c and h from first principles. E.g. it seems lost to history that Maxwell derived c from fluid dynamics, but in fact he did. So really only h needs a derivation.

[@TheMachian]

I don't think Maxwell derived c. He made up a theory containing c. This is a big difference.

[@deadgavin4218]

it might be worthwhile to distinguish distance and adjacency, and duration and ordanility, rather than talk about time and space, i believe there was some sort of pop equation where some physicist had claimed that if c were infinite everything would happen in a single instance and that distance amd time wouldnt matter, but this isnt true for for adjacency and oradanality, if ball a has to hit ball b to transfer energy to ball b for it to hit ball c it doesnt matter if the speed is infinite it will still happen in that order. so it is possible that the underlying inertia in the universe is infinite and from that distance and duration are derived and observation of these things occur from within that context. another thing to consider is whether vacuum really exists or if matter is fundamentally space filling and whether we actually observe particles or some kind of volume center

[@dreamdiction]

1:25 "The problem is all these reasonable people died before the standard model was developed so in a way I prefer the dead physicists than the living ones".

[@cowboybob7093]

Thanks, there's no better comment, and a quote to boot.

[@tricky778]

c and h are not anomalies, this is very well understood. c is the constant describing the ratio of the period of our heartbeats to the lengths of our arms - it relates the perception of space vs time that we have as poor observers to reality. h is the constant describing the ratio of the scale of our limbs movement and strength to the properties of subatomic particles. They are facts that describe us rather than describing reality. When physicists work with the theories I understand that they can work without c and h by eliminating them as factors in measurements and working with non-human-scale equations. Light and matter are "limited to the speed '1' " (if they are limited, which is only a pop-sci description really).

[@TheMachian]

"Illusion of knowledge is more dangerous to science than ignorance" :-)

[@philoso377]

Page 11:26 Einstein declare and failed to explain c is a limit to light and all mater in motion in the universe. That made him a brand named narrator but a scientist. But we love celebrities so we his tickets to be his fan. Why? The answer is so simple we failed to think about it other than worship our celebrity. - Light compose of electromagnetic in motion drag by Aether in vacuum. - Matter in motion is particles and electromagnetic combined in motion also experience same drag.

[@tufailabbas309]

Tangent spaces was good one, which is nothing but set of square root of minus 1 multiplied by a scalar in quaternion algebra. Minowski flattened this to a plane. Direction of time is upward , which is the direction of vectors joining centre and each square root of minus one. Minowski equated that with a single vector. Volume inside the sphere is future and volume outside sphere is past. c can still be the limiting speed and maximum speed between adjacent particles, but not necessarily true if more than two particles are aligned on a straight line. For example particles beyond observable universe are moving at speed more than c. I think c is not an anamoly. h being a measure of uncertainty, it could be due to reason that there are no perfect spheres as π is a consequence of infinite process that is still continuing.

[@TheMachian]

the problem remains where these constants c, h come from.

[@tufailabbas309]

@@TheMachian Yeah! That question remains. May be these are just current asymptotic values of evolving geometry of universe. Instead of reducing fundamental constants, perhaps attempts and thoughts should be directed to remove fundamental dimension/units of mass and temperature. Constants will obviously reduce if dimensions will reduce.

[@davidc5191]

I disagree that physical theories have to be simple and mathematically elegant. The thing about the Standard Model is that while messy, it's empirically verified, unlike attempts at elegant theories like String Theory which haven't been proven, and may not even be provable empirically.

[@MassDefibrillator]

the thing is, adhoc complexity can always be "empirically verified" by definition, so that alone tells you nothing. So the reason why you want simplicity is because it's more falsifiable. You know you're not leading yourself up the garden path. The standard models of particle physics and cosmology both have a huge amount of adhoc complexity, so of course you can fit them to the evidence, as you can always add more free parameters to get any theory to fit with the evidence. Same with the epicycles, they had a lot of adhoc complexity, and as a result, were extremely well verified by the evidence as well. Of course, they were totally wrong as well. So the reason why you want a good theory to be simple in this sense is because simplicity is equivalent with falsifiability. And all good theories must have a high degree of falsifiability. String theory on the other hand has no simplicity in this sense, as it's entirely non-falsifiable.

[@douglasstrother6584]

Gluons are depicted as springs in Feynman Diagrams. There is no escape from the Harmonic Oscillator!

[@TheMachian]

I don't think gluons are a useful concept.

