In this video, I want to walk you through the process of discovering special relativity. The problems that lead to this discovery, how physicists tried to tackle them and how Einstein finally resolved everything.
Hyperbolic is the magic word. Maxwell’s equations are a hyperbolic system. They are invariant under the hyperbolic Lorentz transformation. Special relativity is a theory of hyperbolic perspective. The twins’ paradox is just the hyperbolic triangle inequality. The Fitzgerald contraction is the hyperbolic counterpart of the elliptical Uccello contraction.
@@jewulo SR can either use a hyperbolic rotation on a space-time diagram, or it can use a simple rotation on a complex plane, as proposed by Minkowski. These approaches are isomorphic to each other. I prefer the former which is less confusing.
The short answer is as follows. MMX was built on a wrong concept of Aether responsible for the null detection. Following that, Relativity was built on the false null.
Can you maybe talk a bit about "neo-Lorentzian" theories which allegedly still permit aether and have physical causes for Lorentz transformations, but are abandoned with time because Einstein's relativity is simpler and more elegant?
Well, there is a huge history around the dragging aether approach so it would deserve a whole new video about it and I might do it one day but basically dragging aether at least to me seems the same as trying to save the geocentric model of our solar system. Physicists proposed many different ways this aether behaved in the proximity of matter to keep it consistent with the experiment but there was always some issue in the end. Giving the aether away completely resolved everything so elegantly that it reminds me of finally accepting a heliocentric model of our solar system. I just wanted to mention that this approach existed and maybe later I will expand on that.
@@m.c.4674 we,, the problem with these hypotheses is that while you can explain a negative outcome of experiments like Michaelson-Morley which have a negative outcome. You have problems with experiments that are capable to measure non-inertial effects of our planets like its rotation those are called higher-order effects. If the aether is gravitationally bound to our planet, we should not see a positive result in the Michaelson-Gale-Pearson experiment. You convinced me that I need to talk about it more so I will do a separate video on this but I have already planned the next two videos so maybe after that.
@@lukasrafajpps do you know that the earth core rotates faster than the Earth's crust , yet both the earth core and crust make a orbit around the sun in one year .
In Michalson-Morley experiment no shifts. Due to SToR easy to explain: wawelength of light shrinks the same rate as space in direction system travel, so when recombine in detector = no phase shift. But Q: from Earth point of view: no movement of system and so light travel to spliter/mirror/detector in straight lines. But what is the view of outside observer for which systems? When you emit light isn`t mirrors will be displaced? Whats going on?
I also imagine the ether ,or field or whatever you want to call it, to be be made of extremely small "substances" (loops/strings/ or whatever again) that its movement is determined by the "density" of matter. The higher the density, the higher will be the displacement of the ether (or whatever you want to call it). A black hole would be dense enough to cause complete displacement of the "ether". Therefore, being a place in which there is not mixing between matter as we know it and "ether". Because of that, when big massive black holes move or converge together, they are able to cause significant "wind" of the "ether", which is now detected with a different name, gravitacional waves.
Both, it would be c+v from the middle to the mirror and c-v from mirror to the middle. If this gets calculated you get that the time interval is dependent as 1/(1-v^2/c^2) where v is the velocity of the aether wind. In the perpendicular direction you get the same factor but squared and therefore time intervals are different.
Before I ask, I want to say that I am not a physicist. I am just a curious person who enjoys physics and is trying to understand what is going on. I like your videos a lot and I look forward to the future ones. Now here is the question. What if the speed of the ether is so small compared to the speed of light that we would not be able to detect any interference with the dimensions of this study?
What if the amplitude created by displacement caused by earth is neglectable and only a displacement cause by massive black holes can be measured. Why isn't that at least possible?
well there is a minimal speed aether must have since the earth is orbiting the sun with 30km/s and therefore we are constantly changing our direction so if the aether wind is zero now it wont be in half a year. Knowing this minimal velocity we can determine the sensitivity our measuring aparatus must have
Nice video but I feel kind of sick seeing the rope hanging from the lamp having a friend that did it. Might be just a decoration but please go to see someone if you have these sorts of idies, dont stay alone with them. I care about what you do, since I've found your channel I've been watching many of your videos and they have been very interesting and helpful
Oh, I am sorry for your friend but this rope has nothing to do with such thoughts. Originally my roommate brought it to train making knots for climbing but after we learned the 8 know we hanged the rope on the lamp. Then my other friend saw it and made it look like a real hangman's noose as a joke but I forgot to remove it while recording the video.
