PLEASE READ BEFORE COMMENTING! INCLUDES NOTES ON "LIGHT COMPASS" EXPERIMENT First, I want to say “thank you” to all of you who have encouraged, if not prodded, me to keep going. I learned a lot from my last video, so I hope you all enjoy this iteration that is MUCH longer and nerdier. We worked very hard on each concept to make them as accessible, clear, and verifiable as possible. As with my last video, as you all find mistakes (as I'm sure you will), I will note any corrections in this pinned comment. As much as we tried to cover this thing from as many angles as possible, I know there will still be questions. I do plan to do a follow-up, and I am considering something more interactive like a live stream. As many of you have offered support ideas, like Patreon, it is appreciated, but not time yet. I need a lot more momentum before I can jump into this full steam. The best way to help us out is to “spread the word.” Share these videos on your science forums, Reddit, or past college professors. Reach out to your favorite science content creators and challenge them to debunk them or review them. I’m just not comfortable taking anyone’s money (except RU-vid’s) until I feel I can offer a consistent service in return. Issues: Ok, so we got our first big "hang up," and it's from the LIGHT COMPASS experiment. First, I will do a follow up video focus on just this experiment. In the meantime, here are some points: 1. No, this is not the same as the Michelson-Morley experiment. This is not testing the "aether" - just Relativity. 2. Any test that reflects light will not work. You can only test this in one direction (per sensor) as reflection cancels out any relative and measurable offset. 3. The bursts of light would have to be on a set timer preprogrammed into all clocks/sensor data 4. The clocks don't have to be 100% synced (just synced to a smaller margin of error than the predicted light difference) as any disagreement would be a consistent pattern that could be identified. 5. The results only work by collecting lots of data and running Fourier Transformations which compares the data to the sphere. The sphere is necessary as a reference shape to normalize the data. 6. If you feel like I don't "understand relativity" and this won't work, read about this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope (Yes, it's real. NASA uses it.) 7. YES, there are a lot of engineering challenges. That doesn't mean it's not doable. Space shuttles have lots of engineering challenges.... 8. In hindsight, the experiment seemed obvious to me after going through this process. However, collecting the concerns/objections/questions from everyone, I see now why it seems so impossible. I have checked, double checked, and ruminated on this cud ad-nauseum. As of now, I am still convinced it is possible. But please subscribe and stay tuned for my follow-up video where I will either validate the concept or further humiliate myself. I am sure it will be entertaining and a good mental exercise either way. On another note, technically there is another word for "contradicular" - The preferred term is "orthogonal," but I don't like it because it has several meanings. This is demonstrated by the fact it often called "hyperbolic-orthogonal" just to clarify. - A viewer commented that I should call it "pervellicular," and so far that takes the prize. Thanks!
on Inertia, it comes down to frictition. On Earth we have the atmoshpere(basicaly a increadly spare liquid) removing energy from the object in motion. While spare only has a few dozen atoms in a cube meter(excluding the broading of Hawking energy to that it existing everywhere but with event horizons breaking the pairing of anitparticals and particals). An analagy being comparing walking on land and walking in water. You have to move/displace more stuff when walking in water then compared to on land. you said before that motion in space will continue until a force is acted on it, like something hitting it. in the visuals you showed the macro version of this but you forgot about the micro version(friction). Which stays in line with conservation of energy. If nothing is hitting you or pulling against you, you don't lose energy. In a true vacume you can move in one direction at the same speed forever, though the tricky part is that there's no true vacume thanks to Vacume energy. there's also a study in quatum mechanics that demonstrates why time moves forward and why revering it is neigh imposible. I'll post the paper below if i can refind, but it goes over simple systems and how they evolve. link: www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-trace-the-rise-in-entropy-to-quantum-information-20220526/ On why Children and adults experiance time diffrently: scitechdaily.com/time-can-do-tricks-why-children-and-adults-experience-time-differently/ On your argument about time standing still and everything moving perpindicalure along with Time being memory/feelings, How do you explain the physical evidence/consequence of time moving in one dircetion? With time being messured by physical consiquence of it's "moving/passing" , either as motion or relics of the past not just memory. Memory is in fact a consiquence of time moving in a precivable direction. About your black hole argument i'm getting a little confuse on what you mean about things a black hole spits out. you terminology might be what's causing the problem but the Black hole doesn't spit anything out, it only throws the things it doesn't eat around. Gama rays is just matter spun up towards the Black holes magnatic poles and shot out, while Hawking radiation is a black hole eating an antipartiacle from an antipartical/partical pairing virtual particals and tthrowing the other pair into space. which in a new theory Hawking radiation exist everywhere(including past the event horizon), i.e the virtual partical pair popping in and out of existance, its just the Event Horizon of a black Hole captures one half of the virtual partical pair. This would throw your there of time being frozen in a Black hole since motion now exist. you also have vacume energy that would lead to motion and time within the black hole. Also how would the theory of Quantum haired black holes work within you Coalescing/intergration theory. Quantum hair and black hole information; www.goodnewsnetwork.org/stephen-hawking-black-hole-paradox-solved/ paper itself: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269322001290?via%3Dihub for your question at the end, i would like to see these more indepth follow u videos. Edit: video with source links about a new study on Hawking radiation and its effects on the universe: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vEAKbL04bxQ.html
@@elysainempire4628 Oof, there is a lot there. Let me just throw out two things. First, black holes throw out far more gamma radiation than even Hawking radiation predicts. Second, on this: "How do you explain the physical evidence/consequence of time moving in one dircetion? " - you might try watching one more time. The point is that this is an interpretation based on our cultural biases and perception. "c" doesn't move, it's a geometric dimension we move (accelerate) on. To clarify: Hawking radiation is fine, and I support the "fuzzy black hole" theory. It just doesn't account for everything.
You said Arvin Ash was wrong in his example ~ @1:28:00 . Arvin is describing special relativity correctly here. You can say this is how your theory departs from special relativity, but Arvin is giving a correct result of special relativity. If you don’t understand why what he is saying is correct, have the observer perform the exact same experiment in his rest frame. If the observer says light reached both detectors simultaneously for his experiment that is at rest to him, then for him to make sense of the moving experiment, it cannot be compatible to say the light also reached both detectors simultaneously, according to special relativity.