[@douglasstrother6584]

@@TheMachian It is amusing that the Strong Force boils down to a spring.

[@lowersaxon]

Lorentz-Transformation: t‘=t-vx. But sec minus meter/sec times meters. Makes no sense. So then vx/c^2 will give m*(m/sec)*sec*sec/m*m* = sec. You have to divide by c^2 „in order to keep dimensions straight“! What?

[@TheMachian]

There is certainly nothing to disagree with. However, I don't know how this relates to the talk. You may wish to consider Einstein's ideas on variable speed of light: www.amazon.com/dp/B01FKTI4A8

[@jasonc0065]

c and hbar are not free parameters, but conversion factors. Mathematicians choose units where they are equal to one.

[@TheMachian]

That's common pratice, yet it does not make sense physically.

[@philoso377]

C is constant only when Maxwell’s U0 and E0 in space are absolutely free of contaminants from subatomic particles, charged particles, free atoms and molecular dust, which are abundant around solar. That “blue shifted” each spectrometer on earth with day light calibration. Consequently, stars in our night sky “perceived” as red shift. In a thought experiment young Albert image that his time t will slow down when he rocket speed away while looking back at a city hall clock. When he return to earth rocket years later, his twin brother look like their deceased grand father. That cause Albert to think that when t isn’t a constant c must be a constant. Soon he replace the meter bar in France by factoring in c. Where c is a constant is Einstein’s mistake. Mistaken that t continue slow down in his return journey, but actually t speed up. Now you know his mistake.

[@TexasTimelapse]

G is given too much credit. Quit using sluff factors so your math works out. Dark matter, dark energy, hot gas and fluffy unicorns needs to go away. EM plays a much much larger role. Actually, your sluff factors are EM at the quantum scale.

[@jonbainmusicvideos8045]

Gravity is fundamentally apart from electro-magnetics because the magnetism of bar magnets are not at all altered by thr gravity field. If they were then they would stand upright. The electronic universe does have much to offer, but gets gravity wrong. It may explain 2 objects but introduce a 3rd object and their poles do not work like gravity at all. It was a valid attempt to account for dark energy but that solution is still missing. There must be something to oppose gravity. I only have as an answer:* spin.*

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

I come with this about space time and im average Joe blow . The representation of time has been more about someones belief system and less about actually reading the universe.

[@TheBinaryUniverse]

I would like to add that it is possible to eliminate "G" from the law of gravity by considering that gravity is merely the curvature of time (an idea that's been around in physics for some time now). In which case, one could argue that if you combine the Schwarzschild equation which describes how the time rate changes with distance from a black hole, with Newton's equation of gravity which describes the behavior of particles within the field, the resulting equation must be a valid description of the nature of gravity. The cause is the time curvature and the effect is acceleration. Again, one can visualize this quite clearly without the use of any math'. The two equations are physically simultaneous. What you get is ;- g = c^2/2r . (1 - t^2). a natural law containing no arbitrary constants and having the effect on one side "g", and the cause on the other ( 1 - t^2 ), the time dilation factor. Simple, just like the other natural law F = m.a. or better put, a = F/m

[@keepinmahprivacy9754]

You can also derive c from h, if space and time are quantized at some fundamental level where h is proportional to the fundamental scale of both space and time. So if you combine that with your idea, you're left with just h to worry about. But if space and time are quantized, then there must be a fundamental measurement, and so perhaps if this were true you would be left with at least one arbitrary number you couldn't eliminate.

[@TheBinaryUniverse]

@@keepinmahprivacy9754 Yes, and that one last arbitrary constant is "c", but it is not the speed of light, "c" is the speed of time. Time is indeed quantized and so space is too, but time is the fundamental while space is emergent from time. The Planck time is a fundamental quantity of energy.

[@keepinmahprivacy9754]

@@TheBinaryUniverse Yes, "speed of light" is a misleading name, as it is linked so directly to time, and influencing so much more than the behavior of light, if you call it the "speed of time" you are probably more correct. The variable speed of light that Dr. Unzicker favors is basically mathematically interchangeable with curvature of "spacetime", but Einstein admitted that he wasn't proposing curved space, so logically it must be the time element that is curved in that model. If we say "speed of time" instead of "speed of light", then the connection becomes obvious, as changing the "speed of time" and changing the "curvature of time" are just two ways of saying the same thing. I'll need to think some more about space being emergent from time, it's certainly an interesting idea. The Planck time as a fundamental unit of energy does seem like it makes some sense in regards to the apparent connection between physical and informational entropy and the arrow of time.