A mechanical elites was asked what vacuum means. In his reply - vacuum is empty of matter. An electrical engineer was given the same question - he replies, vacuum is empty of matter but Aether. Theoretically an electric source fail to construct or launch e field in vacuum not filled filled with Aether. How to proof Aether exist in vacuum? It is unnecessary to use the MMX, just measure the permittivity of Aether in vacuum and you can tell us if Aether exists. Aether is a fluid that has no physical but electrical property, with a permittivity, e0, measuring 8.8541817128*10-12 Farad per meter. Therefore Aether is a component necessary to permit (e field) and (displacement charge q) to launch into the vacuum for light to propagate. Furthermore, Aether always attached to matter, size from subatomic particles, to atoms, to molecules, to ions, to solid, to liquid, to gas and to plasma. When gas, liquid, solid moves Aether drag along with it, also drag with the MMX apparatus. On the other hand, from a macrocosm scale, Aether as a fluid (but solid) continues to flow and drag remotely and indirectly at a mean velocity dominated by mean distance and mean mass of bodies in the vicinity. Ignorance and avoid to this comment is not a nice way to defend this channel.
What to me was an eye-opener in special relativity, is that it is, philosophically speaking, a _much more profound change in understanding the world_ than general relativity is! General relativity is, mathematically speaking, much more complex because you need to learn about calculus of several dimensions first, and then Tensor Analysis. For special relativity you need no more than high-school algebra. There are still huge puzzles in special relativity that nobody has resolved philosophically. For example the strange fact that Einstein in his original paper stated that electromagnetic waves can move _through empty space _*_without_*_ requiring a medium!_ But this begs the following question. Is _empty space itself_ not a medium? Also, notice that electromagnetic waves have the curious property that they can generate themselves! They indeed _do not need_ any medium. Not even empty space! This is something Einstein missed! Maybe electromagnetic waves are not just moving _in_ space, but they _even construct space?_ That is my hypothesis. And if so, then they, indeed, do not require any medium! But then the theory of electromagnetism itself is a far deeper theory than we all think! Still, this hypothesis opens a huge can of worms of new questions! Another problem is that in special relativity the (moving) present is seen as a moving point on the time-axis in Minkowskian 4D space. Moreover, the direction of this (moving) present canno be reversed. So, according to special relativity, the past, the present and the future are equally real. So, in principle, time machines that can make us _jump_ to ay point in the past or in the future should be possible. But we only _observe_ in the present. Why is that? _Basically,_ this means that the whole idea of spacetime of Minkowski is refuted by observation! This _does not_ prove that special relativity theory is wrong. It only shows that _the spacetime modeling_ of the equations of special relativity introduced by Hermann Minkowski allows for more than what we all observe. Namely, the simple fact that we can only observe _in_ the present points to the simple fact that _maybe_ the present is all there is! Therefore we do not observe _in_ the present, but we simply observe _the present,_ because it _is_ all that is _really real!_ And that is why time machines that bring us to the past will never exist. You cannot make yourself appear to a place or time that does not exist! Einstein was aware of this very obvious fact, and it was a real headache for him. He showed this when, on the funeral of his friend besso, he expressed this frustration as: 'believing that only the present is real is a persistent superstition'. Besso died a year before Einstein. So Einsten apparently struggled with this problem almost during his entire life. He didn't see how he cold free himself from this 'superstition'. And that for a simple reason. _It isn't a superstition!_ So, there are big things missing in the special theory of relativity in its present state of development and understanding. There is _really_ more to investigate! Even in the special theory of relativity. _Because_ it is, mathematically, so simple, almost all physicists overlook how much questions the special theory of relativity still rises. Something can be mathematically very simpole, but philosophically still tremendously deep! There are many things in special relativity that many haven't noticed because of its mathematical simplicity. For example, take the appearance everywhere of sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). Notice that this can be decomposed into Sqrt[(1 + v/c)] * Sqrt[(1 - v/c)]. You might say: _so what?_ Well, these factors, (1 + v/c) and (1 - v/c) are formulas for _Doppler shifts!_ There exists a very interesting approach to special relativity, which is based on something called k-calculus, which offers a very elegant way to derive the Lorentz transformations, and which is based on this idea of doppler shifts. It took me several decades to see how relevant this is, because it hints at a connection between special relativity and quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is, after all, all about waves! At present I am working all of this out in a book I am writing about spacetime and its connection to quantum mechanics. Einstein tried to derive quantum mechanics from his relativity theories. This cannot be done. But the converse, deriving the special theory of relativity from quantum mechanics _can be done!_ By the way. I am a physicist.