Tamara Munzer's channel has a ton of super useful videos and animations that help to explain the whole concept of hyperbolic spacetime and the various reference frames contained within. Having said that, I also think hyperbolic reference frames are actually much easier to understand than you may think, as that is exactly what we have, as computationally bounded observers, in that when we are moving, objects that are farther away seem to move more slowly than objects that are closer, and objects that are getting closer to us appear to expand exponentially as they get closer and closer to us, both of which are Qualia that exist exclusively within a hyperbolic frame of reference.
@@ChrisTheBrainhere's a quicker answer. Time is that which separates events. The separation of events tends to make cause precede effect. Without time, either nothing happens, or perhaps, everything happens at once.
Chris, there is so much I want to say about these videos. I am floored, by how much everything about your demonstration style has made physics as a whole “register” for me in ways I’ve never been able to grasp before. I could write a whole essay thanking you for that alone. Coincidentally, I’ve also been revisiting learning materials, videos, lectures, and fundamentals of physics, over the past few months, it’s how I stumbled across your content. At your request in the video, I’ve spent a LOT of time going back over yours, and other, more mainstream applications of our understandings of time, black holes, dimensions, and the properties of light. I have no doubt in my mind that you are onto something COLOSSAL with this pursuit. Your dissatisfaction with the current standard for scientific discourse is inspiring. Curiosity that lies “beyond the graph” is all but DEAD in this space. I feel like when I grew up trying to learn physics in middle/high school, I struggled because I was only shown the units and the numbers, the graphs and the lines. Nobody explained the “why”, or the applications and consequences of the real world, and the problems that come up. It felt weird, and incomplete. A lot of people get seriously moved when thinking about black holes. Personally, it was your questioning of INERTIA, and WHY the speed of light is what it is, that seriously had me almost jumping out of my couch, watching this on my tv. Damn near tearing up at how much sense your theories make, and how, for the first time, NOT in a classroom, I feel like MY questions and personal issues with this material have been directly answered and that I can actually move forward, and feel successful in learning more. Thank you. Please, do everything in your power to push this as far as it can go. The amount of change you can make here is immeasurable. I’m so happy to be able to join this ride.
@@ChrisTheBrainWHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE (ON BALANCE). TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY proves the fourth dimension, AND this solves what is the coronal heating “problem”. Indeed, this explains the cosmological redshift. Great. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Consider what is complete combustion. Magnificent. Indeed, consider what is lightning. Great. It is proven. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
As a subscriber to many science channels, this is one of the most important to me because everything always gets lost in assumed terminology and "wrong" metaphors and analogies that is supposed to make things easier, but that actually makes things more paradoxical and difficult. I can't even keep up with the amount of videos out there that still visualize gravity as a ball on a trampoline, which drives me nuts ....P.S. Cute ant 🐜
but this video is mostly analogies and metaphors, thats the thought process to further this line of reasoning, rather than equations/experiments/data. this can be articulated in precisely specific terms for most topics mentioned, but i will not type them out
It cracked me up when you roasted the PBS spacetime video because I can never understand a goddamn thing that man says. I follow a lot of physics/science channels and I ultimately unfollowed that one. He's just not an engaging or accessible science communicator. Please keep up the good work! I have no advanced physics education, yet I have been absolutely fascinated by your videos. They make these complex physics concepts so much more intuitive than the way they are explained in textbooks.
Some people wondered why I didn't link to PBS spacetime in my first video. All this is why. I feel like that guy only covers the most extreme crazy shit out there, and wraps it in vaguely explained buzzwords to make it sound plausible. I love PBS as a whole, but that channel definitely works hard to make science seem like it can only be done by wizards.
Chris, you are doing an amazing job! These videos have just been getting better and better. A friend of mine is an astrophysics professor and I am definitely sending your videos his way. I can't wait to see what's next! 2:01:33 To be honest, I just want more videos. You've got a great thing going on here and I just want to see where you'll go next.
This is the the clearest understanding of a complex metaphysical idea I've ever had. You sir are a genius at communication and I'd say a yet undiscovered physics genius too.
Dude you should on the cover of every science publication. I think you have stumbled onto the answers that everyone since Einstein has been working to find. Your 4+1 dimension theory and beautiful explanation will eventually prove correct This presentation on time is another example of how you conceptually understand understand what experiments are really describing
Thank you! I am afraid, however, my first "cover appearance" will probably be under a headline like "Genius or conman? We ask real scientists what they think." 😜
The more I consider the concept of higher dimensional objects causing the non-local effects of quantum mechanics, the more I like the idea. Like with any higher dimensional thinking, its entirely unintuitive, and I really think you're right in thinking there might be something deeper in the concept applied to our universe. Its very hard to bend the mind into trying to form quantum mechanics as a higher dimensional picture, and if it is correct, our flat land brains are definitely holding us back. Cant wait for your future episodes, hopefully some neat idea come from this, and maybe with luck, a real formulation of quantum mechanics with a way to verify higher dimensional objects.
It is very interesting how chris explain the perception of time. The past and the future don't exist. Exist only a replication of a external rapresentation inside our mind and thanks to a logical connection of the events, we build the concept of time. We could say that time exist only when exist a memory device and a subject that can access to that memory.
I definitely like what you're doing. I would say keep moving forward and do not waste too much time trying to prove that other scientists got it all wrong. Nice work!
As a citizen of the world, I am so glad to have someone outside of academia and “groupthink” that has the intelligence to continue to pursue toward real physics. I am excited learn more and gain more clear understanding of reality.
I think these videos are fantastic, yeah you might not be a physics doctorate, but i believe the key road blocks that stand in our way today are conceptual in nature and it's hardly like you are approaching the topic from a position of ignorance. Also, thanks for taking the time to make such a complete video on your theory.
I suggest an alternative to reduce the volume of the sphere to an half. Instead of have only one light at the center and all the sensors around, you could use one laser for each sensor and sync the emission of all lasers. Thus you can have a radius of at least 0.5 km and not 1. Also instead of have a big sphere in a vacuum, you could use many tunnels in a vacuum that represent the diameter of the sphere, every tunnel in a different direction. Last suggestion is using reflection in a particular way. The reflection delete the difference of the travel time, but you can use a trick. An example if you want to reflect the light ten times in a zig zag travel to reduce the radius of sphere, you can add a laser for each mirror of reflection and sync the emission of the foton of each laser. The sensor should receive a serie of measurements in a pattern where one photon arrives in less time and the next in much time.
