Quaternions and Fundamental Physics

[@bjh3661]

Thank you for sharing another excellent video. If I had to choose a heroic figure for inspiration in my life it would be Dr Unzicker. This is what I say to anyone who asks me to name a hero. Dr Unzicker has the courage and intelligence to present the uncomfortable truths to the scientific community and he accomplishes that by being respectful of his audience and having a broad awareness of the neglected narrative of history. Dr Unzicker's clever approach of introducing variable speed of light as Einstein's best idea is so clever because the disciples of Einstein must decide whether Einstein was right about himself being wrong or he was wrong about himself being wrong. They say he was right except when he had doubts about it, which they are convinced he was mistaken about. I am very encouraged that Dr Unzicker is now in contact with Dr Robitaille and Dr Steve Crothers. All three are heroes trying to help their fellow humans emerge from the dark age of scientific ignorance.

[@JohnVKaravitis]

Holy shit! You definitely did NOT get enough love and attention from your parents!

[@tyronos]

Thank you for this, Dr. Unzicker. About one year ago while pondering the paradoxes resulting from special relativity, I came to the epiphany that time must be an illusion. After sobering up I thought maybe it was a bit too wild of a thought, but for whatever reason it stuck with me. A few weeks ago, I became curious about it again and I decided to put it in the search box in KZbin and found your lectures. I am now almost finished reading a copy of "The Mathematical Reality" and when I am done I will immediately begin reading "Einstein's Lost Keys." The idea of a quaternion is rather new to me (a little mind-bending but that's ok) and that is definitely something that I will start studying next. Thank you again.

[@EtherDais]

Dear Dr Unzicker, you might want to look into the split octionions as a method to have a set of quaternions each for E and B.

[@richardatkinson4710]

I loved this exposition. Quaternions intrigued me over 50 years ago. But ontologically, and cosmogonically, CF von Weizsäcker’s approach is simpler - the past-future distinction (an Uralternative) logically and physically preceding the emergence firstly of the time metric, and then of the derivative dimensions of space. This approach is consistent with FA Bopp’s Welt im Werden and Dirac’s LNH cosmological evolution.

[@TheMachian]

These ideas are the central issues of my books "The mathematical reality" and "Einstein's Lost Key". Feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo-> Email

[@richardatkinson4710]

@@TheMachian Thank you for your reply, Dr Unzicker. I have your books. The tragedy of “The Mathematical Reality” is that such a rich explosion of ideas has no index - difficult to trace themes and connections. I have thumb-indexed a few points with Post-Its, and I see one of them is a quotation from my favourite philosopher’s notebooks - Wittgenstein’s advice always to look at the whole problem. “The” scientific method claims not to do this by adopting strict objectivism, which my favourite scientist (Schrödinger) called “the exclusion of cognizance”. (Of course that makes the use of words like “observe”, “understand” etc paradoxical.) When I consider Weizsäcker’s Uralternative or Wheeler’s It-from-Bit, I find it essential to assume primitive binary decisions, which I suppose were made by primitive agency. How else? Anyway, almost all the ideas I need for this project are to be found in or suggested by Schrödinger’s wonderful lectures (What Is Life? Mind and Matter, Nature and the Greeks, Science and Humanism) and in his early belief that all physical laws might ultimately be stochastic (like Bopp’s interpretation of QM - you may have read Everett’s hand-written note on interpretations?) I agree wholeheartedly that the golden age of physics largely died somewhere between 1945 and 1975. Much the same is true of philosophy. Perhaps current physics and philosophy deserve each other’s unhelpful complexities. Einstein could not accept a world cobbled together from “bits and pieces”, and Dirac was unhappy with a world requiring more that one fundamental particle.

[@kurtgodel28]

​@@richardatkinson4710 lol

[@seismicdna]

Dr, what do you think about geometric algebra and physics? From a small bit of reading, it appears that they offer superior abstraction over quaternions

[@BboyKeny]

I second this question!

[@deepblack67]

Isn't c really the rate of induction of an EM wave in a(the) medium under tension?

