What would that look like?

They would look like this: ∇(G + icB) = J and ∇(E + icB) = J ... I forgot those "c"

Got it, thanks.

@@padraiggluck2980 glad you've got it. I'm still on wondering if squaring a speed (one scaler divided by another) is not making c vec 2 into a two dimensional scalar, something hardly visualisable in equations where it is necessary.

@@richardchapman1592 i was referring to the missing factor c.

OMG 🙆 great tip, thank you so much ... I'm happy you liked the video

@@math.101 no problem! And yeah!! It’s amazing to see how these things come up together! I would love if you could make a video on how to visualize the bivectors in specific situations, like the magnetic field bivector in a circular loop! Even add to that the “geometrical” meaning behind F = E + icB 😃

Yeah, I've been thinking about that ... I tried a few things but it's easy to flood the screen with bi-vectors and everything becomes a mess real quick, I would have to spend more time on this, yep

Indeed it is! Well, regardless, once more, thank you for the video! The next few days I will be pondering on the material you presented here! Fun awaits 😂

But, yeah. I have to deal this problem with care. I yet know whether the gravitomagnetic field of its kind even exists. And, if so, there should be the limit of this theory.

Thank you so much

Thank you so much, I'm happy to hear about someone learning something from my videos. 🤗 I'll do my best to keep going

Thank you so much!

That's something I would really like to do for a future video 😊 ... I hope you enjoyed this one anyways. Thank you very much for the advice.

My pleasure!

Hi, I'm super glad you enjoyed it ... Let me try to give you a short answer. It's equivalent to go from gravity to electricity or the other way around. One can always get 2 sets of equations from a generalized set of equations (min 13:21). And in this video we identify them with GEM and Maxwell's equations because everything seem to match, but that's arbitrary and it's not a reason to assert anything. Yes, it's a great thing to think about, but remember these words "Physics is not just math" Thank you very much for being interested. Do you need a better explanation?

@@math.101 That’s the answer we usually get. But my lizard brain is telling me that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, flaps its wings like a duck, behaves like a typical belligerent duck, lays eggs like a duck, floats on water like a duck, cleans its feathers like a duck, is the same general size and weight of a duck, and constantly quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

Never without skepticism, but yeah, I share that line of thinking ... thank you

One of them is a much larger duck

Lookup TT Brown’s asymmetric capacitors if you want to see the connection between gravity and electromagnetism. It’s considered alternative physics or some would say suppressed physics.

Thank you very much, indeed

Nice Taric reference

Thank you so much, I'm glad you like it

Thank YOU so much

I think it's manim, a python library that allows for this kind of animations

That's a good question, for one side the imaginary part of a vector is interpreted as a bi-vector which is often associated with rotations in the perpendicular plane, so it wouldn't modify the distance between the objects ... on the other hand that multiplication is similar to the Dirac quantization condition take a look here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole which is associated with angular momentum ...but honestly, I don't know at this point 😊 ... yet I find the whole thing quite interesting ... I hope you enjoyed the video, thanks for taking the time to write a comment ...

Ok nvm this shit way too complex for me lmao

no idea 😊, yet many people point this out ... so perhaps there is a connection, if you come across with something, let me know, I would be happy to hear about it

Glad you liked it!

Hi, I'm super glad you like it ... That story is somewhat silly, I was wondering about why gravity ended up being described by curvature created by energy but you don't hear about electricity being explained in those terms despite being that similar in classical physics, so one day I was studying charged black holes and I came across a silly integral that kind of took me there 😄 ...

Yes, and in SpaceTime Algebra (STA), it is one. The square however is not the _only_ required property, since it also provides a duality conversation (between grade 1 and 2 elements in VGA, or between different grade 2 elements in STA), which restricts it to something that can act as a "pseudoscalar".