I think even a "cross" aka 4 sensors in tunnels, and the light source in the middle would give the same data over time, BECAUSE a point on earth is moving in so many directions.
I don't understand how this isn't getting more traction. I'm not remotely close to being a scientist, but this sounds like an amazing, innovative take on what has bugged a lot of us armchair enthusiasts re: relativity.
There were a lot of self-educated scientists in Einstein's time... including Einstein. But today, that's basically a taboo. It will take a WHILE and a LOT before I get taken seriously. But I appreciate the sentiment!
Ha! The set was kind of ad-hoc since my office has been under a migration to a new location. Hopefully, I will have more control over future environments.
don't worry its just a modified Sims character marker. The player is the Universe, this guy is just the avatar. No big deal lmao.
Год назад
Looking forward to see Sabine to “debunk” your bold theories. Don’t take me wrong, I’m not suggesting they are necessarily wrong. I just wish to hear someone smarter then me to investigate your theory which indeed sounds very impressive and well thought through. Regarding to true time/c vector measurement: wouldn’t be flawed with the same issues as Derek’s highlighted in his light speed measurement video? It’s the same thing just in multiple directions. Every part of the apparatus would be subject to same paradoxes.
@ I hear you, I would love someone like Sabine to try and pick it apart. Regarding the flaws, that was my point with "millions of measurements" - With enough data, you can use Fourier Transformations to separate out, identify, and compensate for each effect that causes variability.
I love this stuff, I think any way to reframe thinking about things whether or not they are "true" (whatever that even means) is valueable because we all can easily fall victim to thinking the first way a concept is presented is the only way to conceptualize it. Being open to different modes of thinking is important and can cause an idea to suddenly click and open doors for further understanding.
@@ChrisTheBrain very few great ideas spring to fruition without roadbumps. I think it would be interesting to see a demonstration of what the stuff that ended up in the bin was to layout the hidden parts of scientific process and to showcase what promise they had and why they were set aside or fully discarded. Analogous to this is how I love hearing demo tracks of songs to get an idea of the thought process and seeing what was an okay idea recycled later (sometimes a singular demo becomes two unique songs) or what didn't work at all and was excised completely as all information is illuminating.
Hi Chris, I just came across your "Unifying Theory of Dimensional Geometry and Interaction" videos and watched them all. As many have commented, you communicate your thought process well and make it understandable. Although you may not be as polished as some other science explainers, you make it work and work well. I do like your idea of testing for an absolute zero for motion in our universe and I hope that someone takes you up on it and gets it done. Sounds like a great idea to me. Kudos to your daughter, editor, titler, animator, and video resource researcher. Fabulous work. And I love the animations and onscreen comments that she inserts. GIve her a raise.
I lack the math and physics education necessary for a deep dive on these topics, so I appreciate any attempt to explain complex ideas such as these to a broader audience. Notwithstanding my love for SpaceTime, I definitely understand how some of the metaphors and speculative liberties would irk you. I'm having flashbacks to almost walking out of a cognitive psychology lecture when the professor described the Screaming Demon theory of pattern recognition.
It’s pretty surreal watching your videos man. As someone who’s always been interested in science but never in the field, it does feel like things continue to get more complicated, mindbending, and for someone like me just straight up ungraspable. Watching your videos is like going back in time to some point before a fork in the road, and continuing on a path that is intuitive and logical again. I really hope you’re right for the sake of my contradicular, limited brain. Cheers and good luck
I really appreciate it. If science was a house, I am definitely taking the "burn it down and start over" approach over the "renovate" approach. Not throwing everything out, but yeah, pretty much everything after 1973.
time is relative but the only thing you can't be is early, because the upload is a set event that is required first in order to be here. Technically I could also be on time, relative to my own position in time, even though compared to the absolute set time frame of the video upload we are all later than the time of upload, so it just becomes very semantic, does it not?
@@OnePlanetOneTribe You could also be an hour early to work, but at the exact moment everyone at work decides to turn their clock back by that time, for whatever reason, and still be on time. Same for being late an hour, and being on time.
It's funny because I love PBS Space time, but I get annoyed at how technical he gets about very very specific things. Some of his topics I simply can't understand.
People are going to say this guy is a wacko outsider... but Einstein was a wacko outsider too. These theories may be right or wrong, but they should'nt be outright rejected just based on the fact that this guy isn't a professional scientist. Carl Sagan said we should consider every theory, no matter how weird, or from what origin. He used an example of a Psychiatrist who had a theory about Venus being ejected from Jupiter, a REALLY wacky theory, but one that Sagan considered before rejecting.
Dude, these videos are awesome! I really feel like you are onto something important. I get that same feeling watching these videos I get when listening to a perfectly clear explanation of a very unfamiliar concept in that moment before it clicks but after I realize that the concept definitely makes sense and I just haven't gotten my head around it yet. I can't wait for see the next video regardless of which of the 3 options you choose (though my vote would be to just keep moving forward). I spend many hours a day watching youtube and I am VERY selective about which channels I subscribe to (a grand total of 2 channels after more than a decade on youtube). I'm now subscribed to a 3rd channel: Chris "The Brain".
Take note of the tangential concepts and circle back later. I think what you're doing makes a lot more sense than the way things are typical taught to us (3rd year Astrophysics student) and I'm excited to hear more of where it goes and to share it with some other math and physics folks who are likewise unsatisfied with our current narrative.
With time travel in movies, I always wondered ... "if they're just popping out at different points on a timeline, thennn... Where's all the matter saved? There would have to be every atom for every thing in my house ready to be there at each point we went to. Is there some giant matter hard drive at every plank length, recording everything? Does the 4th dimension just look like a really long episode of hoarders? " Your focus on the fact the twins can see each other blew my whole mind up a lil tiny bit.