[@PrivateSi]

Start with a subspace field of +ve cells (balls, quanta, +1) held together by -ve charge 'gas'... The -ve charge gas is squishy and can be briefly displaced, cell gap size / spatial metric can vary with mass. -- A knocked free cell forms a Positron focal point and the excess -ve charge hole left behind forms an Electron focal point, each vibrating the field at the same absolute phase in time but opposite phase in space. -- Each electrostatic 'blip' radiates out, with an 'instantaneous' lateral force as the close-packed, tight field compresses then decompresses again when the cell moves back to its balance point. The force is instant so all field cell gaps reduce at the same time (briefly displacing -ve charge gas too), but still only moving at C, like the Blip. -- Electrons and positrons have a Strong Spin Force too, consisting of magnetic field-like lines of force that are loops of free cells spinning at C.. As soon as the focal point moves the energy pattern moves to the next load of field cells and the previous ones stop in an instant... These also send out lateral field compressions / decompressions as they spin. that can interact with EM lateral vibes. -- A variable spatial metric can be used to explain Dark Energy and Gravity, linking the two. Each Positron attracts 1 quantum of -ve charge away from the rest of the universe. This adds up to a subtle -ve charge density gradient, with space expanding with less gravity and/or shrinking with more gravity. This presumes a finite subspace matter-energy field. -- For this to work with quantum mechanics an absolute Clock Tick (T - an 'instant') is needed so all electrostatic blips are one of two phases. All the first positron-electron pairs formed at the same time with the same phase, so all positron-electron pairs they in turn form have the same phase in time as each other (but electrons have opposite phase to positrons in space) -- This results in an absolutely varying speed of light as light moves from cell to cell in a fixed time but cell gap size shrinks.. This build up of energy is released in the form of gravitational acceleration, mass+time dilation (strong spin loops and number of cells effected laterally growing in space and time). Thus Relative Time does slow down, and it matches the absolute slowdown of light so locally C still measures C... All measurement processes slow in proportion to C absolutely slowing. -- All the proper, permanent particles (nucleons, atoms, molecules) can be constructed using only Positrons and Electrons... All nuclear reactions can be balanced using internal and NEW electron-positron pairs.. No 3rd charge is needed... Up Quarks are half neutralised Positrons and down quarks fully neutralised electrons.. Strong bond increases the number of spin loops due to conservation of energy - the energy spins internally instead of vibrating externally.. Nature is not a waster. Positrons should be used by it. -- Antimatter Catastrophe is avoided with the rule that 2 positrons can collide and knock a field cell free, forming another electron-positron pair.. The electron instantly half neutralise each positron, with the new, ejected positron annihilating with one of the electrons that was originally paired with the colliding positrons now inside the Proton.. The net result is a universe of 50/50 Protons and electrons (and possibly a few free positrons. Also light can hit a proton, knocking its two positrons together, forming another e-p pair, or two (that can form a Proton + electron. This matches experiment. -- Entanglement is an 'instant off force' and there are a few varieties... Electron-Positron entanglement is a stretched 'flux tube' that can be as thin a 1 field cell wide, blipping in sync, between an e-p pair.. The lateral force is also FTL (although, again, the cells do not move faster than C, locally). -- In an Ideal universe!

[@kostoglotov2000]

Quantised particle spin 0, 1/2 , 1, 11/2 and 2 are equivalent to the co-ordinates of Quaternions.Wolfram also talks about the fact that at a the fundamental level of physics space and time are not related. So I think this idea of Quaternions are very, very interesting, not so sure about Octonions though,

[@drkerynjohnson]

@Unzicker would you like to explore the origin of the universe using a new scientific model? Kind regards Dr Keryn Johnson PhD MSc BSc

[@derndernit8275]

30:25" light has angular momentum/light may be traveling straight" maybe the rotation of the earth has something to do with that? Or that light is made by accelerated charge and the charge has angular momentum before and during being accelerated

[@sort_to_see_hidden_comments]

The circular reasoning of c and h, is because they were terrified when they found out, that the constant of the speed of light, is not really constant, so this is was their way to "resolve" this problem.

[@MrBennyC178]

But pi and euler’s numbers are constants and i dont see them going away any time soon or that they could be 🤔

[@nissimhadar]

They can be computed to any desired accuracy. That is the difference.