Thanks for the comment. I think almost any theory in modern physics can have almost arbitrary number of interpretations and the equations can't distinguish them apart which is kinda frustrating and interesting at the same time. It is only when I started doing these videos I learned a lot about more fundamental things about special relativity and still there is a lot more. As you mention the sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) it is kinda interesting that such terms are not restricted to special relativity but if you learn about topological solitons as described by Sine-Gordon equation you will find these terms there automatically and it will be Lorentz invariant but the way how people derived the equation has nothing to do with special relativity, it is just a series of pendulums and you study how perturbations move in this system.
@@lukasrafajpps Thanks for your remakr about this Sine_Gordon equation and its soliton solutions. I had never heard of it before. Solitons, yes. But not this equation. By the way. I think you are wrong in thinking that these solutions have nothing to do with special relativity. In fact, your remark solved one of the things I was wrestling with in developing my own spacetime theory. To give a hint. Have you ever wondered where the laws of nature themselves come from? If you can answer this question, you might find out the connection by yourself. To give another hint. Look at what Feynman had to say about the phases of quantum waves.
@@lukasrafajpps *I think almost any theory in modern physics can have almost arbitrary number of interpretations and the equations can't distinguish them apart which is kinda frustrating and interesting at the same time. * Ever wondered about what a differential equations _without_ initial conditions actually tells us? They tell us_what is impossible!_ They are _exclusions!_ That is why there are, indeed, infinitely many interpretations of any theory of physics. The laws of nature alre all formulated as differential equations. And, again, without initial conditions, tell us what is false, and not what is true. They tell us what to exclude, and not what to include. They are what you might call universal falsifiers. The same applies to axiomatic systems of mathematics. They tell us what to exclude. Seen like this it is not surprising that the equations of quantum mechanics are not such, that they lead to several outcomes which actually occur, even with a complete set of initial conditions. Reality is just not strictly causal. Something that physicists had, and still have a hard time to swallow. They _insist_ on just _one_ interpretation as _the_ model. That is why there are so many interpretations of quantum mechanics. They are all formulated by physicists who have an (often totally subconscious) belief in the validity of the strict principle of causality. Especially the Many World Interpretation of quantum mechanics I find totally ridiculous! And that for one reason only. If the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics would be correct, then this implies that the law of conservation of energy would not be valid, because all of these worlds need the total amount of energy present in any world. So the total energy of the world would constantly multiply. Is it so hard to accept, that at any moment many outcomes are only possible, but only one or a limited number actually materializes? These people just do'n't understand basc probability theory, just because their understanding is blocked by their blind unconscious belief in strict causality. They try to conform reality to strict causality, instead of adapting their thinking and to dare to doubt strict causality. Ever since I think in both inclusions and exclusions I no longer have been frustrated by the many interpretations. I see it as a power, not as a shortcoming. Within mathematics there are these two camps, called the Intuitionists, or Brauwerians, who believe basically that only that what can be constructed makes sense. And there are Hilbertians, who think that mathematics is all a matter of excluding or, as they say it, 'only not being wrong'. I see both as complementary. The intuitionists construct. And then the axiomaticists test whether those constructions are logically sound, through making clear what these models exclude, _through_ axiomatization. That is why there are applied mathematicians and theoretical mathematicians. And why there are engineers and physicists.
@@konradswart4069 Well, interpretations can be useful as we can make some connections in the model we would otherwise not be able to do but those interpretations are coming just from our intuition given by evolution to survive on this planet. Different species would have different interpretations of the same physics. So I think there is simply not one universal correct interpretation as there is not one universal frame of reference. But this is not just a problem for physics. Mathematics is the same and just simply different notation can give you a different interpretation of the equation.
