ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มิ.ย. 2024
- It's the question that brought you here: what is the physical meaning of Relativity? For well over a century the answer to this question has eluded physicists, thinkers and scientists alike, including even Einstein himself -- but at long last, from out of the canonical labyrinth of confusion, dogma, and mathematical abstraction, some real, tangible answers are finally emerging. But to understand them, you are going to have to first make a choice... math, or physics?
Free your mind, and help support us on Patreon!
/ dialect_philosophy
Join Our Discord!
/ discord
Link to "The Loophole" video:
• Einstein's Relativity ...
Link to Veritasium's "Why No One Has Measured The Speed of Light" video:
• Why No One Has Measure...
The Mechanism for Physical Time Dilation explained:
• What Time Dilation ACT...
SOURCES AND REFERENCES:
Lindner, Henry. (2015). "On The Philosophical Inadequacy of Modern Physics and The Need For a Theory of Space"
henrylindner.net/Writings/Lind...
Einstein, Albert. (1920). "Ether and The Theory of Relativity"
einsteinpapers.press.princeto...
Einstein, Albert. (1914) "On the Relativity Problem"
einsteinpapers.press.princeto...
Einstein, Albert. (1905). "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"
www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...
Reichenbach, Hans. (1927). "The Philosophy of Space and Time"
altexploit.files.wordpress.co...
Mansouri, Reza & Sexl, Roman. (1977). "A test theory of special relativity: I. Simultaneity and clock synchronization." General Relativity and Gravitation. 8. 497-513. 10.1007/BF00762634.
www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Anderson, R., Vetharaniam, I., & Stedman, G.E. (1998). "Conventionality of synchronisation, gauge dependence and test theories of relativity." Physics Reports, 295, 93-180.
www.terra32.it/trusso/varie/An...
Contents:
00:00 - Intro
02:15 - The Construct
05:52 - The Real World
10:23 - The Matrix
17:50 - The Source - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![ไม่ต้องมีที่ที่ให้ฉันอยู่ แต่ขอแค่มีฉันอยู่ก็พอ (Spaceless) - getsunova [SHORT FILM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MuT0d_cvJkc/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey there Viewers! We are very proud to present Matrix Theory here on TH-cam, which (to the best of our knowledge) is an original unification of Einsteinian Special Relativity with Lorentzian Ether Theory. However, there was a LOT of information to pack into 25 minutes, and consequently many important details did not get the attention they deserved. In an attempt to address what are likely to be the main questions about the video, we have created an anticipatory FAQ here below. If you cannot find your question here, please leave it in a separate comment and we will try to respond to it as soon as we can, thank you! And yes, don’t worry - there will be follow-up videos!
Q1: “Is it really impossible to know the one-way speed of light?”
A: Yes - at least within the context of special relativity. This is in fact part of the theory’s foundations; for any experiment which could detect the one-way speed of light would disprove special relativity by establishing the existence of a preferred frame of reference. For more on this topic, see our video “The Loophole” linked in the description, or check out Veritasium’s “No One has Ever Measured the Speed of Light” Video.
Q2: “Why can’t an observer make physical measurements of objects in motion?”
A: You’ll find this question already addressed by a number of introductory videos on special relativity, which is why we omitted explaining it here. The short answer is that measuring the length or time intervals of an object in motion requires first establishing a notion of simultaneity. This in turn refers us back to the one-way-speed-of-light problem.
Q3: “Are these backgrounds supposed to be literal or figurative? I’m confused by their exact meaning.”
A: The backgrounds are essentially figurative; they are “maps” of how space and time will appear within frames traveling at certain velocities, relative to the observer making the measurements. The essential idea here to grasp is that in SR, observers are making maps of space and time by assigning spatiotemporal coordinates to various “events” which occur. They cannot assign these coordinates however without first making an assumption about the behavior of light. The respective assumptions made by each observer thus determines how these “maps” look for different observers and within different frames.
Q4: “What about the Lorentz transformations? How do they relate to these backgrounds?”
A: The backgrounds presented here are meant to be visually instructive; they are NOT mathematically precise and do not preserve all the relevant relations between two frames in relative motion. Indeed, to best achieve such precision, we should combine the respective space and time backgrounds into a single “spacetime” background. The student familiar with relativity may be aware of the “scissoring” of spacetime axes which occurs for frames in motion on this spacetime background; this scissoring contains all the same contravariant “growing and shrinking” behavior of the space and time backgrounds presented here in the video. Indeed, the symmetry of relativity can be understood by projecting out the contravariant components of the scissored spacetime axes.
Q5: “What about adding a third observer into the picture? Are the backgrounds used to ‘see’ this third observer as well?”
A: The background symmetry only holds between two observers; if we introduce a third observer who is already in motion whilst the first two are at rest, then when one of the first two observers is set into motion, they will not only remap/grow their own contracting lengths, but they will also have to partially remap/grow the contracted lengths of the third observer whose frame is already in motion. This occurs because the anisotropic behavior of light in the third observer’s moving frame gets remapped to being less anisotropic as the observer set into motion gains velocity. When the velocity of the observer set into motion reaches the velocity of the third observer and they share a rest frame, the lengths (and time durations) of the third observer will be fully remapped to their proper lengths (and times). Indeed, this partial-remapping which occurs in the three-observer scenario will lead us directly to the unique addition of velocities in relativity.
Q6: “I thought the ether was tossed out ages ago for being unobservable! Why bring it back?”
A: This is something of a misconception; relativity’s ascension over the ether theory was due primarily to its mathematical elegance and simplicity, as well as to the success of General Relativity which soon followed it. Special Relativity has always contained an equally unobservable element - observer-invariant light speed - although imprecise science communicators often present this invariance today as being experimental fact. The ether’s physical existence meanwhile is strongly inferable from the wave-equation mathematics upon which Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism was built.
Q7: “Isn’t positing physical length contraction and physical time dilation relative to an ether just as magical and silly as positing unobservable, observer-invariant light behavior?”
A: A hundred and twenty years ago, physical length contraction and time dilation certainly seemed like extremely ad hoc elements of a theory; however, our understanding of reality has greatly progressed since that time, especially with regards to the wave nature of electromagnetic matter. (For a suggestive explanation of physical time dilation, see our video “What Time Dilation Actually Is”.) Indeed, a solid understanding of wave mechanics will lead us directly to explanations for both physical time dilation and physical length contraction!
Q8: “What about General Relativity?! How does all this fit in with the curvature of spacetime?”
A: Stay tuned :-)
In order to generalize this to general relativity, are you going to use the river model to construct some kind of flowing either? Is that why you made the river model video?
@@chenlaura5958 That is what we are currently thinking! For at least the simplistic Schwarzschild picture, the river model works exceptionally well for explaining all the relativistic phenomenon around a mass.
I still don’t understand how the backgrounds work. If an observer was contracted, growing their background would still have the observer contracted relative to their own background. If the contracted observer said that their background was dilated so they could be brought to normal, then a stationary observer would also be dilated, not contracted. In order for them to grow what they think constitutes length, they would be shrinking their background. For example, if an observer had a proper length of 1 meter and was really contracted to 0.8 meters, they must assume that everything is (including them) is 1.25 times longer which means that their background shrinks by a factor of 0.8. Wouldn’t it make more sense to use the Lorentz transformations where the opposite of a Lorentz is another Lorentz transformation?
Great video and theory! Can you also check the third possibility of Galilean Relativity that the one-way speed of light is constantly related to the emitting source, and without Aether background with the wave nature an intrinsic spin of a photon whose frequency is determined by the relative energy at the proper time you have proposed?
What I love about conversations and videos like this is that there are two options and you'll always get something out of it:
a) either you learn something new about your topic and think about it in a way you never thought of before, teaching people what questions to ask (resulting in clearer, better explanations for everybody).
Or b) you discover something groundbreaking and everyone profits from the updated knowledge accordingly.
Sometimes life is not so much about getting the right answers, but about asking the right questions.
Thanks for watching!
@@dialectphilosophy hey i have a question. If space and time are absolute than does that mean that spacetime curvature then does not exists?
Those are the good options, an unfortunate common third option is to close one's mind to any alternatives, "debunk" any that arise, and pretend current theory has all the answers as this gives you a psychological sense of comfort.
What really gets me is that our opinion of what constitutes reality (eg Lorentz invariance vs ether) determines which questions we think are worth asking and which theories worth testing. Eg, if we take ether theory seriously, then there is now suddenly much less reason to work on quantum-gravity theories that are Lorentz invariant, namely, because this symmetry is just a higher-level coincidence and a mathematical nicety for us observers, that should not be expected of a more fundamental description of reality. The other way around, there are notions and theorems which are claimed to be purely consequences of SRT and are inaccessible by a classical approach: spin (+ spin statistics theorem), magnetism, etc. It would have incredible explanatory value to give mechanistic explanations for these!
You are doing a great service here. This and the measurement problem are THE big gate keepers to the next leap forward. We have to accept and take seriously that we are mere observers!
Yes! Thank you, this is the comment I've been looking for! The physicists that understand what Dialect is saying and then say, "so what! If the predictions are the same as SR then who cares?" have me absolutely scratching my head. Of course there are implications! And those implications are very good for quantum theory.
As you say, the biggest argument against the absolute rest frame interpretations is that they completely undermine our understanding of magnetism, bringing us mostly back to the drawing board on that one! Makes me wonder if anyone has explored possible QM explanations of magnetism, or if that just hasn't happened because we've assumed magnetism is solved for 100 years?
@@erinm9445 can you elaborate on what you mean by QM explanations of magnetism? my understanding is that electromagnetism is *incredibly* well predicted by quantum field theory.
