Special Relativity Hidden in a Series of Coupled Mechanical Pendula
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/... . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
A simple chain of coupled pendula hides the laws of special relativity.
This video was sponsored by Brilliant.
Big thanks belong to people supporting me on Patreon, Buymeacoffee and Super Thanks for giving me the motivation to create the video namely
-Glen Northrop (Patreon)
-Stranger (Patreon)
-Jason Mclane (Patreon)
-Filip Blaschke (Patreon)
-Nathan Myers (Patreon)
-Pateron (Patreon)
-Riccardo Jasso (Patreon)
-Juraj Andrássy (Patreon)
-Ο Νίκος (Patreon)
José Guilherme Chaui-Berlinck (Patreon)
-Compuart (Patreon)
-Øyvind Rønningstad (Patreon)
-Eric Zetterbaum (Patreon)
-Matthew O'Connor (Patreon)
-Nikolay Z (Patreon)
-Michael Carey (Patreon)
-hugo ballroom (generous subscriber)
-Patrick Saucier (generous subscriber)
-Alberto Boldrini (generous subscriber)
-Dobré Vědět (generous subscriber)
-William Allnutt (generous subscriber)
-psaucier (coffee)
-jerryj (coffee)
-Scott (coffee)
-carlos gaspar (superthanks)
attributions:
www.freepik.com
especially: rawpixel, brgfx, macrovector, pikisuperstar, chikenbugagashenka, pch.vector, elsystudio, storyset, juicy_fish, tohamina
www.vecteezy.com
for vector graphics
www.mixkit.co
for audio effects
Photo by Nadezhda Moryak: www.pexels.com...
Photo by Diana : www.pexels.com...
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/ProblemsAndSolu... . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
This video would greatly benefit from some human generated captions
Hello Lukas i have been watching your video for Months, which are really helpful
For Clearing misconceptions and Understanding Physics
So as you know Dialect is highly Against Special Relativity which is not a problem but he published a new video again about Why Einstein was wrong and Special Relativity have terrible judgement of Timr he tried to present his Unfalslifaiable Time as Science( and Funniest thing is that he started attacking Einstein personally in Comment section 😂Saying he stole other's Theories ) so if you discuss his Concept of Absolute would be helpful
The birth of Spring Theory
Hm... Where are the pendula in string therory?
That comment had me bouncing out of my chair.
@@msg72freenetde I think you missed the pun ditry on Spring.
Before you accidentally sell your subscribers on aether, you have to point it out to them that the sine-Gordon model only (kind of) works for one colour charge, the full Yang-Mills equation has 3 complex-valued matter fields, and the cleanest way of thinking about it is putting them in a vector bundle over R^3 with a fiber being C^3 with a connection determined by a representation of SU(3) (i.e. 8 gluon fields). The reason it's fundamentally very much unlike any aether theory is that the equations have *both* a Poincare group acting on the base space and a gauge symmetry group acting on fibers of the bundle. Any theory that tries to *only* have space-time symmetries has to have more than 3 dimensions of space, otherwise you simply can't pack these 2 groups into one.
I'm sorry to even ask this, but can you try to explain this in a little laymanish terms??
@@mr.greengold8236 I'm not entirely sure that I got it right TBH, gauge symmetry is a bit unlike global symmetries. The gist of it is: physical theories describe evolution of a system (either a point or a field) living on some geometric space, called the phase space (for example, the sine-Gordon equation "lives" on a space that's like a hollow cylinder, with the value of the field and its momentum at each point corresponding to circles above each linear position coordinate, and then you also add time to it to obtain a sheet with a circle above each point).
What makes one space different from another (aside from the differences in general shape) is its symmetries: ways in which you can deform the space that leave it exactly as it were before. One hugely important characteristic of a physical theory is the symmetries that leave the equations of the theory unchanged when applied to them, think variable change in calculus.
A Yang-Mills theory has the symmetries corresponding to the changing which observer our coordinate system is tied to (if the two observers move uniformly relative to each other), but it also has gauge symmetries that correspond to something like twisting the cylinder around the linear coordinate, so that each circle above each point in space-time is twisted by a variable amount, and these symmetries are independent of geometric symmetries of the underlying space-time. This is not strictly speaking true for Yang-Mills, but it's true enough for our intuitive understanding to mostly work out.
So if you want to take a Yang-Mills theory and say "okay, now let's get rid of all the fibers, everything is just motion of some medium filling the space now", and you want it to reproduce the results of the Yang-Mills theory to a reasonable degree of approximation, you need to take all the symmetries of Yang-Mills and map them to symmetries of space-time. But it already has the symmetries of space-time as a subgroup of the group of all of its symmetries! So the only way to move forward with this is making the space-time larger by introducing new dimensions, replacing fibers over each point of space-time with compactified dimensions of the new space-time. This causes a "mathematical feedback loop" because changing the base also inevitably changes the fibers (because the phase space is itself a bundle of fibers over the space-time), so you have geometric "equations" to balance if you want to arrive at a geometry that can possibly work.