There is two approaches, the first is to include a time vector that squares to minus one, t² = i² = -1, but see if that is done, you have to deal non-commutative imaginary units, given by the wedge product i = txyz. The other path is to do a direct sum of ℂ (scalars and trivectors/pseudoscalars) + ℂ³ (vectors + bivectors/pseudovectors), in this algebra i = xyz, which instead commutes with every element, so you have a 1D+3D complex-vector. That latter option seems more easy to grasp and operate, also, if you get (A) vector + trivector or (B) scalar + bivector, you get Minkowski's Space-Time for free in your favorite metric signature: η_A = diag(-1,+1,+1,+1) or η_B = diag(+1,-1,-1,-1). That means, in the metric η_B, quadvectors are actually quaternions in disguise.

@@angeldude101Sweet, thanks g

@@linuxp00Thank you too bro. I agree that the second approach works much easier for calculation-based approaches and the Minkowski metric makes special relativity calculations better. But the first approach seems to generalize to GR much easier and naturally incorporates infrastructure for curved spacetime, which is what I’m seeking.

@@monkeyemperor1223 yeah, it seems more doable for covariant calculations in curved manifolds. It seems that the first one is a coordinate frame (curved space) while the second is a proper frame (tangent space). Though, I haven't gone far into it yet.

Glad you liked it!

Thank you too!

yeah, they should ... I've learned about it from the internet ... there is a good introduction in the description ... there is also a good book called Doran, Lasenby - Geometric Algebra for Physicists (2003)

yeah, I don't know exactly what, but a future video is gonna be about something around those lines

Thank you very much!

Thanks 🤗

Thank you! 😊

Ye, G(3,1)* is usually what's used and is referred to as spacetime algebra (space-like vectors square to 1, time-like vectors square to -1). The scalars aren't quite being used as complex numbers, but rather you have (in 4d spacetime) the vectors (a*t+b*x+c*y+d*z) and tri-vectors (a*xyz+b*tyz+c*txz+d*txy) which can be converted into each other by using the product of all the base vectors (txyz). When people talk about the imaginary unit in the context of geometric algebra, they usually mean this product. Basically, it's theming off of the fact that because gravity attracts like 'charges' and electromagnetism repels like charges, you can package the two forces in a way where either the vector or trivector gives the desired final sign. GEM is a limited model of gravity, though, and it's mainly useful for weak gravitational fields with non-relativistic objects. *ETA: It's usually G(1,3)

@@eliyahzayin5469 Is G(3,1) the same as (I guess, I should say isomorphic to) the composition of G(3,0) and G(0,1)? "Composition" as in using the multivectors of the inner algebra as scalars and multivector components of the outer algebra? Or does such a composition of geometric algebras even make sense at all? ...I never encountered the idea before seeing the video and I'm not really sure if that is even the right interpretation or if I'm not understanding it right.

@@MusicEngineeer There might be a way to do it, but I'm not sure. I imagine it would involve going into a higher dimensional space and then restricting it to a subset of the vectors plus an extra multivector.

@@eliyahzayin5469 Yeah - I need to figure that out. Maybe in general, the nesting of G(i,j,k) and G(l,m,n) is isomorphic to G(i+l,j+m,k+n)? That would be a pretty cool result, wouldn't it? But at the moment, this is just my personal wild speculation. ...if that is indeed true, it's probably already well known, though. It would also imply that nesting of geometric algebras would be a commutative operation (up to isomorphism).

@@MusicEngineeer Douglas Lundholm discusses some GA isomorphisms in his Master's thesis titled "Geometric (Clifford) algebra and its applications". Notably, G(s,t) = G(t+1,s-1). What you mean by "composition" is known as the tensor product and he has some of those as well, for example G(s+1,t+1) = G(s,t) ⊗ G(1,1).

too quick 🤔 yep, I have to improve that aspect. When you are making the video it feels like an eternity 😅 thank you so much

Thank you very much

yeah, they are such a tool

Gonna confuse us with electro gravitational puns now as well as sonic ones?

@@richardchapman1592 Just like two magnets attracting each other, you gotta' go fast!

@@PunmasterSTP can hardly be magnamaneous to that.

@@richardchapman1592 That’s a pretty heavy thing to say.

good point, next video I'm gonna disclose that assumption ... yet, Einstein himself made use of this assumption to explain Mercury's perihelion precession, right?