[@MrBennyC178]

@@nissimhadar so the speed of light cannot be?

[@nissimhadar]

@@MrBennyC178 The whole point of the video is that there is no reason to believe that the speed of light cannot be computed. Today - we have no idea how to do that. We only know how to measure it.

[@quantumofspace1367]

I have a great idea! For the dark side of the Universe - suppose that it consists of short-term interactions in long-lived fractal networks, the smallest operators of quantum energy - spherical «rosebuds», consisting of a large number; 1 - rolled into a sphere, 2 - half folded into a sphere and 3 - flat, vibrating quantum membranes relative to their working centers in the sphere.

[@apolloniuspergus9295]

Dr. Unzicker, your Portuguese is very good considering it's not a very widely spoken language.

[@TheMachian]

I admit I just learned that sentence :-) But maybe one day that will change...

[@pauljs75]

Quaternions can do scaling right? What if gravity is the effect of quaternion scaling to maintain a limit on the energy potential within a regional volume of space? (Convert mass to its energy equivalent, and that may make more sense.) If you include time in that, then it may also explain why time dilation is tied to a gravitational field. So if the potential starts approaching a limit, everything approaching the bounds of the potential see the affect of the downward scaling of the quaternion set that defines the boundary of the approach. Looking at it that way, could the differential gradient of the scaled boundary around an object of high energy potential be the thing that causes acceleration towards the region of high energy within that bound? Not sure if that makes sense, but it may be an odd and interesting way of looking at it.

[@reintsh]

"Eleminatinon" appears in all your videos... Please update your slides.

[@TheMachian]

Thanks! At least here I got it right :-) kzbin.info/www/bejne/mKXYYZmJp9RpZsk

[@dougieh9676]

Who says time can’t have 3 dimensions? It would explain a lot

[@kurtgodel28]

And what exactly should that explain?

[@zzzoldik8749]

I can not understand everything what you said and I can not look the connection between quarternion and the fundamental constants at all. Could you give complete course about it and publish the course in your youtube channel please? So poeple from under graduate level like me can understand.

[@TheMachian]

I guess you will need a little patience. More details are in my book "The mathematical reality". Feel free to contact me for a pdf.

[@kaellum4260]

Quaternions and Octonians could be used as navigational tools. #PhaseSpace I personally think that we will discover that the quaternion is not as fundamental as the octonian. This is closer to invariant reality. Perhaps its also termed an #Infon for a basic informational bit.

[@TheMachian]

I'd start considering the simpler thing (unit) quaternions and see where this leads, but it can certainly be that octonions play an important role, too. The problem I have is visualizing them. S3 has the stereographic projection, which is a great tool. tehre is one video by Niles Johnson however that also tries to visualize S7.

[@richardgreen7225]

@@TheMachian - See Cohl Furey's KZbin videos about how the algebras of Quaternions and Octonions map nicely to the relationships of the Standard Model. This seems to indicate that octonions may be a productive representation of particles and fields. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jGnck42obqyGpac

[@marutanray]

The real spin in particle physics is the spin on truth.

[@kurtgodel28]

And of course the earth is flat, right?

[@Idkwhattonamess]

⁠Bruh… What a dumbo… imagine believing in flat earth instead of donut shaped earthed with sprinkles on it. Smh

[@yawasar]

The Universe is a Quaternion Space !

[@richardgreen7225]

The space around a black hole "knows" about the mass inside the hole even though no information can exit via photons. Perhaps the knowledge (frozen information) about the mass was warped into the surrounding space as the mass fell through. Perhaps electric permittivity and Planck's constant are the fundamental constants and the speed of light is emergent and variable due to a variable magnetic permeability which is affected by concentration of mass in space (or by passage of mass through space). Or maybe I have it backwards and permeability is a constant and permittivity is affected by nearby mass or the passage of mass. Special relativity does not really say that c (the speed of light) is a constant. It says that measurements in different inertial frames will produce the same value. We also know that permittivity and permeability are affected by matter and they are not necessarily isotropic - and so the "speed of light" varies inside materials. If we extend that idea to the "vacuum" and relate back to gravity, where would that take us?