This illustrates just how absolutely critical it is to get the “problem” right! If one gets the problem wrong and then solves for that, it can lead everyone down a pointless rabbit hole and derail science and research for decades or even centuries. If incremental changes are not yielding results then one has to revisit the very premise that started the current theory and possibly start anew. The past is many times the key to the future!
It seems like a lot of researchers spend a lot of time making observed deviations fit their theories rather than questioning whether their theory is missing something fundamental. The math is already difficult enough to understand that they don’t want to complicate it with more. It’s easier to make the assumption that physics is well behaved and that universe is well behaved and that everything is mostly homogenous and isotropic on a large enough scale.
Gravitational waves cause the moving object to undergo time dilation with dobller effect. Therefore, the object experiencing time dilation becomes physically shorter. Being the center of gravity in the ether, it is a constant observer at all times. therefore the universe cannot be solipsistic. Gravitational waves break mathematical symmetry. Of course Einstein didn't believe in the existence of gravitational waves? Also Gravitational waves have a frequency that keeps relative time consistent in a gravitational field.
“No babe I didn’t contract! It was due to your frame of reference!”
Exactly what I was thinking all throughout the video 😂😂🤪
@@-_Nuke_-Frame of reference keeps growing due to absurd expectations 😂
@@JohnLee-bf2ux xD
It's not small, you're just moving too fast!
"No babe I didn't get shorter! It was due to your frame of reference!" - in a 3D space.
The situation is as follows: Physicists are doing A. Neo-Lorentzians do B which contains A, but hides it and then claim they do not need A, as they did B. The Universe simply has length contraction and time dilation. If you call it fundamental or "effective" does a priori not matter. They are there, you have to compute them. Even worse, when you switch to the reference frame of an accelerated observer, you inevitably get curvature, since your curved line getting straight, means straight lines will become curved. You will also see that the rate at which time gets dilated depends on the distance from you and (in more complex situations) the rate of length contraction is dime dependent. I am btw. referring to Rindler coordinates and proper coordinates.
Having established this, you will have to deal with that. You will now go to your mathematician of choice and ask him "Hey, I have here some phenomena which contract and curve space and time. How do I mathematically handle that?". They will answer: "Well normally lengthes and angles are described by metric tensors on manifolds". So you take, what they give you and build a physical theory with that math. What you will end up with is special and flat general relativity.
It is not a coincidence that the mathematics of relativity is (relatively) simple. It is so, because lengthes contracting and straight paths curving is naturally described via metric tensors. If you call this metric tensor fundamental (like relativists) or effective (like Neo-Lorentzians) does not matter. It is there. Similarly 4D-spacetime is there. Why? Because as mentioned in accelerated systems length contraction can depend on time and time dilation on space. And the only way to incorporate that into a Riemannion formalism is to combine them into one manifold.
Once again, you cannot change these things. They are necessary to describe the plethora of phenomena out there. Now, what Neo-Lorentzians do is they take these few objects (metric tensor, covariant derivatives, geodesic equation, coordinate transformation rule, etc) they introduce a second coordinate system, with some fundamental properties, and rules how this coordinate frame relates to the coordinate frame at hand. They then transform every object given in the original coordinate frame into their new coordinates and throw out all the mathematical structure given by the Riemannian formulation. Instead they use their imposed fundamental properties to relate all the numbers they now have to each other. However, since you killed off all the structure, the ten numbers in the metric tensor which would have naturally combined in the Riemannian formulation are now floating somewhere in space and hence you have to impose 9! (that is a factorial) equations to tell how they relate. The same happens for every other object. In that manner, a few objects and concepts (metric tensor, covariant derivative, geodesic equation, curvature tensor, etc) with a few fundamental rules relating them become a mess of a mathematical situation. That happened because instead of listening to mathematician, Neo-Lorentzians try to do complex geometry with the mathematical toolkit of a high-school-math teacher.
However, nothing was won. Everything that was present in the relativistic description is still present in the Neo-Lorentzian. Of course! It has to be. In the end everything predicted by relativity has to also appear in Neo-Lorentzian-formulations. But Neo-Lorentzians are not aware of that. They think they have truly found a different treatment, while they are doing Riemannian geometry hidden behind a mess of equation.
To finalize, we can talk about a lot of things. Is spacetime truly curved or is it just a force field, hidden by the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass? Who knows. But I believe there is absolutely no debate that 4D spacetime equipped with a metric tensor is the way to think about the world. It is simply the mathematically correct way to treat things getting curved and bent. Denying maths helps no ones cause.
Having said that, Riemmanian geometry has furthermore so many advantages. For example, it couples to mass in a brutally natural and obvious way. Something that Neo-Lorentzians can only explain via imposing even more obscure relationships. Furthermore, combining the effects of these curvature effects with other forces or interactions is trivial. Simply replace derivatives with covariant derivatives. Once again Neo-Lorentzians have to preimpose several equations for every possible interaction out there individually.
Having now established how much Riemmanian treatment of physics is better, I do think Occam's Razor is worth considering. Why not just believe the maths. How dare we overwrite our personal, completely uneducated believes over the laws of the universe that nature has provided.
Replying so I can save for future thought
Bravo
In other words: who cares what's physical and what's abstract! Math is simpler and nicer, and more fun atcually, so why would you fall out of line, millions of flies can't be wrong!
Except physics is stuck for several decades and attempts to integrate Riemmanian treatment into quantum theories results in such a mess even computer algebra gives up.
I say give those folks a chance. You're not moving forward much with your Occam Razor anyway.
I'm a theoretical physicist and I hate this type of thinking so much. Typical anglo answer. There is a reason Schrödinger was shocked about the uncaringness of Americans regarding quantum mechanics. There is a reason why Copenhagen is the worst cope of humanity. Quastions like this are exactly the reason Machs principle opened up Einsteins eye. Being this trustful of math alone is exactly the reason it took humanity 50+ years of String physics without providing us with a single damn thing. One of the only modern ideas I like is Oppenheims approach which is modest and shows the will of a physicist not a mathematician.
This type of thinking is destructive for physics since novel ideas always came from intuition and solid experiments. Theory is actually the hardest part in physics, as one CANNOT trust the math always -> see the paper from Kerr regarding mathematical black holes etc.
This vibe shift people falsely accuse Einstein of and I would say the exact opposite: Einstein was a pure theoretician with a strong mathematical reasoning but all his ideas came from intuition and philosophical underpinnings and not math. This different from Witten style "if the math produces it, it has to exist" type of nonsense. Physics needs to describe the world we live in and not the one we ought to be. That's one of the reasons for the big stagnation, it's the dogmatic believe in pure logic, which is actually funny since Gödel in a way killed that idea at least a little bit after Hilbert thought the same (even though I love Hilbert work).
So effectively speaking, any "real" theory proposing x*D+1D dimensions where some Hopf fibration over some holographic manifold correspond to this and that can be dismissed as pure fanfiction because in an effective manner it has to at least provide the same effects at the boundary as the shitty theories. This goes for many boomer theories. I think the exception is TQFT (maybe CFT in condensed matter) and all it's flavours, but modern cosmology and particle physics (especially everything beyond) is absolutely laughable at best.
@MrZelduck thanks for your interesting comment. Although I don't share some of your aesthetic principles (nor your interpretation of how Occam's razor applies here), I do think you state your case well.
Anyway, what I'm really here for is to ask if you can share the names/links of any papers that lay out the Neo-Lorentzian framework you describe. In particular, can you recommend any papers that attempt to extend neo-Lorentzian relativity to gravity (and any papers that attempt to refute these attempts)?
Thanks,
I HAVE BEEN WAITING SO LONG FOR THIS!!!!
Dear Dialect,
I haven't watched the full video yet - but I want to point out something that I had commented on a previous video (the one about episilon values). It has to do with your claim that no method exists of establishing a notion of simultaneity in order to measure the one-way speed of light.
I agree with you that, absent any preset method of synchronization of spatially separated clocks, only the two-way speed of light may be empirically measured. However, I disagree with you that the choice of epsilon is purely a matter of convention.
The important fact to realize is that Einstein was not the first to put forward an operational definition for simultaneity (in his case, based on light signals). Even Newtonian mechanics requires an operational definition of simultaneity - except here, simultaneity is defined so as to ensure the validity of Newton’s Laws of Motion. This is what forms the basis for the definition of inertial coordinate systems. In fact, Newton’s Laws of Motion can be understood as being the statement that mechanical inertia is homogeneous and isotropic in its behaviour - and this necessarily REQUIRES an operational basis of simultaneity.
What Einstein realized was that the synchronization convention obtained by light signals is the SAME as that required to ensure the validity of NLM in inertial frames. This is an empirical statement, not a convention. It is a result of empirical observation - not theory - that e=½ is the valid synchronization within all inertial frames. If Galilean Relativity were to be true, then yes - the value of epsilon would change between inertial frames (although again, not in an arbitrary fashion but in accordance with empirical observation)
I would like to recommend some articles that helped me understand this conclusion -
Teaching Special Relativity: mathpages.com/home/kmath684/kmath684.htm
This one covers the need for operationally defined simultaneity EVEN within Newtonian Mechanics.
A Primer on Special Relativity: mathpages.com/home/kmath307/kmath307.htm
This one covers a derivation that the correct transformation between inertial frames must be either Galilean OR Lorentzian - while only invoking the Principle of Relativity and an assumption regarding reciprocity.
What is an Inertial Coordinate System?: mathpages.com/home/kmath386/kmath386.htm
Love your videos, Dialect. I feel that you create some of the most thought-provoking physics content on the platform.
