In Minkowski spacetime, the introduction of ct serves only to normalize the units for mathematical coherence. It does not imply that time is replaced by a spatial dimension. The fourth dimension is distinct from spatial dimensions because it involves a minus sign in the metric signature (- + + +) or equivalently the role of c in determining causal structure. The asymmetry reflects the unique properties of time in relativity. The analogy of measuring rods is reductive and misleading. Measuring rods and clocks are operational tools, but they do not define the nature of spacetime itself. Spacetime is a geometrical structure where events occur, and its properties are described mathematically through the metric tensor. Suggesting that the fourth dimension is "the space of a measuring rod" laid out by light between clock ticks undermines the invariant interval. The video seems to confuse the mathematical construct of spacetime with the physical propagation of light. Light’s behavior is a manifestation of spacetime geometry, not its definition. The assertion that spacetime curvature is about "the behavior of light and its interactions with matter" is a reversal of causality. Light behaves as it does because of spacetime geometry. The spacetime manifold is a model that explains not just light but the trajectories of all matter and energy under the influence of gravity. Its curvature describes how masses influence geodesics (the paths of free-falling objects), which is the essence of general relativity. The video ignores the deep relationship between spacetime curvature and the Einstein field equations, which encode how matter-energy distribution shapes spacetime. The idea that "clocks lower in a gravitational field move faster through physical space" introduces confusion. General relativity does not posit a literal "flow" of space. Rather, gravitational time dilation arises because spacetime curvature alters the proper time experienced by observers at different potentials. This video’s framing does a disservice to the elegance and depth of relativity.
@@Mujahed0001 if you do a little research on the Twin Paradox, you will see that they are applying the clock's motion in space to the observer's motion in time. It's not spacetime but rather space and time. Experiments like the Hafele-Keating synchronized clock tests falsified Einstein’s relativity theories. Motion is absolute. Not just absolute, but absolute to the frame of reference. Be it space or time. Then there are the many drop tests demonstrating that mass does not attract mass. That mass is not an actionable force. Mass doesn't bend space because mass is not an actionable force and besides, space itself has no properties. Only the energy contained within. Einstein’s gravitational lensing is really light refraction as it circumnavigates the gas and dust which surrounds celestial objects. The properties of metamaterials (electromagnetic fields) bends light around the cloaked object. There is no 'gravitational time-dilation'. Its like saying a roundabout is gravitational time-dilation. The car just has to take a longer path in space to go around the center median. GR wasn't groundbreaking. It doesn't work in any frame of reference. And there in lies the problem with modern science. Using a child's fantasy vision of how he views the world around him and applying it to the real universe. That's why relativity is constantly breaking. Einstein never thought it through. He was in a hurry to get his science fiction published and into the classrooms. His peers should have known better but very fewed refused to stand up to him. A magazine publisher peer reviewed his paper and Einstein went off on the audacity of someone who dared question him. Einstein resubmitted a few months later to a publisher not knowing it was the same guy he belittled previously. The publisher printed the article anyway. And that's why you have this mathematical nonsense view of the universe. I've run across the same attitude multiple times. Einstein is right, you are wrong. And when I point out the fallacies of relativity, they get all made because they were so easily fooled. How can 99.9% of the scientific community be this wrong? One simple reason. Religion. Newton's Laws of Motion, F=ma defines am infinite universe with no beginning or end. A perpetual motion machine. As people are opt to respond, where are the batteries. E=mc. Acceleration defines the universe. What defines Acceleration? For that, you have the book of Genesis. And let there be light. So you see, science has to either accept an external force (creator god) or explain where the batteries are hidden (perpetual motion). F=ma. Acceleration equals Acceleration to infinity and beyond.
@@alphalunamare Dumb argument, Fire was the greatest invention from 250.000 BC until the steam engines in 1700, then Nuclear power plant in the 50's around the same time as the transistor, then integrated circuit in 60's. Today, you have a supercomputer in your damn pocket, not bad for a species who past most of their history in caves. Imagine a father and his son discussing about the progress between their generation taking place in 1925 and 2025. Human progress is not linear, it is exponential. Imagine telling to Einstein in 1925 that we will find a way to observe gravitational waves using lasers, if not inconceivable for him, the engineering needed alone would blew his mind.
We work on multiple tracks -- math education, philosophy exploration, and our own research. This means that the period between a video and its follow-up is generally pretty extended, spanning a range between 6-9 months. We understand this can be a frustrating experience as a viewer, but until our production team expands (sometime soon, hopefully!) this is the best we can pull off. So we do greatly appreciate your patience and continued viewership.
The video quality and audience varies too much. The Riemannian Geometry video had enough math and was very info dense, but this one is just repeating the same sentence different ways.
@dialectphilosophyQuestion: Has the twin paradox not been solved yet and you are waiting for solutions or are you still studying the subject and will post it on the channel?.
Ontological mathematical time is at least bidirectional. That's ontological necessity for mathematical physics. More generally, time is the flow in which all forms appear, endure and disappear.
What you say here is nothing new. It does not take 12 minutes to explain that c is there for dimensional reasons, that ct is the distance that a light beam travels. But just because it has a dimension of length does not mean it is space. Like a wavelength is not space, like the length of arc is not space, distance travelled by an object is not space. And it is not illiteracy to call ct the time dimension. Because we need to distinguish the nature of the dimensional. Spatial dimensions have the same nature, while the time dimension does not. So why should we confuse ourselves by calling space. I refuse to call a distance travelled by an object the Euclidean space which is what we usually call space in flat case.
The viewers need a warning. What's presented here is Dialects own theories about physics that are unrelated to relativity (as in Einstein's relativity), which is just fine, but they keep inserting cartoon pictures of Einstein which will certainly confuse and mislead the viewers.
And other channels are providing picture perfect presentation of Einstein's mind and how he thought about GR? We are a century after Einstein proposed this theory. One should start thinking outside that box maybe?
@@WindyHeavy Just like the theory of relativity which does NOT explain all anomalies in our solar system, so it can go straight into the dustbin. Don't talk to me about the ridiculous hafele-keating experiment. What a level of amateurism was that.
You can call that dimension space, but then it is a special kind of spatial dimension that is different from the other three. And that different type of dimension we call time. Aaaand we're back.
No, because there is linear and non-linear space. We are in non-linear space but time is linear. In the fourth spatial dimension time is non-linear (four spatial dimension and a temporal dimension. Time for us goes in a sequence past, present, future. In non-linear time, future can happen before the past or present, etc. An effect can happen before a cause, etc. You could arrive at another planet before you left to go there. Say if you could somehow move in and out that extra space, you would be able to traverse the universe instantly by moving outside linear time. Effect (arriving to planet), Cause (departure to that planet). In non-linear time, time can loop, branch, and even overlap which allow them to happen in a non-sequential manner. This may have something to do with entanglement as well and all points of time should also be entangled with other points in time.
@isthattrue1083 This is wordsalad to me, not sure how you use the term "linear", and no clue what a fourth spatial dimension would be (except for the extra dimensions in string theory and such, but that is different). We do not know whether time has loops, but it is not forbidden in our scientific theories (like GR), afaik. Branching is different.
Time is just the space direction in which we are moving at the speed of light. Length contraction leads to distance being infinitely small in that dimension. That's all.
Velocity*time isn't "space" in the way we usually think of it (i.e. it isn't *extension*), it's *displacement*. Problem is displacement and extension have the same units, and this had led to great confusion that they are thus the same thing. This video does a good job elucidating this.
I'm having a problem understanding the distinction between 'extension' and 'displacement'. Surely every axis is 'displacement'... when considered perpendicular to the other three. No? Could you elaborate on the distinction?
@@garychap8384 they seem to be opposite sides of a geometric surface, observer perspective dependant. Displacement from an opposing view is extension. I'm convinced that any conscious observer must operate in a higher dimension than that which it experiences. Hence dimensions themselves are relative! Possibly? Who knows!? But I think electromagnetism + gravity and 3 + 1 dimensions is not an insignificant pattern. I think we are describing our total experience, not the universe when we try to combine different ways of observing. Like there is only gravity in terms of electromagnetism, or electromagnetism in terms of gravity; space in terms of time or time in terms of space. Trying to combine them is like trying to force the two sides of a coin onto one side. But since our experience is an illusion of both sides of the coin simultaneously, we are tempted to assume everything must be contained to one side... 🤷
Time only becomes spatial at relativistic speeds. The cross-section of all things outside your reference frame converge to zero at the speed of light. In dimensional terms, you cease to travel along the geodesic in the dimensions that make up length, width, and height, as they all collapse in to a temporal medium for the conveyance of information at relativistic speeds. This is explored from the topilogical perspective. Velocity, thusly mass-energy concentration, is not only key to spatially traversing any dimension, but is also the key to graduate to higher-dimensional reference frames; think of velocity as the scalar for the ratio of compression that the 3 (spatial at only non-relativistic speeds) dimensions encounter, where at the speed of light, all three dimensions converge into a non-spatial cross-section outside of your reference frame, and your cross section in time becomes infinite. Note that since velocity truly referes to the geometries of the condensate of space-time and your relative angular momentum in those geometries geodesics, you don't necessarily have to "go" at the speed of light. You can also be a black hole at Rsh, folding all spatial dimensions into a singularity, as mathematically, the spatial collapse is still achieved as the energy density at Rsh is such that the escape velocity is C for that object, while the object itself may have a relative angular momentum to you that is well below C. Still, for the sake of clarity, it may be more intuitive to imagine an object that is not a black hole, like an abstract space vessel traveling at C, to use as a framework for understanding. It is possible to alter the geodesic equation to incorporate temporal gradients that induce spacetime anisotropies, and to incorporate a temproal field that causes these inducements with something like Ag as a coupling constant when reconciling the stress-energy tensor. As well, think about how a photon at C perceives depth; the answer? It doesn't. Distance becomes as inpercievable at relativistic speeds as spatial traversal of time (from point A to point B, and point B to point A both forward and backward as opposed to mere incidental dilation) is to us at sublight speeds. The faster you go and the closer you get to the asymptote at C, the closer and closer you get to graduating to the native reference frame of causality (time), and only at 300KM/S, you will have the ability to traverse time as you would traverse the 3 dimensions at sublight speeds.
@@garychap8384 Displacement involves motion, if I take a marble at position x and move it to position y, I have displaced it. But if I had a rod which had one end at x and the other at y, then the length of the rod is an extension. In both cases, the units would be those of distance, but they are not physically the same kind of objects/events.
Dialect is the uploader I get most excited about. Tackling these questions that are so important and neglected, with the rigor to get it right, the bravery to echew convention, and a beautiful, thoughtful presentation!
I think some people have taken the whole "physics is the language of the universe" as gospel and forget that a lot our models are simplified representations of things and their relationships as we measure them, not as they actually are. It's clearer with the Copenhagen convention but even Newtownian and Einsteinian Physics ultimately rests on conventions for interpreting equations. The Post-modern in me wants to say the only things we can meaningfully say exist are those things that are in the domain of our experience, any concept of time outside what we can try to measure with a co-moving clock (psychological time) is arbitrary. Though I do find the 4 dimensions of Space-space as odd yet unique in its framing of relativity, which can only help deepen our understanding.
You're a first principles thinker that's poking holes in the generally accepted dogma. Your mindset is the right sort of mindset to be able to solve these hard problems.
A busty milkmaid from Nantucket Used the milk to explore Newton's bucket But when kicked by a bull Faith in Mach's Principle Went to Hell when the animal struck it
The weak nuclear force violates time-reversal symmetry in certain processes, such as a Charge Parity violation, and this asymmetry introduces an arrow of time at the level of particle interactions. There are, however, no known fundamental physical interactions that violate spatial-inversion symmetry, i.e., parity symmetry. That is what makes time something other than simply a fourth dimension of space, and that is why the term 'spacetime' is meaningful whereas the term 'spacespace' is not.
Of course there is a "real" time--it is the evolution of the Cosmos--its endless chain of causes and effects. We measure Cosmic evolution, we mark it, with a clock. A clock is anything with a highly regular cause-effect physical mechanism. Minkowski's (it wasn't Einstein's!) "space-time" is altogether different---an artificial construction that represents nothing real. It serves only as an abstract representation of the observer's "rod and clock" measurements of space and time based upon the nonsensical premises that space is nothing and light moves at c in every observer's frame.
Your description I think is attractive but at he sametime does not add something deeper or new to our understanding to nature or the theory it self. After all how you see it, is just a matter of taste. I believe your way of viewing it involves us with the philosophy of physics and the world views there are like realism, instrumentalism, anti realism...etc. That is how I understood it before, and that is why I see it fine: We are constantly traveling through time at the speed of light. By dealing with time as a kind of distance or space dimension, we can conceptualize and measure it more easily and fit into the equations. This approach allows us to incorporate it into equationstoavoid comlexity that would be faced if there was a different units in the equations. After all when we try to understand something, we often compare it to what we already familiar with, and look for patterns to make sense of and describe it. (Just like when gravity viewed as force it worked well, while inaccurate, and now we view it as curvature, its a deep precise description but its the way we view and see it not the true nature of it! curvature descrption seems to fit the behavior of gravity, it does not neccessarily means that is how it is! Gravity might be a particle that exhibits features that makes it look like curvature!). The point is we dont know. we onlycn describe according to our cognitive nature and categories we use to view the world. That is why I think viewing time as a space dimension to be fine and work very well. It makes time easier to deal with mathematically and conceptually. If we look at the challenge with quantum mechanics is similar: there are no direct analogies from everyday life to help us intuitively grasp and understand its phenomenon, which makes it harder and almost impossible to follow intuitively.