@@math.101 Firstly, loved your video 👏👏🎉🥳🥳🎉🥰😍 But that inertial mass = gravitational mass is the strong relativity principle, and is basically taken as one of the most fundamental axioms in physics. Yet, there is no reason why the relation is linear, or why it should behave the same in extreme situations. He did use it for Mercury's Perihelion, but, then again, he (and everyone else) used that for everything else too. Only in MOND's (Modified Gravity Models) do we see, sometimes, speculations around the violation of that axiom. Many experiments are all the time trying to see if there is any distinction between the masses. Obs.: m_inertial := mi, m_gravitational := mg mi = k*mg, through a neat change of variables results in mi = mg (technically they are quantities of different units, the inertial kg and the gravitational kg, with a conversion constant of 1 kg/kg) What physicists are looking for is weird stuff like mg=f(mi, v), with f(mi, 0)=mi

Thank you so much 🥰

There is a very good introduction to it in the description

It is a hall of mirrors indeed, good analogy ... I find this approach curious, so although I don't devote my life to it, I allow myself to play with it every now and then, even accepting my own biases. So if this leads to nowhere, I've been having fun. Thank you so much for watching and taking the time to write your thoughts, indeed. 😚

Didn't know before there is a problem about the ethics of asking logically well formulated questions. Is it similar to publishing in ways a perceived enemy can read.

hmm, perhaps I should've said more about that, yes (I thought it was clear that we can find both laws in the real part) ... I only say that "now its components wouldn't be just real numbers anymore" ... It's so difficult to come up with a good script without messing things up 🤔

thank you very much ... perhaps there is something buried into the maths of QM that points in that direction 🤔

That's a big question 😄

@@Jaylooker I've been studying this for years now and am convinced that the only way to get to quantum gravity is to dump quantum fields altogether. They are an assumption that seem to hamper more than help. Starting from infinitesimal particles, working constructively, instead of regressively, I have been able to simulate gravity (as existential [instantaneous]) and gravitational field effects (with parallax mesh holography). I have been investigating the relationship of gravity to electromagnetism (This video is a great help and I'm going to use its info) as well as the wave effect generated by a photon, which I have come to believe is two particles moving back and forth at right angles to generate a wave motion. I am close to proving that all bosons are variations of photons (2 primary particles moving back and forth) and that all fermions are variations of electrons (3 primary particles moving back and forth). Einstein also showed that the wave is inseparable from gamma. So my goal is to reconcile all this. But I'm not yet good enough with higher math at the moment to establish these things. Point being that waves are a remnant of classical mechanics, thus Quantum Mechanics needs to purify, focusing on particles as fundamental, and stop relying so much on probabilities, which will only ever see a collection of particles as fuzzy fields, which is antithetical to Relativity. My theory is that particles are fundamentally massless and gain mass by velocity just as Einstein's equations show and gain other effects (forces) by their dimensional interactions (dimensions being compounded movements rather than plains of existence). (As a side note to complete all this, I believe I have also found that time, rather than being emergent, is actually the only thing that exists. Every physics equation requires a time component down until all that is left is time; even infinitesimal particles themselves. E=mc² screams it.) I think maybe that if I sift through the equations in this video carefully and find where gamma is hiding, I can bridge the gap to the dimensional aspects.