How was it empirically observed? And does that mean any other value of e would mean NLM are not preserved in an arbitrary frame?
@@lih3391 Any prediction made correctly be SR - whether it be the precise description of the slowing of moving clocks, mass-energy equivalence, etc - is based on the assumption that e=1/2 in all inertial reference frames. Therefore, the conclusion is forced on us by experiment.
As for the specific problem of measuring one way light-speed, things are a bit complicated. You see, we need to find a way to synchronize clocks using NLM as our guide (and not light). EG: Consider two identical particles initially at rest next to each other. At time t=0, let them exert mutual impulse on one another and start moving apart. The distance they travel must be measured with standard rods. Then, the correct synchronization of clocks is one in which NLM is satisfied and the two identical particles travel equal distances in equal times. In principle, such a system will allow us to measure the one-way speed of light. However, such a setup is difficult to make and is probably the reason why (to the best of my knowledge) we haven't measured one-way speed directly yet.
But the evidence confirming it indirectly as mentioned above forces us to conclude e=1/2.
@@amalnambiar11 I think he said that e could be different and experiments would still work, but math would be more complicated therefore experiments and expected results are planned assuming e=1/2
@@sheerun My point is that choosing a value for e is not just a convention with no significance.
For an observer moving at constant velocity, he can choose coordinates that match to any arbitrary value for e.
However, only ONE of those frames can be one in which Newton's Third Law holds true (In fact, you can think of this law as basically saying that inertia is isotropic)
Using light isotropy is a convention, yes.
But there is no guarentee that taking light isotropy will ALSO give inertial isotropy.
And yet it does. This is the physical content of SR.
@amalnambiar11 Wow. This is deep! Thank you very much for the links!
In short, this is what your links say:
1. Inertial reference frames should be defined as frames in which all 3 of Newton’s laws hold. Not just the first law!
2. One does not need light signals to construct such a frame.
3. Furthermore, it is possible to intuit a class of transformations between such inertial reference frames using only kinematic considerations that follow from very ordinary experience namely: homogeneity and isotropicity of space, reciprocity and transitivity of relative velocity.
4. In fact, the isotropicity of space follows directly from Newton’s 3rd law, by which two identical bodies initially at rest and acting mutually on each other would have to travel equal distances in equal times in opposite directions after separation.
5. Already, from these kinematic considerations alone, the Lorentz-form of the transformations emerges (up to a constant) despite not even once considering electromagnetism or light and its (one- or two-way) speed!
In fact, the speed of light is only required to fix that single constant that is left over after the kinematic considerations.
Interestingly, if one instead sets this constant to zero, then one simply obtains Galilean transformations.
On the other hand, Einstein’s genius was to recognize, through special relativity, that this constant is in fact the reciprocal of the speed of light squared. This achieves consistency with experimental observations regarding electromagnetism and the speed of light.
It seems to me from this discussion that the Lorentz transformation (or at least its form) is crucial to explain our common experiences of physical reality. Any explanation that rejects the form of the Lorentz transformation would then necessarily be wrong.
Since the aether-theory necessitates a manifestly different transformation from the Lorentz transformation, it therefore cannot be right.
Note that I’m not saying special relativity is right. I do recognize its fundamentally epistemological nature. Rather I’m saying that if there is an ontological interpretation for our observations of reality, then it cannot be the aether theory.
Note also that if any of our starting four kinematic considerations turn out to be false, then, and only then, could the aether theory become plausible. But it’s difficult to see how these considerations could be wrong, or how the aether, if it exists, could affect them.
Despite coming to this conclusion, I’m extremely thankful to @dialectphilosophy for their thought-provoking, skillful and expertly pedagogical videos. I probably would never have gained the understanding I have now without them. This topic is evidently one that leaves many people scratching their heads even after studying it in college. So I really appreciate @dialectphilosophy for boldly prompting these discussions and probing the dark and miry regions of our misunderstanding.
Fascinating, i feel the reason this sort of thing isn't usually focused on in physics, is that we only have our senses, and no way of observing the fundamental nature of reality, and thus focus is put on epistemology over ontology
finally a new video. Happy new year man!
Congratulations! One of the best approaches in the search for reality. I have dedicated my entire life to understanding space and time, and of them, 40 years studying the concepts underlying Maxwell's Equations... Please don't take too long for the continuation, I don't have many more years! ***** [ Felicitaciones! Uno de los mejores acercamientos en la búsqueda de la realidad. He dedicado toda mi vida a entender el espacio y el tiempo, y de ellos, 40 años estudiando los conceptos subyacentes en las Ecuaciones de Maxwell... Por favor, no tarden mucho para la continuación, no dispongo de muchos años más! ]
Do you believe that magnetism can be explained mechanistically?
Why not study relativity?
Yes mechanical newtonian simpleton way of seeing things. Like stuck in between 18th and 19th century.
Congratulations for this series. It’s mind blowing!
Some awesome animation there! And I like that you point out that the "background" spacetime is an abstraction - not physical.
What do you think of my analogy?
Imagine you are driving a car at high speed during a light rain.
As you drive quickly through light rain, more raindrops hit your windshield than if you were stationary making the rain appear much heavier and more intense. The raindrops seem more densely packed from your perspective in the moving car (Length Contraction.)
Similarly, you experience a more condensed version of events (raindrops) happening in the same time frame from your perspective (Time Dilation.)
Meanwhile, to a driver parked still on the roadside, the rain's intensity appears mild and constant throughout. From his perspective, the reason you are experiencing more raindrops hitting your windshield is the fact that your car is moving at a angle relative to the motion of the rain.
In this analogy, the rainfall would be the flow of events and raindrops would be the events themselves.
So far you STILL haven't really taken any step beyond the already existing theory of Relativity.
You simply added an assumption that there is one frame of reference which corresponds to physical reality.
Unfortunately it is impossible to know which frame of reference that is and therefore it is still easiest to assume that I am in that frame (unless undergoing acceleration) and by assuming those 2 extra things we are right back at normal Relativity without the extra assumptions.
Still curious if you can make something of it in the upcoming videos, I'm hopeful but doubtful since you made some errors talking about acceleration previously and that is where this topic will have to lead eventually.
He is proposing a way to *conceive* of relativity, while still maintaining all the mathematical and predictive power. Matrix Theory as he describes it straddles physics, philosophy, and pedagogy. It’s not an alternative to Relativity but an explanation of it that makes sense to people with human brains (vs aliens like Tegmark :-))
@@possibledog So in other words, it adds nothing to the science, it's just relativity for people who are chronically in denial about the nonexistence of an invisible dragon in my garage that I call ether that scientists haven't paid any attention to in over 100 years because it adds nothing.
As soon as you postulate a preferred inertial Frame of Reference (AKA "The Ether"), it's apparent that The Ether must be defined as stationary. (Otherwise, you must define its motion with respect to some other inertial FoR, which makes "The Ether" a superfluous mathematical construct.) Once you recognize The Ether as stationary, there is effectively no preferred inertial FoR, because all inertial FoR's can be described as possessing a constant offset trajectory with respect to The Ether. Thus, you're back where you started with Special Relativity.
The issue is that your saying "existing theory of relativity" without being specific about the interpretation
@@posqeakThere's no real interpretations of it, is there? (apart from the ones stated in this video) It is what it is. People don't really interpret it because there's no need to.
The math is the math and it matches observations.
Simply the best physics channel :)
Ideas, explanations, graphica, music... ❤
Can't wait to see how you explain length contraction and relativity of simultaneity with your theory.
Length contraction arises from movement through the ether, basically the ether is regarded as the one true substance from which all matter arises(search Tesla infinitesimal whirls). Due to matter being made of the same "stuff" it contracts as it pushes through ether. Relative simultaneity is just a perspective illusion that is caused by our measuring devices contracting and slowing. Observers can't draw the same grid over space just like the animations show.
@@delvish9622 What about quantum field theory?
@@edfs903 Layers of abstraction that are accurate within limits, but conceptualizing the ether as a super fluid should clear things up, in fact there's something called superfluid vacuum theory which is being researched. It's just ether by another name because you can't say the word ether.
Thanks for explaining these topics to us so eloquently! ❤ As a physicist I was indeed taught that the space-time connection was real. Great to see there is a much more physically grounded interpertation. Never thought c+c=c made much (physical) sense anyway 😂. Keep up the good work! 👍
Frankly I find this Dialekt one of the least perspicuous of all episodes. After a third of the way through I was getting confused and at the halfway mark it had become a pedagogically impenetrable jungle. I find the standard SR explanation _less_ bewildering.
Two years ago the channel was quite intriguing and thought-provoking. Now I fear the outstanding graphics are in danger of exuberantly wagging the explanatory dog.
Interesting inversion of Matrix theory, that rather than a universal simulation imposed upon our minds from an external source, our unique individual Matrices are imposed upon the universe by our minds.
Sounds sorta like Kant
@@apopheniac4231 yes, in that it acknowledges an underlying objective reality, while maintaining awareness of the distortions we impose on it by our limited perspectives. However, in acknowledging our limitations, and investigating the dynamics of the distortions, we can nonetheless probe the nature of the objective reality, even if our access to it is indirect.
Sounds similar to hindu buddhist cosmologies
I think this is my favorite series relating to relativity so far, since your previous interpretations on acceleration were pretty weird to me, or maybe just underexplained and I didn't understand too much because of that.