[@alecmisra4964]

Space and time must be quantized at a fundamental level otherwise you would be exposed to Zeno's paradoxes. Indeed Aristotle in his Physics argued that the atomic theory of Leuccipus and Democritus was formulated specifically for this reason. The modern development of atomic theory based on the quantum of action merely serves to confirm Aristotle's view. As for the speed of light I do not know except to say that the special theory of relativity is a classical theory and so C may not necessarily hold at quantum dimensions, leaving us with h as the last major constant standing (though justifiable on the basis of the above argument). So thus the problems you raise might be resolved. Edit: In fact I believe that the above point about C is objectively demonstrable with respect to the uncertainty relations.

[@purplenanite]

Although it's an interesting idea, I'm not sure about your ideas of hbar and c being necessary to explain. For example, I think you would agree we will never see "299792458" generated as a result of a pure mathematical calculation unless it's coincidence. We use certain units, and a hypothetical alien that uses different sizes of units will get different numbers. So let's introduce some arbitrary numbers that describe our relation with these units. lambda_m for the meter, lambda_s for the second, etc.. so the speed of light will be 3*10^8 * lambda_m /lambda_s. These factors are totally arbitrary, and an alien civilization (or even the US with imperial units) would have a different number for their speed of light. So if we were to make a set of units that are truly universal, we could make a new set of units where 3*10^8 * lambda_m /lambda_s = 1. If we include *all* the weird fundamental constants we know, we do end up with problems, but there will be unitless constants that *do* need explaining there. But an arbitrary set of lengths, times, and masses can define what h,c are in our system, so i'm not sure what there is left to explain.

[@jimmypk1353]

To paraphrase Arthur Jones…If you could unlearn everything you've learned before 40, you'll be headed in the right direction. Then after 40, you just might be in the position to learn something of real value.

[@davidhand9721]

I would argue that you need _at least_ as many free parameters as you have measured dimensions. The Planck constant, c, and G are reasonably explained as simply the definition of the metric units of distance, time, and mass. It would be very weird if any of those went away because that would mean that the arbitrary units we invented long before we understood anything about physics was somehow fundamentally correct. Very unlikely! There are, though, excellent reasons that the universe should have a single speed parameter. Forget about the value, let's just call it 1, and the same with h and G. There _must_ be _some_ conversion factor from space to time or we don't have a manifold, causality, or time ordering. That space and time seem to have different properties is a consequence of our embedding in that manifold. In the spacetime algebra, indeed, the dimensions of time and space have a fundamental difference - the sign of the square of their unit vector is opposite. Literally every other idea in relativity necessarily follows from this one difference. It establishes the difference in rotations when involving time and it necessitates c as an impassable speed barrier through that fact. It establishes the full details of the electromagnetic field and quantum mechanical spin, as well. You are not a perfect logical entity whose senses and intuition are independent of the laws of physics. That's ridiculous. You can't escape the need to define your relationship with the manifold you're embedded in.

[@stridedeck]

Could c and h be anomalies of another force?

[@TheMachian]

I wouldn't postulate that. There are already too many 'interactions'.

[@stridedeck]

@@TheMachian What if our main assumption of energy and force is wrong that because we have this experience that I can raise my arm by the energy within my body and from this point of view, I therefore assume all other objects likewise have their movements originate from inside. If this is wrong and there is a force that moves everything (ie. from a hypersphere) expanding at the speed of light in all directions at every point in space and at every moment in time, then this simplifies and explains while eliminating many, if not all, constants in nature. A very simple approach, and yet, it appears to make us and objects mere puppets to another force. This goes against the grain of our egocentric point of view, conclusions and beliefs. This is like a hidden hand (not visible to us) constantly spreading and scattering a deck of playing cards on a table surface. We observe all the cards moving and develop these ratios and constants of nature. This explains away dark matter, gravity, c, h, fine tuning constants, and this list goes on. Science is looking at the wrong thing, like a drunkard searching for his lost car keys by going to where the street lights are, but not to where he actually lost the key, because it is easier to see.

[@Junior-yz8tf]

Quaternions are the cherubims that Genesis 3:24 describes.