@@SpacetimeTraveler-p4e You can visually picture the concepts so someone with only high school maths can understand them, but the maths of GR are very complicated. So complicated Einstein needed help with it and few who ever lived fully grasp it, even the simplest parts are considered very hard. I strongly doubt you are capable of fully comprehend the maths of GR, even if you're sitting on a Harvard diploma in physics.
@ I know of a high school students who have worked their way the Carroll's text and many universities use MTW in undergrad. However, the most basic principles of GR are completely lost on most all of those students.
This is mainly special relativity. There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, whereas we’re just supposed to accept relativity. Dialekt is essentially exploring the interpretation of what relativity means on a deeper physical level.
I watched this video and then thought how does this explain light bending around massive objects? The answer I came to was that it doesn’t rather the objects and observer have expanded and the flowing spacetime contracts our observations of it making the light seem bent relative to the newly observed massive object. Apparent gravity is due to the expansion of massive objects, more massive objects expand faster. Spacetime appears to flow to counteract the expansion of massive objects, creating gravitational curvature or tidal forces. Scenario: two planets are separated by a star, and the send a light beam near directly between each other. The light beam not experiencing any time and being arranged to facilitate the interaction travels into the future of one planet from the past of another, the star is not in the light beam’s way because half way into the future it has not expanded fast enough to intercept it. The light beam reaches the other planet which now also receives light from the star which was emitted half way between its prior size and its current so to the second planet it looks as though it must have intercepted, but it hasn’t so instead the second planet perceives the light as having bent around the star. Now since stars actually have volume there is a certain angle at which the light will intercept it but this angle is not just dependent on the star’s radius it is also dependent on its rate of expansion and thus mass.
It's the other way around. Massive objects contract (or try to) and spacetime expand to counteract. So when light comes close, it takes longer to go through it. Since we generally consider time as constant, then we see the light as contracting instead, so it lenses. If we could follow the light instead and keep the distance constant, we would see it as going slower instead and no lensing.
I don't understand the river model. If you imagine a photon traveling out against the "current" you would calculate that it take the same amount of time as if you imagined simply that time moves slower closer to the mass. But if you calculate the 2 way photon trip, the way towards the mass would be significantly faster as the photon is moving with the current, but the real 2 way time is 2 times the time it takes to go "against the current". Would love to see a video on it in kore details.
Time is the length along a matter world-line, and the rate is a constant, always. There is the Schawzschild-Droste world-time (global time coordiante) but we're in the Gullstrand-Painleve coordinate map where no such world-time is defined. You are correct that the ingoing and outgoing photon speed is different, e.g. at the horizon the ingoing speed in the background coordinates is 2c and the outgoing speed is 0.
Was not this demonstrated years ago, via the Einstein Probe satellite, where orbiting clocks (high speed) were measured against stationary (almost) clocks on earth? Lorentz equations pretty much validated. Those probes were definitely "local observers" so it should mean that Time can "vary" anywhere in the Universe, depending on the observer. Given that, our place in the Universe has its "own" time right now, but other parts of a Minkowski pathway may have other time "rates".
This is entirely stupid. The spacetime interval is simply a mathematical invariant constructed under the symmetry of space with time (and of course, vice versa). You can change the units of the spacetime interval to be all in dimensions of time and it would still make sense, physically, obeying all the same properties. The fourth dimension in spacetime isn't space, it's time; you cannot traverse it freely, it is fundamentally different from what constitutes the other 3 space dimensions.
And the further you venture through these videos, you're going to understand it even less. There's a common denominator here. Be critical of this person, not just relativity.
I've been waiting about a decade for someone to get this. "Curvature" doesn't describe well what space is doing, which is moving and varying in density relative to other space. But where does it go?
I suspect it doesn't go anywhere, it's not even moving, and it is consciousness which flows through a fixed medium. I don't think consciousness is changing either though, it just imagines the flow based on it's "memory" of past "now"s. You seem like the kind of person who might find some crazy idea like this interesting. Good luck fellow traveller.
By definition, space (noun) is not doing but getting done by temporal processes (verb). The cycloid curvature can be thought of as the geometric mean / mediant of compass and straight edge in motion relative to each other. Where does cycloid duration go? From cusp to cusp. What else does the tautochronon and brachistochronon duration curvature do? Rolling being towards spherical shapes of gravity by pressure of time...
@@Voidapparatewell, except we don't know that right. We just dismiss it since consciousness escapes math. And so so we talk about here is nice, good however it's "only" s model of what we observe. Model, not reality. Map ,not territory.
@santerisatama5409 I'm not going to pretend to understand every concept you expressed there, but while tautochrone and brachistochrone curves might describe physical behavior of objects in a uniform gravitational field, which is approximately the case on small scales, gravitational fields aren't uniform on macroscopic scales, and my primary focus is on how and why they vary.
I don’t have a physics education or background so most of what dialect is explaining is beyond my comprehension. I do however enjoy when a new Dialect video pops up on my feed. 🍻 cheers to the team on another great vid. The animations keep getting better!
It's been over a century that Einstein published his theory of General Relativity, but few people grok what it means. However, the explanations of General Relativity continue to evolve... those people evolving those explanations are working to create a world where more and more people can appreciate such beauty of nature, and they should be applauded for trying to build such a beautiful world of knowledge and understanding.
@@SpacetimeTraveler-p4eyou know how your accelerating "up" without actually moving which is why you have weight. This river model explains that perfectly. Space/reference frames accelerating down.. it's not that hard.
@@dexter8705 There isn't any river. There's a gauge invariance of the gravitational action (Einstein-Hilbert) wrt an (active) diffeomorphism so we are free to construct a spacetime how we like (it of course has to conform to T_{mn}(g,Ψ), boundary conditions, etc). What I do like about the so called "river model" is on its introduction to frame fields.
I love love love this video! The illustrations / animations my friends - they’re amazing. Especially keeping that light-clock around on-screen with little Einstein watching. The star field in the back showing the speed is great too. This was a love note for your visual learners!!
sorry but you just CANNOT plant a number(scalar) alongside (x,y,z) and call it fourth dimension (the example you used with color &temp). the overall coordinate transformation has to follow some predetermined rules . those predetermined rules of coordinate transformation(or diffeomorphism) have to be followed when you're taking an overall 4 dimensions (i.e. 3 dims of space and 1 of another variable)
There is a context to "dimension" wholly outside the Linear Algebra/Other Maths space that doesn't rely on dimensional unit consistency to prevent the operational rules from breaking. Hell, in computer science, programmers often deal with heterogeneous multidimensional objects containing heterogeneous multidimensional objects.
@Kowzorz here the context is the 4 dimensional space-time/"space-space" manifold , and in order to understand manifolds deeply in STR/GR you need concepts of diffeomorphisms and other things. So yes, the context matters and this video used one context to explain another.
What you should have done is to have acted like a String Theorist and demanded that a Colour Cube requires 7 dimensions not 4 , but X,Y,Z & C,M,Y and K. Vector Analysis 101 might placate your confusion.
@ I just googled 'diffeomorphism' and its nothing but a simple relationship between manifolds of different supposed kinds. It has stuff all to do with your linear algebraic assumptions. So, no need for the 'big' words. As for me being a string theorist, well that is quite funny. I once knitted an 8ft scarf for Cardiff City Football Club (that's not Wrexham btw), it was so long because I hadn't learnt how to cast off. Besides, x, y and z were already scalars so it was a bit mean of you to refuse a fourth for no good reason. Do you have a second perchance?
What if one would posit that, on the contrary, relativity actually has 4 dimensions of time and no space at all? On the time axis you have t and on the "space" axes you have x/c, y/x, and z/c which implies units of time for them as well. You might argue that you've only seen (ct, x, y, z) in textbooks, not (t, x/c, y/c, z/c). However, that's just an arbitrary convention and not any better than what I've used in this comment.
@@SpacetimeTraveler-p4e Relativity is so poorly taught at University that in a sense all Physicists must be self taught if they ever hope to understand the concepts deeply.
@ If the textbook is good, e.g. Hawking & Ellis, Sachs & Wu, Wald, then you'll learn the basics at university and then it's years of working through the problems and it starts making sense.
Ah yes, the classic move-let’s focus on the person rather than the ideas they present. Nothing sparks creativity and progress like making discussions about credentials instead of concepts. I don’t know the background of this individual, but I follow their logic, and it makes sense to me so far. If you have alternative suggestions or a different perspective, please don’t keep us waiting.
If we divide everything by c-squared it'd be a time-time manifold then-- I don't find that reasoning very compelling. The confinement plus light as a truer equivalent of time is an interesting idea. It feels like that is more than just an interpretation though. The mirror/confinement theory has to be described in detail to suggest that light plus confinement is a superior notion to time. Maxwell equations is basically all I can imagine and that already has time ...
One issue with "dividing everything by c-squared" is that those values don't have analogous measurement values. In the space-space manifold, dimensional values relate directly to the actual length-of-rod value we observe. When we divide by c-squared, we lose that model-reality parity without due justification. Regarding Maxwell's equations, the reason the em-wave solution is uncanny is because it drops the time value as a variable -- it sort of solves for it, generating C. I think it's myopic to just gloss over that ability as merely "already having time" since it's the existence of this C value and the facts generated from such existence which give us relativity in the first place. Personally, I find the idea of "matter is confined light" somewhat compelling, so keeping the literals of spacetime theory to bouncing light rays keeps an uncanny parallel between that hypothesized reality of the small and the theory we already use to describe the large.
@Kowzorz The spatial components become the time dx/c it takes for light to traverse a distance dx, when you divide by c-squared. Distance measurement can be replaced by clocks and just as it was suggested time can be replaced by distance. In Maxwell equation time is explicitly in the formulation. The vacuum solution is the wave equation-- a time-dependent PDE. The solution involves right and left moving functions, f(z+-ct).
One can certainly divide by c-squared to arrive a "time-time" manifold, but the key importance is that all the units always remain the same (either all displacement/distance or all temporal intervals). Meaning, that to claim that one unit can somehow become the other (e.g. that space can somehow become time or be mixed with time) requires additional philosophical assumptions which are not justified within the scope of the mathematical definition of a manifold itself. Meaning in turn that to justify such a conflation of space and time, one has to make outside epistemological or ontological appeals (such as by making an argument that how an observer "experiences" time somehow must be "true" time) which themselves are tenuous at best, given particularly that when we say something like "time" we precisely mean something which does not share in the features/characteristics of space in the first place. Hence, we cannot say the spacetime manifold represents our reality, because indeed it does not contain three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, but rather it contains all dimensions of space or all dimensions of time. Indeed the ultimate idea here is to not get hung up on the idea that the manifold is some mystical fabric underpinning our reality, but rather, just like any other mathematical manifold, is a formalistic data structure which preserves the relations between observed gravitational phenomena in a convenient fashion.
@dialectphilosophy I agree that GR is mathematical (and predictive) and interpretations are permitted as long as they are consistent. I do not think looking at the metric's units and term-dependence is a compelling argument for tensors living on a Riemannian manifold with a diffeomorphism property to be simply data structures. In every addition in physics, units must be the same. I think you'd have to look deeper than the metric for mathematical justification. Lorentz transformations should be analyzed and/or the comparison of SO(3) for time-like to SO(1,1) for light-like. Diffeomorphism also means my metric could look like dudv +dy^2 +dz^2 and we could rescale or even choose proper time over length. I think there is a better way to argue what you've said.
In the Schwarzschild-Droste coordinate map (which you must be referring to) the "ct" is the distance along a time-like curve at infinity. In other choices of coordinates for the same black hole there is no change in sign.
I have a problem with light being at the centre of this whole debate. The laws of Physics ought to be the same for all creatures in this universe. Blind crawfish in a cave might eventually develop a theory, but it won't include light. OK maybe electrical impulses from a passing eel. There ought to be a way of describing all this without having to rely on the simple fact that we evolved the ability to sense Light. I am perfectly happy with the demotion of the temporal dimension to one of space that we simply can not perceive due to our biological limitations. The bouncing light clock just didn't do it for Me. It is like having your cake and eating it. Special Relativity was a fine beginning but there is so much still to be done, and we need not be anchored by its methodology. See, I am thinking and waffling trying to understand .. it takes a great presentation to get Me pondering so ..well done! cracking video :-)
Visible light is only a tiny fraction of the EM spectrum. All matter above absolute zero gives off electromagnetic radiation. The blind crawfish may be blind to visible light, but they would still be bathed in EM waves.