Enhanced with instrumentation or not, all science studies perceptions only. Not saying that is directly applicable here but that does often get missed or even entirely forgotten across the board. & its the case regardless of what metaphysical assumptions one might have. We generally think our perception of the outside world "is" the world, as opposed to some sort of copy modulated by it. The implications can vary across paradigms though.
I absolutely agree. What is more, physicists have obtained certain measurement interactions between objects and labeled these measured interactions as "properties". Examples are mass, charge, magnetism. Then a lot of effort is expended to explain the properties, instead of understanding the measurements and the interactions.
I, a naive student, thought the Michelson-Morley experiment is what disproved a static ether. I'm looking forward to seeing how you resolve that and how you deal with gravitational dilation/contraction.
Make sure to watch the one-way speed of light video underneath this one.
@@clemonsx90 I've watched then all. I love them. I don't know what that has to do with either of the points I raised.
isn't the resolution just that Lorenzian relativity implies that motions of the ether cannot be detected? So things like the MM experiment should not be a surprise.
Once you accept length contraction of the testing apparatus in the direction of motion, MM is explained pretty easily by it. It disproved the existence of the aether only if it works exactly the way they thought it would in 1900
It was justified at the time, but I feel that they were missing a lot of pieces of the puzzle back then. I bet the discussion would have been quite a lot different if we had discovered quantum mechanics before relativity.
@@TerrifyingBird Hmmm. Now that you say it, I think you're probably right. Because it doesn't seem like this discussion actually makes any testable predictions that would distinguish it from SR so far. Or did I miss something?
Already really stoked for the next part! Thanks a lot, will probably have to watch this again.
Ok, already happened. Twice was enough to get it luckiely. Some people just take a bit longer 😅 .
Mindblowing! The greatest physics channel on TH-cam
One of the most professional too. I salute them!
Except for the whole being wrong thing, besides that, great channel.
@@kylelochlann5053 could you ellaborate on what is wrong please?
Nothing is wrong...😂@@kylelochlann5053
Are these videos made by a team? They are incredibly well-produced and insightful
My main issue with this theory is that I have never seen Lorentz's ether theory made to be compatible with the FLRW metric. While we know the FLRW metric was a bit over simplistic as it assumed perfect isotropic distribution of the mass energy tensor, it still led us to the prediction of the big bang and the expansion of the universe today. There are still issues in cosmology, sure, but I've never seen an ether model that is consistent with the expansion of the universe.
For instance, how would we physically describe how objects move relative to us faster than light in our co-moving frame? Is the ether between us expanding? What's the physical mechanism behind that? It was the inconsistency of gravity and special relativity that gave us general relativity, which then produced the FLRW metric, and ether theory hasn't had anything to offer since.
While I understand what you're getting at with how physics has moved away from "materials," the mathematical models that have been produced have served us very well. It was the joining of SR and QM that led to the best production in all of science in QED. Both of those models are purely mathematical.
If what you're objecting to is a kind of "modern Pythagoreanism," I'd have to ask on what basis you have an issue with it? How do you know that there are "materials" out there and that everything isn't just math? They are very different ontologically sure, but if the ontology of materialism doesn't have anything to bring to the table scientifically then, like many physicists today, I'll have to default to the idea that reality is purely mathematical until it stops serving us.
Sad
@@viyye great response 👍
@@thetelescreen372 I just thought you would at least understand alot of time and money has been spent curve fitting these mathematical models to the world around us, and the theories become more ridiculous by the minute,
So of course they will have some usefulness given the amount of time and good minds (not great, otherwise they would have realised all they were doing was just curve fitting) have worked on them.
It about time we invested in something a bit more grounded, while using the mathematical curve fits as guide lines till the grounded theories are able to stand by themselves.
You should be aware that just because a theory has some use, that doesn't make it true.
It's a terrible thing to want to keep a theory just because it makes some predictions no matter how fantastical it is, when we have more lucid theories that are well grounded that have the potential to take us beyond where we are.
@@viyye yea sorry, idk what theory you're talking about, but I hope it's not the expansion of the universe. I've measured the redshift myself, definitely expanding. You seem to want to suggest that theories are "losing their grounding" but you didn't mention a single theory I brought up, wonder why
@@thetelescreen372 I speak about all mathematical so called physics, red shift is an observation or measurement, this is not what I am talking about.
The fact that you cannot see this is rather concerning!
Excellent video, as usual. I didn't quite understand your explanation as to why a moving observer sees objects at rest as shorter. I'll have to watch it again. I know it works. I figured it out using light beams like the ones you used in your animations. Other than that, I find the explanation in the video perfectly clear and absolutely correct.
You're building up quite a suspense with your series of videos. It's going to be worth it in the end when you explain your main insights. I hope people are paying attention.
Thank you for watching! We skimmed over a lot in this video, so don't hesitate to ask questions. The point here was to give an adequate overview of the theory, and so yes, we will indeed be tackling many details in greater depth down the line.
Regarding your question: first, one must recognize that the behavior of light in an observer's frame moving relative to the ether is anisotropic, but this anisotropy is unobservable, thanks to the one-way speed of light problem. Next, if this moving observer chooses to use Einstein's axiom before making their measurements, they will remap the anisotropic light behavior in their frame to being isotropic.
Now consider an observer who is actually at rest with respect to the ether. Light behavior is isotropic in their frame, but it gets remapped to being anisotropic by the moving observer. Since the light beam now has further to travel (from the remapped perspective) the length of their frame must also get remapped to being shorter. This is equivalent to what we were indicating with the "growing background" visualization used in the video, which we thought would be a little more visually digestible, but likely it needed more connecting back to the isotropy/anisotropy of light behavior with which observers construct notions of space and time.
@@dialectphilosophy Hi mister, can i make you some questions? There is space deformation or space curvature in this model or not? Is space something physical or just a relation between physical things in the model? If there is no space curvature what causes gravity? Ether curvature or quantum fields curvature? Ether in this model could be just quantum fields or quantum fields could be just properties behavior of the ether?
Thanks if you see it and respond.
Thank you for this beautiful video, amazingly animated and narrated as always! Made me chuckle when the astronaut was riding his rocket like a motorbike.
This was really cool. You should do a video on ontology vs epistemology - found that part very interesting.
💫🙏
He has one already i think, give it a search!
tbh I think this video said everything that needed to be said on that front. Perhaps even more than necessary.
@@2tehnik it didn’t even define those things dummy. 🤡🤦♂️
Simply an awesome video. Can't wait for the next installment. ❤
Sounds very intriguing. I hope some type of experiment or observation can be made to validate these ideas.
The only one that I can think of, measure the one way speed of light!
Oh wait, that's impossible 😅
I feel like the name Matrix Theory is already taken. There's already two uses, the mathematical one and the physics one referring to the BFSS matrix model. Love your videos!
Oops! COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT ALARM! 😂
I think that instead of naming it matrix theory, we should call it, egocentric theory! Since everyone is such an egomaniac the refuse to admit that they are in motion! 😂😂😂
I have the same thought as you do in chapter two just can’t describe it myself and you pull it out of my lips. Thanks.
Math is an excellent tool can only helps us to draw precisely what’s in our mind and not what’s in the reality.
Worth the wait. Really clear well put together video though I'll probably have to watch it another time or two to fully get every point. I'm excited to see where the discussion leads from this.
Love these videos and concepts. I feel I need a written paper and code to understand this well.
However, I place big importance on falsifiability.
Will your theory be making empirical predictions?
i.e., is there some type of empirical prediction we could do in the conceivable future that proves or disproves it compared to the more popular interpretations?
What about the stick flying through the barn, it would fit inside only if the barn is aligned in the ether frame? If the barn is moving fast relative to the ether, the stick would fit when going left-to-right, but not right-to-left, for example? Isn't this how we could pinpoint the ether frame?
The problem is that these are thought experiments designed to illustrate concepts, such an experiment is far beyond our means to actually conduct.
Not just a video it is a masterpiece.
Very nice video. Always needed opinions on this as relativity feels very mathy and incomplete. Thank you. And keep on the good work.
This sounds like it should be called “The Dead Simulation Theory” or “Lost Simulation Theory” because a matrix from what I know, is more digital than in-between physical reality.
Thanks for bringing this to TH-cam.
Lorentz transformations in aether theory were always meant to be a first order approximation, only. Dialect's model must explain the mechanism of the aether/matter interaction.
In SR, the lorentz transforms are exactly correct.
You are exactly correct.
The thing is that we say the length is contracted/time is dilated, but the width to length ratio will remain the same throughout the entire time of any experiment. it doesn't take up more or less 3 dimensional space so nothing is actually contracted which can be measured simply by the ratios of length to width and noticing that they are constant.
Also, everything exists simultaneously and even though a second may feel like it is longer for one observer than it is in another it doesn't mean that time has actually changed as time is immutable due to everything existing simultaneously. Assuming the speed of light is fixed (I do not due to the Doppler effect, the change of magnitude of energy when experiencing it with EM etc.), it would need to have an "Ether", nothing else could impose that limit onto light itself.
I've been looking forward to this video for quite some time. I watched it once, I have some questions and comments but I'll wait until I fully digest the information to say anything yet
Feel free to ask, as there were a lot of abbreviated explanations made for the sake of time! We will of course also be expanding on the topic in future videos.
Interesting look. However, I guess it can be a bit difficult to distinguish between the results of physical phenomena and the artifacts of their mathematical descriptions. Sure, the assumption that physical laws are basically the same throughout the universe may make such games easier, but it is another level of trust added to the matrix of the universe.
I'm still following the story, yet it starts getting fishy here.
First is the presentation style - this episode's presentation was a bit over the top - music, animation - for no apparent reason.