@@lukasrafajpps My point was that our brain does not only understand through interpretation, but also through eliination. An infinite set cannot be interpreted or visualized, for example because infinite just means _not finite!_ The set of natural numbers for example is infinite because it _does not have a largest number!_ So, you understand what an infinite set is by first picturing a finite set with a largest menber, and then you 'look over the fence' so to speak, and see that there are more numbers further removed from zero, no matter _whare_ you set the fence. This is what you understand as infinite = not finite. Let me dare to say something else. People are confused about consciousness, because they do not make a distinction between experience and elimination. We can experience without being conscious, something that happens in dreamless sleep. The function of consciousness is, I think, _elimination!_ The distinction of being awake and being in dreamless sleep is that when awake we also _eliminate_ the absurd, by logic and by the data of the senses. That is why when we are awake our brains are less active than when we are in dreamsleep. So, you have experience and you have consciousness. The function of consciousness is to eliminate mistakes. Setting up models is the same as making constructions that allow us to _experience_ our theories and hypotheses through visualizations. And differential equations and abstract algebra and the like as consciousness-based, and are _eliminators!_ That is why you cannot build 'a' model of a group, for example. The axioms of a group just tell you what you must _exclude_ from the concept of group. I see 18 and 19th mathematics as 'experience based' And the emergence of abstract algebra, the axiomatic method as 'consciousness based'. It is thanks to higher mathematics in the form of operators and the axiomatic method that we succeeded to make our own consciousness as a tool of understanding. My point is: there is not just understanding through models, but there is also understanding through elimination. Understanding through models is experience-based and understanding through abstrations like axioms and operators like the differential and integral operator is consciousness-based understanding, and therefore _is not_ about models. Model building is just _half_ of mathematics! Therefore, being a mathematician or a physicist is not _just_ about creating understanding through models, but _also_ understanding through elimination.
The Earth is orbiting the Sun and therefore constantly changes its state of motion and therefore it is not possible to be at rest relative to the Aether wind. There are dragging aether hypotheses but they had problems with other experiments as well. Einstein showed that we don't need Aether and still reconcile electromagnetism with mechanics.
Hi. No you can't take the vacuum interpreted in quantum field theory as Aether. It seems like it but the funny thing is that quantum field theory itself was created when physicists basically enforced special relativity into quantum mechanics. This was possible by introducing quantum fields but these fields are local the same as electromagnetic field. You can measure the value of these fields but if you want to know the values for different observer you have to use the Lorentz transforms. There is no objective way to measure the movement relative to these fields.
For the folk of today, one of the main problems is that students are first taught to accept lies. For instance, they are told that if a truck is moving at 50 MPH, and someone on the truck throws a baseball in the same direction as is the truck moving, and throws the ball at 20 MPH, that the total velocity relative to the ground is 50 + 20 = 70 MPH. Of course this is total nonsense. And so this throws students way off track. And so the students don't even understand that when the baseball is thrown, it is not even going in the same direction as is the truck, even though it appears to be. Everything present within space-time is always on the move, and the magnitude of that motion is identical to the magnitude of motion of which a photon of light has as it moves across space. And so the only thing that can be altered, is the direction of that ongoing travel within the 4D environment known as space-time. And to prove that this is the case, if you create a simple geometric representation of this ongoing motion along with the changing of direction within space-time, you can use it to derive the SR mathematical equations, and complete this task in mere minutes.
It is true though most kids are not gonna use special relativity in their whole life but most of them will need to use Galilean transformations at some point so it makes sense to teach them this way. It is always about the majority. I know that using 4D representation gives you an easier way to think about special relativity but it robs you of the process of discovery and the problems physicists had to face at that time which I find very interesting. I will of course generalize everything in this 4D way eventually.
not sure what you are saying . it should be 70 mph if the ground is used as station frame . if the baseball is used as stationary reference frame, then the truck would be moving away from the baseball . i think it is going in the same direction relative to the ground , but not the same direction relative to the baseball.
@@m.c.4674 Actually, the baseball is always in motion within the 4D environment known space-time. The magnitude of that motion is identical to the motion of photons of light as they move across space. All that can be changed, is the direction of that ongoing motion within space-time. Of course since we are always confined to the "NOW" time, we can no see this as so, but instead can only see changes in velocity across space due to not being able to see 4 dimensionally.