@@Dismythed Why are quantum field theories hampering? A 0+1 QFT describes quantum mechanics. Also, QFTs are used to describe the standard model of particle physics. I’m not exactly following the hologaphy other than as an experiment to test the holographic principle? It seems difficult to make any experimental observation. If you looking for more on the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism consider the Gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) equations considered here and Kaluza-Klein theory. That sounds very similar to anyons predictions made by Lienaas and Myrheim in 1977. That considers symmetry of two electrons approaching each other as a way to describe both bosons and fermions and their spins. Electrons are fermions but I’m not sure about the converse. There are neutrinos which are also fermions, too. I’m not sure what you mean by the wave is inseparable from gamma. If you mean gamma as the Lorentz factor then I still don’t follow. There are lecture notes, videos, and books to help with learning more about advanced math. I like Milne’s notes on different topics and lecture notes by Kedlaya to name a few. At least following the wave-particle duality either is valid in describing quantum effects. You can consider S-matrices theory if you are looking to describe things just using particles and the way scatter. Probabilities are used because they match predictions like with the double-slit experiment. Certainly, it can be unintuitive at first because it doesn’t follow our classical understanding of the world like with Newtonian mechanics (not on the quantum level). From what I remember, the strong nuclear force accounts for most of mass of objects. Einstein field equations of general relativity do have velocities in them by stress-energy tensor with its momentum (p = mv) but these field equations tell spacetime how to curve and how matter or energy to move through that space. I’m not sure what you mean by dimensional interactions other than maybe Feynman diagrams which I think still make sense even if they get thickened to higher dimensions. Time being there may because of Noether’s theorem which states that every continuous symmetry of the action of a physical system with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law. This action is the stationary action of a Lagrangian. These conservation laws describe a quantity that does not change in time. Conservation of mass-energy is given by E = mc^2. Energy being conserved as a result of Noether’s theorem can derived be given the postulate that the laws of physics do not change over time. The Lorentz gamma factor should not really be hidden anywhere since GEM equations are not Lorentz (transformation) invariant. Maxwell’s equations are Lorentz invariant though.