[@apolloniuspergus9295]

Suppose we have two always inertial objects that are at the same position at t=0 from both frames of reference. Lorentz transforms tell us that the moving object should appear to have time dilation, therefore, it should appear as aging slowly. But inertial frames are perfectly symmetrical for special relativity, so the other object would see the time of the first as dilating. This is a simplified formulation of the Twin's Paradox that doesn't include acceleration to avoid silly responses. Many don't seem to realise that this paradox is not a logical contradiction, but is the very essence of what Relativity means. What do you think about this?

[@minkis42]

Such a flexible arm. I wonder how long you practiced that move for? 😂

[@TheMachian]

Not really difficult :-)

[@wtfatc4556]

using your members to understand reality! Good!

[@douglasstrother6584]

Robert Dicke & Lock-in Amplifier en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Dicke Here's a plug for the Experimentalists!

[@douglasstrother6584]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-in_amplifier

[@eytansuchard8640]

The problem is not space-time, it is particles. Quantum fields should be of realization events of space-time, not of particles. This is the idea behind the geometric chronon field theory. What we call matter is simply where these events are misaligned and geodesic motion is prohibited. As a result, forces appear. Gravity is simply a controlling response of space-time to this misalignment. Event wave functions square amplitude sum to 1. The formalism of non-geodesic motion is with Reeb vectors. Since Reeb vectors have a zero rotor on 3D foliations, drains and sources of the Reeb fields that describe these misalignments, must exist, i.e. "particles". "Spin" is an inevitable property of geodesic motion prohibition in a cylindrical geometry where the volume constrained in a sphere is not of a ball but of a hyper cylinder, e.g. 4Pi r^3 instead of (4/3)Pi r^3. The "energy" of the chronon field where it bend, in terms of such cylindric objects is c^4 / (8Pi G * r^2) where r is the radius and c is the speed of light, G gravity. The problem can be reduced from 4D Minkowsky to 2D. The theory has no constants except for a size constant that is a result of a normalization of the probability of each event to 1. The most amazing outcome is that not only mass generates gravity, charge itself generates gravity and anti-gravity of a virtual mass (+,-)Q/sqrt(16 Pi G Epsilon0). That means that positively ionized gas must manifest extra gravity. If you are interested in the paper, (43) is the mass ratio between the Muon and the electron, (43.7.1) Z/W, (43.8) W+/Tau, (43.10)-(43.12) Tau/Muon, (43.17.2) the inverse Fine Structure Constant. (93) offers a way to extend the theory. (28)-(29.1) shows that electric charge generates gravity and anti-gravity, see arxiv.org/abs/1806.05244 . The Fine Structure Constant can be viewed in terms of a Dissipation Factor and a Loss Tangent, see (43.13.1),(43.13.2), www.researchgate.net/publication/335107380_Electro-gravity_via_Geometric_Chronon_Field_and_on_the_Origin_of_Mass . Both (43.17.2) and (43.12) are the result of (43.10),(43.11) which is some maximal imbalance between gravity and anti-gravity.

[@777666777MICHAEL]

There is no logical continuation between 13:26 ( c and h should be explained....) and what follows on quaternions . No physical theory just a presentation of few very well known properties on quaternions thous all this talk is meaningless.

[@TheMachian]

You should liten with more patience. c could be related to the tangent space, h to noncommuntativity - though I admit this is speculative.

[@JH-le4sd]

Pi and e seem pretty arbitrary to me. At least in the same way c and h are.

[@TheMachian]

Pi and e are not arbitrary, they have unique mathematical properties.