Instead of contradicular, I would suggest pervellicular. It mimicks the etymology of perpendicular, it goes through a reference (per), but instead of hanging something down (pend-) like a plumb line, it pulls it up (velli-). As you can only pull through what was already hanging down, it kinda preserves the bound of the dimension as you describe it. "Contradicular" is too close to "contradict" which can have some connotational side effects, a little bit like with "imaginary" in imaginary numbers.
@@ChrisTheBrain is this all related to sqrt(-1)? meaning how there are the positive numbers and negative numbers and then there are these perpendicular numbers to the +1/-1 line which is the space hidden inside sqrt(-1) as an extra "imaginary" plane. is the mandelbrot set related to that? 🙂 edit: "imaginary" numbers are *lateral* perpendicular axis to the +1/-1 axis ~ there's a youtube video of a dude explaining complex numbers with graphics which is a great mini episodes series
@@ethandandu sqrt(-1) represents a lot more than this. IMO, it is duct tape over a problem with math that has a rather interesting and drama filled history. But, this "contradicular" relationship definitely helped force its adoption, along with a lot of needs in quantum mechanics. As far as fractals go, trying to visualize these relationships does produce these kind of Mandelbrot effects. However, I am not sure if this is just a result of trying to force them into 2D, or a real representation of reality.
You said to "use words good", but I think what you should have said was, "to use words goodly" (because it's an adverb). You're welcome. - the only addison
🎉I'm going to assume that I'm mirroring lots of other commentors with my praise. Most other channels feel like almost psuedo science, seeking to entertain and regurgitate explanations of poorly understood concepts. Your channel, in contrast, is a serious class with a fun sense of humor. Your content is already more than worth some coin, brother.
One thing about theoretical science I thought was weird was that everyone is trying to quantize relativity in order to make it fit within QFT rather than make a quantum field theory which fits within relativity. Almost no one is trying the reverse. I have the feeling that once someone makes a modified/simplified QFT that is built to seamlessly work within our universe, then I think we will move past the road block that is stopping science from progressing.
I do feel (after analysis) entanglement should explain the spacelike area of special relativity, and thus QFT trumps relativity. But yeah who am I to say?
@@Robinson8491 The problem is that quantum field theory makes some really absurd predictions that don't match what we observe. On the other hand relativity may be a less complete model, but at least it's infinities better match up with the universe's. I am not saying that they got things completely wrong or that it's all got to be thrown away. Instead I'm saying that in order to have any hope for a unified theory or eliminating infinities, they will need to redefine QFT to work on a relativistic framework and not the other way around.
On your point around 46:00 mark about how we perceive time, it seems we actually don't rely just on external cues, but rather, our bodies also have a few internal "clocks". PBS SpaceTime actually made an interesting video related to this. RU-vid deletes comment with links so I can't link it, but the name of the video is "What’s Your Brain’s Role in Creating Space & Time?" Our brain tells time in part based on the "beat" of brain waves It doesn't change your point much, but I think you could find it interesting. Since I'm mentionning other youtubers, Artem Kirsanov channel talks about neuroscience and is pretty good, and he mentionned how brains perceive time a few time himself.
Yay! I love this series! Thank you for the effort you've put in. I am always grateful for new ways to think about the cosmos. Speaking of which, Chris, you seem open minded. Have you heard of data visualization experiments done using gravitational lensing and cross-eye, a.k.a. stereoscopy? I'm a lifelong cross-eye enthusiast and I swear some gravitational lensing creates a borderline stereogram. But not from parallax; from repetition, so it's data visualization in that sense I'm a self taught stereoscopic artist and I've been practicing cross-eye since I was small, it's almost like a second language to me; I swear there's information visible this way and I've learned more about lensing symmetry behavior through cross-eye than I thought could be possible Keep up the awesome work, dude! Hope this helps in any way
Interesting, there are a kind of "mandala" patterns that emerge when we dive deeper into dimensional interactions. Maybe you'll recognize some when we get there.
For everyone saying this “makes so much sense” and is a refreshing, down to earth take, I’d like to repeat my recommendation from the last video that you read “Reason in Revolt.” It’s a lesson in materialist (Einsteinian) scientific approach rather than the standard “capital i” Idealist approach. The content is outdated and slightly inaccurate, but the lesson is in the method and outlook which Chris embodies, here.
We have the ability to make particles move at the speed of light, but the process freezes the particle's evolution in time. A photon from a distant galaxy is like a wormhole. It was entangled with a particle in that galaxy, and in an instant, it became entangled with a particle in your eye.
Things only exist within time when they interact with the Higgs field and gain mass, as what we perceive as a lawyer time is, in my understanding, actually just the direct result of an irreversible calculation done by some Information processing mechanism of the universe, that takes the infinite potentials of the higher dimensional probabilistic wave function and collapses them into a singular, discreet Manifestation of experience, with a particle being in a certain location, or having a certain momentum. I think Stephen Wolfram explains this unbelievably well with the wolfram physics project common as a comparison to Conway's computational game of life, With each discreet unit of space time either being activated or deactivated, in regards to the underlying quantum field, and changing its state defending on the States of its neighbors with each calculation. The beauty of that way of looking at it is it perfectly explains the strong nuclear force, in that quarks can't be isolated; they are actually the real world counterpart of an oscillator, meaning that they aren't actually individual particles, but rather, manifestations of a larger probabilistic wave function that oscillates throughout time. It also perfectly explains time dialation, as gravity distorts spacetime in such a way that each specific unit of space time is compressed into a smaller area, so a computation that spreads at the speed of causality, C comment has to do more calculations in order to spread the same distance, meaning that time appears to move slower within a gravitational field.
@@ChrisTheBrain Honestly though Mr. Brain, this channel is fantastic. Your ability to break down these complex concepts, while incorporating unique humor, is something to behold. Keep it up man! Keep using those words good.
I thought that when my sister couldn't tell the time as a child, up to the age of about 8 years old; that this was odd. Now I have second thoughts after watching this video! Try telling the time on a clock with no hands.
Great video once again! I already kind of thought of time (sorry, I mean "c") in this way, how you have like a normalized vector of time and space, how one effects the other. And I'm glad you brought up how so many people do just continue drawing past the graph to see what would happen. Don't get me wrong, I love exceeding boundaries and think of "But what if...?" scenarios, but a lot of science personell (RU-vidrs especially) just states it in such a way it sounds like you could just go and do that.