[@TheBinaryUniverse]

@@keepinmahprivacy9754 Exactly right. Your uncertainty regarding space being emergent from time is understandable. However, if you consider special relativity, where clocks slow down with speed (in accordance with Lorentz), then the faster you go, the slower your time rate becomes, until at "c", your time (clock), has stopped. In this state, you get anywhere you like in no time at all, because time has ceased to pass for you. This is the true interpretation of the idea that "lengths have contracted to zero at "c"". Lengths, or distances (ahead) no longer have any meaning and the whole universe relative to your light speed ship may as well be considered to have flattened completely ahead of you. Of course, at low speeds, this effect is almost undetectable, but as your speed increases, the effect becomes more pronounced. I assert that the passing of time is what gives meaning to length, distances and therefore, volume. Now take general relativity. As you approach a black hole, again, your clock slows down until, at the event horizon time has stopped for you, (coincident with the escape velocity reaching "c"). Because time has stopped all around the horizon, then you may as well be positioned at all positions on the event horizon. You might say your location has been "smudged" all over the horizon, since you cannot exist in one place, but only at all positions on the horizon, or, more sensibly, space has become an effective spherical hologram around the surface of the horizon. We can deduce from this that space has disappeared because the clock has stopped, because time no longer passes here. In other words, SR and GR show us that space cannot exist without the passing of time. Now the difference between time and space (yes, they're not the same), is that space is static, passive, yet somehow available, but time is a physical process, the process of change. Time is active, energetic and is what drives everything into its next (future) state of existence. So, if we are to decide which of the two is fundamental then it becomes obvious that all you need to "create" a space time is time. Start time and space automatically becomes available. Time is fundamental and space is emergent from time.

[@TheMachian]

A true elimination of G requires to express it by data of the universe - as Ernst Mach had suggested.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

Here is a questions for you. Per the "conservation of energy," energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Take a 5 lb weight and hold it in your hand. Now, extend your arm straight out in front of your torso and hold it there. You will notice that the strain becomes quickly noticeable. You are spending chemical energy to hold that weight there, yet absolutely no work is being done on the object once you get it into position. If no energy is being destroyed, where is it going? Why would it take energy to hold the weight in the same position when no work is being done on the weight? I know the typical "gravity" response, but it is just saying "that is what happens" and it explains absolutely nothing. Also, if Einstein's theory is correct and it is "space bending" which causes gravitation, you must necessarily be "unbending" space by holding the weight up instead of allowing it to fall. How preposterous is that supposition? Are you really burning chemical energy to "unbend space?" Furthermore, if it takes energy to hold the weight in that position, it must take energy to hold all objects in their present position. From where is all of this energy coming?

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@ibra1616 The human body is most certainly not static, but that does not mean that energy should be utilized to keep an object suspended. The force exerted by the human body is countering another force external to the object and the human body, but which acts upon both constantly. I think the physicists' concept of "work" is incorrect as there is no distance in this equation, only the use of energy to maintain a present state of location.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@ibra1616 That is what I am saying. Just because the human body is the way it is does not make it special in the way it uses energy. The human body holding up a weight, the electromagnet holding up the weight, and the weight being balanced on a stick should use the same amount of energy to hold it in the same location. Yet it is claimed that the stick does not use any energy. How could it be true for energy to be used in the first two instances and not in the third? Obviously, things must be using energy to hold a weight up, so then there is the issue of from where the energy comes.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@ibra1616 That's where I disagree with mainstream science. If you put a heavy weight on the top of your head and attempt to stand for a period of time, it takes energy to suspend that weight. If you use an electromagnet to suspend the weight, it takes energy to do so. If you suspend the weight from a string, it takes energy to do so. If you support the weight from underneath, it takes energy to do so. Some objects do not have the capacity to support the weight and will crumple under it. However, if the weight is to be suspended, it must use energy from somewhere to do so. There can be no logically consistent special pleading argument against this fact