@@Jaylooker I’m glad to find someone willing to put my statements to the test. I will have to break this up according to headings. HIGHER MATH I appreciate the offer, but I have found all the easiest resources I need to learn higher maths, but I’ll keep your suggestions in my files in case I need them. I just have to find a way to keep the numbers, symbols and numerical theorems in my head. I’m like a leaky vessel these days. I did not have the honor of higher math classes in high school. I started studying physics and higher maths in my late forties in order to explore my construction theory that I had been thinking about for a decade before. (I was working with that method before Constructor Theory was published). I’m now in my fifties and not getting any younger, but I’m determined to get it all down. Much of the problem is that I question the reason for everything and cannot adopt the math until I fully understand it backwards and forwards. For me, there is no such thing as “Shut up and calculate.” (Otherwise I would not be prepared to challenge the status quo.) So I just have to keep going back through it again and again until it becomes second nature to me. Physics is far easier to understand than the mathematics used to describe it. Thankfully, half the math is linear algebra or lower. I get calculus, but the fuzziness of limits and integrals turn my reasoning brain into knots. (I can understand it when I read it, and I accept the results, but I cannot do it myself at present.) I thought I understood them twice before, but neither time stuck. Numerical fudge is like trying to hold onto a hot potato. To compensate, I’ve been working on a way to calculate a curve accurately and speedily using simple math and geometry. Even if I figure out calculus first, I’ll keep working on the simpler way. Before anyone says “physics IS math,” did you know that the wave-particle duality of the photon (du Chatelet) and the electron (Laming) were both discerned by reasoning on experimental data alone, without a single calculation? I firmly believe in this method of discernment. It has proved more accurate than QFT and it has served me well in predicting many discoveries that have reinforced my model of particles. QFT That something based on quantum mechanics can describe quantum mechanics is like saying you wrote a paper describing a typewriter while using a typewriter. It holds no meaning for me. The electron was discovered well before QFT. The double-slit experiment was also performed long before the birth of quantum mechanics. I challenge anyone to present where three QFT papers accurately predicted different things without any prior experimentation making it clear in the data, does not depend on renormalization or plugging in a quantum version of prior classical math (a.k.a., “quantizing the data”), and at least one of which must be a particle other than quarks (Gell-Mann) or the Higgs (Their disqualifications discussed below). QFT is non-verifiable. It has never made a prediction on its own. It requires prior experiments and other maths to get to a point that they can plug in a QFT version of the equation (0+1 QFT is a prime example of this; the QFT aspect only arises after “quantization”). They can’t even solve the Schrodinger equation for more than the hydrogen atom. Schrodinger created the equation to mock the use of probabilities as a means of prediction and he was right to do so. QM is in a state of crisis right now for the very reason that it relies on probabilities. (Mind you, it has its place, but predictions are not what it is good at.) Even relying on other math, QFT has NEVER provided a single accurate prediction. It is cloud chambers, water tanks and particle colliders that got us where we are. Physicists have tried since the 80’s to say that it has the best history of predictions, but it actually has the worst. They use renormalization to chase down what is really happening, which is to say that the calculations that got them 4 whole numbers off the mark are erased and replaced with more accurate data from measurements. It is only after hundreds, sometimes thousands of measurements, and a dozen or more papers chasing the correct value that they finally find it. By that time they have created a whole mythology around the measurement that guides its interpretation from that time forward. The Higgs boson is a prime example of this. Did you know it recently got correctly diagnosed by Fermilab as just a z-boson-photon pair? Whoops. When it was first discovered, they had to break accepted standards of evidence to claim it to be the predicted Higgs. Also, it is not the mass carrier the original theory claimed it was. The original theory claimed that the Higgs was responsible for all the mass of the atom and granted mass to all other particles, but now it is known to be responsible for less than 1% and doesn’t grant any mass to any other particle. Yeah, great prediction. The particle doesn’t actually exist and the z/γ pair does nothing that was predicted about the Higgs. Now physicists have been doubling down on it for so long that they can’t even backtrack on it, still calling it the “mass-carrying particle” and I have only seen one science communicator mention it. Before that they were saying that their model of the Higgs is approaching 7 sigma of certainty. Sure was, but that’s not where they started. It could be argued that they were sure there was something there, but that is only because a supersymmetrical diagram told them so. In other words, they relied upon the equivalent of astrology (as supersymmetry has never panned out in the least and is responsible for the current list of pseudo-particles in the Standard Model). You know what prediction about the Higgs did come true? My own with 100% accuracy. I predicted in 2013 that it was eventually going to be shown that nothing they said about it was true and that it was going to turn out to be two known particles because that was what the data showed. I hadn’t even studied physics yet and I could see that plain as day in the graphical data. The resulting circus of physicists bending over backwards to make it work for the past nearly twelve years has been quite a site to behold. I am not saying that quantum fields are not a description of the effect, but rather that such descriptions are pointless and hamper investigation, hiding, rather than revealing, the reality. It’s like trying to study the stars with a cheap kid’s telescope that has a dirty lens during daylight on earth on a cloudy day. No wonder they need astrology. Quantum Mechanics lost the plot the second they abandoned a particle model and started chasing probabilities to solve all their problems. Einstein coined the term “quanta” to indicate that existence is particles all the way down. He did not believe that particles and space were connected in any way in a field, but were two different substances. QFT completely disregards particles all the way down in a desperate last grasp to hold onto some variation of aether theory.* * (Einstein is largely to blame for this, referring to space as a “fabric” because he never really disregarded the aether as evidenced by his later chasing the vacuous theory of “New Ether”. The idea of a “fabric” space undermines Relativity by contradicting what holonomy clearly says about it. Not one thing based on the idea of space as a fabric has ever panned out or else can be explained simply by flat geometric relations. Go ahead, name something.) Planck’s use of probabilities to explain black body radiation was a very specific use for describing the inverse curve between two conflicting energy states. He didn’t need renormalization to make this prediction. I could go on about antimatter, nucleon decay, and so much more, but this is long enough. Quantum fields do not describe the Standard Model of particle physics. It is an explanation of how the particles interact, and I contend a poor one. It creates divisions rather than unification. QM has literally (not figuratively) tied itself in knots trying to make QFT work. What I advocate for is QM in its purest form: particles all the way down to true indivisible infinitesimal particles. (“Indivisible” meaning not made of waves and “infinitesimal” meaning having no measurable qualities.) Mathematical fields, probabilities and fudging have their place, but they are rarely conducive to describing reality. So S-matrices will not help me. Probability is a tool that should be used sparingly, but is used with careless abandon in modern QM. I will not abandon QFT only to repeat its mistakes. It’s all or nothing for something with such an abysmal record.