Chris, love every minute of your videos. THANK YOU. I hope your theories prove accurate. They're elegant enough for a mere physics dabbler like me to make sense of. But the really exciting thing would be experimental evidence. Any ideas on experiments in technological reach that we haven't tried that might give your ideas more backing? A gentle suggestion... for me, at least, hearing informationally dense things (the explainer on "contradicular", for example)--while music plays--gets exponentially harder the more similar the volumes are. I'm just one person, but it might be worth a little nudge-down on the volume. One person's distraction is another's amusement, right? Let's call it "attention dilation" :) Can't wait for your next one.
Thank you so much. I will take note on the sound. As I get into electromagnetism, I think I will have more accessible experiments. But by "accessible" - probably still requiring university lab level equipment.
@@ewmegoolies perhaps, but the casimir effect was seen more as suggestive than proof. However, I might be able to use such a device to measure the effects of other experiments. It would at least be curiosity inducing.
You know what I like about your channel you make it fun to learn about science I love science but I think you could be taught in a fun way like you do thank you
I have been saying for a while now that if you are not moving in space, you will be moving at C in time. In fact, I believe at all times we are always moving at C. If you are moving (relative to space itself), you are using some amount of C in velocity and losing an equal amount in time. Add them up and you will always equal C. This assumes that it is possible to become completely stationary relative to the fabric of space itself. While I believe this is absolutely possible, I don't know if it's something you could ever measure and be certain of. Perhaps you could make small adjustments to velocity and with a sensitive enough instrument, see if time has slowed or sped up. Eventually, you would reach a point where time cannot go any faster, at that point you should be at absolute zero velocity relative to space and be going C in time.
This falls under the realm of "accepted science" (although not many understand it) - yes, we are always moving at "the speed of c" it's just distributed between x,y,z and c.
Hi Chris, love your work in this field, but noticed the sharp dropoff from your successful video viewcount vs your other videos and their success rate. It is of course vital to get the word out about this to as many people as possible. That way more people can look into this and it can go through proper rigor! I wanted to give you a couple of insights into why I believe your viewership was so high on that one video vs your others: - Thumbnails are the most important thing about a video, period. Your 5 dimensional video got a ton of views because the thumbnail promised a visual of a 5D reality. We all want to see that so we all (self included) clicked it. Unfortunately you failed to deliver on a strong visual in this area, but managed to deliver a highly intriguing concept which me and my partner both love and have taken great interest in. Thus, I want to help you get the word of your ideas out there and see if they hold any water. - Length of videos + attempts at comedy. I'm not saying you, or your daughter aren't funny because some of the jokes definitely land. But the amount of time that is being spent on....everything....is far too high. The very first 20 seconds of this video are a great sample of this, there are a bunch of repeat jokes that cost a lot of time without getting anywhere close to the meat of the video. This is the internet and people have short attention spans, the rule is you need to have them hooked within 3 seconds. Yet 20 seconds in and your video hasn't even began. Your daughter has mentioned your tendency towards longwindedness in your videos before and I agree with her. Learn to cut the fat and get straight to the point. You are here to present a real scientific theory for which the theory itself is highly interesting. We do not need to be entertained by jokes along the way, you are not a comedic youtuber and nobody clicked this video to get a laugh. Again, you're funny, just not the right time/place. Very few people are going to sit through a full two hours. Please take someone like veritasium as an example of great short straight to the point content. He emphasizes the value of thumbnails in his "how I went viral video" about the shadeballs and I found it to be a very compelling argument. His content is also cut down and very quick to get through each topic. Show your daughters animations and discuss your subject directly, quickly, and without tangents. Other great youtuber examples include captain disillusion who also knows how to get straight to the point. It's just too tempting with all of those OTHER videos right there in the sidebar tempting to pull me away from your video. You've got this bud, just keep at it and honestly I would recommend starting over on the whole series. Do a 10 minute version of your first video showcasing your theories only, leave out any historical educational background on the topic or the current science. Just show what you've got and let us analyze it. You'll get a lot more science minded people arguing in the comments that way and that's just good ol engagement.
Thanks so much for the encouragement, and I appreciate that you took the time to put so much thought into it. We have discussed/debated a lot of these, and the road forward is a bit of both. The number one request I got from my last video was "make it longer." Or more accurately "don't rush." I think there is a market for long-form content, much like @PhilosophyTube. But, obviously not as large a market as for
@@ChrisTheBrain you got this! And I like to share ideas, but 99% if ppl I can share with will turn off an hour video. I like long format. Don't be afraid to make parallel uploads, a short-form and long-form. I feel like both would be equally valid and course I would watch both.
@@ChrisTheBrain my unsolicited opinion is that I would worry less about length and more about what I get out of the length. You covered many concepts but I was left a bit fuzzy on each concept so the overarching message is left obscured. For example in other comments it seems that fleshing out some of these ideas like your light compass is needed. I noticed that when you take a second to break down certain concepts and include an animation I'm with you but then there's long section of dialogue where I drift away. So I guess in short: more animations. After all if you're gonna go long to flesh out a concept (which you should) then why not go hard with it? But honestly that's a ton of work and you're doing a good job, veritasiums production quality is a high bar. If you just kept doing what you're doing then I'd be happy.
This video is so good that I almost stopped constantly noticing that he was out of breath from simply standing and talking. Next episode needs to be calories/time.
Hi Chris, I'm so grateful for your work. I am also someone who has often felt unsatisfied by the accepted explanations for various phenomena, explainations that seem so entrenched in unconscious and inaccurate assumptions about the nature of the universe. Most relevant to physics, I too have never accepted the assumption of the big bang, and feel that there must be a more accurate, let alone fascinating (and less depressing) truth to the reality of the universe -- rather than big bang and entropy heat death -- that science has yet to seriously consider. I'm curious how you might relate your ideas to the Toroidal Universe theory? Your work is suggesting to me that such a theory, while valuable because it resists this questionable assumption of the big bang, may just be another attractive idea that ultimately rests too heavily on the past and future physically existing, the idea that 'everything that ever was or ever will be exists right now... somewhere.'