String theories try to pull this off, but YMMV on whether or not they have a chance of succeeding at building a theory that has actual predictive power, right now it looks quite unlikely that they will.
@@noobyfromhell thank you so much for explaining.
This is exactly what I was thinking
He did point out at the end of the video that he's only modelling one colour charge, and you would need more dimensions for a 3-colour model.
Lukáši, velmi pěkné video. Několik drobných překlepů:
1) Pro linearizované řešení je dobré používat přibližnou rovnost, ať si nikdo nemyslí, že to je exaktní řešení.
2) V Baeckludově transformaci by v druhé rovnici mělo být 2/a.
3) Extra člen v potenciálu když se narušuje chirální symetrie máš s \psi a ne s \phi.
4) Dej si pozor na mezonové "exaktní" řešení. Ve skutečnosti tohle řešení je tzv. spharelon, neboť jde asymptoticky do nuly, což je nestabilní vakuum. Nikdo nezná exaktní řešení pro double sG model pro kombinaci kink-anti-kink a to, které ukazuješ, se dá použít jen jako "seed" solution, pokud se posune o 2\pi dolů nebo nahoru.
5) Myšlenky na konci videa by se měly, alespoň v poznámce pod čarou, odkázat na nepublikovanou práci Minoru Eta. Je možné, že bys našel i jiné relevantní články. O double sine-Gordon modelu se toho hodně napsalo a je skoro jisté, že srážky baryonů a mezonů se udělaly už před 20 lety. Odkaz na nějaký článeček, by se dobře vyjímal pod videem.
The Aimation at the end of the video was wonderfull. Great jop.😮
"The kink and the antikink can form a state which we call breeder"
okay, physics
sounds like “we” need to settle down a bit
Kink, anti-kink and breeder - the unholy (antiholy?) trinity
Breather, if you watch later; it's just his accent. Not a heavy breather either.
and that's how humans were made
Yesh, special relativity and elastic wave mechanics are very good friends, after i learned just how closely tied they were i could not let go of the idea of the dynamics emerging from some deeper dynamical system, it is very natural, spent a lot of time making dynamics like this but in more complicated settings consistent with quantum effects. The hardest thing is to construct simple systems that have quantized absorbtion and emission. Great video, always fun stuff :)
Wow! Never seen this analogy for special relativity and particle physics. Really cool video!
Never seen this before! Thank you very much ^^
I have watched literally thousands of physics videos… some with similar illustrations, but not quite like this. This was incredibly interesting! Well done! 💯💯💯
Really great video! There is one thing that I don't understand and that is the bounce state you discussed. You say that the energy cannot escape to infinity. But is the bounce state not just something that can only exist in a harmonic oscillator that is confined in space by the boundary conditions? Or is the confinement also the result of a relativistic effect?
Hi! If you mean breather then the solution for a breather you get by taking the kink-antikink solution and you make an analytic continuation to imaginary velocities v-> iv. You can look at the energy density of the configuration and you will see that it is confined in a small area and it doesn't matter how far the boundaries of the system are. I hope I addressed your question correctly.
Thank you for the lay version of this complex topic. Blew me away!
Thanks
and I thank you for the support :)
The way that it looks is beautiful, can you do more animations of different physics represented..???!!!! Plzplz I could watch forever..this is literally the coolest thing ever
Ever since finishing my Physics degree (1985 !) I have had a fascination with using E=hf and E = mc>2 to give us an expression for the frequency (and wavelength) of a stationary particle of mass m. Suggesting that mass is an oscillation of its own field. But could not see how the energy would be bound. so your model at 1:00 is an enticing representation and worth exploring further. Thank you !
Impeccable timing, I was just talking with a friend about solitons and topological charges in QCD. This was awesome! Did you the animations and solutions in Mathematica?
Iirc, this is how Maxwell found the relationship between his equations; using wave mechanics. These equations always obeyed special relativity (Lorentz transformations).
"These equations always obeyed special relativity" That's a folklore myth - and totally false. It's even propagated in physics literature and on science popularations (like PBS Nova's "Einstein's Big Idea") and shame on them for propagating misinformation, like that. (It's not the only time folklore myths like this have happened and persisted. The Lorenz gauge used to be misnamed the Lorentz gauge everywhere, before that misinformation was (belatedly) called out.)