@@Jaylooker continued ... PARALLAX MESH HOLOGRAPHY Yes, I was referring to A holographic principle, but not Hawking’s string theory-based holographic principle, though they are somewhat related. His was limited. First, it relied on QFT and string theory (I’m not into eternally resurrecting a dead horse) and simply related one qubit to the next. He claimed that gravity is not present, but that it arises in the equations. I assert that he was wrong. His equation is dsize/dr = mg and thus momentum = size. I say he got this backwards. Gravity is the only thing that factors in. It is a mesh because it crisscrosses with every other infinel in the universe as an existential norm, not just the next qubit in a chain. (That is to miss the trees for the forest.) This means every single infinel (herein as a libfix portmanteau of “infinitesimal particle”) has up to 10⁸⁵ connections, but some stronger than others. This is because gravity is inversely proportional to the distance, meaning that the gravity affecting any particle weakens over distance. This is due to parallax between particles in all directions, generating comparative measurement and particle velocity. However, this field is not a description of space itself, which, as I mentioned, is time alone. Gravity is existential in that particles seek to close the anti-existential gap (lack of existence; “Nature abhors a vacuum.”) between them, but all the other particles disrupt this, causing them to miss each other. Gravitational holography in general is not conducive to experiment due only to the lack of sensitivity of current measuring devices. If a single line of gravitational attraction between two infinels could be detected, we would know they are there and how they behave. So in lieu of this, I will have to be satisfied with discerning their presence by their physical behaviors within known particles in some way, even if just by matching models of their behaviors to the observed behaviors of larger particles. Or perhaps femtosecond physics (or higher sensitivity) will allow us to detect them in space. There are many ways to experiment to find them if, and only if, we discard QFT. ELECTRONS AND PHOTONS The muon and tau we know have an electron base with other particles because electrons are what they decay into. (I herein purposefully conflate electrons and positrons and sometimes electron neutrinos by calling them "electrons" for reasons that will become evident). Likewise, the muon neutrino and tau neutrino have an electron neutrino base coupled with bosons (see below for their electron base) or pions (quarks). The lifespans of muon and Tau particles of either type are too brief to even qualify as legitimate particles in my opinion. The same goes for quarks, which decay into electrons and/or electron neutrinos and their anti-particles. (I believe positrons and antielectron neutrinos are just electrons and electron neutrinos in modified states evidenced by the fact that a muon can decay into an electron OR positron.) I believe neutrinos are just neutral charged electrons, which suggests they have an even number of infinels. Basically, protons and neutrons are just collections of electrons in one form or another. After reviewing boson decays, I have to revise my statement about all bosons being photons (I based that solely on their spin number. I had never considered boson decay before. I just assumed they decayed into photons.) Gluons are not true bosons. They decay into quarks that decay into electrons. The ±W boson likewise decays into both an electron and electron neutrino. The z boson decays into a ψ meson (quarks) and a lepton-antilepton pair (electrons), meaning electrons all around as I described. Thus the photon is the only true boson. Photons and electron variants are the only particles that do not decay into other particles by any means. Thus they are the simplest possible particles. Therefore the true standard model should only include a photon and the four electron variants (or else just the photon and the electron). If all those other particles qualify for the standard model, then so should protons and neutrons as both hold together far longer than any of them, but they too are based on the electron. I suspect the variations of the electron are due to electrons having photon orbitals as evidenced by their variable spin states. Which way photons spin around the 3 points of the electron easily creates a mirror image we call “spin up” and “spin down”. (See below for more details.) INFINELS As to anyons, no, they were referring to quasiparticles in a two-dimensional system compared to those of the three-dimensional Standard Model of the atom. What I am referring to is deeper than that and has nothing to do with temporary particles. I am saying that two infinels vibrating back and forth at right angles to each other make up permanent photons and three make up permanent electrons. This is indicated by the fact that photons have full spins (the two vibrating particles create a circular motion like pistons turning a shaft). Electron spin, on the other hand, exactly describes the intermediate axis theorem (a.k.a., “tennis racket theorem”), indicating a lack of central balance. Thus electrons are made of 3 infinels. I even deduced that 3 infinels can remain bound by compression of their gravitational field. Once locked in, it is essentially impossible to break them apart as the force holding them together is effectively infinite, rendering the 3-body problem inconsequential. I believe positrons are either electrons missing their photon orbitals (for their reverse charge) or electrons traveling faster than photons can detect (for whatever reason) and electron neutrinos (originally posited by Pauli by simply examining data and discovered with water tanks) are destabilized electrons and antielectron neutrinos are destabilized positrons. I want to learn higher maths so that I can learn to express these things in mathematical terms and help make distinctions. (Matrices and trigonometric functions will likely suffice for the 3-infinel compression, though I may already have matrices down for the most part; they’re fairly simple.) LORENTZ GAMMA I’m just stating what you already know: The higher the energy of the particle, the more the wave compresses (shifts blue). This is because the path of the particle shrinks relative to the observer due to length contraction. The wave is the length of the path of the traveler over the length of the path observed by someone in a different frame, a.k.a., γ=1/√(1-v²/c²). This compression creates the wave. This is stated in Einstein’s The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. It is the fundamental principle of electrodynamics. You will note that my theory, by disregarding QFT, easily unifies all the disparate explorations of QFT by means of infinels in the purest form of quantum relations without an ever growing zoo of particle-generating fields. You might immediately jump to quantum entanglement, but that is resolved by the probability matrix of coin tosses which exactly match the distributions of entangled particles. Probability applies correctly here, but it is at the same time Einstein’s glove in a box. No actual entanglement, just correlation. Information conservation in a probability matrix. Math favors the preservation and propagation of information. So QFT is rendered meaningless and probabilities are properly subordinated to quantized particles rather than “quantization” describing particles subordinated to probabilistic fields. But that is not to say that the infinels themselves do not arise from something deeper. As I mentioned, space seems to me to be just time, but so are infinels. Infinels may be the leading edge of a temporal pathway. It is certain that they are not “bundles”, but likely points of irreversible time under expansion in a single directional dimension of movement. It is impossible for them to retrace their movement because other infinels are connected to them by existential gravity. To the infinel, it has only ever traveled in one direction (though it appears to be moving back and forth) and everything else is moving around it. Just because the current structure of an equation is not invariant doesn’t mean invariance cannot be pulled out of it. Invariance can be achieved by simple conversions. (That’s how they plug in quantum equations where they have worked classically. If they can be plugged in, they can also be unplugged.) That is precisely what I meant by “hiding”. Besides, math.101 transformed everything just fine in this video. It’s not a stretch. I have a big task ahead of me, though.