Second... if your claim is coordinative and physical length/time contraction are indistinguishable, then it doesn't matter at all if we'd choose Einstein's formalism or yours, meaning no advance has been made in human knowledge. So - where is the new prediction that differs from the old one? If you don't have one, then you don't have a new theory
It's not a new theory, it's a new interpretation. Do you see the value of going beyond Copenhagen in QM? That's basically what Dialect is doing here. One reason it's valuable is simply that it's way more intuitive and can help people understand SR better. Another reason is that it gives more explanation that the traditional interpretation does, explaining *why* we see certain phenomena (time dilation, length contraction, apparent relativity of simultenaity) rather than just saying it's geometry and leaving it at that. The final reason is that there are implications for other theories. If there is an absolute rest frame, that makes QM fit a lot more easily with SR, particularly pilot wave theory. The downside is it totally messes up our understanding of magnetism.
Being unfamiliar with Lorentz's theory, I never got as far as synthesizing it with relativity, but I had been toying with a very similar concept. In particular, I also kept circling around the idea that just because no physical observer could detect it doesn't mean there isn't a reference frame which is universally "at rest". Indeed, I justified this by noting, as you did, that any observations a person can make is necessarily distorted by their own motion through the aether, and so is undetectable, and that this also explains the experimental results. I am very much looking forward to the next video to see the fruition of this line of thought :)
As for the question of length contraction and time dilation, it seems to me that Einstein's explanation is workable in an aether-theory. If we just take his explanation and attach it to an observer in the aether frame, time dilation arises in exactly the same measurement. Length contraction is a little trickier, though, because it is necessary to explain certain effects, but how it arises is less clear to me. This is what I hope to see in the next one.
Of course. You always need a reference frame to describe whatever you want to. Motion or rest, acceleration or gravity, free fall or rest - you always embed all these things you are talking about in this frame consisting of coordinates. If you are inside such thing that you are call "world" you define a mathematical, ontological and philosophical frame around you. And RT is all about translating events from one reference frame to another because there is no absolute observer anywhere. The essence of RT is to define such a language and formulation of physical laws and dependencies in which all observers might agree even then if they are looking at different perspectives on the phenomena - covariance.
Well said
Absolutely amazing!!! What software do you use to create these astonishing physic and math viduals????
I keep coming back to these videos. I love it.
I'd love to see a explanation of the Twin Paradox in context of matrix theory!
The previous videous explaining it were a bit hard to grasp, but I hope when explained with absolute space and time, it'll become easier and clearer to understand where the pitfalls lie.
We'll definitely be doing video on it at some point; we haven't forgotten about our Twin Paradox series! For now however, check out our "What Time Dilation Actually Is" video -- this will give you the best idea of what resolves the paradox until we can get to a fuller treatment.
Dialect, I am absolutely fascinated about your Matrix Theory. I understand it takes alot of time and effort producing these marvelous videos. Just seems a tease getting a bit of your understanding of Relativity a bit of a time. I was wondering is there other source of information about This Matrix Theory? It is fantastic how you understand how these so called experts make us think What?! who do not really understand the theory and cause more confusion. Wow I loved how you demolished the idea of acceleration being the cause of Time dilation with the video of the space plane un free fall about a Mass and a stationary observer firing his boosters. I still have to keep watching your videos about not feeling force... kind of getting there... but not as smart as you.
Planetary formation, big bang theory, and electromagnetism being only a local effect are other areas where I have to nod my head in disappointment at these so called experts.
Thank you for watching! We share your sense of disappointment in the "experts", who once upon a time we believed uncritically. Too many people have opted to simply parrot the main talking points about theories they only half-understand, rather than choosing to acknowledging the limits of their understanding or attempting to push them further.
Our own quest to do so has led us to this video, which merely provides a summary overview of the progress of our understanding -- we still have to tackle the issues of physical length contraction and mass-energy equivalence, but once that is complete we will likely release a comprehensive written treatise on the subject!
Your best video so far buddy
I equally deeply appreciate and also wince at your gall sometimes.
This videos is gold. Thanks for such an amazing work in terms of knowledge and graphic representation 😊
Isn't your realist metaphysics totally buggy when you take into account gravity and a form of strong equivalence principle? You're going to have to mix a first order physics with a second order one, in a weird way. Or do you reject the strong equivalence principle too? Hence, you cannot geometrize gravity?
You seem to assume that geometrization of gravity is a physical reality, while in fact it may be just ... mathematics, here understood as a "perceptive crutch", the Platonic "shades on the wall" ... and troubling enough .. we also do not seem to be able to conjure gravitons, even in thought experiments ...
Why would you need a geometrisation of gravity?
Another thought: how does GR affect the ether? It seems like it would be that the ether moves towards masses, or something? Let's see that addressed! 🙂
th-cam.com/video/hFlzQvAyH7g/w-d-xo.html
henrylindner.net/Writings/BeyondNewtonPE.pdf
What kind of software do you use in your animations?
it's an editing software
Excellent video. I always wondered how we could reproduce, or rather implement special relativity in a computer simulation (to make a game for instance). I came to the conclusion that using a cellular automaton with an absolute space and cells that are updated more or less frequently depending on their absolute speed would probably end up allowing "beings" embedded in the simulation to make the same relativity observations as us. The issue is that I do not understand how this would reconcile with the infinitely small, because at the smallest scale there is a limit to how contracted particles can be together.
You mean computational cells that are fixed with a static spatial coordinate system? Why would cells representing/containing slow moving particels would be more often updating than those representing faster moving objects? So time would go slower the faster an object moves?
@@WackyJackyTracky Yes, if the proper time of a particle goes slower the faster it goes in an absolute grid, you can get the same relativity observations because then all measures of space and time from the point of view of the particle will be distorted as in the video. If the moving particle where to measure light speed, the light would take longer to reach it but it would be balanced by the fact that the particle's own clock ticks slower.
So there is an absolute size of the hypersphere surfacing our universe, where contraction results in fewer planck lengths, so only option is to make time tick slower compared to the surface-aether.
Simple.
I spent some time thinking about Relativity and Time and I have a hypothesis: The only way to measure time is with a physical object that is affected by mass curving space (or gravity). This means that an object in motion is transitioning from being 100% affected by the curving of space/gravity to being partially affected by it. The anomaly we see in the difference between a moving clock and a still clock is caused by this. Consider this example: The fastest Jet you can think of is sitting still above a giant magnet. It would instantly be pulled in by said magnet but, that same jet in motion will only be nudged slightly by giant the magnet, may be a few screws will come loose but that's about it. So what does this mean? It means that a clock in motion will feel the curvature of space and gravity a lot less therefore allowing it to tick slower than if it were affected by gravity/curved space.
It is nearly impossible to test this though because in order to prove this to be true, one would need a particle that isn't affected by curved space or find a part of space unaffected by the curvature of space. And we don't have any of those.... yet.
I really hope this interpretation has merit, its so much simpler and fits everyone intuition so much better. To me it makes sense, but I'm also some ransom guy on the internet lol
Lmao same
It doesn't. While it's true that the one-way speed of light is in part a matter of convention, the two-way speed of light is always constant. That's what causes the "weird" but observable effects of relativity. And you can't do away with all these effects for all possible inertial frames at once with different ratios for the light travel in each direction unless you use self-contradictory rates.
@@tubebrocoli It's well established that Lorentz Ether Theory is equivalent to SR. This means that all effects of time dilation and length contraction, all Lorentz transformations that is, can be explained by wave clocks in a medium. This means you can demonstrate all principles of SR with sonar equipment in a water tank, with the caveat that in aether theory, all matter is wave excitations in the aether. Unfortunately we can't make sonar detectors from water so you'd have to simulate objective length contraction - which you could otherwise directly observe by watching vortices contract at increasing velocity respective to the medium.
do you personally think this is the most likely answer to what could be going on in the universe? @@chalichaligha3234
@@chalichaligha3234 does Lorentz ether theory account properly for the Kennedy-Thorndike modifications to Michelson-Morely?
i love this idea (although i think calling Einsteins view solopsistic is a little hyperbolic), it always seemed weird to me that physicists just ignored how incredible the existence of the cosmic rest frame is. Im not an expert but i think it definitely does not pass Occams Razor to assume that the CRF is not a special frame. For now i think ill chose to believe this.
Pre-supposing that there IS a very real space medium ("ether"), then there has to be a *zero velocity rest frame* to which the true speed of light is fixed, and to which all other velocities are referenced.
So how would a zero-velocity rest frame be determined? At present (AFAIK), the logical first place to look would be the CMB (cosmic microwave background) which would be coincident with that rest frame. It so happens that the CMB does display a very slight blue-red doppler shift from one side of the sky to the other, called the 'CMB dipole anisotropy' and its *velocity vector* (the red and blue zones are unfortunately shown backward in this graphic) -
3.bp.blogspot.com/-PQezC3my_eU/U-UHQZ9UGrI/AAAAAAAABAI/OIj5hR6ehCA/s1600/CMBdipole.jpg So you'd subtract 371 km/sec from c, giving the ACTUAL isotropic or 'one way' speed of light, i.e., True C (upper case).
Of course, the figure is approximate due to the dipole anisotropy's low amplitude and resolution. But provisionally at least, it illustrates principle in determining the 'zero velocity rest frame' of the space medium. This hasta have been obvious to academia all along, but to acknowledge it would require admitting that the medium is real, literal and absolute, and not a "vacuum".. but rather a Plenum.