@alphalunamare Visible light is only a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. All matter above absolute zero emits electromagnetic radiation. Even though the cave crabs are blind, they would still be bathed in electromagnetic radiation - energy. Light is energy and matter has energy (matter can interact with anti-matter to annihilate itself and output photons, which are the fundamental particles of light). The speed of causality is the maximum speed that information can propagate in the universe. Light, having no mass, is able to travel at the fastest speed possible. We call this the speed of light, but in reality light does not set the limit, it just travels at the limit. Matter experiences a type of friction or drag because of its mass, which is why it cannot travel at that speed. Why is the speed of causality the speed that it is? I don't know whether anyone knows the answer to that.
There appears to be a maximum speed of information transfer. Those without access to light may find it difficult to even approach that speed, and if they do, they probably see that the energy required increases
Actually those are mathematically equivalent ,because you can represent each time t from the time-axis with c*t from the 4. space-axis like mensioned in the video. (In physics you do not may add times with distances,but c*times with distances.Math does not care about units.)
That 4th param in this may be density of some kind - we have here instead a "density field" of light's transport medium, not some "flow speed" field. Light has to do more to progress as the density increases toward the massive object. In this take, the bending of light is just refraction.
Yes indeed, that is known as the "variable speed of light" interpretation of GR, and it is certainly a completely valid one! While we prefer the River Model for reasons we'll get into down the line, adopting either the River Model or Variable Speed Model is infinitely preferable to the conventional geometric view, since the former models both offer causal, physical explanations for gravitational phenomena, while the latter one does not.
@dialectphilosophy looking forward to it. The quality of and clearly the effort you put in to author these videos, in terms of content as well as presentation, is impressive.
Density of space per unit of distance. Space bunches up for an outside observer when gravity is present and conversely, space separates to observers who are in gravity observing space not in gravity. I suspect the bunching is directly proportional to the volume of space that's displaced by matter. Why it spreads out across space the way it does is likely a design decision bt the architect.
Cool, a new Dialect video! The mathematical timespace can be defined by reinterpreting the temporal degrees of freedom as duration that can increase outwards < > and decrease inwards >
Yeah, it's linear and non-linear space/time. That's how something could move through time by moving through the 4th spatial dimension like we walk across a room. This is actually described in ghost phenomenon over and over across millennia. Some ghosts appear to teleport instantly. They are not, they are moving in a direction that allows it to seem like, to 3 dimensional beings, that it is moving across a space instantly when they are really moving through non-linear time/space. They would be able to see us moving through linear time visually outside of normal time relative to us basically. Time behaves differently in that extra dimension as it folds over itself rather than being spread over all space.
Does that mean time doesn't exists, and that the Buddhists, who say there is only "the eternal now," are right after all? Is there only the eternal now, but at different places in space-space.
Yes :-) 'Over there' exists and we can still observe it with out sensors evolved to detect Solar Radiation. Our evolution of a sensor to notice 'just now' has however resulted in a 'Brain' that selects 'Phew we dodged that one and survived' rather than worrying about its change into a non threat. As The Great Tim McGraw sings ... Things Change.
The word ‘Space’ also has several (related) meanings. At its core, Space literally means ‘emptiness between’ i.e. 'nothingness'. The word Space is also used to refers to the dimension of spatial position, i.e. the three vectors of xyz-axis (which is how physics always explains Space). The xyz-axis simply references relative spatial position. Or Space might mean ‘everything not on earth’ as in ‘outer space’. And sometimes Space refers to the entire known universe....a vast, vague collective noun! But science is so often not specific when it uses the word. It liberally, lazily conflates these different meaning of the word space In the context of dimension, the xyz-axis, space is the dimension of relative spatial position. That is the three sub-dimension of length, breadth and height (xyz-axis), calibrated in standard units, allow us to overlay an abstract framework that calibrates and indexes position, and relative spatial position. But the xyz-axis is a STATIC reference, it has no vector for change. Space (in the context of xyz-axis) references static spatial position. Enter Time, the dimension of change. Bingo, you have spacetime the dimension of relative changing spatial position, i.e. relative motion. So Spacetime is an abstract framework (dimension) for referencing relative motion. But, again, it is reference frame specific. The ‘warping‘ of spacetime is due to the erroneous imposition of a linear universal Time dimension, rather than a reference-fame specific Time dimension (motion cases the reference frame to change continually). Einstein was wrong to say that Space and Time are ‘the same thing’. Space and Time ONLY interact in the context of motion. [OR maybe Science is using the words Time and Space bot in their context as collective nouns - Time being the non-specific collective noun for change, and Space the non-specific collective of 'stuff' then Spacetime is the vast (non-specific) collective noun for all relative motion of all 'stuff', ever. ] Take your pick. Dimensions and collective nouns are both abstract nouns, they only exist in your mind. And if Space references ‘stuff’ or ‘existence’ i,e. the position of a physical reality (mass). And Time references change, and all change is caused by energy differential. Then, fundamentally, Spacetime simply references the fundamentals of mass and energy (differential).
Time is what you make it. Relative times are just what tgey are and only comparable locally in an empirical sense, but tgere remains a lot of freedome to choose description.
High priced printers have many colour channels, some up to 12 or 13. It's just a fact of simple arithmetic. nothing special. All dimensions are not empirical.
You're right that those clocks must be undergoing proper acceleration in order to remain stationary. But this acceleration ensures that they are traveling a constant velocity with respect to the flowing "physical space". See our video "The River Model" linked in the description for an explanation of why this occurs.
a uniform acceleration also causes apparent time dilation due to doppler redshift, so a change in field strength is not necessary to produce gravitational time dilation. edit: the velocity being referred to is the velocity of the object with respect to the inertial grid of spacetime
@@dialectphilosophy But that requires the assumption of absolute space, doesn't it? After all, velocity exists as a relation between two physical objects. I'll rewatch the video about the river model, maybe I've forgotten something
The observers have different accelerations and so inhabit different reference frames. The video is referring the Gullstrand-Painleve flow of spatial coordinates, and so the observers have different velocities wrt this background coordinate flow (which doesn't exist).
The speed of light always struck me as an incongruous physical reference for something as fundamental as the geometry of space itself. It is not intuitively obvious what light has to do with anything and makes about as much intuitive sense as invoking the speed of water to describe why lines are straight. Is it purely empirical that light happens to have the least impeded movement, or would any first principles always derive it's speed? What does speed even mean if this all reduces to distance anyway?
you are correct that this is arbitrary, and before Maxwell and Faraday, there was no reason to pick the speed of light as being related to causality. However, Maxwell published his wave equation for light in 1865. he only is that the speed of a wave is given with respect to the medium. The medium for most materials can be picked up and moved at a constant speed (the atmosphere is being dragged along by the Earth) The medium of light the electric and magnetic field. These are not materials you can boost to some constant speed, their magnitudes and rates of change are absolute values for an observer. Maxwell's equation violates Galileo's principle of relativity, unless the speed of light really is constant for all observers. by the same logic, a photon is not an observer, it experiences no time and no distance, you are not allowed to place yourself in the experience of a photon, otherwise you would say your own speed is zero, which violates Maxwell's law. combine that with the fact that nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light, the light is the maximum speed that information can travel at. Gravitational waves also travel at 'c' , so 'c' is very much the speed of sound in the fabric of the universe
@ Still doesn't explain 'Causality'. It is always explained as a consequence of Special Relativity when in fact it is nothing of the sort. It is a euphemism for 'why is light so fast'.
I dawned on me some time ago that most GR and special relativity presentations set c to 1 and usual separate the two topics rather than integrate them. I don’t think most people have no good grasp on relativity. You do
From henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, have vanished into the merest shadows and only a kind of blend of the two exists in its own right. Quoted in J R Newman, The World of Mathematics (New York 1956).That is why a blend of them was necessary.I think that the misunderstanding started with Minkowski, taking time as a physical dimension.Nice try, brilliant understanding, and explanation, thank you for sharing.
It's so good to see someone who actually understands space"time"(distance) And gravity. Just wait till people realise gravity is a speed/velocity and not a strength, it will blow their minds, earth's gravity is 9.8m/s² which is literally the equation for speed/velocity d/t distance over time. And 9.8 is the velocity of space as depicted in this video.
@-_Nuke_- the river model, it's spot on. People below in the comments are saying we are accelerating, we know this because we have weight(1g) and they can't explain what we're accelerating relative to and are in denial that the obvious answer is it is relative to space but deny that space is accelerating down/"inwards " because obviously you can tell that while standing still , you aren't moving anywhere. It's plain as day
The metric is neglected here. It is a pivotal part of the dimensionality and how it combines with the spatial dimension. Sometimes the metric is represented by i, the square root of minus one. That makes the axis i • c • t. Or ict.
Congratulation for this video! It is an obvious fact and nice somebody finally said it. Space-Time doesn't incorporate time into a 4-D manifold it incorporate the properties of the observer's moving refference frame compared to the real rest frame, which nobody can determine but which is there after all. I will wait with great interest your next chapter hopefully on General Relativity, which is even more interesting in terms of understanding the real properties of 4D-Space and its relation to Energy!
Nice operational definition for the purposes of a relativity video. Totally side steps such questions as why does _anything_ happen (time must exist as a something more or nothing would happen, and when nothing happens and there's no interaction of anything it's essentially the same as nothing) And Why is time a constrained dimension? (it always progresses, and in the same direction, it can't take an arbitrary direction like choosing x y or z in three-dimensional space, it can only point to "next") I like the way you were explaining the time dimension as a space dimension, though in my internal model of the way things work I see all 4 dimensions as time but the one we call time is constrained.
Excellent, thought provoking video as always! A few questions and comments: Couldn’t one argue that the expression ct is one that modifies the time units to make them comparable to spatial units? And that these lengths that you point out are still units of time in principle, but that they are lengths which represent those units of time. Time is a measurement of change. One kind of change is a change in position, so one way to measure time with a distance: the distance that light travels (assuming light always travels at c) in one second. I tend to think that we should simply start from scratch to understand gravitation instead of trying to understand how the flawed 4D Einstein/Minkowski theory relates to reality; it was never meant to relate to reality to begin with, it was only meant as an abstract framework for reproducing measurements. “[the lorentz transformations and the spacetime manifold] aren’t really telling us about the behavior of space or time itself, but rather are telling us about the behavior of light and its interactions with matter and space in different physical situations” Fantastic! What I’m taking from this is that existence is not really a 4diemensional object, rather the 4D math we use in GR is just a data structure to keep track of how the durations of internal processes (as measured by a light clock) change when an object moves (with respect to an observer) or is in a gravitational field. Am I understanding you correctly? I agree with your attitude toward dimensions, that they are exclusive measurements. My own definition of a “dimension” is “linearly independent quantitative characteristic.” Another note: I’m not sure if I agree with the conceptualizations you put forward at 9:02. Is there any reason to think that an idealized clock, one that is not affected by motion or gravitation, could exist? We may need to define time differently (though still objectively) as simply a relationship between events, that when two events are able to influence one another, they are said to be simultaneous, and that when a first event is able to influence a second event, but only through a series of intermediate events, that first event is said to be before the second event. I think something like this might be a more objective conceptualization of time.
There's a lot you have there that needs fixing, for one, c is not just some unit conversion but built into the nature of matter fields (it's the rate along matter world-lines). "General relativity is the discovery that spacetime doesn't exist", a quote from Carlo Rovelli paraphrasing Einstein, so Minkowski's conception does not accurately describe anything. Oh jeez, you have everything wrong...
@@Inductica Your understanding of relativity is equal to zero. What do you mean the word "event"? Simultaneity doesn't exist, and spacetime points that can be connected by a causal curve are called causally related. Time is the distance along matter world-lines. Gravitation can't affect a clock unless you mean the clock getting tidally disrupted in a black hole. Relativity has nothing to do with light. There are other things in your comment but first you need a grasp of the basic concepts of relativity.
Actually to get a 45 degree line as it is shown in the spacetime diagrams I always thought the the Y axis needs to be normalized to t/c. t/c | / | / | / | / |/ 45 degrees +-------------------------------- units of distance if we do not do that and use the standard units for time (seconds) and distance (meters/seconds) the trajectory of light (given the very large velocity of light) will be very close to the x axis i.e. the past and future light cones will leave an extremely narrow wedge around x axis - which in our experience seems to coincide with x axis i.e. we perceive nearby events as simultaneous. ALso to treat time dimension same as space is absurd. One cannot go back in time. Also the negative sign in Minkowsi metric is also an indication of that difference.