[@williamkelley1783]

I don't know about the kind of over-simplified general hypothesis that all huge constant-reducing revolutionary ideas/changes in physics/science can be always characterized by those discrete 3 steps or even necessarily contain any of those steps-in that order-and in some way consciously undertaken by daring iconoclastic hard-working scientists-sometimes they might simply be pecking away at some or other niggling little unsolved inconsistency or anomaly-such as the necessity for a background "ether" for your math to work, or some glossing over of numbers that it always brushed away as an inaccuracy that the fullness of time will eventually solve-and perhaps notices, as in rumblings leading up to the avalanche of specials and general relativities-from some different angles hints describing a larger shape yet unseen-and uses creativity and mind-space to ask probing questions-and/or devises actual physical tests and observations possibly made to answer questions and narrow down the field of possible explanations--is it always so necessarily from the starting point of a grand unifying concept or idea, fully-formed in the mind of the revolutionary against-the-stream swimming scientist? I don't know that I fully buy that premise, which as the good Prof. Unzicker admits early in this lecture, he is offering up without much evidence other than perhaps a couple examples.

[@PrivateSi]

Start with a subspace field of +ve cells (balls, quanta, +1) held together by -ve charge 'gas'... The -ve charge gas is squishy and can be briefly displaced, cell gap size / spatial metric can vary with mass. -- A knocked free cell forms a Positron focal point and the excess -ve charge hole left behind forms an Electron focal point, each vibrating the field at the same absolute phase in time but opposite phase in space. -- Each electrostatic 'blip' radiates out, with an 'instantaneous' lateral force as the close-packed, tight field compresses then decompresses again when the cell moves back to its balance point. The force is instant so all field cell gaps reduce at the same time (briefly displacing -ve charge gas too), but still only moving at C, like the Blip. -- Electrons and positrons have a Strong Spin Force too, consisting of magnetic field-like lines of force that are loops of free cells spinning at C.. As soon as the focal point moves the energy pattern moves to the next load of field cells and the previous ones stop in an instant... These also send out lateral field compressions / decompressions as they spin. that can interact with EM lateral vibes. -- A variable spatial metric can be used to explain Dark Energy and Gravity, linking the two. Each Positron attracts 1 quantum of -ve charge away from the rest of the universe. This adds up to a subtle -ve charge density gradient, with space expanding with less gravity and/or shrinking with more gravity. This presumes a finite subspace matter-energy field. -- For this to work with quantum mechanics an absolute Clock Tick (T - an 'instant') is needed so all electrostatic blips are one of two phases. All the first positron-electron pairs formed at the same time with the same phase, so all positron-electron pairs they in turn form have the same phase in time as each other (but electrons have opposite phase to positrons in space) -- This results in an absolutely varying speed of light as light moves from cell to cell in a fixed time but cell gap size shrinks.. This build up of energy is released in the form of gravitational acceleration, mass+time dilation (strong spin loops and number of cells effected laterally growing in space and time). Thus Relative Time does slow down, and it matches the absolute slowdown of light so locally C still measures C... All measurement processes slow in proportion to C absolutely slowing. -- All the proper, permanent particles (nucleons, atoms, molecules) can be constructed using only Positrons and Electrons... All nuclear reactions can be balanced using internal and NEW electron-positron pairs.. No 3rd charge is needed... Up Quarks are half neutralised Positrons and down quarks fully neutralised electrons.. Strong bond increases the number of spin loops due to conservation of energy - the energy spins internally instead of vibrating externally.. Nature is not a waster. Positrons should be used by it. -- Antimatter Catastrophe is avoided with the rule that 2 positrons can collide and knock a field cell free, forming another electron-positron pair.. The electron instantly half neutralise each positron, with the new, ejected positron annihilating with one of the electrons that was originally paired with the colliding positrons now inside the Proton.. The net result is a universe of 50/50 Protons and electrons (and possibly a few free positrons. Also light can hit a proton, knocking its two positrons together, forming another e-p pair, or two (that can form a Proton + electron. This matches experiment. -- Entanglement is an 'instant off force' and there are a few varieties... Electron-Positron entanglement is a stretched 'flux tube' that can be as thin a 1 field cell wide, blipping in sync, between an e-p pair.. The lateral force is also FTL (although, again, the cells do not move faster than C, locally). -- In an Ideal universe!