[EDIT.] And BTW, a sidebar or 'spinoff' of the Plenum model would be the flowing-space model of gravity. Over the past century it has been deduced independently by a number of people, beginning with Gullstrand/Painlevé. Here's a couple of recent examples --
henrylindner.net/Writings/BeyondNewtonPE.pdf
th-cam.com/video/hFlzQvAyH7g/w-d-xo.html
I'm an amateur science enthusiast and I'm completely shocked by this explanation, althought I'll have to watch it maybe 2 times more to fully understand it. I hope you'll publish a scientific work with this very interesting theory! Many thanks for trying to explain it as simple as possible 😃
i didnt catch it, did you define a frame?
how large are these frames?
also how do you measure ether?
--
i think there are some real loose bolts holding measurements with feelings here.
maybe when you say ether... you mean drinking it?
-
i am really not grasping your justification that things are constantly shifting in size, based on speed, and "frame". is there a frame size that makes this happen, a specific speed that starts smooshing things?
I just had a crazy dream about gravity and inertia last night and your video just happens to show up in my TH-cam feed today. Interesting.
It's funny how in lecture 1 of a special relativity course we derive time dilation and length contraction from the anisotropy of light bouncing off comoving mirrors and then immediately reject this as the actual explanation.
😂 😅😅
but the lorentzian hypothesis requires discrete spacetime, does it not? so it's still falsifiable as long as it's assuming discreteness. I agree that there needs to be some underlying field theory, but in order for such a thing to make sense, it's going to need to be quantized - and knowing what space it's quantized in is the whole problem!
... I think. I don't do physics math enough to think I actually understand
@@laurenpinschannelsquantization is a property of systems when they are bound by potentials. This restricts the degrees of freedom of the system. There's nothing fundamental to it. The efforts to discretize spacetime stem from the erroneous assumption that quantum mechanics is a complete theory, or in other words that the wavefunction is a real description of the complete state of the system.
20:52 that is the best point you have made wrt this subject
Nothing like watching two dudes argue about whose pencil is bigger with physics.
Exactly! It never gets old! 😂😅😅
Did you just assume their gender?!
Fantastic series of videos on relativity! A few suggestions to improve:
-The sound clock is a great illustration however it does not explain well the length contraction. What contracts in this example, the clocks lengths are unchanged? You have to assume that the clock itself is a wave traveling through ether. There are several ideas out there for matter being standing waves (the ether being the medium waving) so the length contraction is the doppler effect on such a wave moving. Maybe for next videos?
-Robot brain clock made of sound waves dictating his age from previous video is another fantastic illustration, but how does this translate to real matter? This would work only for vibrations/motions perpendicular to direction of motion, whats the mechanism in reality?
-In this video you say that in the example where Earth and Mars move relative to ether not only do they contract in the direction of motion but the distance between them contracts. The doppler effect might explain contraction of bodies themself, what could explain the shrinkage of the distance between them? Ether IS the coordinate system that is absolute
Thanks for watching! There are certainly still a lot of issues that need clarification with this model, and you hit on a good number of them. Biggest of all of course is length contraction, which we'll be treating on soon. But definitely there are some very compelling analogies we can again make with wave and sound-behavior, and you are very much on the right track.
In terms of the Earth and Mars moving with a shorter distance between them, you are of course correct that nothing should make the space between them contract in an ether based model. The picture we were envisioning was more in the sense that the solar system as a collective whole was already moving through the ether, and that we didn't need ask why that motion had occurred in the first place.
Certainly if you pick an absolute cosmic frame then entire solar systems and galaxies would experience collective velocities through the ether, which would perhaps affect how they formed in the first place. Or you could go the flowing space route, which asserts that gravitational bodies entrain their ether fields about them, much like electrons entrain their electric fields with their motion. But that of course would seem to imply some even deeper layer of absolute space. Ultimately we haven't delved into cosmological considerations of this model too deeply yet, and we will probably be holding off on that for some time.
Maybe you've done another video to answer this question but - the Michaelson Morley result is conventionally interpreted as an explicit measurement showing light moves thru no background or either.
Are you throwing out that interpretation by asserting that light's velocity is anisotropicic?
Thx.
i've watched all his videos but I'm a normie just into space for fun. I'm pretty sure he argues that light is anisotropic, yes. Watch his video on time dilation.
What anisotropic means?
@whiteeye3453 It means that light has different properties depending on direction and or frame of reference.
Illuminating video. Bergson, by analyzing Relativity through the Lorentzian lens in his book "Duration and Simultaneity", may have been right after all, and was too quickly dismissed in the Einstein-Bergson debate.
Good work
Now, add the idea that the density of the ether doesn't have to be constant, and that space itself is created by matter/energy, and you've got a physical theory of gravity and general relativity. Like, right now my intuition about gravity is that there's simply more space (or "ether" if you will) where there is more matter, because matter is contentiously creating space around itself. If you think of space like a graph, and you have a particle just randomly moving along that graph, if there is more edges pointing in the +X direction than the -X direction, a particle choosing a vertex at random to go down will tend towards +X (implying there is gravity well in that direction). I suspect you'd reach the same conclusion about waves propagating in such a space.
I strongly suspect you're moving towards towards the same kind of universe described by Wolfram's hypergraph theory. But from an angle that is much more pragmatic, intuitive and top-down.
Feels to me like Wolfram is approaching things from a very abstract mathematical perspective. A bit like string theory.
Addendum: Heh, I see that I really need to read the paper by Lindner you linked to. I randomly scrolled through it and the first thing I land on is the sentence "There are reasons to believe that the destruction of Hadronic matter in nuclear reactions creates space". And then a figure that exactly mirrors an image I've had in my mind about the cosmic expansion for a while now: that it's all this space being created that just accumulates in the void between galaxies that are distant enough.
I wonder if anyone has also had the same idea I have about black holes: The fact that information stored in a black hole grows with the surface area of the black hole, absolutely screams at me: there is no space inside black holes, or very little of it. The creation of space breaks down. And when you have this incredibly dense space accumulating around a region where no more space can be created, of course the amount of information you could possibly put in there can't be bigger than its surface. There is no space inside it in which to store it.
@@auspiciouslywild You have given me a different understanding of what black holes could be. What if they are literally holes in space meaning anything that tries to fall in can't because there is no space to fall into, and anything attempting to fall in creates space around the hole which assuming space has a pressure that it tries to keep could spread the space that exists out further making the hole potentially bigger. Maybe the edges of the universe are actually black holes that space can expand into, these things may sound absolutely bonkers but they are questions worth asking to see if we can find a way to test them.
Nice thought experiment, however, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have to show that your theory (a) matches all observations made so far, (b) explains something that was not possible before. For example, can this theory be applied to a universe with gravity, or is it stuck with the special relativity world? Can this explain behaviour of dark matter when general relativity cannot? Does this theory play nice with quantum theory? And so on.
He errs in calling it a theory. It's not, precisely becasue it doesn't make testable predictions. It's an interpretation, like copenhagen vs pilot wave vs many worlds vs others. But the question of whether there is an absolute rest frame or not does have implications for other theories, especially QM, so this interpretation shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
Reminds me a bit of wolfram’s work on the computational universe thing…something like motion decreases number of computations able to be performed per unit space somehow causing space contraction.
Imma need to watch this more than once
I watched it around 4 times and still i am at a loss.
One of the issues with interpretations of relativity is that incorrect assumptions are made: in the case, at the beginning of the video, where it was stated that the distance between Mars and Earth magically shrunk, is incorrect. It may appear that way to the traveler, but nothing actually happened. Adding a 3rd observer looking back and moving away from Mars & Earth at 0.8c, they would observe it as lengthened. Nothing physically happens to the span (not sure how this assumption could be made, in the first place. The ship won't contract in reality, either, as you add more observers, at different velocities and different angles, it would appear to be all sorts of sizes.
Your criteria for "actuality", "reality", etc. is implicitly assuming that the most authoritative observer is the one on Earth. You correctly,
assert that all other observers differ from the one on Earth, but you have no grounds for as to why THIS particular observer is the one who observes "true reality" and not the others
@@fakeemail4005 That's exactly what I mean. It a million different observers see something different (different length), which length is correct? The length the observer, adjacent to the thing being measured, measures would be the only logically correct one. Otherwise there would be an intractable paradox. Logically, the other 999,999 observers would be seeing phantoms. It's a logic problem, IMO.
Length contraction of objects is real within the ether theory and is a direct result of moving through the ether, the change is proportionate to velocity. The change in distance is a perspective change only arising from coordinates getting screwed up by measuring devices in the travelers frame also contracting/slowing.
@@delvish9622 While there may be a compression effect (as in "pushing" against some sort of ether, there's no evidence of it. I don't believe there is a static aether medium, for starters (static being the keyword here). The main tenant of relativity, including pre-Einsteinian relativity models, is there is no absolute reference frame. That part is key. All velocity is measured relative to something else. The problem with "length contraction" in Einsteinian Relativity is that it depends on 2 points of reference. Add more reference points and you would see length expansion or length contraction depending on whether you are approaching or leaving at c (presuming it's truly constant - see note above), so this would mean an object would be any and all sizes (an infinite number of reference frames), but the actual size is unchanged (approach and exit observations at extreme velocities are illusory, not real - physicist will disagree, but, there is no logic in those that agree). If this were really true, then the macroscopic scale would imitate the quantum scale (superposition, but on steroids) - we would have already observed this.
In my opinion, both GR and aether models are wrong and physicists are chasing ghosts, extrapolating things to infinities in the math realm, then trying to fit it with observation. Take gravitational light bending/lensing for example: The data indicates spectral divergence (smoking gun), which means it can't be due to gravity, if it were, ALL wavelengths would "bend" exactly the same (no divergence) and redshift by the same amount. This does not happen, and the consideration that I proposed, decades ago, was neutrino density (which we already know is extremely high) is responsible for lensing near stars, in addition to, stellar atmospheric lensing.