The *actual* equations written down by Maxwell, along with the tweaks made by his contemporaries and later followers throughout the 19th century up to the early 20th century, are *not* the equations you now know as "Maxwell's Equations", nor do they have the Lorentz group as their symmetry group, at all. They have the Galilei group as their symmetry group and (yes), that also includes the equations written by Lorentz in his treatises, which all are equivalent to what we would probably now called the Maxwell-Thomson-Heaviside equations, were they to be given a name.
In fact, Maxwell went through pains to show - in detail - the covariance of the equations written down by him with respect to the Galilei group; which indeed they are once you add in the correction posed by Thomson and Heaviside; which fixed an oversight by Maxwell, stemming from an earlier time when he used to confuse the B and H fields (failing to note that they have different transform properties under Galilei (and even under Lorentz, by the way, except in a vacuum)).
In contrast, the equations we *do* now call the Maxwell-Minkowski equations, which were laid out by Minkowski in his "Minkowski geometry" paper in 1908 and independently by Einstein & Laub *are* Special Relativistic and *do* have the Lorentz group as their symmetry group; and are essentially an expansion of the (incomplete) treatment provided by Einstein in his 1905 landmark paper on Special Relativity. They are not equivalent to Maxwell-Thomson-Heaviside; and, indeed, that was the whole point of the 1905 paper.
Dude.. this is the most amazing thing I've ever watched. Mind. Blown
There’s something special (no pun intended) about models that _almost_ work. Like AdS-CFT correspondence or this one. Maybe if we modify or combine them in some way, we’ll get a breakthrough.
Sounds just like "fusion", it's always 10 years away.... and just needs a little "tweak"
Welcome to the other side, Lukas. You are approaching the moment when you realize you no longer have to repeat the lessons you were taught, but that you are capable of discovering whole new ones yourself.
Animations, research, presentation - growing more impressive with each video. The connections to relativistic mass and quantum physics - undeniably compelling. Don’t worry, we will be staying very, very tuned to your channel…
I wouldnt say I am on the other side though :D but thanks!
Learning maths pays off, you should try it.
@@noobyfromhellWell, you know what they say... "manners before maths", so it's hardly surprising dialect hasn't quite grasped the subtle intricacies of long division yet.
0:20 - "this defect is called..." -- couldn't understand what you said after this. Suggest you show such terms on the screen at the same time.
topological soliton or a kink :)
Wow, this is so fascinating to watch 😮. The simulations at the end gave me chills, thank you so much for sharing this.
seeing your progress over the years is so inspiring!
Really nice video, enjoyed it, a historical curiosity you might enjoy is larmors electron model, which is somewhat analogous.
This is FASCINATING. Thank you very much for sharing this. My mind's jumping over the possibilities.
Awesome video, and thank you for introducing me to this! Though, I wish you would've spent more time describing it in detail-deriving the equations, explaining how to represent mesons and baryons in these springs, and explaining what exactly is going on in the simulations. I had to pause and rewind a lot, so I'd rather have just watched for another 15-30 minutes longer than done that.
This one was awesome! Thanks so much. We have to look at the 3D model!!!
Wow, this was super fun to watch!
This is astounding. Thank you for this intuition.
After watching this, I now feel closer to having an intuitive understanding of special relativity than I remember ever before having. Also, it does rather seem that at times physicists in the East and in the West have delved into some very different and rarefied areas that may make them seem strange or even exotic each to one another.
You are the next Einstein this has SO MUCH POTENTIAL.. you've discovered something amazing my friend.. I hope u know that
Wow! Such an interesting intuition! I can't believe that nobody talks much about it
Hello Lukas
Dialect again made another video against Relativity if you have Time plzz debunk it
😂
please 🎉
Hi there. You are a fantastic physicist, absolutely great, awesome.
thank you :)
Layman with (almost) no maths here. Two thoughts: -
1. Lossless propagation in a computed 2D model ignores conditions in a 3D crystal lattice where energy will leak to the other axes of the crystal lattice.
2. A (near) vacuum propagation of these "phonon" simulations is problematic without what I hesitate to call an "ether".
Nevertheless, it is interesting to see something close to my own decades-old conceptualisation of elementary particles as tiny vibrational harmonic nodes. The problem is, what is vibrating, and why does the vibration persist?
Re: point 2, you don't need to postulate an aether (which implies some kind of analog to a fluid). A field is more than sufficient. A simplified explanation of a field is, anyway, an infinite number of infinitely small balls on little springs at every point in space --that's not too absurdly different to the model in this video.