😚

Unfortunately, your providing facts and mathematical manipulation does not depend on reality but rather, on standard rules that have been accepted; nor does making stuff up out of nothing change someone's mathematical manipulation when that is incorporated into said equations.

There is a gravito magnetic field in a Maxwell-like theory of gravitation with mass velocity as a source, but it does not fullfill all the general relativity tests. So you are right. That being said, metric tensor theory of gravitation is not complete also, it needs improvement for example to take into account "dark matter" effects. But anyway, the mass separation with charge using complex number is pretty elegant and this video is really interresting. It is good to manipulate original vectors like spherical spinor for instance, that you find in Dirac central field theory of the electron. It can give you new theories or new perpesctives.

Hi @mathoph26, thank you so much for thinking this is interesting ... Another point of view is to think about GEM simply as Maxwell's equations but just rotated, so, everything becomes diffuse at this point, because everything we can say about Maxwell's equations can be said about GEM (or call them differently), see my point ? ... a viewer called this a hall of mirrors 😅 (and it is)

@@math.101 you re welcome. Rotated in complex plane you mean ? Question: the couple (mu,J) you defined for the mass velocity field is a four-vector invariant by lorentz transform ? It should be the 4-momentum no? Personnaly, because I like the formalism of electromagnetism and Dirac equation, I would prefer a GEM version of gravity than a tensor version (which have a lot of ambiguities, and an ugly not-symmetrical form, personnal taste...). The thing is, did you try to check the 4 tests of relativity using 4-momentum as GEM source (with no charge, so no imaginary part of the current) ? Including the gamma factor, which make it non linear and maybe the minimal coupling (in equation of motion roughly replace v by v - a, a being the gravitomagnetic field) ? I did not check the biblio with such a current source. By the way great videos, interesting and bold subject: well done.