It's distance because that's how far the expansion of space travels. And there is a temporal Dimension otherwise you would not be able to move and you wouldn't be able to have more than three dimensions. The temporal Dimension rotates the whole thing 90° and that's your new perpendicular Direction and it moves the whole thing forward when step and which means the whole universe is polarized from the position that was in before to the next three spatial Dimensions do not interfere with the last three they in fact double them in size and then another temporal Dimension does the same thing again and it takes two rotations of the complex or imaginary plane to make one rotation of the real numbers so that's how reality actually works. The edge of the observable universe is traveling away from us at the speed of light. The fourth dimension is the growing dimension of space itself which is time
Time only becomes spatial at relativistic speeds. The cross-section of all things outside your reference frame converge to zero at the speed of light. In dimensional terms, you cease to travel along the geodesic in the dimensions that make up length, width, and height, as they all collapse in to a temporal medium for the conveyance of information at relativistic speeds. This is explored from the topilogical perspective. Velocity, thusly mass-energy concentration, is not only key to spatially traversing any dimension, but is also the key to graduate to higher-dimensional reference frames; think of velocity as the scalar for the ratio of compression that the 3 (spatial at only non-relativistic speeds) dimensions encounter, where at the speed of light, all three dimensions converge into a non-spatial cross-section outside of your reference frame, and your cross section in time becomes infinite. Note that since velocity truly referes to the geometries of the condensate of space-time and your relative angular momentum in those geometries geodesics, you don't necessarily have to "go" at the speed of light. You can also be a black hole at Rsh, folding all spatial dimensions into a singularity, as mathematically, the spatial collapse is still achieved as the energy density at Rsh is such that the escape velocity is C for that object, while the object itself may have a relative angular momentum to you that is well below C. Still, for the sake of clarity, it may be more intuitive to imagine an object that is not a black hole, like an abstract space vessel traveling at C, to use as a framework for understanding. It is possible to alter the geodesic equation to incorporate temporal gradients that induce spacetime anisotropies, and to incorporate a temproal field that causes these inducements with something like Ag as a coupling constant when reconciling the stress-energy tensor. As well, think about how a photon at C perceives depth; the answer? It doesn't. Distance becomes as inpercievable at relativistic speeds as spatial traversal of time (from point A to point B, and point B to point A both forward and backward as opposed to mere incidental dilation) is to us at sublight speeds. The faster you go and the closer you get to the asymptote at C, the closer and closer you get to graduating to the native reference frame of causality (time), and only at 300KM/S, you will have the ability to traverse time as you would traverse the 3 dimensions at sublight speeds.
no time is space; it's the dimension of what we call time. if you slice a plane along it if it is higher then you then it is in what we call the future if it is lower it's what call the past.
Interesting premise....🤔 I suggest that time is a compactified dimension one single Planck second in size. The moment of computation in a wolfram model This creates/ forces limits, of action. Lambda and event horizon. And the gradient between these limits we call gravity. But..... truly classically closed and compact, creating a modular form, the limits also connect at a catastrophic point where maxima becomes minima. Free neutron decay. In at event horizon Take EinsteinRosen bridge Out in deep void Decay into amorphous monatomic hydrogen in a Rydberg state. Dark matter. Expand from neutron 0.6fm³ to 1m³ of amorphous hydrogen gas. Expansion. Dark energy . Then stabilize and coalesce and fall, towards an event horizon
I wonder... if one day Dialect comes to understand relativity, will these videos still be made available to the public? It would be wonderful if they so students can learn about where thinking goes wrong and even deepen the students understanding of relativity, what it is and what it is not.
@@dexter8705 What of "gauge invariance of the gravitational action with respect to an active diffeomorphism" do you not understand? (seems like you understand nothing of it).
Unon further thought; if I'm moving through a space that has very low curvature from left to right the speed of light is (c-v) and when moving right to left it is (c+v). This movement would not change the "density" of space so I'm thinking that time is the density of space is not the way to think of it. This is the problem with this channel, just when you think you "get it" you find out you are hopelessly ignorant of what is going on. ;-)
something i think you are tripping up on in a lot of your videos is representations of structure vs structure itself. We use minkowski space as it is a representation of a symmetry we have observed in nature (lorenz invariance). All other representations that preserve this fundemental structure are ontologically valid until we get more data that precludes some of them. If we believe reality to be real and physical in any meaningful sense, then we should be primarily concerned with its structure, not this or that representation.
said another way, relativity is about what transformations am I allowed to do to the state of the world that leaves the evolution of that state unchanged. what transformations, therefore, leave the laws of physics invariant. I'm inclined to agree with Einstein that whether you view the geometric interpretation as physically real is a matter of personal preference, what matters is the invariance, as that is the underlying structure.
Page 6:30 By assuming that light is independent of a wave medium we’d expect light bouncing diagonally in a light clock moving in traverse. Those believe in diagonal light clock are elites who took physics at its face value. They learn extremely well because they can’t scrutinize a paradox that made them constantly crave and worship infamous legislative, Einstein. The above cascaded assumption were based on Lorentz’s conception of Aether. He assumes that Aether is a solid having no mechanical properties and exists in a rest frame so blow through matter. By worshipping Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (and his unqualified definition of Aether), Michelson employed an interferometer attempting to detect Aether and the result was negative. Consequently to a false conclusion that light is independent of Aether. Consequently to a false conclusion that light is independent of Aether.
What is a light clock? I can think of starting and stopping a stopwatch and how far light travels between those moments, but that doesn't tell me anything useful. The light I care about is not one ray that's linear or bouncing: it's a lot of rays going every which way and allowing me to relate to everything in my environment. I think we're back to "Time is what a clock measures", and reinterpreting the fourth dimension as space doesn't really clarify things in the day-to-day world.
It is a matter of definitions. "space" has already 3 dimensions( otherwise we d call it A3 printer paper😊. so saying there is another spatial dimension means nothing for humans .
What I understood from this video is that we have 3 dimension of space, 1 dimension of time and a "4D" manifold that plots an observers 3 dimensions of space plus how close to the speed of light he is traveling as the 4th "dimension". Just like a dimension that maps heat... For example... That is very interesting; I don't know if that's what Einstein had in mind, but still a very interesting idea... This would then mean, that we have no intuition to what is happening, we simply accept reality as we measure it and then we simply plot it in this manifold... Which is... Exactly how science works... So nothing surprising there! Could this give us any real insight? This is literally equivalent to the electric or magnetic fields... That are just us plotting what we measured on a manifold... This is crucial science, but has zero intuition about what magnetism or electricity are... Just like we get no intuition by Newton's gravitational field... Again, Im not surprised by that - I have said it many times - science doesn't care about why things work, only how; Im most excited to find out more! Dialect is maybe the BEST channel on the philosophy of relativity right now in the ENTIRE internet. Thank you guys, keep blowing our minds away! 😂
Instead of thinking of "space" flowing (it is not a vector) think of it being a "density" (scaler). Light moves slower through denser substances right. So if "space" is denser the lower down in the gravity well you would expect light to move through it (time) at a slower rate. My intuition would lead me to believe that if "space" was flowing into the mass from every direction than if would start accumulating there. That does not make sense to me. It can't just keep building up there forever. But a scaler "density" does not have to "flow into the mass" it can just be that scaler value like a temperature or color. Thoughts?
Wonderful as always! Now I wonder whether a freely-falling clock in high gravity would appear to tick slower at the same rate as if it was sitting still in the same field.
What is the definition of “dimension” in the context of this video? I suspect that - like in the case of “life”, “matter” etc. - we don’t really have a solid definition. The scope or reach of any structure of consistent theories (AKA science, unless you have a better definition of it) is ALWAYS limited by the solidity/validity of definitions of it’s core concepts: a chain is exactly as strong as it’s weakest link, as we all know…
I don’t agree with this. The time dimension doesn’t work like a space dimension. It’s got properties of an imaginary number, and works so as to support causality in a way that the pure space dimensions don’t.
But you can also say it's not distance nor time, it is all about energy difference, i.e. potential difference. You might express time and space in volt.
@Dialect if I place any object next to any object they will travel closer to each other unless they are more distant then the expansion of the universe, where does that energy come from to travel. because if they were more distant then their fall rate to over come the expansion of the universe they would not fall toward each other and not have that energy. this is to establish that objects can exist outside the influence of another object's gravity even if that's a great distance. but then if I take a object that's just barely outside of the gravity of the other object and burn 1 gallon of gas to get it inside the range of that other object, it will eventually start traveling towards that other object even if all the energy to move the object is burned up. where did the potential energy that exceeded gas energy come from. the problem with the draining river is it just explains the motion but never the drain or the flow of the river. rivers flow by gravity and so this is a self referencing definition, gravity come from gravity. the only explanation that I see is space is continuing being deleted just as it's being created in-between galaxies or it escaping in to another universe or it's being moved to that expansion in a way that requires no energy whatever it would be at all points of mass for black holes sizes of mass sure it's punching threw to another universe no problem but for small masses if that were true we should be able to punch holes to make space drains for rivers with non gravity means.
I think you do a great job in showing how relativistic effects arise seen by one frame of reference. But as far as we know any frame can do this, and such absolute frame can't be identified. Thus we believe that there is no such a thing as absolute time. It's such an unnecessary concept. Do you have at least an idea of what this absolute clock would be? The universe expands and we appear to be at the center of the expansion. But an observer in another galaxy doing experiments perceives its own galaxy at the center. Why would one galaxy be better tuned than the others with this mysterious absolute time? Also, we say spacetime rather than space and time, because we understand BOTH space and time as fundamentally different from the absolute space and time we thought of before. It's a paradigm shift, rather than things happening in a container as time goes on, the image of pointlike events is more appropriate in relativity. I agree that space and time in relativity are the same quantity. And this quantity is not time at least as we thought before, because there's no way of determining simultaneity. It's neither space, because this quantity is measured with clocks, and for this reason I actually consider the idea of spacetime much closer to time than space.
In Minkowski spacetime, the introduction of ct serves only to normalize the units for mathematical coherence. It does not imply that time is replaced by a spatial dimension.
The fourth dimension is distinct from spatial dimensions because it involves a minus sign in the metric signature (- + + +) or equivalently the role of c in determining causal structure. The asymmetry reflects the unique properties of time in relativity.
The analogy of measuring rods is reductive and misleading. Measuring rods and clocks are operational tools, but they do not define the nature of spacetime itself. Spacetime is a geometrical structure where events occur, and its properties are described mathematically through the metric tensor.
Suggesting that the fourth dimension is "the space of a measuring rod" laid out by light between clock ticks undermines the invariant interval.
The video seems to confuse the mathematical construct of spacetime with the physical propagation of light. Light’s behavior is a manifestation of spacetime geometry, not its definition. The assertion that spacetime curvature is about "the behavior of light and its interactions with matter" is a reversal of causality. Light behaves as it does because of spacetime geometry.
The spacetime manifold is a model that explains not just light but the trajectories of all matter and energy under the influence of gravity. Its curvature describes how masses influence geodesics (the paths of free-falling objects), which is the essence of general relativity. The video ignores the deep relationship between spacetime curvature and the Einstein field equations, which encode how matter-energy distribution shapes spacetime.
The idea that "clocks lower in a gravitational field move faster through physical space" introduces confusion. General relativity does not posit a literal "flow" of space. Rather, gravitational time dilation arises because spacetime curvature alters the proper time experienced by observers at different potentials.
This video’s framing does a disservice to the elegance and depth of relativity.
yup
@@Mujahed0001 if you do a little research on the Twin Paradox, you will see that they are applying the clock's motion in space to the observer's motion in time.
It's not spacetime but rather space and time.
Experiments like the Hafele-Keating synchronized clock tests falsified Einstein’s relativity theories. Motion is absolute. Not just absolute, but absolute to the frame of reference. Be it space or time.
Then there are the many drop tests demonstrating that mass does not attract mass. That mass is not an actionable force. Mass doesn't bend space because mass is not an actionable force and besides, space itself has no properties. Only the energy contained within. Einstein’s gravitational lensing is really light refraction as it circumnavigates the gas and dust which surrounds celestial objects. The properties of metamaterials (electromagnetic fields) bends light around the cloaked object. There is no 'gravitational time-dilation'. Its like saying a roundabout is gravitational time-dilation. The car just has to take a longer path in space to go around the center median.
GR wasn't groundbreaking. It doesn't work in any frame of reference. And there in lies the problem with modern science. Using a child's fantasy vision of how he views the world around him and applying it to the real universe. That's why relativity is constantly breaking. Einstein never thought it through. He was in a hurry to get his science fiction published and into the classrooms. His peers should have known better but very fewed refused to stand up to him. A magazine publisher peer reviewed his paper and Einstein went off on the audacity of someone who dared question him. Einstein resubmitted a few months later to a publisher not knowing it was the same guy he belittled previously. The publisher printed the article anyway. And that's why you have this mathematical nonsense view of the universe.
I've run across the same attitude multiple times. Einstein is right, you are wrong. And when I point out the fallacies of relativity, they get all made because they were so easily fooled. How can 99.9% of the scientific community be this wrong?
One simple reason. Religion. Newton's Laws of Motion, F=ma defines am infinite universe with no beginning or end. A perpetual motion machine. As people are opt to respond, where are the batteries.
E=mc. Acceleration defines the universe. What defines Acceleration? For that, you have the book of Genesis. And let there be light.
So you see, science has to either accept an external force (creator god) or explain where the batteries are hidden (perpetual motion).
F=ma. Acceleration equals Acceleration to infinity and beyond.