The electric field is already like this. There is a value at every point for the electric potential felt by an imaginary probe of infinitely small size, these values change continuously, and can propagate through space as waves (with continuous levels of energy carried along). It's only when we talk about bound states/particles (ignoring some technicalities) that we have to introduce the notion of quanta to explain our observations that particles can only change their energy levels in discrete steps.
Re: your last sentence, technically there doesn't have to be anything vibrating. It's a matter of perspective and how you construct your physical model. A spring is just a useful mental and mathematical model. Instead of saying that some energy is traveling through a mesh of springs (where we can visualize the energy moving around by how far each spring stretches), we could also say that some sort of "energy itself" is moving through space (where the density of said energy moving around and through itself at any given point becomes our method of visualizing it's movement). Whether you say it's the deviations of infinitely many, infinitely small coupled springs from equilibrium or the point-wise densities of some ghostly weakly self-interacting continuous substance, you can model it with similar maths.
@@franzwollang an "infinite number of infinitely small balls on little springs at every point in space" is not too absurdly different to the aether.
Excellent!! It stretches comprehension.
Thanks
Very nice presentation! May I ask? Do you have articles or books that discuss the solutions that you presented? Could we have some references?
13:42 Dialect's Matrix theory isn't really a separate theory from GR, but rather just a formalism which takes the coordinate system used to be fundamental. I don't even think it actually counts as a proper Ether theory. Interestingly, if you take the coordinate system to be fundamental, you could require that spacetime is also analytic. If you require that a solution is an entire function(everywhere analytic holomorphic function), then you can evolve your spacetime in a path independent manner using analytic continuation and not have to worry about singularities. We can get solitons in Kaluza-Klein Theory(KKT), so I don't really see any good reason to abandon 1915's GR.
I'm pretty sure that solutions that blow up at infinity are rather unphysical :)
@@noobyfromhell Infinity is unphysical too tho... (pedantic, I know)
@@franzwollang I don’t think you understood what I meant at all
@@noobyfromhell I guess not
Brilliant topic and analysis as always. If folks want SR in their ordinary physics, even the humble wave equation for a massive string is covariant - and I’ll note the phase argument of harmonic traveling waves are Lorentz invariant.
Great video! I would love to see one on Q-balls and non-topological solitons as well; I'm curious what insights you have.
Fascinating and inspiring, even though I didn’t follow that much!
I’d be very interested in a talk about parallels between quantum physics or relativity and audio.
I know the uncertainty principle applies to audio, with a lower bound on the duration-bandwidth product. I’m curious if there are other parallels with audio phenomena, or if, for example, there are audible examples of things like the coupled pendula.
brilliant analogy ... observing a higher dimension phenomenon in alower dimensional parameters...
This is brilliant!!! More of this please!!
Just wondering, how do you model moving along with such a wave? In this model you would have "aether wind" right?
moving along is porely defined here because this series of pendula represents the whole universe basically. To model moving along you would have to do it at least in 2D and the obesrver would have to be made of the pendula themselves (kinks breathers etc.) and all those systems would also behave according to special relativity. Such observer should not be able to deduct whether it is him who is moving or the observed object is moving and therefore the principle of relativity should hold.
I kind of immediately thought looking at it from the side looked kind of like looking at the isolated real or imaginary part of a complex wave function
I lost it on the start for the particle example we see you make an excitation why after we twist the first rod the second one stops exactly when they are aligned shouldn't it continue due to intarsia.
In my opinion this explains a lot of observations. Maybe the elastic force and the angular coordinate should be discrete (quantised) as well, and you have a 1D quantum field.
Please continue in this direction.
Klein from Klein-Gordon was Swedish and pronounced with a hard k like in "clay".
And I might have missed it, but did you mention Fock? He derived it independently parallel to Klein and Gordon.
This is the Sine Gordon equation. Similar to Klein Gordon but with a Sin potential
@@freddiepage6162 huh. Seems like I actually didn't pay enough attention.
Excellent video man, keep it up!
Very cool. Does it help with the problem of ' is space quantised ' ? It looks like it describes how once you set a photon going, it propagates through the electric and magnetic fields forever.
Long Josepson junction or series of Josephson junctions seperated by inductors behaves similarly DOI: 10.1109/20.92495
this is such a good video. a big eye opener for me. suddenly a very complex thing was reduced to something very simple.
Is it somehow possible to deduce what gravitation is from this analogy?
Nice and interesting model. I just wonder if something like that could also work with mind blowing properties of quantum mechanics, like the behavior of entangled particles? Perhaps a similar model but with more than just one dimension?
So, for n-dimensional space, do we view the pendulum? As a point bound to S^n? Or T^n? Multiple independent pendulums per point?