[@purplenanite]

Quaternions in electrodynamics are very interesting - i agree in thinking that they must be a way to represent spin in such a way. Electrodynamics (via Maxwell's equations) are consistent with a 4D rotation, provided that one of the axes is timelike, (dw^2 = -dx^2) (i must confess i started with maxwell's equations and used those to determine the spacetime nature of the new direction) But if you constrain it to a situation where the rotation operator is a unit, you end up with E^2+B^2 = 1, and I don't think that works (unless I misunderstood what you meant by the nonlinearities) Of course, a spin 1/2 particle, with all of its spinny nature, can an be described by a quaternion. It feels like there should be a way to unite the quaternion nature of the spin 1/2 electron with the 4D rotation of the field, at least when going to electrostatics. Makes you wonder how a neutrino, with spin 1/2, can end up with no charge at all...

[@BboyKeny]

I feel like the reason why there only a few questions is because this is something to ponder about and research to generate questions.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Thankyou

[@AndreaCalaon73]

Do you know about "Geometric Algebra" and its even sub-algebra?

[@JohnVKaravitis]

No, we don't. Please, tell us.

[@AndreaCalaon73]

@@JohnVKaravitis Dear John and dear Dr Unzicker, you can Google "Geometric Algebra", and you will find it all, with all references. With the geometric product (non-commutative) that defines this algebra, you have all grades of the space playing together. In 3D, for example, you deal with scalars, vectors, planes (bi-vectors) and volumes. You find the meaning and the extension of the vector product to any dimension. The even sub-algebra (scalar, bi-vectors, quadri-vectors, and so on, if present) is ALL what is needed for rotations. The operation takes the name "Rotor". Complex numbers are explained geometrically in a trivial way (they are the even-sub algebra of 2D). And quaternions as well. They are just the even sub-algebra of 3D (unfortunately the rule of Hamilton was for a left handed 3D space, but ... never mind). They fit perfectly within the general framework; I mean, you can multiply (and divide) them by vectors, bi-vectors and volumes (called pseudo-scalar). This algebra is THE algebra of multi-dimensional spaces, full stop. In mixed dimensional spaces you can have SpaceTime Algebra. The same product, but rotations become automatically hyperbolic (Lorentz). ... You have a Geometric Calculus as well, where ALL integral theorems, included the Cauchy integral formula for complex numbers, appear as a Single Theorem. QM, relativistic as well, is completely reformulated, without complex numbers. GR as well. And the interpretation of spin changes!!!!!!!!!! Yes. The Pauli matrices are not what is generally described! Heresy! Cheers

[@yawasar]

Fine Structure Constant Here I developed the Constant! Alpha=(3/25)^2/2=9/1250=7.2m Alpha=(e*/q)^2=(e/25e/3)^2/2 Electric Quantum q=25e/3=4C/3X Magnetic Quantum M=Wb/2P Planck's Constant h=qM=4C/3X Wb/2P=2CWb/3XP

[@ChrisAthanas]

Audio has tremendous noise and over peaking A simple audio filter would make this presentation much more listenable Why do the most based physicists have such terrible a/v?

[@bobsmith-gn7ly]

I was just think about what you said, "space and time are different phenomenon" Both are conceptual ideas that are used for convenience when describing nature. Time is only a count, in other words its a sequence of events that can be counted. The event is the underlying phenomenon, the motion of objects without motion time is meaningless. Space is the SAME phenomenon it is just another conceptual idea we have to use to understand it, it is the relative position of objects. there is ONLY objects in motion. Basically there are only objects in motion and we use the 2 concepts to attempts to give a language to describing and predict their relative positions in the future (or past), and so both are the same thing, only different aspects used to conceptualize one phenomenon, objects in motion.. This of course shows that "spacetime" is an utterly absurd idea, because both are only conceptual ideas and not real in the universe, trying to create a real "fabric" from conceptual ideas is completely nonsensical in my opinion. as for the speed of light being the speed limit, could it not be merely a force balance, there is a maximum amount of energy that a photo can be given do to the quantized nature of energy, and the velocity c is just a result of that? So the speed of light would be the maximum speed if a photon is the lightest object and the maximum amount of energy applied due to quantized energy, then you would have a logical way to define c in terms of energy and mass. e=mc2 seems to do this. c2=e/m and replace e with the maximum energy and m with the minimum mass and you seem to get a straight forward answer for c. I am not saying this is the right formula but something like it. Also, I am not saying this is correct either it just seems like a possible logical answer to our observations of reality. This could also be expended to mass and energy, they similarly are ways of describing the same phenomenon, objects in motion and are another convent way to predict or put into language their properties and how they react when other objects interact. So all of this seems to be a language problem, math is the language we are creating to describe the real world. it's not that the real world has arbitrary constants, its that our ability to describe it is incomplete. Also I think a lot of the problems with physics is that we are using tools based on properties we don't fully understand and so how can we understand what we observe when we don't yet fully understand the nature of the interaction between objects. This would take a book to describe what I mean, but I hope this is clear enough to convey the basic points. There are only objects in motion, and it is impossible to know how these objects came to be, so there will always be God, which is the name we give to things we cannot know. While science tries to cross that chasm, it never can, there are some things that are just impossible to know, things like why are their objects in the universe, what happens after we die, etc.