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@ibra1616 "so you are basically saying that energy is required to hold a cup on a table?" Yes. The necessity for energy to be used does not simply stop if it is resting on a table any more than it stops when it is resting on someone's outstretched hand or if it is stuck to the bottom of an electromagnet. The moment that force stops being applied, the object will fall. "Its not just simple action reaction forces in equilibrium, but somewhere energy is beeing spent?" It is reaction forces that keep the object in place, but those forces require energy, just as with the electromagnet or with a person's outstretched hand. This is demonstrable if you place that object on something that does not have sufficient forces to hold it up. There will be a structural failure of some sort and the object will fall. "Where is the energy coming from, and why is your explanation better if we can solve this simple problem with newtonian physics?" I don't really know. It must be coming from the environment somehow. Newtonian physics describes how the forces balance, but it does not explain from where the forces come or how they are created. Newtonian physics just assumes that the objects have an infinite energy supply of their own accord. In that manner, Newtonian physics is incomplete. I think certain materials are capable of absorbing enough energy from the environment to counteract the forces exerted on them, but when the forces exerted on the material exceed the forces absorbed from the environment, the material fails. "Also newtonian physics actually work, meaning If I have a canon, I can calculate where the canon ball will land. If I want to build a bridge I can calculate how thick the steel beams must be etc." Yes, Newtonian mechanics work. It describes and/or predicts what will happen, but it does not explain much at all about the how or why. However, it is the how and the why that is important as understanding this can lead to more advanced technologies.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@ibra1616 It logically follows that energy is required to maintain the static equilibrium under all circumstances, not just the circumstances where a human can physically feel it or when a magnetic field sustains it. As soon as the energy is not provided, the object falls. There is no magic switch that turns off this requirement when an object is placed on a table or other object.

[@Hank-x5q]

Time is only relative to perceptive corporeal life.

[@mkklmann]

I play a guitar tuned c through h, it's fifths all the way down!

[@dreamdiction]

The universe is a capacitor and c is a value of inductance.

[@onderozenc4470]

No, don't confuse "c" with "C". But, there must be a gravitational "time constant" similar to the "RC" circuits.

[@alexanderkoutouzis7302]

Sorry, but i find the whole talk about the 3-dimensional sphere quite silly. First of all,presenting elementary mathematical physics as something new is incomprehensible to me. Secondly, by talking about the change of the tangent space you are making the mistake of viewing S3 as a regular submanifold of R4. So in reality you haven't eliminated a fourth dimension, you just didn't realize it was there. Lastly, and i am sorry if i sound elitist, all the theories that you mentioned are mathematically elegant and hence simple. As a mathematician, i admit they are advanced but not that incomprehensible.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

This is no way to get invited to the CERN Christmas party...

[@philoso377]

Page 23:00 time doesn’t exist in our universe. Time doesn’t exist in a religion called Buddhism. There is no such thing as “time” only relative charge, motion and cycle with respect to one another. To our convenience we invent and normalize everything else in the universe with our oscillator clock cycle, second. While ancient astro physicists scale time with celestial event cycling, Mayan calendar. Philosophy and concept in physics are far more important than explaining physics phenomena or physics model making. When our concept or understanding is wrong what’s the point of making a model?

[@philoso377]

Selective or false understanding have cause him to declare that c was a constant becomes variable. False? By limited knowledge in reality plus ignorant. If we head a bang to see a bird falling off the sky shall we say that sound cause the bird to fall? If we saw light bend around the sun and were educated sun has gravity field shall we say that gravity field aided the bending? What if something else cause that and we are ignorant about it? It was documented that sun emits plasma. Plasma increases the permittivity of space around the sun up to a higher epsilon value and hence refraction result in that bend which Einstein mistaken for gravity.

[@philoso377]

One important property in an equation is that it doesn’t differentiate “cause vs effect” all components in it can be either cause or effect as far as the mathematician desired. A mathematician in a physicist hat surely feel like God. No wonder they try everything they can dispose of to defend their status as physicist.

[@Ockerlord]

second law of thermodynamics is a thing. So direction of time aka differentiation between cause and effect is set.

[@philoso377]

Ockerlord So you agree that cause and effect is directional?

[@philoso377]

Page 6:50 he degrade himself from his double standard no one seems to care. First piece, declaring speed of light c is universal constant and on another c is variable. When that happens in other countries, raw eggs and tomatoes start flying across the room.

[@rgaleny]

light follows a refractive path through the ether. so, it seems to bend as it nears a planet.

[@kenunderwood8621]

Constants convert reality into numbers.

