How Hermann Minkowski Led Physics Astray

Minkowski geometry can reveal the essence of reality, clearly showing the important of events over locality. We can only define separation between events no matter the observation reference.

(Correction) Temperature is BOTH Potential Energy (PE), while its higher radiation is Kinetic Energy (KE). Just saying Temperature is KE is bogus. PE manifests KE, not KE manifests PE. All matter, no matter at 0 Kelvin or extreme temperatures, is PE. KE then is radiation manifested from the PE based upon temperature. But Temperature - IS - KE is false. Temperature as an external force manifesting UPON a PE object, then manifests and outward KE force. Just the same as light laser (laser ablation) upon a metal and having particles fly off (kinetic particles). No KE laser, no KE particles. Only the inherent PE object manifesting KE radiation from temperature changes.

(Correction). Light is NEITHER electro-magnetic NOR a wave. Light is electro-gravitic (EG). Light is a particle and not a wave. Photons as (EG-EG) particles (high energy, light speed) and smaller EG-EG particulate photinos (smaller energy and variable and less than light speed) have a small core of gravitons. They undergo (the former) gravitational lensing and escape, while (the latter) undergo gravitational capture and orbiting. Neutrons/neutrinos are electro-static (ES-ES) objects, having no internal graviton core, fly around and through gravitational fields without attraction, deflection, or capture.

Light is a particle, and not a wave. Bosons as force carriers, gauge and scalar bosons, and cosmic tension (tensor bosons) ... are composed of both half electro-static (ES) and half electro-gravity (EG) properties. They are half ES electron - EG positron or EG electron - ES positrons, They have half (ES-ES) neutron-like and (EG-EG) photon-light-like light speed or variable light speed (depending on the amount of inherent energy of these multiple-levels of objects). They are force carriers, with the half-gravitational properties of photons, and thus bosons are carrier waves and force carriers of electrons/positrons or smaller electrinos/positrinos along their internal graviton carrier wave. Thusly, bosons are the only particles (and smaller particulates) having carrier and gravity waves aspects. Bosons also dislay their half-photon "light" properties as "glow," but these boson hybrids are not photons as light particles (and light speed).

Photons - electrogravitic, light speed and variable light speed, gravitational lensing or gravitation capture. Photons are light particles, and no waves.
Neutrons - electrostatis, light speed, no gravitational properties or attraction. Particles and the smallest of any discernable waves.
Bosons - electro-static-gravitic hybrids, force carriers, tensor and gauge bosons, having small light particle glow. Bosons are BOTH particle and wave properties. ONLY bosons as ES-EG (or EG-ES) hybrids are the duality of the false and misleading Hegelian question of ... is light a particle or a wave. Bosons are BOTH. Photons are particles. Neutrons display the minimalist of waves.

False concepts destroy and keep physics from obtaining true discoveries from false questions, bad words, bad word definitions, bad and false 2D models with further false drawings and their extrapolations.

Mach's comment that all objects have inertia across the cosmos - should be properly rewritten as matter has potential energy (PE) of the first stable cup, while the second drawing shows what appears to be an external force rotating the cup, which would be an external kinetic energy (KE) acting upon the STILL potential energy of the cup (!). So many drawings and words with word definitions have wrong implications,

The models of showing the Einstein rocket and a light particle flying through the rocket is a false drawing. The particle appears to fly upwards and outwards from its point at the rocket's shoulder. The reality and correction of this drawing should show the light particle first at the shoulder, but the 2 right-most rockets, should have the particle falling down the side of the forward rocket, and the same curvilinear pathway should be shown. Again, 2D models, with false concepts of drawings inside them have waylaid many a physicist. One in the physics field should correct this drawing once and for all, albeit Einstein's words accurately present this experiment.

Light as the singular factor making time is a false concept. Gravity, and transits through gravitational fields, are the source of speeding up or slowing down time.