[@BboyKeny]

Time is interesting from a phenomenal perspective. Since the only time that always exists is the here and now but we can only experience the past since it takes time for information to reach us and be parsed to conclude in an experience. That experience is then stored in memory to be recalled later. New information goes through our memories so we can try to predict the future. So there is only the here-now in existence but we use the past and future (which both don't exist) to experience the world. I don't know what this information implies and is likely to be philosophical nonsense (in a pragmatist way) but I think it's interesting.

[@ojas3464]

👍

[@williejohnson5172]

18:43 The confusion over the speed of light is that it is angular velocity, and we operate upon infinite layers of discs within a precessing cone. Just like an album no matter your location or who does the measuring the "observer" will always measure the same RPM as long as the observer stays on the disc. Thus all observers measure the same speed of light. No matter how fast you accelerate across the disc you can never exceed the speed of light as long as you are on the disc. You cant exceed the RPMs. 18:58 Well Newton definitely got that one wrong. A derivative IS a quaternion. It is a rate, a slope where q=ab=b/a. All quaternions must obey i=jk. That is any and every quaternion must be divisible into at least two other quaternions. Modern day mathematicians and Newton miss the point. The whole purpose of differentiation IS discontinuity. It is to find a point. A precise point of discontinuity. To find the particle. TO FIND THE UNIT. TO FIND THE UNIT QUATERNION. c and h are constants of nature because they are unit quaternions. The universe and its interactions are based upon the interactions of unit quaternions. For instance Coulomb's constant is a constant of nature and is a unit quaternion. Making such a claim means it must obey i=jk. Therefore Coulomb constant must be composed of two other constants of nature . That is indeed the case where k=Rc. Coulomb's constant =k, c=speed of light, and R=impedance of space=30 Ohms. All three are constants of nature and all are unit quaternions. The notion of getting rid of the constants of nature is misguided. Focus on their interacting as unit quaternions.

[@ChechenScienceAcademy0204]

I would rather call them "constant gods" instead of "the gods of the constants". The mainstream Physik nowadays not much different from religious dogmas.

[@vector8310]

Religion and physics are quite different. No need to exagerate.

[@kaellum4260]

#PhilosophyOfTimeTravel #3767

[@777666777MICHAEL]

All right, we all know that quernions are non commutative and form a 4D vector space. Also Alain Connes uses Quaternions extensively in his noncommutative geometry in order to model space-time and the quantum together. But I don't see where you explain how c and h are derived. 27:44 Noncommutativity origine of h and tangent space origine of c? These are questions you ask and you don't give an answer🤣🤣🤣but it's your theory😅😅😅. U attack Minckowsky, I don't care : ) , but you don't come with any mathematical or physical new structure to make better sens of special relativity. So far, your ideas are unsubstantiated by any mathematical proof or a useful physical insight. Anyway, If you want us to take your claims seriously : 1) derive c and h in a mathematically consistant way from quaternions , 2) Wright down an alternative and consistant theory to Special Relativity using a variable c.

[@TheMachian]

I don't know what you want. I did not make gross claims about a new theory, thus you don't have to take it seriously. Speculative ideas for people who are interested. If it is not for you, just continue your scientific work and don't waste time on KZbin.

[@martinkaufmann4067]

Somebody, who believes that the speed of light is variable, missed something (e. g. the ART)