Yeah. Realizing at the end of the video that it was not a BREEDER is embarrassing
9:12 Is the phonon solution actually massless with a speed independent of wavelength? Shouldn't it have a mass corresponding to the frequency of an isolated pendulum?
Actually, I'm pretty certain that a phonon is just a low-amplitude breather. The amplitude of the breather would correspond to the separation between the kinks that make it up, so a low amplitude breather would correspond to a very tightly bound configuration where most of the mass of the kinks involved is canceled by the binding energy. So in the limit of zero amplitude, mass would go to zero.
You have to check out Larry Reed's "Quantum Wave Mechanics" papers. Particularly his paper "Confinement of Light: Standing Wave Transformations in a Phase-Locked Resonator". His work builds on that of Jennison and Drinkwater et al., who studied the electromagnetic momentum contribution of resonant cavities under accelerated reference frames. Reed suggests that the non-linear relativistic wave transformations of cavity resonators can generate mass generation in electromagnetic standing waves undergoing higher order accelerations.
Reed's paper models the wave transformation called the Lorentz-Doppler shift, and computes the inverse function which models the time-symmetric process of the wave transform, it has what are called conjugate phase angle and conjugate momentum vector. This models what an object in motion would look like going backwards in spacetime the way it came from, including the relativistic effects of time-dilation and length-contraction.
Reed goes on to describe the graviton as two phase conjugate photons in a coupled pendulum-like system, harmonic oscillators like atoms for example, will spontaneously phase conjugate photons, which will store the phase and momentum information holographically on the surfaces of interacting harmonic oscillators. This creates an energy density gradient between atoms and the surfaces experience the relativistic wave transformation converting the hidden electromagnetic momentum into kinetic energy which follows the same inverse square law as gravity. Time dilation and length contraction become analogous to the phenomena of spontaneous clock synchronization in coupled mechanical systems like pendula.
The really incredible thing Reed suggests, and I am hopeful but skeptical about, is that the inverse Lorentz-Doppler shift can be used to create much more powerful types of tractor beams or optical tweezers. Normal laser tractor beams have a power limit before they vaporize an object of interest, and so the size of the objects it can lift is fairly small. But Reed's technique involves phase conjugate mirrors and a pumped resonant cavity to create powerful repulsive forces by annihilating photons into phonons on the surfaces of objects and inside the resonant cavity emitting the conjugated EM field. This photon-phonon pressure is a resonant process that bounces phase conjugated photons back and forth millions or billions of times, as the Q factor of the resonant cavity is very high. A small amount of electromagnetic energy would be enough to lift the phase conjugate mirror against Earth's gravity. The confinement of light by phase conjugation, and red-shifting or blue-shifting the resulting 'dark soliton' with the inverse Lorentz-Doppler shift is the key difference between this and a photon rocket, which simply emit photons and absorb the momentum of the emitted photon once. This phase conjugate propulsion technology would be a reaction engine, pointed at the Earth to create the equal and opposite force on the mirror that's produced on the ground plane.
I did not quite understand how length contraction follows from the torsion springs. Are you saying that an observer running alongside the pendulum will see the pendula closer together, like a picket fence? Or something else? Can you explain?
Also, there must be some other mechanism that would enable these in three dimensions? What is it?
and btw the friction deleting thing with a symmetry like energy conservation emerging independently in the dynamics, different from the energy conservation already present, or even if energy is not conserved, like with well behaved dissipative terms, the energy lost in the "invisible dissipation" increases in entropy and the entropy gradient even if it doesnt serve as an energy source for the dynamics on average it does break roughly even in the coordinates where the dissipation is not accounted for instead intepreting the effects as being in an expanding space, but that flow of energy means things like time crystals, and rich structure that is quasi stable is possible in the vacuum, that would not be possible with just some variant of a kinetic gas or a solid or something they might have imagines in 1870. the properties of a vacuum structure like this has material properties that are very different than elastic mechanical forces or fluid flow or something like that, it can be much richer and can completely avoid friction, have very high propagation velocities with a structure that is effectively a superfluid intrinsically, forces are propagated by stresses that result in a driven system, with similar effective interactions in its own constituate structure, there is no sense in which the effective interactions making up material properties is more fundamental or the material stuff, its just coemergent in a sense from structure on smaller and smaller scale, and the effective interactions and the forms of structure are just equally real aspects of the over all pattern of and motion relations, it is basically my only guess for why there are forces at a distance, there is a system that is losing energy over time, and the flow of that energy does all sorts of fancy stuff as it increases in entropy, as long as the expense is proportional between different processes in different places, and is in a sort of equilibrium that decays over time, and the dynamics result in some form of intrinsic energy conservation, where the processes are driven and dissipative but over all creates symmetries in the dynamics that look like energy conservation, then you can have something that looks like harry potter magic in what apears to be empty space without some mysterious incomprehensible elastic material or something weird like that. for example there could be time crystals in such a thing, but if you only knew about the conservation law ignoring the dissipation, then that would seem kind of silly that you can have a stable time crystal, which would be a perpetual motion machine, ofc a superconductor to some degree behaves like that as well, but anyway, it would be possible to have stable long range structure very different from materials we know and love like a fluid or a solid, or a gass, not only could there be all sorts of waves propagating in it, but it could have the transmission properties of a solid for mechanical waves and still be like a superfluid, it could have long range forces between things with hysteresis effects, where depending on past interaction and motion, two partcles can be coupled in many ways, including haveing a connection between the orientations of their spins, and so on, having such an effect to drive long range interactions means it is maybe possible to build a complete hidden variable theory for quantum mechanics. anyway this kind of effect or vacuum dynamics is the most important ingredient that is new if i was to try to revive the ether project. but if one wants to do that, ofc it is a difficult problem and now you have to derive every known effect from it at the very least and probably some more, plus hopefull some untested predictions of quantum mechanics that are not correct. it is funny that the most obvious way to impliment an idea like that, has the generic consequence of looking like an expanding spacetime, from just basic considerations of the dynamics of rescaling and friction that has a symmetric character that is essentially unobservable intrisically.