Space-time as a 4D reality is false. Space-time is still 3D, as gravity is shown to inhabit (at varying levels of existence) across a panoply of space fabric, but also the hybrid bosons (tensor and gauge bosons), and physical matter. If physical matter manifests gravity it is STILL distance and time. If hybrid tensor and gauge bosons as cosmic tension manifest gravity it is still distance and time. if space fabric manifest gravity it is STILL distance and time. Gravity is the time dilation factor. So 3D space with varying factors or gravity are the source of distance and time. There is NO philosphical or otherwise rationalization of X, Y, Z ... and time as the 4th dimension, all is 3D. And don't make false 2D representative modes of real 3D or presuptive 4D models. There is 3D - and there is only 3D reality. 3D manifests time through gravity.

In regards to the question of cosmic tension, there are the bosons as force carriers and whether they are manifestations of gravity. Photons/photinos have electro-gravitic properties, while neutrons/neutrinos have electro-static (no gravity) properties. Thus photons have gravitational lensing with light speed, while the smaller photinos have gravitational capture with variable light speed. Neutrinos and neutrons have no gravitational attraction to anything, thus light speed through 30 light years of steel with no interaction.

New discoveries have found multiple levels of physical matter, also have their counterpart bosons with the electrino-level, electron-level, muon-level, and tau-level. With Higgs bosons (said) having the possible 2 levels of existence, then a tau-boson and a muon-boson (having half-neutron and half-photon properties) they would have portions of gravity interacting with the space-time fabrics and the levels of physical matter. These then would be the source of (variable) cosmic tension, as tensor bosons.

In the search for (said) gravitation waves from a specific source, this answer would be a no, as the gluons have a portion in sapce-time fabric, while electrogravitic physical matter of smaller particles would have small gravity in space, as would the boson hybrids of 1/2 electro-static and 1/2 electro-gravitic properties would have a portion of gravity, ... and the cosmic tension of tensor bosons would have a portion of gravitation. So looking for specific gravity waves or a gravity field from a specific particle or particulate leads to a false research project. One will NOT find a clear gravity wave from a gravity object, unless you can have such advanced engineering and technology down to the graviton-level and then be able to differentiate between all of these many levels and variety of objects having full or half gravitational properties. And such study would only confirm our geolocation at the end of the galactic arm having this quantitative value, while it would be vastly different near a galactic core of higher density, higher energy, and higher tensor boson objects.

Biggest question is whether space fabric (and distance) creates the time dimension ... or whether gravity (gravitational objects) create(s) the time dimension. The time problem was solved with satellites at high elevation with lessened Earth gravity on them, showing that there was a recognizable time difference (no matter how small), ... and all the issues of light speed travel life ... and conventional life aging faster (on a planet's gravitational properties). So this would propose that gravity is the source of distance and time, not the space-time fabric.

This then gives credence that light speed photons and neutrons/neutrinos do not age ... like other particles in a gravitational field or light speed gravitational lensing and escape ... while smaller photinos with variable light speed having gravitational capture but slower aging ... (or particulate/particle matter destroyed in a black hole).

So, if humans occupy space, with 0 gravity, do they have minimalized aging on the space station, ... or with man-created gravitational properties (Star Trek Enterprise all floors have their individual gravity, these people would age.) Having an Arthur C Clarke rotating space station (centrifugal force and no gravity), people in space would age slower, (depending on whether they also reside at a LaGrange point (Earth, moon, and Sun equal gravitational region) or orbit around a gravitational object (space station around the Earth).

You speak of "denial of reality" with regards to 4 d spacetime here. But as far as I know, as long two theories make the same predictions, they are equivalent. Further, if both show a similar complexity, they are both fit for "practical use".
So do you have an experiment, where they predict different outcomes? And has that experiment been done?

Wow! This totally helped me with a model I'm working on. H and C don't have to be constants? Oh, boy. It all fits!

From my experience, this guy is right on, not only in his analysis of the physics but in his understanding of why the errors persist.

I’m assuming he has the slides shon on the podium, but he still continues to turn around and look at the screen. Something that really detracts from the presentation.