@@alphalunamare Dumb argument,
Fire was the greatest invention from 250.000 BC until the steam engines in 1700, then Nuclear power plant in the 50's around the same time as the transistor, then integrated circuit in 60's.
Today, you have a supercomputer in your damn pocket, not bad for a species who past most of their history in caves.
Imagine a father and his son discussing about the progress between their generation taking place in 1925 and 2025.
Human progress is not linear, it is exponential.
Imagine telling to Einstein in 1925 that we will find a way to observe gravitational waves using lasers, if not inconceivable for him, the engineering needed alone would blew his mind.
I enjoy your videos; however, they often conclude with a cliffhanger that the subsequent video neglects to address.
We work on multiple tracks -- math education, philosophy exploration, and our own research. This means that the period between a video and its follow-up is generally pretty extended, spanning a range between 6-9 months. We understand this can be a frustrating experience as a viewer, but until our production team expands (sometime soon, hopefully!) this is the best we can pull off. So we do greatly appreciate your patience and continued viewership.
feels like a never-ending introduction
@@dialectphilosophy boooo
The video quality and audience varies too much. The Riemannian Geometry video had enough math and was very info dense, but this one is just repeating the same sentence different ways.
@dialectphilosophyQuestion: Has the twin paradox not been solved yet and you are waiting for solutions or are you still studying the subject and will post it on the channel?.
Unfortunately special relativity doesn't actually tell what (ontological) time really is, but rather how light behaves in time with respect to space.
Ontological mathematical time is at least bidirectional. That's ontological necessity for mathematical physics. More generally, time is the flow in which all forms appear, endure and disappear.
Thanks for being a supportive Patreon of the channel!
Time is the distance along matter world-lines.
In special relativity you can depict space-time as Minkowski space-time
So what does - or even can - 'ontologically' tell what time 'really' is? It sounds like philosophical sophistry.
What you say here is nothing new. It does not take 12 minutes to explain that c is there for dimensional reasons, that ct is the distance that a light beam travels. But just because it has a dimension of length does not mean it is space. Like a wavelength is not space, like the length of arc is not space, distance travelled by an object is not space. And it is not illiteracy to call ct the time dimension. Because we need to distinguish the nature of the dimensional. Spatial dimensions have the same nature, while the time dimension does not. So why should we confuse ourselves by calling space. I refuse to call a distance travelled by an object the Euclidean space which is what we usually call space in flat case.
"c" is not there for dimensional reasons. Do you imagine the dimensionally correct speed of sound in water of some depth would work?
The viewers need a warning. What's presented here is Dialects own theories about physics that are unrelated to relativity (as in Einstein's relativity), which is just fine, but they keep inserting cartoon pictures of Einstein which will certainly confuse and mislead the viewers.
And other channels are providing picture perfect presentation of Einstein's mind and how he thought about GR? We are a century after Einstein proposed this theory. One should start thinking outside that box maybe?
@@Mujahed0001 sure but it gets dangerous when these "theories" are not proven empirically and taken by their makers as fact
@@WindyHeavy who took it as facts ?
@@WindyHeavy Just like the theory of relativity which does NOT explain all anomalies in our solar system, so it can go straight into the dustbin. Don't talk to me about the ridiculous hafele-keating experiment. What a level of amateurism was that.
One day I will meditate on this until I reach enlightenment. In the meantime, in the bookmarks it goes.
Space and time are measured with light signals and light clocks correspondingly. I can suggest a better video for an explanation.
You can call that dimension space, but then it is a special kind of spatial dimension that is different from the other three. And that different type of dimension we call time.
Aaaand we're back.
No, because there is linear and non-linear space. We are in non-linear space but time is linear. In the fourth spatial dimension time is non-linear (four spatial dimension and a temporal dimension. Time for us goes in a sequence past, present, future. In non-linear time, future can happen before the past or present, etc. An effect can happen before a cause, etc. You could arrive at another planet before you left to go there. Say if you could somehow move in and out that extra space, you would be able to traverse the universe instantly by moving outside linear time. Effect (arriving to planet), Cause (departure to that planet). In non-linear time, time can loop, branch, and even overlap which allow them to happen in a non-sequential manner. This may have something to do with entanglement as well and all points of time should also be entangled with other points in time.
@isthattrue1083 This is wordsalad to me, not sure how you use the term "linear", and no clue what a fourth spatial dimension would be (except for the extra dimensions in string theory and such, but that is different).
We do not know whether time has loops, but it is not forbidden in our scientific theories (like GR), afaik. Branching is different.
Time is just the space direction in which we are moving at the speed of light. Length contraction leads to distance being infinitely small in that dimension. That's all.
Velocity*time isn't "space" in the way we usually think of it (i.e. it isn't *extension*), it's *displacement*. Problem is displacement and extension have the same units, and this had led to great confusion that they are thus the same thing. This video does a good job elucidating this.
I'm having a problem understanding the distinction between 'extension' and 'displacement'. Surely every axis is 'displacement'... when considered perpendicular to the other three. No?
Could you elaborate on the distinction?
@@garychap8384 they seem to be opposite sides of a geometric surface, observer perspective dependant. Displacement from an opposing view is extension. I'm convinced that any conscious observer must operate in a higher dimension than that which it experiences. Hence dimensions themselves are relative! Possibly? Who knows!? But I think electromagnetism + gravity and 3 + 1 dimensions is not an insignificant pattern. I think we are describing our total experience, not the universe when we try to combine different ways of observing. Like there is only gravity in terms of electromagnetism, or electromagnetism in terms of gravity; space in terms of time or time in terms of space. Trying to combine them is like trying to force the two sides of a coin onto one side. But since our experience is an illusion of both sides of the coin simultaneously, we are tempted to assume everything must be contained to one side... 🤷
Time only becomes spatial at relativistic speeds.
The cross-section of all things outside your reference frame converge to zero at the speed of light. In dimensional terms, you cease to travel along the geodesic in the dimensions that make up length, width, and height, as they all collapse in to a temporal medium for the conveyance of information at relativistic speeds. This is explored from the topilogical perspective.
Velocity, thusly mass-energy concentration, is not only key to spatially traversing any dimension, but is also the key to graduate to higher-dimensional reference frames; think of velocity as the scalar for the ratio of compression that the 3 (spatial at only non-relativistic speeds) dimensions encounter, where at the speed of light, all three dimensions converge into a non-spatial cross-section outside of your reference frame, and your cross section in time becomes infinite.
Note that since velocity truly referes to the geometries of the condensate of space-time and your relative angular momentum in those geometries geodesics, you don't necessarily have to "go" at the speed of light. You can also be a black hole at Rsh, folding all spatial dimensions into a singularity, as mathematically, the spatial collapse is still achieved as the energy density at Rsh is such that the escape velocity is C for that object, while the object itself may have a relative angular momentum to you that is well below C. Still, for the sake of clarity, it may be more intuitive to imagine an object that is not a black hole, like an abstract space vessel traveling at C, to use as a framework for understanding.
It is possible to alter the geodesic equation to incorporate temporal gradients that induce spacetime anisotropies, and to incorporate a temproal field that causes these inducements with something like Ag as a coupling constant when reconciling the stress-energy tensor.
As well, think about how a photon at C perceives depth; the answer? It doesn't. Distance becomes as inpercievable at relativistic speeds as spatial traversal of time (from point A to point B, and point B to point A both forward and backward as opposed to mere incidental dilation) is to us at sublight speeds.
The faster you go and the closer you get to the asymptote at C, the closer and closer you get to graduating to the native reference frame of causality (time), and only at 300KM/S, you will have the ability to traverse time as you would traverse the 3 dimensions at sublight speeds.
Thank you this is a useful conceptual distinction.
@@garychap8384 Displacement involves motion, if I take a marble at position x and move it to position y, I have displaced it. But if I had a rod which had one end at x and the other at y, then the length of the rod is an extension. In both cases, the units would be those of distance, but they are not physically the same kind of objects/events.
Dialect is the uploader I get most excited about. Tackling these questions that are so important and neglected, with the rigor to get it right, the bravery to echew convention, and a beautiful, thoughtful presentation!
I think some people have taken the whole "physics is the language of the universe" as gospel and forget that a lot our models are simplified representations of things and their relationships as we measure them, not as they actually are. It's clearer with the Copenhagen convention but even Newtownian and Einsteinian Physics ultimately rests on conventions for interpreting equations. The Post-modern in me wants to say the only things we can meaningfully say exist are those things that are in the domain of our experience, any concept of time outside what we can try to measure with a co-moving clock (psychological time) is arbitrary. Though I do find the 4 dimensions of Space-space as odd yet unique in its framing of relativity, which can only help deepen our understanding.
"physics is the language of the universe" - wrong
"physics is the language of modeling the universe" - right
The 4th dimension isn't time or space. It's turtles all the way down
yeah, but also with some elephants
😂😂 yow 😂😂😂 you got me I swear😂😂
Atoms formed.
Lol
You're a first principles thinker that's poking holes in the generally accepted dogma.
Your mindset is the right sort of mindset to be able to solve these hard problems.
Awesome! How do you explain redshift?
I think I'll need to come back to this one.. a few times.
A busty milkmaid from Nantucket
Used the milk to explore Newton's bucket
But when kicked by a bull
Faith in Mach's Principle
Went to Hell when the animal struck it
The weak nuclear force violates time-reversal symmetry in certain processes, such as a Charge Parity violation, and this asymmetry introduces an arrow of time at the level of particle interactions. There are, however, no known fundamental physical interactions that violate spatial-inversion symmetry, i.e., parity symmetry. That is what makes time something other than simply a fourth dimension of space, and that is why the term 'spacetime' is meaningful whereas the term 'spacespace' is not.
Of course there is a "real" time--it is the evolution of the Cosmos--its endless chain of causes and effects. We measure Cosmic evolution, we mark it, with a clock. A clock is anything with a highly regular cause-effect physical mechanism. Minkowski's (it wasn't Einstein's!) "space-time" is altogether different---an artificial construction that represents nothing real. It serves only as an abstract representation of the observer's "rod and clock" measurements of space and time based upon the nonsensical premises that space is nothing and light moves at c in every observer's frame.
@Milesian2003 Thank you for that highly unscientific explanation.
ct is used on time axis so that all axes are in same units. You don't need 12 minutes of philosophy to convey that, lol.
The only really wise comment thus far, including mine.
Not true. If it were you could choose any speed. The "c" is the norm of world-line tangent vector to a time-like curve.
@@SpacetimeTraveler-p4e You can. Just math, graphs, etc. won't be so pretty.
Cope
@ So you're saying that [g(u,u)]^{1/2} = the speed of sound in aluminum? Do you think that'll work?
Your description I think is attractive but at he sametime does not add something deeper or new to our understanding to nature or the theory it self. After all how you see it, is just a matter of taste. I believe your way of viewing it involves us with the philosophy of physics and the world views there are like realism, instrumentalism, anti realism...etc.
That is how I understood it before, and that is why I see it fine:
We are constantly traveling through time at the speed of light. By dealing with time as a kind of distance or space dimension, we can conceptualize and measure it more easily and fit into the equations. This approach allows us to incorporate it into equationstoavoid comlexity that would be faced if there was a different units in the equations.
After all when we try to understand something, we often compare it to what we already familiar with, and look for patterns to make sense of and describe it. (Just like when gravity viewed as force it worked well, while inaccurate, and now we view it as curvature, its a deep precise description but its the way we view and see it not the true nature of it! curvature descrption seems to fit the behavior of gravity, it does not neccessarily means that is how it is! Gravity might be a particle that exhibits features that makes it look like curvature!). The point is we dont know. we onlycn describe according to our cognitive nature and categories we use to view the world.
That is why I think viewing time as a space dimension to be fine and work very well. It makes time easier to deal with mathematically and conceptually.
If we look at the challenge with quantum mechanics is similar: there are no direct analogies from everyday life to help us intuitively grasp and understand its phenomenon, which makes it harder and almost impossible to follow intuitively.
the real 4th dimension is the friends we made along the way
I swear General Relativity is harder to understand than Quantum Physics.
To me, it’s much easier due to the nature of math.
@@eigenvector123 The math of GR is much easier to do than it is to understand than the concepts.
@@SpacetimeTraveler-p4e You can visually picture the concepts so someone with only high school maths can understand them, but the maths of GR are very complicated. So complicated Einstein needed help with it and few who ever lived fully grasp it, even the simplest parts are considered very hard. I strongly doubt you are capable of fully comprehend the maths of GR, even if you're sitting on a Harvard diploma in physics.
@ I know of a high school students who have worked their way the Carroll's text and many universities use MTW in undergrad. However, the most basic principles of GR are completely lost on most all of those students.
This is mainly special relativity. There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, whereas we’re just supposed to accept relativity. Dialekt is essentially exploring the interpretation of what relativity means on a deeper physical level.
I watched this video and then thought how does this explain light bending around massive objects? The answer I came to was that it doesn’t rather the objects and observer have expanded and the flowing spacetime contracts our observations of it making the light seem bent relative to the newly observed massive object.
Apparent gravity is due to the expansion of massive objects, more massive objects expand faster.