wrote the thing about the thing in a comment on my other account on my phone. basically, tldr, friction terms and rescaling of the dynamics and lenght scale if in the right form becomes identical to an expanding universe with no friction, in certain models, but the form of the friction terms for mass, and the slowing of the speed of light, and the rescaling of lenght scales of matter, has to have very specific forms mathematically to produce the equivalence intrinsically with no empirical access to mechanisms. but if you have a system with those properties then it is possible to entertain weird long range forces arising and all sorts of quantization going on, and continoum dynamics producing stable atoms and so on. in an old fashioned way, like larmor said, the properties of the ether or substrait only requires to have properties familiar to itself, mechanical forces, and other forces like effective potentials like electromagnetic forces are also possible as constituents of the dynamics of the structure, there is nothing wrong with using fields to explain fields, as long as more details are there to combine with it and produce the macroscopic theories behavior through emergence, paraphrasing, but he believed that sticking to purely mechanical mechanisms or purely field theory, or purely anything, nature might even use all sorts of stuff we are clueless about, and we dont know what material properties are possible, just what we have observed through the windows we have in crude resolution. i think its gonna be a thing, elestic toy models like in the video are cool, but its not enough to produce everything a simple mechanistic description of the world must produce, and i dont think its is possible to do without this kind of driven system that has a sort of floating law of energy conservation.
you can even see it if you squint, a counter rotated gyroscopic loading that is maintained between particles created together or interacted in a certain way, maintained at distance through a coupling through the vacuum structure between particles because macroscopic precession of a single uncoupled gyro is not minimizing some quantity related to the change in polerization of the angular momentum in the part of the structure responsible for the potentials eminating from charges, if the structure is not disrupted, it can be maintained at a great distance and responds to changes in orientation faster than light, due to its driven nature, even though the interaction conserves energy in one description it is spending it in a different description. so particles have a similar kind of thing going on, just that it can co rotate or counterrotate just the same.
Although there is always the issue that models like this requires you to postulate effective forces or similar tendencies to begin with to get any interesting dynamics at all, which is ultimately why the old ether side quest stalled out, it turns into this eternal cat and mouse game of explaining potentials mechanically by postulating new structure which requires postulating more forces and so on. Very fun to think about, even more fun to work on, to make it realistic in 3+1 is devilishly hard, but also pretty cool. But it is not as far fetched as it seems initially, it would be way harder to get newtonian behaviour from such models than relativistic behaviour.
Newton exist in Maxwell it seems to me
@@brendawilliams8062 what i mean bud is stuff like getting a propagating standing wave, for example, that did not reduce its frequency with velocity. It wasn't that deep and Maxwell implies things like time dilation.
@@monkerud2108 I just made an effort to to dive into quantum . It didn’t work. I am sorry for a brief emotional statement.
@@monkerud2108 I was trying to work with landau and into quantum. Ended on a truck load of chemistry
Great video! You're not sharing your mathematica code, by any chance? Do you also have some nice references, especially about this mesons/bayrons scattering in this model?
It is a well put together video.
Pretty rad and that sinus looks like a carrier wave. What are we calling packets or quasi particles in nervous systems? The term in neurobiology is usually action potential. We know interference occurs in nerves but the model must include surface propagation which likens through a refractory period to pendulae but also core or cytosolic waves amplified by microtubules.