[@billyoldman9209]

Physics does not search for numbers but the ratios of things that are of the same nature. A constant is a patch on an incoherent theory that forces things of different qualities into the same equasion. Think of the Pythagoreans who discovered the realtionship between the length of a lyre string and the sound it generates. They didn't need any constant for that. Or in the case of Newtonian physics, everyone knows that a heavier moving objects hits harder and it is harder to change its course. Problems arise when they try to figure out what casuses things to have weight in the first place and what is its relationship with mass. Newton had no idea and he was open about it, hence the constant G.

[@DamianHallbauer]

i love this. finally. everything i didn't like he calls out as ill posed , but let people realize the absurdity on their own. or they will defend . Finally we have solitons in our wave function. and we only need gravity and SM doesn't give it and never well so its headed for the bin. so its a success as a zoology and funding itself. We need Quantum Gravity not quarks. the quantum world isnt flat. its non commutative. flat earthing must stop.. we need direct more money in revisiting classical models with new nonlinear wave functions and we can be at Star Trek by now. we can do entropic, momentum less transports, effectively FTL based on classic simple variational calculous. i'm the only one who likes this? below? they are all in S3>R4. S1 to R2 can be done. no superposition , they might have nonlinear reactions, no pulling forces are needed.. there's no forces just one wave functions, he's a chemist , unification to large scales is a hobby and it fits cosmic data! 2 pages. when you separate the ontics you can do some FTL and C does hold as a sort of Nyquist.. but you can cut through time.. its all important to separate out ontics from the generators that are in 2d. when an LLM simulates it you can see it from outside the . 3D is enough. reversible solvers can work if you use fixed points and integer representations. www.researchgate.net/publication/298429573_Induced_gravitation_in_nonlinear_field_models mabye like this..

[@chillyshotorbitus5152]

14:00 answer: Space = arena of the Universe is a distance/field/area which expands/contracts (not bends its "infinite structure") = ALSO HAS TO BE CREATED OUT OF SOMETHING (didn't create itself from nothing as Einstein claims) ...and this "something" were mass = spinning hot, heavy, compressed nucleus (evidence in atoms, planets, stars and galaxies) Time - rate/pace/speed of physical processes .... accelerated for quantum....and slowed ("frozen") for macroscale.

[@agusr3419]

Alfonso X El Sabio😘

[@TheUnknown79]

Imagine the paradigm shift of a socialist to capitalist when magnetic monopole field is out of sight Imagine again the utility of a paradigm shift from capitalist to socialist if recession persists when that monopole field is out of mind

[@Mikey-mike]

Einstein assumed á priori and talked about a Creator. If Roger Penrose is correct, there is no need of a Creator.

[@TheMachian]

Einstein was agnostic, though he used "God" in his argument. In first place, he seeked an explanation for "randomness" in nature.

[@mrJety89]

The Wolfram model I think is best described as a version of John Conway's Game of Life. If true, it could significantly reduce the number of fundamental constants. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6WUkJmclquLl9E Stephen Wolfram: Fundamental Theory of Physics, Life, and the Universe | Lex Fridman Podcast #124

[@vinaynk]

LOL Comes from dude who did not put 4pi in the denominator for GMm/r^2.

[@RichardAlsenz]

I will confess, "I could not watch the entire video" it is well founded, but; Euclid is the one who introduced space containing err. No one has or will ever see a point. Euclid maintained it was obvious that: 1. A point is that which has no part. Euclidean space has nothing in it which can be observed. This is the absurdity of where irrationality is established in mathematics. The Scientific Method requires observation. Marquette disproved this in his "this is no apple." All of the physics depending on space is blatantly mistaken. Newton, Einstien, and all who followed erred. Gauss appears to be the only one recognizing the error. He informed all of his students, but none seemed aware of what he was pointing out: Bessel to Gauss Koenigsberg 10 February 1829 {… I would protest loudly if you were to allow "the cry of the Bocetians" to thwart the working out of your geometry views. From what Lambert has said and what Schweikart told me, it has become clear that our geometry is incomplete and needs a correction which is hypothetical and which disappears if the sum of the angles of a triangle = 180o. The latter would be the real geometry, the Euclidean one, which practically, at least for figures on the earth …..} Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; The we must, in humility, admit that if number is merely a product of our mind. Bessel was not his student, but it is clear Bessel did not understand what Gauss clearly pointed out. Space does not exist. The only thing we have close to the observable geometry was introduced by Max Planck E=hv. The only problem is that h contains all the irrational units handed down since Euclid. Planck's constant is rational if one assumes it to be observable. Observable Geometry is E=nv=n/Tp, where Tp is the period of a revolution of an observed object and takes the form. ETp=n. Dirac will rest in piece:?)