Spacetime appears to flow to counteract the expansion of massive objects, creating gravitational curvature or tidal forces.
Scenario: two planets are separated by a star, and the send a light beam near directly between each other. The light beam not experiencing any time and being arranged to facilitate the interaction travels into the future of one planet from the past of another, the star is not in the light beam’s way because half way into the future it has not expanded fast enough to intercept it. The light beam reaches the other planet which now also receives light from the star which was emitted half way between its prior size and its current so to the second planet it looks as though it must have intercepted, but it hasn’t so instead the second planet perceives the light as having bent around the star.
Now since stars actually have volume there is a certain angle at which the light will intercept it but this angle is not just dependent on the star’s radius it is also dependent on its rate of expansion and thus mass.
It's the other way around. Massive objects contract (or try to) and spacetime expand to counteract. So when light comes close, it takes longer to go through it. Since we generally consider time as constant, then we see the light as contracting instead, so it lenses. If we could follow the light instead and keep the distance constant, we would see it as going slower instead and no lensing.
I don't understand the river model. If you imagine a photon traveling out against the "current" you would calculate that it take the same amount of time as if you imagined simply that time moves slower closer to the mass. But if you calculate the 2 way photon trip, the way towards the mass would be significantly faster as the photon is moving with the current, but the real 2 way time is 2 times the time it takes to go "against the current". Would love to see a video on it in kore details.
Time is the length along a matter world-line, and the rate is a constant, always.
There is the Schawzschild-Droste world-time (global time coordiante) but we're in the Gullstrand-Painleve coordinate map where no such world-time is defined.
You are correct that the ingoing and outgoing photon speed is different, e.g. at the horizon the ingoing speed in the background coordinates is 2c and the outgoing speed is 0.
Was not this demonstrated years ago, via the Einstein Probe satellite, where orbiting clocks (high speed) were measured against stationary (almost) clocks on earth? Lorentz equations pretty much validated. Those probes were definitely "local observers" so it should mean that Time can "vary" anywhere in the Universe, depending on the observer. Given that, our place in the Universe has its "own" time right now, but other parts of a Minkowski pathway may have other time "rates".
Lorentz equations would not even apply, except that they'd be totally wrong.
Semantics. And no, general relativity isn't the most abstract thing in physics
This is entirely stupid. The spacetime interval is simply a mathematical invariant constructed under the symmetry of space with time (and of course, vice versa). You can change the units of the spacetime interval to be all in dimensions of time and it would still make sense, physically, obeying all the same properties.
The fourth dimension in spacetime isn't space, it's time; you cannot traverse it freely, it is fundamentally different from what constitutes the other 3 space dimensions.
When I thought I understood space-time manifold at last.... a new Dialect video appears in my yt feed 😮
And the further you venture through these videos, you're going to understand it even less. There's a common denominator here. Be critical of this person, not just relativity.
@@TheLethalDomainI’m glad people are finally realizing that about this guys videos. The first once’s I saw were full of glazing comments
Yeah that doesn't really work
I've been waiting about a decade for someone to get this. "Curvature" doesn't describe well what space is doing, which is moving and varying in density relative to other space. But where does it go?
I suspect it doesn't go anywhere, it's not even moving, and it is consciousness which flows through a fixed medium. I don't think consciousness is changing either though, it just imagines the flow based on it's "memory" of past "now"s. You seem like the kind of person who might find some crazy idea like this interesting. Good luck fellow traveller.
By definition, space (noun) is not doing but getting done by temporal processes (verb).
The cycloid curvature can be thought of as the geometric mean / mediant of compass and straight edge in motion relative to each other. Where does cycloid duration go? From cusp to cusp. What else does the tautochronon and brachistochronon duration curvature do? Rolling being towards spherical shapes of gravity by pressure of time...
@@elindauer Hahaha this consciousness nonsense is becoming intrusive and annoying.
@@Voidapparatewell, except we don't know that right. We just dismiss it since consciousness escapes math.
And so so we talk about here is nice, good however it's "only" s model of what we observe. Model, not reality. Map ,not territory.
@santerisatama5409 I'm not going to pretend to understand every concept you expressed there, but while tautochrone and brachistochrone curves might describe physical behavior of objects in a uniform gravitational field, which is approximately the case on small scales, gravitational fields aren't uniform on macroscopic scales, and my primary focus is on how and why they vary.
I don’t have a physics education or background so most of what dialect is explaining is beyond my comprehension. I do however enjoy when a new Dialect video pops up on my feed. 🍻 cheers to the team on another great vid. The animations keep getting better!
It's been over a century that Einstein published his theory of General Relativity, but few people grok what it means. However, the explanations of General Relativity continue to evolve... those people evolving those explanations are working to create a world where more and more people can appreciate such beauty of nature, and they should be applauded for trying to build such a beautiful world of knowledge and understanding.
Unfortunately the explanations are wrong, precisely because they don't grok it (like in this video).
@@SpacetimeTraveler-p4eyou know how your accelerating "up" without actually moving which is why you have weight. This river model explains that perfectly. Space/reference frames accelerating down.. it's not that hard.
@@dexter8705 There isn't any river. There's a gauge invariance of the gravitational action (Einstein-Hilbert) wrt an (active) diffeomorphism so we are free to construct a spacetime how we like (it of course has to conform to T_{mn}(g,Ψ), boundary conditions, etc). What I do like about the so called "river model" is on its introduction to frame fields.
I love love love this video! The illustrations / animations my friends - they’re amazing. Especially keeping that light-clock around on-screen with little Einstein watching. The star field in the back showing the speed is great too. This was a love note for your visual learners!!
sorry but you just CANNOT plant a number(scalar) alongside (x,y,z) and call it fourth dimension (the example you used with color &temp). the overall coordinate transformation has to follow some predetermined rules . those predetermined rules of coordinate transformation(or diffeomorphism) have to be followed when you're taking an overall 4 dimensions (i.e. 3 dims of space and 1 of another variable)
There is a context to "dimension" wholly outside the Linear Algebra/Other Maths space that doesn't rely on dimensional unit consistency to prevent the operational rules from breaking. Hell, in computer science, programmers often deal with heterogeneous multidimensional objects containing heterogeneous multidimensional objects.
@Kowzorz here the context is the 4 dimensional space-time/"space-space" manifold , and in order to understand manifolds deeply in STR/GR you need concepts of diffeomorphisms and other things. So yes, the context matters and this video used one context to explain another.
What you should have done is to have acted like a String Theorist and demanded that a Colour Cube requires 7 dimensions not 4 , but X,Y,Z & C,M,Y and K. Vector Analysis 101 might placate your confusion.
@@alphalunamare YOU are the string theorist here, not me.
@ I just googled 'diffeomorphism' and its nothing but a simple relationship between manifolds of different supposed kinds. It has stuff all to do with your linear algebraic assumptions. So, no need for the 'big' words. As for me being a string theorist, well that is quite funny. I once knitted an 8ft scarf for Cardiff City Football Club (that's not Wrexham btw), it was so long because I hadn't learnt how to cast off. Besides, x, y and z were already scalars so it was a bit mean of you to refuse a fourth for no good reason. Do you have a second perchance?
What if one would posit that, on the contrary, relativity actually has 4 dimensions of time and no space at all? On the time axis you have t and on the "space" axes you have x/c, y/x, and z/c which implies units of time for them as well. You might argue that you've only seen (ct, x, y, z) in textbooks, not (t, x/c, y/c, z/c). However, that's just an arbitrary convention and not any better than what I've used in this comment.
Excellent video! Can I ask, what is your background in this material? Classical academic path in Physics, professional, self-taught, etc. ?
Clearly self-taught.
@@SpacetimeTraveler-p4e Relativity is so poorly taught at University that in a sense all Physicists must be self taught if they ever hope to understand the concepts deeply.
@ If the textbook is good, e.g. Hawking & Ellis, Sachs & Wu, Wald, then you'll learn the basics at university and then it's years of working through the problems and it starts making sense.
Ah yes, the classic move-let’s focus on the person rather than the ideas they present. Nothing sparks creativity and progress like making discussions about credentials instead of concepts. I don’t know the background of this individual, but I follow their logic, and it makes sense to me so far. If you have alternative suggestions or a different perspective, please don’t keep us waiting.
If we divide everything by c-squared it'd be a time-time manifold then-- I don't find that reasoning very compelling. The confinement plus light as a truer equivalent of time is an interesting idea. It feels like that is more than just an interpretation though. The mirror/confinement theory has to be described in detail to suggest that light plus confinement is a superior notion to time. Maxwell equations is basically all I can imagine and that already has time ...
One issue with "dividing everything by c-squared" is that those values don't have analogous measurement values. In the space-space manifold, dimensional values relate directly to the actual length-of-rod value we observe. When we divide by c-squared, we lose that model-reality parity without due justification. Regarding Maxwell's equations, the reason the em-wave solution is uncanny is because it drops the time value as a variable -- it sort of solves for it, generating C. I think it's myopic to just gloss over that ability as merely "already having time" since it's the existence of this C value and the facts generated from such existence which give us relativity in the first place.
Personally, I find the idea of "matter is confined light" somewhat compelling, so keeping the literals of spacetime theory to bouncing light rays keeps an uncanny parallel between that hypothesized reality of the small and the theory we already use to describe the large.
@Kowzorz The spatial components become the time dx/c it takes for light to traverse a distance dx, when you divide by c-squared. Distance measurement can be replaced by clocks and just as it was suggested time can be replaced by distance. In Maxwell equation time is explicitly in the formulation. The vacuum solution is the wave equation-- a time-dependent PDE. The solution involves right and left moving functions, f(z+-ct).
@Kowzorz Also "matter as confined light" cannot explain fermions. Consider the rotation of spinors.
One can certainly divide by c-squared to arrive a "time-time" manifold, but the key importance is that all the units always remain the same (either all displacement/distance or all temporal intervals). Meaning, that to claim that one unit can somehow become the other (e.g. that space can somehow become time or be mixed with time) requires additional philosophical assumptions which are not justified within the scope of the mathematical definition of a manifold itself. Meaning in turn that to justify such a conflation of space and time, one has to make outside epistemological or ontological appeals (such as by making an argument that how an observer "experiences" time somehow must be "true" time) which themselves are tenuous at best, given particularly that when we say something like "time" we precisely mean something which does not share in the features/characteristics of space in the first place.
Hence, we cannot say the spacetime manifold represents our reality, because indeed it does not contain three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, but rather it contains all dimensions of space or all dimensions of time. Indeed the ultimate idea here is to not get hung up on the idea that the manifold is some mystical fabric underpinning our reality, but rather, just like any other mathematical manifold, is a formalistic data structure which preserves the relations between observed gravitational phenomena in a convenient fashion.
@dialectphilosophy I agree that GR is mathematical (and predictive) and interpretations are permitted as long as they are consistent. I do not think looking at the metric's units and term-dependence is a compelling argument for tensors living on a Riemannian manifold with a diffeomorphism property to be simply data structures. In every addition in physics, units must be the same. I think you'd have to look deeper than the metric for mathematical justification. Lorentz transformations should be analyzed and/or the comparison of SO(3) for time-like to SO(1,1) for light-like. Diffeomorphism also means my metric could look like dudv +dy^2 +dz^2 and we could rescale or even choose proper time over length. I think there is a better way to argue what you've said.
so then what does it mean when i fall through an event horizon and the sign changes on ct?
In the Schwarzschild-Droste coordinate map (which you must be referring to) the "ct" is the distance along a time-like curve at infinity. In other choices of coordinates for the same black hole there is no change in sign.
I have a problem with light being at the centre of this whole debate. The laws of Physics ought to be the same for all creatures in this universe. Blind crawfish in a cave might eventually develop a theory, but it won't include light. OK maybe electrical impulses from a passing eel. There ought to be a way of describing all this without having to rely on the simple fact that we evolved the ability to sense Light. I am perfectly happy with the demotion of the temporal dimension to one of space that we simply can not perceive due to our biological limitations. The bouncing light clock just didn't do it for Me. It is like having your cake and eating it. Special Relativity was a fine beginning but there is so much still to be done, and we need not be anchored by its methodology. See, I am thinking and waffling trying to understand .. it takes a great presentation to get Me pondering so ..well done! cracking video :-)
Visible light is only a tiny fraction of the EM spectrum. All matter above absolute zero gives off electromagnetic radiation. The blind crawfish may be blind to visible light, but they would still be bathed in EM waves.
Until experimental evidence says otherwise the speed of light is the speed of causality.
@@txorimorea3869 Can you explain to simple folk what the speed of causality is?
@alphalunamare Visible light is only a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. All matter above absolute zero emits electromagnetic radiation. Even though the cave crabs are blind, they would still be bathed in electromagnetic radiation - energy. Light is energy and matter has energy (matter can interact with anti-matter to annihilate itself and output photons, which are the fundamental particles of light).
The speed of causality is the maximum speed that information can propagate in the universe. Light, having no mass, is able to travel at the fastest speed possible. We call this the speed of light, but in reality light does not set the limit, it just travels at the limit. Matter experiences a type of friction or drag because of its mass, which is why it cannot travel at that speed. Why is the speed of causality the speed that it is? I don't know whether anyone knows the answer to that.