You know, I just don't care a lot about how the Universe began. To me, it feels like the last piece of the puzzle, and is more of a burden to progress to worry about it. I feel like if we focus on everything else, that is a question that will eventually answer itself. ...that said. If I had a gun to my head asking me to throw out a hypothesis, I'd say it was a "Great Perturbation" - like throwing a rock into a still clear pond and all the mud gets stirred up. Thanks for sharing!
I know you dont want to talk about the big bang but to me that seems like the absolute zero velocity reference frame. Just a thought. Love your videos and the editors visual jokes. Keep up the good work yall. 👏
In my follow up, I will explain why I think it would point to either the center of our galactic cluster, or the nearest point of the "void" (the space between clusters.
To be fair this is basically a college-level lecture. I think it deserves full attention if you want to understand it and not just be entertained by it.
Dude you're gonna gonna be famous. You really got something very entertaining and very full of information you have a good way with words man ....I came to this video on accident and im glad I did watched the thing fuckin badass 👍
What makes Relativity equations so difficult to grasp is that they are written for a temporal dimension plus three spatial dimensions. They keep invariant the Lorenz transformation: (dτ)² = (dx)² + (dy)² + (dz)² - (dt)² where τ represents a fourth-dimensional distance, or interval, between events, x, y, z represent spatial coordinate distances between the said events, t represents the usual temporal lapse between the said events, and d represents a differential interval of the variable it prefixes. But the same invariant can be expressed as (dx)² + (dy)² + (dz)² = (dt)² + (dτ)² This tells us that the differential three-dimensional spatial distance, squared, between events is the same as the differential two-dimensional, with temporal coordinates t and τ, distance, squared, between the same events. And, if differential distances, squared or not, are the same, so are distances, up to a constant difference between them. Thus: Euclidean (non- curved, flat) 3-D spatial distance = Euclidean 2-D temporal distance + constant We animals are not aware of the temporal coordinate τ because its value is negligible for the kind of events, namely non-relativistic, to which we and our ancestry have been exposed for the duration of neuronal evolution: our brains only recognize a one-dimensional line of time, that of t. If our lives had happened in relativistic scenarios, even if just occasionally, we would have a relativistic, two-dimensional, sense of time and all the weirdness we currently perceive in relativistic conditions would be absent. And relativity equations would state 3-D spatial and 2-D temporal relationships like the invariant Lorenz transformation above. So, time seems not to be one-dimensional but two-dimensional. Between any two ordinary spatial positions, we can trace a straight segment: the non-relativistic ordinary time direction. Or two orthogonal (perpendicular) segments, if such a distance were traversed at a fixed relativistic speed. The first of the two segments corresponds to perceived time; the second, to the time dimension we can't perceive, whose length grows with distance to travel and with speed. Then the ordinary spatial distance forms a rectangular triangle with the two temporal lapses, the 90⁰ vortex always in a semicircle whose diametre is the said distance, the triangle's hypothenuse. The greater the speed, the more the perceived time segment's direction deviates from the above-mentioned straight segment and the greater the second time coordinate's measure. The limiting speed c corresponds to a zero-length ordinary-time segment at 90⁰ to the straight segment, then fully corresponding to the second time coordinate: the minimum time required to physically traverse the above-mentioned distance. Trying to represent the second time coordinate as a distance (interval) between two four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime points, called events, results in the hyperbolic relation mentioned in the video. I think my geometric representation, always in flat Euclidean spacetime, is simpler and easier to understand. Pity I cannot show an image, worth better than a thousand words. Edited: wrong word substituted. Text added.
In addition to those uses of the word time you mentioned, there is another in my language (Spanish), for it uses the same word for time and weather (tiempo).
13:20 time dilation is relative. The person in the spaceship will see the person on Earth in slow motion and the person on Earth will see the person in the spaceship in slow motion at the same time
Yes and no. If "acceleration is absolute" then time dilation is not relative. Just because we can compute it as such does not make it so. That would also add a complication to the Muon paradox.
@@ChrisTheBrain Hi Chris! Sorry for the late reply. The resulting age difference in this paradox is due to the change of reference frames and has nothing to do with acceleration. When the spaceship twin turns, he changes his reference frame, which means that his world line becomes bent (has 2 segments in this case), which in turn means that it becomes longer than the Earth twin's world line (which is straight).
Hello Chris. Great video once again. This topic is awesome and I'm currently working on scientific theories in exactly this domain of physics. There have been some mindbending breakthroughs that I'm certain you would appreciate. They would fit right in a video like this. The way things are going with the academic institutions these days, I'm hesitant to go the usual publishing route. I'm also thinking of starting a RU-vid to unveil some of it. Looking forward to seeing future vids from you.
It should be understood that within the context of special relativity what drives the concept of time at the core is the physical process of electromagnetic waves propagating away from you (the observer) at a relative speed to someone else. This directly translate to a new dimension where vectors of kinetic energy determines the curvature at speed V relative to C as a function of projected rays on the boundry of a 1-sphere from the x and y axes. This is how the relationship of speed and time geometrically exists in the most natural interpretation. This can very naturally be extended to general relativity where a very similar relationship exists co-dependently.
If you put anything together or online, please link to it and let me know! There are a few people I have found playing around in the same sandbox. I am considering a Discord or something.
@@ChrisTheBrain Absolutely, that would be interesting and I myself am on discord in certain math and physics oriented servers already, so I would not hesitate to join. I quite frankly believe i'm sitting on what will turn out to be a major scientific breakthorugh, and the work it very progressed already. I just find myself somewhat puzzled about the best way to share it with the world and until I figure out a cool approach I'll keep developing the scientific framework of this new large area of fundamental physics that I've uncovered during the last few years..
@@DKFX1 It seems everyone looking into this comes to similar conclusions. It's all to do with electromagnetism, photon-electron interactions, the permittivity & permeability of space. That causality has a speed limit, a field/medium/extra-dimensional space that impedes the maximum propagation of EM radiation. I believe I've seen a few dozen & seems like most of you are describing the same process but just with different interpretions.
@@randomizer2240 I've not revealed what my findings consist of so I think it would be hard for you to evaluate whether or not my ideas are similar to others. Obviously, these things you mention are important to know about because they are part of the current knowledge base we have gathered from physics, but all these things you list off are very old discoveries from the previous 2 centuries. What I'm working on currently is very fresh unexplored territory, including new math, new dynamics and more.