Rotated in the complex plane, yep ... so, we can say the same things about both sets of equations, right? ... the thing is that GEM has a bad reputation, but perhaps it's because we don't fully understand it, or perhaps despite being mathematically indistinguishable GEM and the rotated Maxwell's equations are describing 2 separate things ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Thank you so much for considering it interesting.

🤦 is that about spiritualism? ... I couldn't find them

​@math.101 Spirit Science talks about electric mass and stuff, using the same synthetic voice, but is complete nonsense. Sir Sic often debunks Spirit Science on his channel. All this off topic if course, just a pity about the voice.

jaja, Sir Sic, is hilarious ... I've just discovered him, thanks 😅

yeah, I'm not a fluent English speaker, sorry

@@math.101 i'll narrate the video for you

Thank you for considering it good anyways, I think I'll try next time 🤔

@@math.101 yesss, many people prefer a genuine voice over a robot, and the accent of the narrator just makes the video even more real and genuine

Hi, thank you so much for finding this beautiful ... it is equivalent to go from gravity to electricity or the other way around. I cherry picked gravity's perspective just because of mc² being right there, it looks like what matters is their orthogonality, not much which one is the real/imaginary part. So you think I should've said more about physics, that's fair, I owe you one

@@math.101 we are used to prior math and forget sometimes about physics, which is always more relevant. I’ll love to talk with u more about the physics of this math you did! For instance, what do you think it means to “mass and charge to be ortogonal?” (Ps: forgive me for my english, i’m from 🇧🇷😂😂)

hey, no worries, I don't speak English either ... that's a tough question, I don't think too much about its meaning but rather in where it can take you once you start toying with it, like in the video itself. I have some more things coming for future videos, perhaps they contribute to this question.

Me talking ... that would ruin the video 😄

Why?

It's literally at the bottom of the video description. Not super up front, but by no means deceitful.

If you’ve got a fat dumpy you should disclose that

Voice mods are allowed, chill.

what would having that information change exactly?

Honestly, I sub'd after seeing that. Made it easier to follow the concepts in each equation.

Geometric phases wants to talk to you. Synthetic monopoles are a thing

@@mayatrash nope no monopole can be created. by trying to create a monopole you will always end up with the other side to the pair. There are only electrical and magnetic dipoles. This is a known result that magnetic monopoles cannot physically exist. Any mathematical framework that shows a monopole is making assumptions that do not exist in the real world.

@@kennethgee2004 Bro im literally a theoretical physicist. The only reason magnetic monopoles do not exist is because we have never seen them and assume that they don't exist ab initio from Maxwells equations. However, I'm at parts with you, you are correct, in a physical manner one can say they do not exist, but if other stuff can be described that way it makes everything more complicated. In a way we just use the best description we have, which never means we are faithful in our understanding. Synthetic magnetic fields to emerge in topological phases, which could be seen as an effective effect, but the same is true for quasiparticles or even virtual particles. At some point it just becomes descriptions and relating equations to the real word becomes diffusive.

@@kennethgee2004 and any mathematical framework that shows a gravitational singularity is making assumptions that do not exist in the real world, yet here we are observing black holes.

@@mayatrash but isnt the known maxwell equations actually a natural consequence of U(1) symmetry of the Dirac lagragian? then Gauss's law naturally emerge showing that the Divergence of the magnetic field really is zero. What I want to say is that magnetic monopoles not existing is not anymore a matter of "not observing them" it is actually a fact due a deep principle of symmetry of the Universe. Isnt that correct?

Actually both the parts are meaningless symbols

Shut up

was this generated by chatgpt? otherwise, completely regarded

Nope, chatgpt isn't involved in any way.

Bro had to go write s book about not understanding imaginary units therefore they "don't exist"

And the compact formula of Maxwell doesn't need any new physics It's strict in math that the maxwell just states: d star F=hodge star J For no magnetic charge monopole situation, F is strictly written as dA If you have a monopole, then F is locally written as dA, and we strictly have d F= J monopole The compactness and the elegance just come from the differential geometry of forms