There appears to be a maximum speed of information transfer. Those without access to light may find it difficult to even approach that speed, and if they do, they probably see that the energy required increases
"Where the heck is this this extra rod supposed go?" LOL
;)
A "hole" new dimension mate!
Actually the first dimension is time, and the second, third and fourth are space.
lol, but true!
Actually those are mathematically equivalent ,because you can represent each time t from the time-axis with c*t from the 4. space-axis like mensioned in the video. (In physics you do not may add times with distances,but c*times with distances.Math does not care about units.)
All dimensions are time, drawing a line and computing resolution is a temporal construction both in ideal ontology and pixelated phenomenology.
Right
Einstein: "Space and time are modes in which we think, not conditions in which we live".
That 4th param in this may be density of some kind - we have here instead a "density field" of light's transport medium, not some "flow speed" field. Light has to do more to progress as the density increases toward the massive object. In this take, the bending of light is just refraction.
Yes indeed, that is known as the "variable speed of light" interpretation of GR, and it is certainly a completely valid one! While we prefer the River Model for reasons we'll get into down the line, adopting either the River Model or Variable Speed Model is infinitely preferable to the conventional geometric view, since the former models both offer causal, physical explanations for gravitational phenomena, while the latter one does not.
@dialectphilosophy looking forward to it. The quality of and clearly the effort you put in to author these videos, in terms of content as well as presentation, is impressive.
Light is irrelevant to relativity. There is no density of the gravitational field.
@@dialectphilosophy Einstein has explicitly stated that the speed of light is not constant, meaning, it doesn't exist at all.
Density of space per unit of distance. Space bunches up for an outside observer when gravity is present and conversely, space separates to observers who are in gravity observing space not in gravity. I suspect the bunching is directly proportional to the volume of space that's displaced by matter. Why it spreads out across space the way it does is likely a design decision bt the architect.
Cool, a new Dialect video!
The mathematical timespace can be defined by reinterpreting the temporal degrees of freedom as duration that can increase outwards < > and decrease inwards >
Yeah, it's linear and non-linear space/time. That's how something could move through time by moving through the 4th spatial dimension like we walk across a room. This is actually described in ghost phenomenon over and over across millennia. Some ghosts appear to teleport instantly. They are not, they are moving in a direction that allows it to seem like, to 3 dimensional beings, that it is moving across a space instantly when they are really moving through non-linear time/space. They would be able to see us moving through linear time visually outside of normal time relative to us basically. Time behaves differently in that extra dimension as it folds over itself rather than being spread over all space.
Does that mean time doesn't exists, and that the Buddhists, who say there is only "the eternal now," are right after all? Is there only the eternal now, but at different places in space-space.
Yes :-) 'Over there' exists and we can still observe it with out sensors evolved to detect Solar Radiation. Our evolution of a sensor to notice 'just now' has however resulted in a 'Brain' that selects 'Phew we dodged that one and survived' rather than worrying about its change into a non threat. As The Great Tim McGraw sings ... Things Change.
Babe wake up. Dialect posted a new video
The word ‘Space’ also has several (related) meanings. At its core, Space literally means ‘emptiness between’ i.e. 'nothingness'. The word Space is also used to refers to the dimension of spatial position, i.e. the three vectors of xyz-axis (which is how physics always explains Space). The xyz-axis simply references relative spatial position.
Or Space might mean ‘everything not on earth’ as in ‘outer space’. And sometimes Space refers to the entire known universe....a vast, vague collective noun!
But science is so often not specific when it uses the word. It liberally, lazily conflates these different meaning of the word space
In the context of dimension, the xyz-axis, space is the dimension of relative spatial position. That is the three sub-dimension of length, breadth and height (xyz-axis), calibrated in standard units, allow us to overlay an abstract framework that calibrates and indexes position, and relative spatial position.
But the xyz-axis is a STATIC reference, it has no vector for change. Space (in the context of xyz-axis) references static spatial position.
Enter Time, the dimension of change. Bingo, you have spacetime the dimension of relative changing spatial position, i.e. relative motion.
So Spacetime is an abstract framework (dimension) for referencing relative motion. But, again, it is reference frame specific. The ‘warping‘ of spacetime is due to the erroneous imposition of a linear universal Time dimension, rather than a reference-fame specific Time dimension (motion cases the reference frame to change continually).
Einstein was wrong to say that Space and Time are ‘the same thing’. Space and Time ONLY interact in the context of motion.
[OR maybe Science is using the words Time and Space bot in their context as collective nouns - Time being the non-specific collective noun for change, and Space the non-specific collective of 'stuff' then Spacetime is the vast (non-specific) collective noun for all relative motion of all 'stuff', ever. ]
Take your pick. Dimensions and collective nouns are both abstract nouns, they only exist in your mind.
And if Space references ‘stuff’ or ‘existence’ i,e. the position of a physical reality (mass). And Time references change, and all change is caused by energy differential. Then, fundamentally, Spacetime simply references the fundamentals of mass and energy (differential).
no
Beautiful visualizations and insightful commentary as always.
The is no time expect photon clocks in gr. ~Dailecstein
Time is what you make it. Relative times are just what tgey are and only comparable locally in an empirical sense, but tgere remains a lot of freedome to choose description.
There is time in relativity, that has nothing to do with photons.
@SpacetimeTraveler-p4e yeah, this is just one way to lay out units. But so is any other way to lay out coordinates
@ Coordinate time doesn't exist. Physical time is the length along matter world-lines.
@SpacetimeTraveler-p4e who told you that was "real time". Buddy that is just as bad a definition of objective time as any.
With the cube, can you have color without temperature and vice versa? If so would that make it 5D?
You can add as many dimensions as the number of different information you want to represent.
High priced printers have many colour channels, some up to 12 or 13. It's just a fact of simple arithmetic. nothing special. All dimensions are not empirical.
Everything is infinite dimensional in this sense, but this has nothing to do with the relativity which, in our reality, is 4 dimensional.
@@SpacetimeTraveler-p4e Thus far, this is true :-).
Even the fine graphic was able to convey the apparent expansion of the mass of the earth outward as flowing space approaches the surface of the earth.
The community on this channel is brilliant, that is also much appreciated
10:15 It seems like we should be talking about different accelerations through space, and not about different velocities?
You're right that those clocks must be undergoing proper acceleration in order to remain stationary. But this acceleration ensures that they are traveling a constant velocity with respect to the flowing "physical space". See our video "The River Model" linked in the description for an explanation of why this occurs.
a uniform acceleration also causes apparent time dilation due to doppler redshift, so a change in field strength is not necessary to produce gravitational time dilation.
edit: the velocity being referred to is the velocity of the object with respect to the inertial grid of spacetime
@@dialectphilosophy But that requires the assumption of absolute space, doesn't it? After all, velocity exists as a relation between two physical objects. I'll rewatch the video about the river model, maybe I've forgotten something
The observers have different accelerations and so inhabit different reference frames. The video is referring the Gullstrand-Painleve flow of spatial coordinates, and so the observers have different velocities wrt this background coordinate flow (which doesn't exist).
Exactly what I've been saying for over 30 years. Forget absolute time. Duration can be expressed as distance light in a vacuum.
The speed of light always struck me as an incongruous physical reference for something as fundamental as the geometry of space itself. It is not intuitively obvious what light has to do with anything and makes about as much intuitive sense as invoking the speed of water to describe why lines are straight.
Is it purely empirical that light happens to have the least impeded movement, or would any first principles always derive it's speed? What does speed even mean if this all reduces to distance anyway?
I am sure one day a cave dwelling craw fish will establish the relationship between the speed of water and the straight line of an eel's attack.
Think of it moreso as the speed of causality, for me it makes more sense then
@minimo3631 Very true but that just begs another question :-)
you are correct that this is arbitrary, and before Maxwell and Faraday, there was no reason to pick the speed of light as being related to causality.
However, Maxwell published his wave equation for light in 1865. he only is that the speed of a wave is given with respect to the medium. The medium for most materials can be picked up and moved at a constant speed (the atmosphere is being dragged along by the Earth)
The medium of light the electric and magnetic field. These are not materials you can boost to some constant speed, their magnitudes and rates of change are absolute values for an observer.
Maxwell's equation violates Galileo's principle of relativity, unless the speed of light really is constant for all observers. by the same logic, a photon is not an observer, it experiences no time and no distance, you are not allowed to place yourself in the experience of a photon, otherwise you would say your own speed is zero, which violates Maxwell's law.
combine that with the fact that nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light, the light is the maximum speed that information can travel at.
Gravitational waves also travel at 'c' , so 'c' is very much the speed of sound in the fabric of the universe
@ Still doesn't explain 'Causality'. It is always explained as a consequence of Special Relativity when in fact it is nothing of the sort. It is a euphemism for 'why is light so fast'.
I dawned on me some time ago that most GR and special relativity presentations set c to 1 and usual separate the two topics rather than integrate them. I don’t think most people have no good grasp on relativity. You do
Wrong, the professional community has a good grasp on relativity, dialect does not.
From henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, have vanished into the merest shadows and only a kind of blend of the two exists in its own right. Quoted in J R Newman, The World of Mathematics (New York 1956).That is why a blend of them was necessary.I think that the misunderstanding started with Minkowski, taking time as a physical dimension.Nice try, brilliant understanding, and explanation, thank you for sharing.
It's so good to see someone who actually understands space"time"(distance)
And gravity.
Just wait till people realise gravity is a speed/velocity and not a strength, it will blow their minds, earth's gravity is 9.8m/s² which is literally the equation for speed/velocity d/t distance over time.
And 9.8 is the velocity of space as depicted in this video.
Please explain...
@-_Nuke_- the river model, it's spot on. People below in the comments are saying we are accelerating, we know this because we have weight(1g) and they can't explain what we're accelerating relative to and are in denial that the obvious answer is it is relative to space but deny that space is accelerating down/"inwards " because obviously you can tell that while standing still , you aren't moving anywhere. It's plain as day
The metric is neglected here. It is a pivotal part of the dimensionality and how it combines with the spatial dimension. Sometimes the metric is represented by i, the square root of minus one. That makes the axis i • c • t. Or ict.
Note also that every click actually measures a distance. Each tick of a metronome or pendulum records the distance travelled by the support rod tip
Temporal displacement scaled to spatial units.
Congratulation for this video! It is an obvious fact and nice somebody finally said it. Space-Time doesn't incorporate time into a 4-D manifold it incorporate the properties of the observer's moving refference frame compared to the real rest frame, which nobody can determine but which is there after all. I will wait with great interest your next chapter hopefully on General Relativity, which is even more interesting in terms of understanding the real properties of 4D-Space and its relation to Energy!
Nice operational definition for the purposes of a relativity video.
Totally side steps such questions as why does _anything_ happen (time must exist as a something more or nothing would happen, and when nothing happens and there's no interaction of anything it's essentially the same as nothing)
And
Why is time a constrained dimension? (it always progresses, and in the same direction, it can't take an arbitrary direction like choosing x y or z in three-dimensional space, it can only point to "next")
I like the way you were explaining the time dimension as a space dimension, though in my internal model of the way things work I see all 4 dimensions as time but the one we call time is constrained.
well, that's pretty obvious since space an time are completely interchangeable in equations
Always glad to see a life sign on your channel 😀.
Excellent, thought provoking video as always! A few questions and comments:
Couldn’t one argue that the expression ct is one that modifies the time units to make them comparable to spatial units? And that these lengths that you point out are still units of time in principle, but that they are lengths which represent those units of time. Time is a measurement of change. One kind of change is a change in position, so one way to measure time with a distance: the distance that light travels (assuming light always travels at c) in one second.
I tend to think that we should simply start from scratch to understand gravitation instead of trying to understand how the flawed 4D Einstein/Minkowski theory relates to reality; it was never meant to relate to reality to begin with, it was only meant as an abstract framework for reproducing measurements.
“[the lorentz transformations and the spacetime manifold] aren’t really telling us about the behavior of space or time itself, but rather are telling us about the behavior of light and its interactions with matter and space in different physical situations”
Fantastic! What I’m taking from this is that existence is not really a 4diemensional object, rather the 4D math we use in GR is just a data structure to keep track of how the durations of internal processes (as measured by a light clock) change when an object moves (with respect to an observer) or is in a gravitational field. Am I understanding you correctly?
I agree with your attitude toward dimensions, that they are exclusive measurements. My own definition of a “dimension” is “linearly independent quantitative characteristic.”
Another note: I’m not sure if I agree with the conceptualizations you put forward at 9:02. Is there any reason to think that an idealized clock, one that is not affected by motion or gravitation, could exist? We may need to define time differently (though still objectively) as simply a relationship between events, that when two events are able to influence one another, they are said to be simultaneous, and that when a first event is able to influence a second event, but only through a series of intermediate events, that first event is said to be before the second event. I think something like this might be a more objective conceptualization of time.