A lot of this, just visually, looks like animations of the concepts of quantum mechanics I've seen. The way the wave propagates reminds me of wave function propagation with moving particles, and @3:02, the balls in troughs are very much reminicent of demos of quantum tunelling and quantum objects seeking low energy states. Is this coincedence? Does this hypothetical pendulum object also correspond to any of those things in any real, mathetimatically model-able way?
Very interesting, but do the equations still apply if the pendula is not in a uniform accelerating
field as presented. (that is, it is shown in a gravitation field.) Or is that not a factor?
I'm curious if you could generalize your model to higher dimensions using Geometric Algebra.
Geometric Algebra is pop-sci BS: Clifford algebras are interesting because they're graded and contain elements of the underlying vector space (just like the exterior algebra) and also contain the so(n) = spin(n) Lie algebra (i.e. Pauli matrices), but they don't bring anything radically new to the table. Some guy tried to convince everyone to do all physics education using them in the 1960s, but what they really are is just one of N+1 tools of differential geometry and not really worth obsessing over to the extent that YT would make you believe.
Great work. Look for my paper on this soon. I’ll leave video link to my analysis on my new TH-cam page.
Interesting. Can the spring analogy be used to represent anomalies in neutrino oscillation caused by relativistic effects?
Very nice video. Thx!
the main take seems to me to be, that relativistic model is possible WITHOUT needing curved space. - Is that it? -- Of course, not this one in particular, for all particle properties we know, but fundamentally, instead of curvature, it could be more of a "tension" in the flat field of oscillating "points" or so...
likely oscillating in more than one dimension, of course, but space itself is effectively flat.
In special relativity you also don't have the curved space. The main take is that you can get relativistic physics from purely classical things.
The cool thing about it is the fact that you get wave-particle duality AND relativity.
This is possibly one step from the fabled unified theory.
What happens if we make the potential for the kinetic term sinusoidal instead of, or in addition to, the mass term?
You could also do this in 3d with smoothed particle hydrodynamics - those are masses on springs also.
Could you explain how the mass for the kink is defined?
Hi, just take a static kink solution and calculate the energy density using Hamiltonian density (the blueprint how to do it you can find on the wikipedia) then integrate this energy density over the position from -infinity to infinity and that gives you total energy of the system but since the system is made of just a static kink then this is the rest energy of the kink and knowing the mass-energy relation you get the mass of the kink. Of course you can do the same thing for boosted kink and you will get the relativistic mass
Very cool!
qfties taking a look at nl physics, neat
there might be an interesting direction in systems that go the extra mile and consider soliton gases, there even is a corresponding continuum limit
as far as i know it's pretty math-y and only heard about their physical relevance in fluids and optics (there's even experimental tests!)
We can see effects like length contraction relative to an observer who is stationary wrt the springs. But would two moving particles in this model also see each other correctly length contracted?
It's really not a compelling simulation or explanation for length contraction. The wave front can still move at the propagation speed and not be compressed to 1 pendulum.
the discrete pendulums are an approximation for a system that is continuous underneath -- that is, if you discretize the system with smaller pendulums and springs, then suddenly your "shortness limit" is shorter -- ad infinitum.
@@JurekOK sure but none of that justifies contraction of length. I'm not arguing that link contraction isn't a thing... Just that the model is unconvincing. Length contraction actually has to do with photon propagation having to go two ways in a uniform time; and in the time it takes to go laterally compared to the velocity it also has to go parallel to the velocity. And add a reasonable fraction of the speed of light the distance that it's able to go is shorter so really it's mostly the atomic electron cloud that gets contracted
@@3zdayz the model is a model. Not the reality. "all models are wrong, but some are useful" .
With luck and more power to you.
hoping for more videos.
Wonderful video!!
Gained another subscriber, keep it up🎉
If the initial conditions include a kink with a wavelength shorter than a static kink, the kink will propagate with some velocity. How do things evolve if there's a kink with a wavelength *longer* than a standard kink?
Could you add another opposite axis in blue color, and map it and graphic the model with volume
En algún momento sabras que Einstein siempre creyó ingenuamente que corregía las confiables leyes físicas y matemáticas clásicas newtonianas, en vez de simplemente corregir a la inversa las erróneas leyes geométricas de Kepler.