[@melvynbraithwaite8563]

Need to contact I must contact you.It is easy to prove your theories.Accepted by our Creator.Currently in lockdown in Singapore. MBraithwaite Yorkshire Viking

[@herbyguitar]

Speaking wisdom. A much lacking attribute in today's world of educated idiots. Thank you.

[@panayiotisskolokotronis1630]

May be so and may be so2 may means h ! But then again, may be so and may be so3 may hides c ! Then may be this and may be that .....sometime we will know for sure....so let's wait to see ! ...until then we can fantasise that we are researchers ....while making a profit by selling books.... Any ways, great job ! Congratulations ! Spring was always a nice season to be....

[@FloydMaxwell]

The first 16 minutes of this talk were most interesting. For a straightforward relation of c and h, see my theory -- Spring-And-Loop Theory. I do agree, at 24:55, that space and time are not a good model. In Spring-And-Loop Theory, there are just two things, anywhere -- springs (higher energy vibrating objects) and loops (lower energy objects we know as mass, matter or protons). There is no "space" anywhere, and that term should disappear.

[@kjustkses]

Floyd Maxwell Those people did not follow the teachings of the Bible and of Jesus Christ. They can therefore not be called Christians

[@fleetwoodbeechbum]

"...works with any book..." sure. he knows no one will do it and find out the fraud.

[@billyoldman9209]

That's the standard theories. They know that nobody is going to spend billions of bucks just to reproduce their particle collisions and nobody is going to go through their mathemagical gymnastics that cover whole whiteboards. Once you read out an equasion in human language, it becomes evident whether it's just meaningless logorreha or something that actually has some practical application.

[@777666777MICHAEL]

Ok now we wait you to derive C and h qualitatively from what you claim. Big claims little proof.

[@TheMachian]

I did not claim anything, your complaint is unwarranted. You might watch my videos on quaternions, if you are really interested.

[@777666777MICHAEL]

@@TheMachian I watched a few videos of yours and I onlly see vague intuitions and claims. You're agains the all established physics but you bring nothing with your ideas. I specially was very amused by your video on the origine of Electromagnetisme wich is a complet philosophical and onthological void: you bring nothing!

[@TheMachian]

I can just repeat: don't waste your and anyone else's time here by pondering over what is an ontological void.

[@adamsmith275]

11:30 ..."Much worse than ED WITTEN... by the way!"...

[@vstoussaint]

Never “the ultimate “, dum but..

[@new-knowledge8040]

If you analyze motion, you find that space-time must exist, and that all objects are constantly in motion with it, and that the motion of all objects is encapsulated within a common finite. This common finite determines the fastest speed of which one may travel across time, and the fastest speed of which one may travel across space. And, if you analyze motion, despite having no physics background education at all, you will derive all of the special relativity mathematical equations, including the Lorentz Transformation equations. See my YT videos for proof. Simply put, you can't go wrong if you start by analyzing motion.

[@TheMachian]

The notion of motion implies the existence of space and time. Thus so surprise that space-time follows.

[@new-knowledge8040]

@@TheMachian Hello. I have no physics background education, and my teachers thought that I was an idiot, and broadcast that enough to convince my parents to pull me out of school. So much for me having had the chance to acquire a physics education. However, years later, I went back to try and resolve a paradox that I had noticed long ago when thinking about the basics of motion. I had mentioned this paradox to my last science teacher, and I was basically told to sit down and shut up. He felt that I did not know what the heck I was talking about. However, I did eventually resolve the paradox many years later, and in doing so I independently discovered the special relativity(SR) phenomena, and had independently derived the SR mathematical equations, including the Lorentz Transformation equations. The way in which I have derived the equations appears to belong to me only. I have not seen my method practiced anywhere else up to this date. But sadly, looking at SR in a different manner such as mine, is not welcome these days.

[@andressolar517]

there are no constants!. never were and never will be. except in the political branch of science. there - quantum-mechanically enabled (and approved by AI) - absolutely everything is for sale: sorry: possible.

[@TheMachian]

That's what I say: www.amazon.com/dp/B0849ZXQB1 But do we understand each other?

[@andressolar517]

@@TheMachian you're obviously right. going back. clicking a "like". seems i had 2 tabs open.

[@andressolar517]

@@TheMachian subscribed your channel after checking the topics. thanks