There's a lot you have there that needs fixing, for one, c is not just some unit conversion but built into the nature of matter fields (it's the rate along matter world-lines).
"General relativity is the discovery that spacetime doesn't exist", a quote from Carlo Rovelli paraphrasing Einstein, so Minkowski's conception does not accurately describe anything.
Oh jeez, you have everything wrong...
@@SpacetimeTraveler-p4e I don't follow at all.
@@Inductica Your understanding of relativity is equal to zero. What do you mean the word "event"? Simultaneity doesn't exist, and spacetime points that can be connected by a causal curve are called causally related. Time is the distance along matter world-lines. Gravitation can't affect a clock unless you mean the clock getting tidally disrupted in a black hole. Relativity has nothing to do with light. There are other things in your comment but first you need a grasp of the basic concepts of relativity.
@ We come from very different sets of assumptions.
@ Okay, just don't assume you know what relativity says or does not say, or anything about the assumptions of relativity.
Actually to get a 45 degree line as it is shown in the spacetime diagrams I always thought the the Y axis needs to be normalized to t/c.
t/c | /
| /
| /
| /
|/ 45 degrees
+--------------------------------
units of distance
if we do not do that and use the standard units for time (seconds) and distance (meters/seconds) the trajectory of light (given the very large velocity of light) will be very close to the x axis i.e. the past and future light cones will leave an extremely narrow wedge around x axis - which in our experience seems to coincide with x axis i.e. we perceive nearby events as simultaneous. ALso to treat time dimension same as space is absurd. One cannot go back in time. Also the negative sign in Minkowsi metric is also an indication of that difference.
Space having a divergence is not east to grasp. But still better than strange things such as "time" being curved
So, time is the progression of added activities in length, width and height. Time is the record of history!
It's distance because that's how far the expansion of space travels. And there is a temporal Dimension otherwise you would not be able to move and you wouldn't be able to have more than three dimensions. The temporal Dimension rotates the whole thing 90° and that's your new perpendicular Direction and it moves the whole thing forward when step and which means the whole universe is polarized from the position that was in before to the next three spatial Dimensions do not interfere with the last three they in fact double them in size and then another temporal Dimension does the same thing again and it takes two rotations of the complex or imaginary plane to make one rotation of the real numbers so that's how reality actually works. The edge of the observable universe is traveling away from us at the speed of light. The fourth dimension is the growing dimension of space itself which is time
Time only becomes spatial at relativistic speeds.
The cross-section of all things outside your reference frame converge to zero at the speed of light. In dimensional terms, you cease to travel along the geodesic in the dimensions that make up length, width, and height, as they all collapse in to a temporal medium for the conveyance of information at relativistic speeds. This is explored from the topilogical perspective.
Velocity, thusly mass-energy concentration, is not only key to spatially traversing any dimension, but is also the key to graduate to higher-dimensional reference frames; think of velocity as the scalar for the ratio of compression that the 3 (spatial at only non-relativistic speeds) dimensions encounter, where at the speed of light, all three dimensions converge into a non-spatial cross-section outside of your reference frame, and your cross section in time becomes infinite.
Note that since velocity truly referes to the geometries of the condensate of space-time and your relative angular momentum in those geometries geodesics, you don't necessarily have to "go" at the speed of light. You can also be a black hole at Rsh, folding all spatial dimensions into a singularity, as mathematically, the spatial collapse is still achieved as the energy density at Rsh is such that the escape velocity is C for that object, while the object itself may have a relative angular momentum to you that is well below C. Still, for the sake of clarity, it may be more intuitive to imagine an object that is not a black hole, like an abstract space vessel traveling at C, to use as a framework for understanding.
It is possible to alter the geodesic equation to incorporate temporal gradients that induce spacetime anisotropies, and to incorporate a temproal field that causes these inducements with something like Ag as a coupling constant when reconciling the stress-energy tensor.
As well, think about how a photon at C perceives depth; the answer? It doesn't. Distance becomes as inpercievable at relativistic speeds as spatial traversal of time (from point A to point B, and point B to point A both forward and backward as opposed to mere incidental dilation) is to us at sublight speeds.
The faster you go and the closer you get to the asymptote at C, the closer and closer you get to graduating to the native reference frame of causality (time), and only at 300KM/S, you will have the ability to traverse time as you would traverse the 3 dimensions at sublight speeds.
th-cam.com/video/VdPe1tkVdoQ/w-d-xo.html False concepts of time, space and gravity.
no time is space; it's the dimension of what we call time. if you slice a plane along it if it is higher then you then it is in what we call the future if it is lower it's what call the past.
Interesting premise....🤔
I suggest that time is a compactified dimension one single Planck second in size.
The moment of computation in a wolfram model
This creates/ forces limits, of action. Lambda and event horizon.
And the gradient between these limits we call gravity.
But..... truly classically closed and compact, creating a modular form, the limits also connect at a catastrophic point where maxima becomes minima. Free neutron decay.
In at event horizon
Take EinsteinRosen bridge
Out in deep void
Decay into amorphous monatomic hydrogen in a Rydberg state.
Dark matter.
Expand from neutron 0.6fm³ to 1m³ of amorphous hydrogen gas.
Expansion. Dark energy .
Then stabilize and coalesce and fall, towards an event horizon
I wonder... if one day Dialect comes to understand relativity, will these videos still be made available to the public?
It would be wonderful if they so students can learn about where thinking goes wrong and even deepen the students understanding of relativity, what it is and what it is not.
They're a long, long, long way from understanding relativity.
@ You can't say "I'd say" about anything because you never studied relativity.
@@dexter8705 What of "gauge invariance of the gravitational action with respect to an active diffeomorphism" do you not understand? (seems like you understand nothing of it).
@@dexter8705 Then answer the questions I've been asking. Clearly you don't understanding relativity.
Unon further thought; if I'm moving through a space that has very low curvature from left to right the speed of light is (c-v) and when moving right to left it is (c+v). This movement would not change the "density" of space so I'm thinking that time is the density of space is not the way to think of it.
This is the problem with this channel, just when you think you "get it" you find out you are hopelessly ignorant of what is going on. ;-)
Space is measured by time and therefore exists in the same dimension that's the 4th Dimension, all stars and planets exist within the 4th dimension
something i think you are tripping up on in a lot of your videos is representations of structure vs structure itself. We use minkowski space as it is a representation of a symmetry we have observed in nature (lorenz invariance). All other representations that preserve this fundemental structure are ontologically valid until we get more data that precludes some of them. If we believe reality to be real and physical in any meaningful sense, then we should be primarily concerned with its structure, not this or that representation.
said another way, relativity is about what transformations am I allowed to do to the state of the world that leaves the evolution of that state unchanged. what transformations, therefore, leave the laws of physics invariant. I'm inclined to agree with Einstein that whether you view the geometric interpretation as physically real is a matter of personal preference, what matters is the invariance, as that is the underlying structure.
Page 6:30 By assuming that light is independent of a wave medium we’d expect light bouncing diagonally in a light clock moving in traverse.
Those believe in diagonal light clock are elites who took physics at its face value. They learn extremely well because they can’t scrutinize a paradox that made them constantly crave and worship infamous legislative, Einstein.
The above cascaded assumption were based on Lorentz’s conception of Aether. He assumes that Aether is a solid having no mechanical properties and exists in a rest frame so blow through matter.
By worshipping Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (and his unqualified definition of Aether), Michelson employed an interferometer attempting to detect Aether and the result was negative. Consequently to a false conclusion that light is independent of Aether. Consequently to a false conclusion that light is independent of Aether.
What is a light clock? I can think of starting and stopping a stopwatch and how far light travels between those moments, but that doesn't tell me anything useful. The light I care about is not one ray that's linear or bouncing: it's a lot of rays going every which way and allowing me to relate to everything in my environment. I think we're back to "Time is what a clock measures", and reinterpreting the fourth dimension as space doesn't really clarify things in the day-to-day world.
Light and light clocks are irrelevant to relativity.
It is a matter of definitions.
"space" has already 3 dimensions( otherwise we d call it A3 printer paper😊.
so saying there is another spatial dimension means nothing for humans .
I’ve been hearing a lot lately about “Time may not exist”. C’mon naaaaaaaawwww?!
What I understood from this video is that we have 3 dimension of space, 1 dimension of time and a "4D" manifold that plots an observers 3 dimensions of space plus how close to the speed of light he is traveling as the 4th "dimension".
Just like a dimension that maps heat... For example...
That is very interesting; I don't know if that's what Einstein had in mind, but still a very interesting idea...
This would then mean, that we have no intuition to what is happening, we simply accept reality as we measure it and then we simply plot it in this manifold...
Which is... Exactly how science works... So nothing surprising there!
Could this give us any real insight? This is literally equivalent to the electric or magnetic fields... That are just us plotting what we measured on a manifold... This is crucial science, but has zero intuition about what magnetism or electricity are...
Just like we get no intuition by Newton's gravitational field...
Again, Im not surprised by that - I have said it many times - science doesn't care about why things work, only how;
Im most excited to find out more! Dialect is maybe the BEST channel on the philosophy of relativity right now in the ENTIRE internet.
Thank you guys, keep blowing our minds away! 😂
You see the Observer is not in space or time what's being observed is the space time.
Instead of thinking of "space" flowing (it is not a vector) think of it being a "density" (scaler). Light moves slower through denser substances right. So if "space" is denser the lower down in the gravity well you would expect light to move through it (time) at a slower rate. My intuition would lead me to believe that if "space" was flowing into the mass from every direction than if would start accumulating there. That does not make sense to me. It can't just keep building up there forever. But a scaler "density" does not have to "flow into the mass" it can just be that scaler value like a temperature or color.
Thoughts?
Make documentaries of 1/1.5 hours
Wonderful as always! Now I wonder whether a freely-falling clock in high gravity would appear to tick slower at the same rate as if it was sitting still in the same field.
Interesting that Inductica is broaching the FS model on the same day. Youse guys been collaborating?
Kinda obvious it's 3 dimensions and two sides of the same coin. It's what Tria Prima was about and why it relates to Earth's symbology in alchemy
Space time isn’t real. It’s a theoretical abstraction used to try and make sense of equations.
It did not get the point why it makes a difference if it's time or space
1:42 MOOOOMMM the C fell off my axis again!
xyz measures the outline of an object. Another physical measurement of space and physical objects is Color as an inner space.
I wonder what Einstein's reaction to this video would be.
But why does light have an angle?
If space is flowing - has a speed of flow, so we can define some sort of absolute speed of space motion? But what is this global frame of reference?
What is the definition of “dimension” in the context of this video? I suspect that - like in the case of “life”, “matter” etc. - we don’t really have a solid definition. The scope or reach of any structure of consistent theories (AKA science, unless you have a better definition of it) is ALWAYS limited by the solidity/validity of definitions of it’s core concepts: a chain is exactly as strong as it’s weakest link, as we all know…
I don’t agree with this. The time dimension doesn’t work like a space dimension. It’s got properties of an imaginary number, and works so as to support causality in a way that the pure space dimensions don’t.
What I have been thinking for decades but read nowhere until now.
But you can also say it's not distance nor time, it is all about energy difference, i.e. potential difference. You might express time and space in volt.
@Dialect if I place any object next to any object they will travel closer to each other unless they are more distant then the expansion of the universe, where does that energy come from to travel. because if they were more distant then their fall rate to over come the expansion of the universe they would not fall toward each other and not have that energy. this is to establish that objects can exist outside the influence of another object's gravity even if that's a great distance. but then if I take a object that's just barely outside of the gravity of the other object and burn 1 gallon of gas to get it inside the range of that other object, it will eventually start traveling towards that other object even if all the energy to move the object is burned up. where did the potential energy that exceeded gas energy come from. the problem with the draining river is it just explains the motion but never the drain or the flow of the river. rivers flow by gravity and so this is a self referencing definition, gravity come from gravity. the only explanation that I see is space is continuing being deleted just as it's being created in-between galaxies or it escaping in to another universe or it's being moved to that expansion in a way that requires no energy whatever it would be at all points of mass for black holes sizes of mass sure it's punching threw to another universe no problem but for small masses if that were true we should be able to punch holes to make space drains for rivers with non gravity means.
I think you do a great job in showing how relativistic effects arise seen by one frame of reference. But as far as we know any frame can do this, and such absolute frame can't be identified. Thus we believe that there is no such a thing as absolute time. It's such an unnecessary concept. Do you have at least an idea of what this absolute clock would be? The universe expands and we appear to be at the center of the expansion. But an observer in another galaxy doing experiments perceives its own galaxy at the center. Why would one galaxy be better tuned than the others with this mysterious absolute time?
Also, we say spacetime rather than space and time, because we understand BOTH space and time as fundamentally different from the absolute space and time we thought of before. It's a paradigm shift, rather than things happening in a container as time goes on, the image of pointlike events is more appropriate in relativity. I agree that space and time in relativity are the same quantity. And this quantity is not time at least as we thought before, because there's no way of determining simultaneity. It's neither space, because this quantity is measured with clocks, and for this reason I actually consider the idea of spacetime much closer to time than space.