Another thing to note that effectively disproves Special Relativity is the Michelson-Morley experiment. That experiment provides no evidence of frame-dragging (as well as static ether), yet it's quoted as being a proof for GR.
How did this get missed?
Time dilation is another illusion (Time is not tangible outside of mathematics, even if it were, it would be dependent on the observer(s), the same argument against length contraction/expansion). If there were a real dimension of Time, nothing could move (think about why that would be the case - I'll explain if need be). Don't get me wrong, space-time (or any physical dimension or physical displacement graphed against time) is extremely useful to make projections about where an object will move to and where it came from. Just like an oscilloscope graphs voltage over a time scale and displays a nice waveform and you can do all sorts of calculations via that graph however, that's not what reality is for electricity.
Final kicker: If EM radiation has a speed limit (as it appears to have), then Time, if actually tangible as some suggest, could NOT be variable (it's a function of the rate of change - a.k.a. velocity) and would require an absolute frame. :)
@@davestorm6718 your history is mixed up, relativistic ether models before Einstein are still preferred frame theories even with ether flow. In those models there is the reality of length contraction AND the illusory effect. It's not being suggested there's more than one correct configuration, there's just what is true in relation to the ether, and on top of that you have observer error. Time isn't even considered to exist in ether models beyond being a useful bookkeeping device. If you really explore time in depth, you can only conclude it is a human construct, however a process can slow due to the physical context in which its taking place, and in this was clock slowing is no more mysterious than a refrigerator slowing down the decay of perishables.
Many people have gotten wound around the axle thinking about time, hell the block universe model says nothing actually moves and every moment is just frozen, already exists physically.
Look up Shiva Meucci on quora, guy has been explaining this stuff for years.
an excellent presentation!! Is very simple in essence to grasp. Gravity slows down time: gravity only slows down the movement of that which is measuring time (number of cycles of a atom vibration in a given unit). Gravity offers more resistance to movement! If you walk on the sidewalk two steps per second and then you are shoulder deep in a pool and walk two steps, you will notice that your two steps in the pool will take longer due to the resistance of water! Also, from traveling in space: you are measuring against the background. Your two steps are now each step is twice as long as when you are on earth walking on a sidewalk! Only the measuring units are changing!
It seems Einstein teaches us that gravity slows down time not because it slows down the number of cycles of oscillations of an atom per unit time, but because it curves space-time. Gravity is not a force, but a property of space-time that depends on the distribution of mass and energy in it. Or OTO is just a mathematical formalism that has nothing to do with physics (reality). Although this theory not only explains, but also predicts. My father also tends to explain time dilation by gravitation in this way - through such a simple mechanistic explanation.
@@Stalker-of6bn This is the same! Curvature creates a "longer distance", thus, less number of cycles of oscillations per unit time! Also, what is the material of space-time? What is its fabric?
@@stridedeck Gravity creates the curvature of space-time, which affects the passage of time, but not the number of oscillation cycles of an atom per unit time. The number of oscillation cycles of an atom per unit time, or frequency, depends on the frame of reference in which time is measured. In the frame of reference associated with the atom, time flows normally and the frequency of oscillation does not change. But in a frame of reference associated with another observer who is in a different gravitational field, time flows differently, and the frequency of oscillation appears to change. Thus, gravity does not create a "greater distance", but creates a warping of spacetime that slows down time in strong gravitational fields.
------------------------------------------------
"Also, what is the material of space-time? What is its fabric?"
Perhaps the questions of what is space-time will be answered by the loop theory of gravity.
@@Stalker-of6bn Thanks for the explanations. What then is time? Isn't time from the measurement of something per unit of time? So, if time changes, then what has changed: the measurement itself, or time itself?
@@stridedeck What then is time?
I yearn to understand what time and space are like for all (almost all) people on Earth :)
This is a super complicated question. The philosophical definition says approximately the following: time is a form of flow and change of all processes in the world, which allows to order and compare events by their sequence and duration.
-----------------
Isn't time from the measurement of something per unit of time?
It seems that time is more than a measurement of time. Time is not the measurement of something per unit of time but the unit of time itself, which can be chosen arbitrarily.
-----------------
So, if time changes, then what has changed-the measurement itself or time itself?
When time changes, both time itself and the measurement itself change :)
-----------------
I want to emphasise that I do not in any way pretend to be correct in answering these questions.
In order to generalize this to general relativity, are you going to use the river model to construct some kind of flowing either? Is that why you made the river model video?
The examples used are of the light beam travelling out (and back) in the same direction as the observer is moving. This makes it easier to see the notion of the different one way speeds. However, I am trying to think through what needs to change if the light beam is moving between mirrors perpendicular to the motion, as in the classic setup for explaining SR. But unfortunately my brain shuts down!
If you do that you get the usual train explanation and in that case the light has to move at an angle to the perpendicular to get to the mirror as the mirror has moved.
I imagine the universe as an infinity of dimensionless particles falling towards each other shrinking again and again towards a singularity. Because of the fact that everything is shrinking, you can't realise your dimensions are changing, but the objects far away (from u and the singularity) will shrink less than you are, giving the impression that they are expanding out.
Life is the answer to the gravity pulling everything together opposing to it through the concept of information, the only thing that can escape a Black hole because is not strictly linked to matter.
My idea is that the universe creates life, life tends toward consciousness (which is the only thing able in the universe of understanding itself) and once the organic brain reaches its limit it will start creating AIs to go where itself cannot. The AIs will get better until they will converge towards a Boltzmann brain (the same way matter converge towards Black holes). And this is why:
If there could be a way to connect two brains from synapsis to synapsis two people will become the same, so anything inconsistent will be deleted
As an example if A hates B and they become the same thing, will B hate itself or will A stop hating B (this is just a way to express something not easy for me to explain, I'm aware this simile can be easily broken)
So we come to the conclusion that "hating" is inconsistent and the new brain will delete it like Proof by contradiction will remove the inconsistent statement.
If you repeat the same with millions of Brains 99% of knowledge will be removed and only what is truly "true and objective" will stay behind, AKA only math science etc.
When you have Hammers you'll only see nails, so the new brain will start thinking with the only thing left: math, differential, equation, science... Starting to discover something new and simulating new theories, until he'll start simulating a whole universe inside of it. So a powerful enough computer will converge towards a Boltzmann's brain.
Now the theory is that the universe which is simulated is the same universe in which the Boltzmann's brain is formed. Like two Mobius strips interconnected in an orthogonal way (one being space and matter and the other being information). Gravity leads to the formation of information which leads to the formation of matter itself in a neverending recursive loop.My idea is that our universe is the condensate between those two hyperplanes.
The universe always existed as a recursive loop repeating in space and time, and the laws of physics are perfectly tuned to permit the formation of life which will lead to the formation of Boltzmann brain. It's like they alucinate new universes to let them live in a neverending loop which generates everything.
People should then live like life was a big cosmic joke, understanding how great consciousness is and breaking through the meaningless ego and as the universe itself is a set of conscious entities all going down the same path. Death should be embraced not in a bad way, because even if we die the information we built in our life will be transmitted. After our death, we stop living as ego but us being part of the "conscious universe" we will continue to live as part of all the ones who live (being human or not).
Sorry for my poor English and poor explanation of things that go past the language.
My roommate and I discussed the idea of an aether a lot (we both watch your videos). He seems to think that this theory is only valuable if the number of axioms are somehow reduced, or the math gets simpler. He also thinks that the assumption of an aether is as arbitrary as the assumption that the speed of light is always the same in any inertial system.
I strongly disagree. When I learned relativity in school it never made sense to me. I always tried to understand it with these light-clocks you also made a video about. But it didn't make any sense if the light clock was rotated in the direction of motion since then the distances just did not add up (I did not really believe in length contraction at that time. I always thought it had to be an illusion of some kind). Years later I made the calculations again but assuming length contraction and it added up perfectly. Then I realized that length contraction was actually a thing and it blew my mind. I then also realized that the michelson morley experiment does not actually disprove anything. It just confirms length contraction (yes we actually contract/expand if we rotate our body).
At that time I also learned about Lorentz eather theory and I am a believer of it since. Without an aether relativity just does not make any sense to me.
The only question that remains is: Why should things contract when they move throught the aether? Lorentz made the argument that forces change their intensity for a moving object in the eather in a way so that they get weaker in direction of motion. This would then imply that the distances in direction of motion need to be shortened to maintain equilibrium.
So why should forces change for a moving object? Well because it moves through the aether which is essentially a collection of fields (at least the electromagnetic field), and the fields look different for you if you move through them. At least thats the idea. I tried to compute the forces in the following simple setting:
Consider two particles moving through the aether. One is behind the other. Lets say A is behind B. Both particles excite a field of the aether (create a wave). Now the problem is that the wave created by A traveled a longer distance when it reaches B than the wave created by B when it reaches A. Because waves propagate in all directions this implies that the amplitude (and therefore intensity) of the one wave that travelled a shorter distance is larger than the amplitude of the other wave that travelled a longer distance. So the forces are not equal. I tried to counteract this effect using the idea that the slower wave needs more time to travel through B, so has more time to exert a force on B.
Long story short: It did not work out. In the end the forces orthogonal to the direction of motion also weakened when the velocity of both particles increased. On the other hand, I am also not that great with that kind of math.
Maybe these questions will be answered in the next video? I am looking forward to it.