Hi Lukas, nice video! (... waiting for your future videos, they will surely be interesting ) Certainly the ether does not exist, but In this message I would like to tell you about " the correspondence principle ". ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... The correspondence principle is related to Lorentz Transformations. (and to Galileo's Transformations) Maybe you know this principle, ... and there is something strange. The two main Lorentz transformations are:: a) x '= gamma * (x - v * t) b) x = gamma * (x '+ v * t ' ) The other two Lorentz Transformations: c) t '= gamma * (t - vx/c^2) and d) t = gamma * (t '+ vx '/c^2) are obtained from a) and b) In this case it is enough to consider the two Transformations a) and b), because c) and d) depend on a) and b) At low speeds the Lorentz factor (gamma) is a number very close to 1, and so the two Lorentz transformations a) and b) become: a_1) x '= x - v * t b_1) x = x ' + v * t ' Substituting a_1 in b_1 we obtain: x = x - v * t + v * t ' v * t ' = v * t t ' = t " THE CORRESPONDENCE PRINCIPLE " IS SATISFIED: x '= x - v * t t ' = t (At low speeds, GALILEO'S TRANSFORMATIONS ARE OBTAINED) And it is not the same, if we consider the two Lorentz Transformations a) and c) a) x '= gamma * ( x - v * t ) c) t '= gamma * (t - vx/c^2) At low speeds, the two Lorentz transformations a) and c) become: a_1) x ' = x - v * t c_1) t ' = t - vx/c^2 But if we consider large values of x, then t ' is not equal to t. (AND GALILEO'S TRANSFORMATIONS ARE NOT OBTAINED) Also in this case it is enough to consider two Lorentz transformations, because b) and d) depend on a) and c) It's too weird: 1) if we consider a) and b) the correspondence principle is satisfied 2) if we consider a) and c) the correspondence principle is not satisfied ... And if we consider a) and b) the Andromeda paradox (at low speeds) makes no sense, (because t '= t) in this case the relativity of simultaneity seems "an illusion". ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. I think about the Lorentz Transformation c) t '= gamma * (t - vx/c^2) ... ... If t ' = 0 then t = vx/c^2, it's really "STRANGE" ! If instead we consider x = v * t, then c) t '= gamma * (t - vx/c^2) becomes: t ' = t/gamma. No frame is the privileged frame, but it seems that: 1) if we consider the uniform linear motion of a spaceship (in the frame of the Earth), then it is not possible to consider the uniform linear motion of the Earth. (in the frame of the spaceship) 2) if we consider the uniform linear motion of the Earth (in the frame of the spaceship), then it is not possible to consider the uniform linear motion of the spaceship. (in the frame of the Earth) If you are interested in the subject, here is the link to a video by Roger Anderton: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sy3Mlnoa6a4.html
Well, in the classical limit you say gamma factor is close to 1 which is true but what is the cause of it? in the classical limit, we send the speed of light c to infinity which makes gamma to approach 1. if you have t' = t - vx/c^2 where v is any finite number, you see that there is c^2 in the denominator and just linear x in the numerator and when you do a limit of x/c^2 where both x and c approach infinity, the quadratic term wins and the result is zero which gives you t' = t. But it is strange to do such limits for quantities that are not dimensionless so I think the proper way of doing it is to consider the quantity v/c to approach zero, then you have to multiply the equation by v to get t'*v = t*v - v^2/c^2*x now v^2/c^2 goes to zero quadraticly so this would reduce to t'*v = t*v for any x which is just t' = t for finite v.
@@lukasrafajpps I think your answer is great. I'm waiting for your video about the twin paradox, my favorite paradox! Thanks again, I wrote to many and for now only you have answered me.
@@massimilianodellaguzzo8571 I am glad I could help. The next video is gonna be about postulates of relativity because proper understanding is crucial and misunderstanding leads to those paradoxes. then it's gonna be about the relativity of simultaneity and then time dilatation and length contraction. these are already recorded but I have not finished animations yet. I am not sure when I make the twin paradox video exactly because I am not sure how I should make it. Currently, I prefer that I make one that explains it just conceptually without math and then I do one involving math to calculate some concrete examples because I haven't even derived Lorentz transformations and I don't want to jump too ahead. but I am glad you are enjoying the content :)