Okay. Imagine a 4D environment known as Space-Time. Now imagine that everything within that 4D environment in always in motion, and that the magnitude of that motion is the same for all objects, thus we will call it the "c" magnitude of motion, the very same magnitude of motion that photons of light have as they move across space. What you do then is create a simple geometric representation of this ongoing "c" motion within Space-Time, and see what happens. The geometry makes it crystal clear as to what is really going on, and thus reveals the actual cause of the Special Relativity phenomena, and that geometry makes it incredibly simple to then derive the SR mathematical equations in mere minutes.
Dude... your videos rock! Keep em coming 🙌 Dropping ICP at the end of the video begs the question... when are you going to do an epic science battle against Matt O'Dowd from PBS Spacetime? Open up a super chat during this, and nerds everywhere will throw money at yall ❤
Thanks so much! I'm afraid I got a ways to go before the established science communicators will feel it's worth acknowledging my existence. They could get into a lot of trouble if they appeared to be "validating a crackpot." But I will be more than happy to have those debates when the time comes. 😉
RU-vid also offers automatic language translations in the closed captions. It can also auto generate a transcript, except you'll likely find that it struggles with jargon and non standard words.
I've made it through an hour twenty or so now and wanted to throw in a few more things, then I'm gonna get out of your hair for good :P - Your daughters animation's are superb, her graphical talents spread from motion graphics to full blown 3d sims, I mean a walking fur cube, WUT! Her animation quality is top notch and Grenich sitting and twitching on the desk was adorable. I never mean to cut anything like this out, this stuff is all great. She really carries your channel and I know you know it lol. Since she's also the editor I believe, I want to give her some notes since I really feel like most of the changes I suggest are more editing focused. I'm not sure how much we can ever do to unlearn our speech patterns, but we can certainly edit a lot of it out! - Remove much larger segments of video while you work, this is going to save you both time on finishing this video. Key phrases that should trigger your cutting finger: *Again *I just want to nail that point home *repeated reminders about previous points, suggestions to watch previous videos multiple times (once is enough), and the entire dictionary segments or general criticisms chris has about society and our word usage. People don't listen to criticism, they just want to hear new ideas and will shuck off the bad stuff on their own once new information replaces their old thoughts. You have tons of new information here that is exciting to talk about, focus on that! *preparation phrases, this is the BIG KAHUNA IMO. This is a general issue many youtubers have "what we're going to talk about in this video is:" at the start of their content. It's silly, we all read the title and saw the thumbnail and know what you are going to talk about, so stop wasting our time. Most people skip this. Chris does it excessively "What I want to do now..." "So please understand that..." "We're going to use a lot of different analogies..." I typed these all back to back from a single segment at 29:50. There is far too much preparing you to listen going on and not enough just getting to the point. I know you know this is an issue of his, but he can't help it, so just cut it! :) I'm worried that with all of the filler and time wasters that people are never going to see all the great moments, such as the clip featuring bruce lee which had such a lovely metaphor. Or further down the line your AMAZEBALLS animation of the person spinning in the field looking up at the stars. I really can't believe you do all of this, he isn't paying you enough :P. One more thought about longform vs shortform. Keep in mind that youtube puts you in an adversarial position to your viewership. Your goal should be to gain the largest viewcounts across the largest number of videos possible in order to gain the highest exposure of your idea to society. As well as the monetary incentives that come along with that. Your viewerships goal is to get the most dopamine in the shortest amount of time possible, so of course there will be people begging you for more of your ideas and to make videos longer. They want to get all of the juice out of this cow as quickly as possible so they can move on to the next meal. The fact that you have people begging shows the promise of how big your channel could grow, and how much potential you have. I say short content with heavy focus on animated visuals, shorter explanations with less scientific background explanations. Many of us already know that and you can contrast when needed. Plus that just sets you up for a fight against something when you could just be pitching your new ideas fresh and clean. A fantastic example of this would be Rob Miles, he started out as an AI safety channel and just never gained a huge viewership. He recognized his lack of success and transitioned to animated content and now he gets Kurzestadt level viewership. It's amazing, people love cute animations and your daughter is nearly a pro already. Milk this cash cow. I know I'm being that annoying internet person, I hope you both know I criticize out of absolute love for the both of you and the excitement I have from the sharing of ideas. I feel like these ideas of changing the way we perceive the same math is beyond fascinating in concept and I eagerly await the future to see if this manages to gain some steam in the scientific community.
From just a "technical editor skills" perspective, that's a fantastic list, and I will gladly pass on the positive feedback as well. From a "sharing the burden" standpoint though, I also need to get better at writing tighter scripts. Side note: I enjoy seeing someone struggle through the same "love language" as mine: giving advice. I know that's not always taken in the best spirit.
Just from a viewer's POV, and enjoyer of what has already been presented, and someone who takes his time to word things very carefully... I think some of your suggestions would hurt the presentation or create a different tone around the ideas presented that could backfire. Using the phrases "again" and "just want to nail that point down" clarify that he KNOWS he already covered some of those things, and is revealing his intentions for being repetitive. People DO need reminders to go watch other connected videos. Perhaps they didn't think they needed to watch the connected video mentioned about a different point, but at this point, they DO want to follow up and see more information, now it makes it a call to action that the person will act on. (also, it could just be me, but I don't think his goal is to have a super popular youtube channel, but to just get his ideas out there into the world, and into the minds of people who can do something with it. This is best accomplished by individuals sharing it with others who have a keen interest in the subject matter - seven degrees of separation theory/whateveryoudcallthat-style - , and not the general public who just want to be entertained.)