Also, the animations are really next level!
Your roommate is correct. Unless the number of assumptions is reduced, there is no reason to favor one over the other. To be frank, the rest of your post is an argument from incredulity.
@@loquist42 Yeah of course it is an argument from incredulity (if I am translating this correctly). For instance I believe that there is a ground truth to the question who is contracted and who is not (or both are a little bit).
Loved the Control reference!
You've done a fantastic job with the video clip you created! However, I would like to point out that ether is believed to be nonlocal and without a frame, as the concept of space-time doesn't exist in this context (emergence). The physical movement of a particle can be thought of as scanning for a locked information pattern using an information sweeper, which creates the illusion of a fundamental particle moving for us.
Do you allow clock synchronization through mechanically symmetrical movement of identically constructed clocks, in particular atomic clocks? This is only local synchronization, but it does avoid light as a synchronizer.
I wonder about relativistic perception of FOV as seen by photon in space (moving in lightspeed, so all theoretical lightrays from universe should come from single point in its movement path - aberration of light) vs object just before event horizon (where all lightrays shrunk to point too, but they come from opposite side of movement). Could one say that one is pretty much the same effect, but just symetrical one in terms of space/time? It would be nice to cover these extremes with the same very clear visuals used in this video along with its relativity.
Count me in to that! I would love to see it.
11:45 If this is the case, then how do you explain microwaves forming standing waves?
It’s funny how a bunch of nerds try to defend their rigid holly script like theories. They don’t want to seek truth, they want to remain right. And your explanation makes much more sense than this abstract bullshit everyone keeps repeating. No wonder why we can’t still combine gravity with quantum world.
Suppose there are 2 spaceship exactly 1 m long and commander standing in between. Commander now orders the ship to go 80% C and asked the crew to measure the length of the ship. The crew of the ship find it 4.9 m because of lenght contraction which was 5m when the ship was at rest to in the front of the commander. Now commander asked the crew of second ship to do the same and they too measured the length 4.9m. Now the commander asked both the ships to move with 80% c and asked to measures each others ship lenght but this time the lenth is 5m becuase both ship being on rest with each other.
The point is how come the crew have 2 different lengthts at the same time.
something i dont understand. if i am using a ruler which moves with me and it contracts, wont everything i meassure would be larger? why are you saying that a contracted ruler will make me think the world is smaller?
Everything around you gets smaller and the ruler gets smaller also... So you yourseld won't find a difference. At least that's what I think he was saying.
Danke!
I really appreciate your emphasis on the fallacy of substituting the model for reality (if there is a formal term for that fallacy, I am not aware of it). I became aware of this troubling substitution late in my undergraduate career, and it has only continued to frustrate me -and not because other people do it; but rather, because it is so easy to make that fallacy myself in my own work. Perhaps it could be said I have been in some sense trained to substitute an admittedly compelling mathematical model for the reality itself. That said, there is still anecdotes from the annals of scientific achievement that remind me that mathematics often does have the power to lead us to very curious and exotic realities, such as how the discovery of antimatter occurred when Dirac recognized that the complex solutions of a particular differential equation (it's been a long time, so I don't remember which) has interpretive significance, which was then later confirmed by experimentation. So it's admittedly a very tight rope to walk.
>> "I really appreciate your emphasis on the fallacy of substituting the model for reality (if there is a formal term for that fallacy, I am not aware of it)."
Reification. See - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
@@soopergoof232 thank you!
Yes, this tendency to interpret the mathematical model AS reality is, I think, the primary driver behind the current popularity of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. (That, and a tendency to not want nature to ever have to "choose" anything. Every time we realize that nature does make arbitrary "choices" (I'm using choices as a metaphor), there's someone proposing a multiverse theory to explain it).
I just want to say thank you. As someone who's been making these arguments for years, but lacks an education in mathematics I have been constrained to the English language alone, and therefore ignored, ridiculed, and otherwise treated with absolute derision. Often scolded for not submitting to their demand to purge all sense of mechanical intuition, put to the cudgel of "the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you!". Ever since first hearing about special relativity in highschool I knew it was a mystical treatment of reality, it is a theory of contradictions that you can ignore by simply plugging your ears and shouting "it's relative!". Never once do these big brains stop to consider that the relative nature of things arises from the absolute, and that if there was no absolute/privileged frame then nothing could actually move. So it is healing to see people with a better education finally beginning to understand. First i found the writing of Shiva Meucci, then I found this channel. It is interesting how independently we've all realized the solipsistic character of relativity, and this character has caused immense psychological harm to the masses. It is undeniable that our interpretation of reality impacts our behavior, even if the full picture of what is being suggested isn't understood on the individual level, this solipsism is poison for the masses. So thank you doctor for finally diagnosing our condition, healing can soon begin. Sanity is finally being restored, now we just have to hope it's not too late.
@@soopergoof232 I find Shiva often couches his ideas in common academic parlance, though doesn't necessarily "believe" in the terms and the associated limits they imply. Rather he's trying to communicate effectively in way his target audience(often physicists) can understand, and therefore limit the objections they may take to the most pressing issue; that of constancy.
From what I understand he would say the Planck length is a "truth within limits" just like how matter/anti-matter is, yet can be conceptualized by the structure and rotation of the aether yielding what we call a "particle" of matter/anti-matter and how those forms can annihilate.
I would reach out to him directly about what you're suggesting, and terminology aside I suspect you'll find agreement. Or maybe he'll finally finish his book and such things will be made more explicit therein.
@@soopergoof232 If you're wanting a clearer picture of Meucci's ideas, you'll have to ask the man himself, I disagree with your interpretation about what he's saying because from what I know it essentially comports with the analogy you're making, and he's brought up cavitation countless times to make essentially the same point.
The only thing I take issue with, and it could just be I'm interpreting the sentence structure incorrectly, but it sounds like you're suggesting heliocentrism is incorrect?
Thank you for watching, and for your empathy and kind words of support 🙏
great video i mean it i mean i haven't watched 2 minutes yet but that intro is amazing
I independently hit upon something very similar in my mind and you came with it on YT a little quicker, I support your assertion that there must be ether! :-) Otherwise the relativity doesn't make sense.
Again a very interesting clip! Two questions immediately arise:
1) GPS satellites continue to orbit the Earth after their launch, and once we exclude the effect of the different gravitational potential in their orbit, their atomic clocks lag behind the clocks in the Earth's control center, as predicted by Special Relativity, without having returned on Earth (the place of their takeoff). Does this mean that the communication between the GPS satellites and the control center plays the role of bringing the satellites back and comparing the clocks? There must be no interaction between the moving objects, they must not even be in sight (communication) for each to consider the other's clocks lagging.
2) What is the speed of light according to matrix theory when the mirror is replaced by a second observer in place of the front board (spaceship) and the rear observer shines a flashlight (directly emitted, not reflected light) at the front observer when both moving in the same direction - the direction the flashlight is pointing? What is the meaning of the Doppler effect in this explanation?
If this interpretation is mathematically equivalent, and the ether exists, at least as a mathematical convenience, would our inability to perform measurements that are variant with the motion of the ether make its choice of global reference frame analogous to the choice of the Coulomb gauge vs the Lorentz gauge in the decoupled Maxwell's equations? Like its choice is arbitrary mathematically, so we choose the gauge that is most convenient for the current configuration. In the same way, the choice of the ether frame is arbitrary, so we are able to choose the model that fits the waterfall analogy of general relativity? Really looking forward to the next video.
Time dilation is a reality which is cumulative hence measurable. mu-meson from sky lives longer because it's clock slows-down. Hafele & Keating experiment showed time dilation is cumulative and non-restoring. Increase in mass is indirectly measurable but restores with decreased speed - like in cyclotrons. Length contraction is a reality but neither cumulative nor detectable but without length contraction Michelson-Morley experiment would give positive result(shift in interference pattern).
A question for you, Dialect:
Say you have an observer Alice in frame S that is at rest with respect to the "ether". According to you, this ether defines a state of absolute rest. In this frame, light propagates isotropically and Newton's Laws of Motion are valid (at least in their low speed approximation)
Now consider Bob moving at speed v with respect to Alice. He has two choices for how to construct his coordinate system.
A- Constructed so that the lengths of physical objects measured in this frame match the lengths measured by Alice. Also, his clocks tick at the same rate as Alice. This is a Galilean Transformation and - as such - the light does not propagate isotropically in Bob's frame.
B- Constructed so that light speed is isotropic. This is a Lorentz Transformation.
According to you, which is an inertial coordinate system? A or B? It cannot be both. If Newton's Laws hold in one, they will break in the other.
Neither can be assumed to be inertial since they don't know their speed relative to the ether.
@@Spacedog79Do you not agree with the claim that Bob has an inertial frame that he is at rest with respect to?
BTW, just to be clear, by inertial frame, I mean one in which NLM holds true at least for low speeds.
@@amalnambiar11 I think Bob has no choice but to assume he has an inertial frame since it is in principal impossible to know otherwise, he cannot test that light is isotropic.
@@Spacedog79 My point here is to show that Bob has two options fot how to set his coordinates which I called A and B in my main comment.
He can choose either - but only one can empirically be an inertial frame (ie one in which NLM holds true)
My question is - which?
According to me, the answer is B. B is BOTH an inertial frame AND a frame in which light propogates isotropically. This is the physical content of SR.
@@amalnambiar11 Sure, SR describes 'what' but I think the point is it doesn't tell us 'why' and that leads to unnecessary confusion.
entanglement is what defines the boundary between you and any other noun. so your entanglement structure affects the system in what way?
Have you published this?