So Boltzman's constant is irrelevant because it only defines a temperature scale. But then why is the speed of light so important if it only defines a time (or distance) scale? It seems the whole talk was centered in the premise that Minkowski led physics astray because he defined a time scale so that the metric tensor is diag(1, -1, -1, -1), but this was only a mathematical convenience, he could also have defined it as diag(c², -1, -1, -1) (or diag(1, -1/c², -1/c², -1/c²) as P. G. Bergman does in his relativity book) with no time or distance scaling and all of his arguments would stay the same.

I don't want to dismiss a possible formulation of a gravitation theory based on variable speed of ligh, but is seems that the concept of spacial speed makes no sense in general coordinate systems, but only in local infinitesimal Lorentz frames. In those frames, the speed of light is always the same (due to the principle of equivalence), no matter the surrounding gravitational fields. I don't know why Einstein considered dx/dt something meaningful in general coordinate systems (and there are no other possible coordinate systems in the presence of gravity), but he certainly knew very well that the speed of light is c in local infinitesimal Lorentz frames.

Maybe if we look at the speed of light more as a rate of induction versus a speed ….

The truth is: these kinds of videos lead people astray. The problem with the internet is that:
untruths can be projected exponentially until real knowledge is inded LOST!

I see no problem that a mass can be accelerated beyond the speed of light. It is just our observation of the light from the object, from a static reference, that is sendt to us by the speed of light, that cannot go any faster. Just like a airplane going faster than the sound. If all you had is the sound of it you will deduce that it is further back than it actually is.

Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants, that's why he saw further. In other words, the birth of the theory of relativity could be compared to when the finished parts of an engine are lying about on the floor of a car repair shop, but no one knows how to assemble them. And then came Einstein...

Time is an emerging property of space so it certainly deserves a dimension.

Rewatching it and still not sure what time and space form a joint dimension is a problem. The key is they still maintain a difference due to the sign. They are not 4d but 3+1d with the invariance (due to Lorentz transformation). Maths is there and M is helpful to give us a geometric view (as hyperbola …). C as a constant (ct)^2=x^2 is sort of built-in.

Now variable speed of c and general space-time geometry is interesting. But what is M to do with it is not clear. Clifford geometry may be the next not M geometry perhaps. But what argue about M when it is a good tool to understand the underlying formulation of special relativity.

Minkowski’s elegant reformulation of Special Relativity in terms of geometry is indispensable for mathematicians and physicists (like myself...) who prefer to think visually. When confronted with a problem in Relativity Minkowskian diagrams provide an intuitive understanding prior to getting involved in the algebra.
Saying that "Minkowski Led Physics Astray" is a display of ignorance.

Physics is the science of measurement. But Nature doesn’t “measure” anything. The unit of measure for distance (one meter) and the unit of measure for time (one second) are chosen by physicists - by convention, for convenience. The present univerally accepted SI units ensure that the speed of light (in meters per second) in a vacuum is a constant by definition. The concept of a ”variable speed of light” in regions of otherwise empty space doesn’t make any sense.

Unzicker is clearly not on top of relativity and obviously has no understanding of the spacetime concept ..this talk is a lowlight at that DPG meeting way back in 2019 ..

This is very interesting, but don't you think that first we should tackle the dimensional divide between perception and ontology? I mean, the phenomenology of length and width is different from that of depth, and glueing them together in a three-dimensional space is a denial of reality.

Where AREN'T there gravitarional fields in the universe? Help me, did I miss sonething?

I have never claimed to understand relativity, even though so many popular science articles try to explain it to us laymen, clearly indicating an expectation that it is something that the general public should be familiar with.

But as far as I have understood it, the ieea that that the speed of light is the same in every frame of reference is the basis for everything Einsteinian in physics. From that does everything else follow as logical consequences.

So can the speed of light be the same for all observers, yet variable from place to place according to the strength of the field of gravity? This needs further explanation.

And how would this work for a black hole, where the gravitation is enormously strong and hence the speed of light should be terribly slow?