That was pretty eye-opening
Yeah, that is the idea of a more modern ether, reducing the known behaviour to models kind of like this, but not as simplistic, not sure what dialect wants to do, i personally am most interested in how elasticity itself can emerge in different ways, for example i have worked on a formalism for dealing with dissipative systems that habe intrinsic notions of energy conservation that are different from the notion of energy conservation derived from the "fundamental" or postulated system, the symmetry is in the rates of relative dissipation of different kinds of momentum and energy in different modes and forms in a dynamical system, for example there is a simple way to describe relative motion in an expanding universe with postulating a euclidean space, with no expansion, and having a physical rescaling of the sizes of things and the couplings and so on, along with some friction terms, and the friction terms, even tho imposed on the system, in a very simple straightforward way, where the velocities of stuff moving is decreasing over time, and the energy is lost, it would not be observable as friction, what a human experiment guy traveling in soace would be able to observe is identical intrinsically to just moving with no friction in an expanding space, and the form of the friction term is also related to relativistic momentum and longitudinal mass, and is only natural with this kind of momentum, the form of the friction terms are weird if you just use newtonian momentum, because of the form they need to have to impose the equivalence, obviously it is only equivalent intrinsically, and only so as long as the reduction in velocity in the euclidean space corresponds to the increasing relative distances in the expanding space. That is just the most basic example, there is a whole new set of symmetries to play with, and you can get a lot more interesting behaviour with these sorts of systems, because that energy you are throwing away can do stuff along the way, more complicated dynamics is plausible given a gradient in entropy, because it does not have to be kinetically driven by random shit, which opens up a whole new world of statistical mechanics, the old ether models, even if they were quite crude miss this kind of property, and it can make all the difference i think. The symmetry leads to multiple notions of energy that is conserved, and they can also have evolving exchange rates so to speak. I have found that this is the only way to get stuff like quantization to work from simple "mechanical" models, in an idealized case like this coupled system of pendulums, relativistic effects can come up quite naturally, but somenof the quantum behaviour is a lot more difficult to make manifest from continuum mechanics.
interesting perspective
Does anyone know how this model would change if we are dealing with particles like photons with no rest mass? also: is it correct to assume that 3 color charges in 1D would be represented by 3 perpendicular planes of rotation? Does this mean that making it 3D means up to 9 planes or do we have 3 color charges BECAUSE we live in a 3d world?
Would putting the pendulums on springs instead of fixed lengths, and allowing a flexible axis to which they are connected make it possible to simulate a couple other dimensions?
You've made a pair of coupled harmonic oscillators... I'm about to go to bed and I don't want to write a long explanation of Hamiltonian Mechanics, or Quantum Field Theory... but the number of "dimensions" (degrees of freedom) can be whatever you want them to be just by adding however many pendulums or springs as you want.
The motion of the system will also be very chaotic.
"In May and November, the Earth is moving at "right angles" to the line to Algol. During this time we see minima happening regularly at their 2.867321 day intervals. However, during August, the Earth is rapidly moving towards Algol at about 107,229 km/hr as explained on my How Fast Are We Moving? page. (The Earth moves approximately 202 times its own size in one day.) So in 2.867321 days the Earth moves about 7,379,039 km closer to Algol. _But the varying light from Algol doesn't know this - its light waves left Algol 93 years ago and are travelling at a constant speed._ The result - we "catch a bunch of minima early" during August as shown on Chart 2. Exactly the opposite happens during February - the Earth is moving away from Algol that fast and it takes longer for the group of minima to reach us so we see them taking longer between events. How long? 7,379,039 km divided by the speed of light 299,792.458 km/sec is 24.61382 seconds. So in May and November when we are not moving towards or away from Algol - the period seems constant. It is our rapid movement towards or away from the events in August and February that causes the timing differences."
I assume that light is passing the earth at c when the earth isn't moving towards or away from Algol.
In February the earth is moving away from Algol and the time between the eclipses is 2.8675875347 days and the light is passing the earth at 186,265 mi/sec.
In May and November the earth is not moving towards or away from Algol and the time between eclipses is 2.867321 days and the light is passing the earth at 186,282 mi/sec.
In August the earth is moving towards Algol and the time between eclipses is 2.8670608912 days and the light is passing the earth at 186,299 mi/sec.
How might one construct a similar model where general relativity falls out? I wonder if that is possible. If you can get special relativity, can you get general relativity?
This is a much prettier unifying idea than anything in String Theory.
Can you please share the Mathematica Code for this?
Trying to understand the gamma function. Can you show how you derive it? Refer me to a book, if you can?
You just become my favourite person 🤓👍🏻
Yes, I think this is what dialect has in mind. I also don't think they postulate length contraction and time dilation, but explain it precisely as the effect you observe. So you agree after all :D
did you just misgender dialect?
@@DrDeuteron No, in fact, they didn't even gender them.
Dialect is omni-gendered
We can understand a wave when there is a medium. But light travels in vacuum
An eleptic byke IS quantum . Cause the stroke motion of the arm can output both direction of the weel 😮
What should I google to read more about it?