@@NameNotAChannel You're what I would consider "a statistical outlier." By being someone who cares and pays attention you are already vastly different than the majority of the human race in it's current state. I don't know if you've ever had a youtube channel but if you take a look at the analytics it shows where and how many people drop off watching your video at certain points. I've learned how quickly and easily viewership moves on to other content and learned the importance of keeping those little dropoff moments from happening before the main chunk of content ever gets delivered. If 70% of the audience has left by the 20 second mark, what is the point of the next 2 hours? (Yes that really happens, OFTEN) My argument is that he should strive to have a super popular youtube channel. Any valid scientific idea needs maximum exposure to be tested. The only way we'll ever know if there is truth behind Chris's ideas is if other scientists pick this up and test his claims. You will simply never get there with a small dedicated fanbase. Beyond that, if he's right, then even non-scientific users should be informed of this new view of reality, as it could fundamentally change people's entire world view which can have major positive repercussions down the line. You don't want to keep information like this secret or smalltime.
I'm between the both of you. This takes a LOT of work, and it would be nice if RU-vid took off enough to make that possible. On the other hand, from a scientific rigor standpoint (which I am already taking liberties with) I do have to feel confident I have made a good case, and there is a level of investment required from the viewer if they want to understand it and vet it out. My daughter and I have been discussing it and we think we are going to try shorter videos to do a better job of teasing out new audiences and giving them an idea of what's here, while still doing long formats for those who have been convinced it's worth the time. Of course, with every video we learn to get better at producing them as well. Either way, it feels good to know y'all are rooting for us!
I'm a mathematician. I am deeply troubled by the manner and methods in which physics is generally taught. For instance, I had to discover, on my own, and only after acquiring a small library on the subject, the proper definition of time, which you indeed offer here. I don't know if my physics professors just didn't know it or were swept up in the details of theory so abstract that is borders the absurd, but, in any case, there does seem to me to be little excuse for failing to provide both students and the public with a simple, actionable definition of time. That said, you've done it. Kudos to you. I am sorry that you will be/are a martyr for having done so.
That means a lot, thank you. Not too worried about being "a martyr." Since I am already an outsider, I am free to teach and promote these ideas without fear of "losing my reputation" or hurting my career. I have to think, although I may be naive, that when I start connecting the dots to QM and offering new math and discoveries, it will be hard to ignore.
@@ChrisTheBrain Whatever occurs, I exhort you to press on. You never know how your insights may affect the ongoing scientific dialectic. So far you've not said anything incorrect. On the contrary, I think you would make a great teacher. -You already are, really. You've obviously thought about these concepts both deeply and, crucially, *sanely*. If I may make one constructive criticism, I think you seemed a little more nervous in this video. If that's the case, just be calm. You're doing great.
@@meccamiles7816 That is much appreciated. I am an experienced speaker, but have to admit the weight and importance of this work does make me more anxious than usual. Also, I was actually sick while filming. We only had two weeks left in the space before construction, so we had to finish shooting quickly. The encouragement means a lot.
When you were describing "contradicular," and giving the analogy that c is "inverse" to x, y, z - my first thought was, "It's not inverse, it's inside-out." I was super high at the time.
Question: regarding the 'Light Compass' chapter, hasnt this already been established through the Michaelson-Morley experiment, which proved that light maintains the same speed regardless of the direction of the Earth's motion? Your proposal sounds like the exact same thing; if there was a 'zero vector', would that have not shown up as a blip when the Earth happened to be going the 'right way'?
I will do a follow up video on this. The bottom line is that it doesn't work when testing reflected light, because that cancels out the difference. You can only test it in one direction. That may be an engineering challenge for sure, but it is the only way.
Side Note: the best way to build a Dyson Sphere is not to make it the size of Earth's orbit. Instead, make it much smaller, such that the gravity of the contained Sun is 1g on the outer surface of the sphere (a radius of about a million kilometers. Living space is inside the shell (maybe 100 km thick). So it needs vastly less material than a traditional Dyson sphere. It's basically a huge space station with a star inside.
Oh yeah. Materially speaking, the original idea is very inefficient. I just couldn't resist such a ready available source of exposition from Star Trek. I also like the idea of an "incremental sphere" where we just deploy orbiting solar collectors as we can build them.
The "Light Compass" model is exactly what was expected prior to the Michelson Morely experiment, and was exactly what it failed to detect in the Horizontal plane. In the vertical direction, the light would not slow down, but instead it changes color. Upwards moving light reshifts, and downwards moving light blueshifts. These color shifts are routinely observed and cannot be ignored in any model of time.
@@ChrisTheBrain It is a constructibe experiment and you may build it an do it. I'm suggesting that your expectation won't match the observed outcome because others have already done equivalent experiments and these are the outcomes they have already observed. This gives my comment the unfair advantage of hindsight over your pinned comment.
@@erebology stick around for the follow up. And no, this has (strangely enough) never been done. The only things close, like the Laser Gyro, didn't test on this kind of scale or reference frame. This also incorporates an element of Special Relativity that either people forgot, or it just wasn't taught very well to begin with: light has its own inertial frame of reference.
So you know the infinity stones? What if we had a dimensional volume for each stone. C (time) stone, W (warp?) stone, XYZ stone, (Astral/spirit/probability stone?) etc?
Your "light compass" idea is interesting, but conceptually similar to the Michelson-Morley experiment. The result, and the same result you'd get, is that it would appear the same in every directionality. Some thoughts: 1. You didn't describe the mechanism to determine which of the sensors got hit first. Since the signals from the sensors also travel at c, the delay of the signal into the processor will exactly counter the delay for it getting activated (you could draw a diagram of a reflection signal bouncing back towards a central sensor). Using a light ray as the signal here is the simplest one, but any other mechanism will also get the same problem, given simultaneity as relative. 2. It doesn't have to be 1 km. If you allow the light to reflect back and forth a few times, you can divide the required scale to build the experiment for cheaper. 3. You don't need a huge array of sensors. Two will do because the result is going to be zero, even at the extremum points.
Back in 2015 I gave a talk at Yahoo! where I was politely listened to while trying to explain why I also don't believe in significant Time Travel. To limit Time and better represent what we experience, rather than a virtually infinite temporal dimension the block universe addicts consider, we instead have a very very small "rolled up" dimension (*cough* ask the string theorists) along which matter can be expressed in one direction (and anti-matter, the other). There is also quantum effects in the Standard Model. What is the difference between an electron and a muon but how fast the particle experiences time? These all have anti-matter alternatives. This view also leads to some predictions one can make about m and anti-matter interactions across the 3 energy levels of particles laid out in the Standard Model. I like your geometrical approach. We should talk.