I have viewed 2/3 of Prof Unzicker's video, and so far all I can derive from it is that one may look upon the GTR (general theory of relativity) from Minkowski's vantage, the four-d space or from Mach's, the variable speed of light. There are many physicals systems that can be viewed in multiple ways. So far he has not shown that the two view of GTR, in some limit, diverge. If that is not shown in the remaining 1/3, then there is no harm in choosing one as opposed to the other, and this video is just talk.
Part 2.
@prbprb2 referred me to the remaining third of Unzicker's discussion, which is surely interesting: the elimination of constants as an indication of theoretical progress. Suppose theorists are successful in finding new theories that reduce all constants to just one. Could a final theory eliminate that? Is that what physicists are seeking to do? No constansts at all. Just observables (as Dirac called his operators) expressed in terms of other observables with no constants at all in some algebra we have not yet discovered?

Spacetime interval is lorentz-invariant and the spacetime formalism leads in GR to correct prediction of mercur precession. A variable speed of light theory cannot achieve that.

Bullshit

I love mathamajik!

Eventually the truth comes out.

With the discovery of gravitational waves from binary netron star mergers in 2017, wouldnt this and mergers of Supermassive black holes with waves way too big for our detectors cause all light to travel much longer distances than flat space and therefore redshift linearly from distance on its way to our observatories. Thereby a factor in tired light theory?

I'm in the middle of your book Einsteins lost Key. Good read. What are your thoughts on JWST high Z galaxies and Tolman test failure to show accelerated expansion? & subsequent molding of data to fit the LCDM model after finding high metallurgy in the spectrum as just 100k solar mass stars in the galaxies? Also. Loved "The Higgs Fake"

Of course QM limits what can be known! It is an outright obfuscation that only works as a talking point. It is unprovable and not observed. Math, not reality is where QM resided. Once you move past this then there is no limit to what can be known other than what there is. Invariant mass is a great place to start unlearning this fiction. Also, can a person acknowledge left and right at the same time? You know the time paradox might seem real to those traveling at different speeds but the 3rd guy witnessing sees it all at the same time and can radio to the pilots the current time if their clocks stopped working. Sean stole a fictional premise from comic books and got other "smart" people to buy in. What was the last great innovation that came from "science" and not from engineering and applied physics?

When will you do a video on Descartes and complain about his influence on Newton?😆

While I completely share author's irony about unverifiable concepts and plain speculations, like string theory, black holes, etc, attacking Minkowski's (well, Poincare's) formalism looks like an act of Luddite to me)) This is one of the most acurate, robust, yet comprehensible tools in physics. Yes, it is not intuitive, yes, you have to train your brain to deal with it, but it does reveal the beauty of the universe. Just look at how it simplified Maxwell equations! Or related energy to mass and momentum! And if you are after eliminating another fundamental constants, you got it: 1/c is just a natural scale of time! ))

Adding time as 4th dimension is one of the biggest disaster in physics.

If you're giving a presentation to an audience then guess who you should be looking at? Nobody wants to see the back of your head as you gaze at the screen. Just sayin.

Mathematics is a language. Physics is reality described by a language, mathematics.

Physics is governed by cause to an effect. Mathematics only cares of relationship and balance without cause to an effect.

Test data plus mathematics was intended to represent reality, failed from time to time because the apparatus developer know less in physics and mathematicians know less in reality. That may be a small problem, the biggest problem is that we trust the mathematician who trust the test data. What if there is an error in the operating principle in the apparatus and or the interpretation of test data?

No evidence at all to say c is always constant regardless of the frame of reference it is measured.

As a theoretical physicist, I also advocate that students of physics should only be exposed to experiments, not dictated by theories, which should be considered by researchers.

i would say minkowski helped chemistry out more than physics as a whole

Excellent video.

Einstein did originally oppose Minkowski's idea. He said it is just a bunch of fancy but unnecessary math.

I recently predicted the muon mass with 99.91%, and the tauon mass with 100% accuracy.