Maartenn100

This is what Sabine Hossenfelder, a respected physicist within the scientific community, has to say in her video on YouTube: 🔗 https://youtu.be/shFUDPqVmTg?si=not59XTuPYqUDwmu "Published in 'Foundations of Physics' is nonsense and remains nonsense." Sabine Hossenfelder: "This email came from someone I have met a few times but do not know well, who was working at a top institute in the United States at the time. To respect confidentiality, I have removed some details. *'Hi Sabina, I don’t know if you remember me. I am not using my work email because this topic is sensitive, and I hope our conversation remains confidential. I am reaching out about your recent paper in Nature, which caused quite a stir. First of all, congratulations on a well-written article. If you wanted to attract attention, you certainly succeeded. However, I would like to ask you to think not only about short-term benefits for yourself next time but also about the broader community. Do you understand what consequences your publication may have for our community? What will all those BSM model builders with their inflated self-image do now? What will happen to the experimental physicists who survive by hiding within large multi-institute collaborations? Can you provide all of them with a decent alternative for work? Some have families and young children. Others are too old to find work elsewhere. For some, academia is the only way to obtain a visa for the U.S. Yes, if you want to put it that way, we have created a bubble, but that bubble has helped thousands of them and their families survive. We all do the same thing and have our secrets. For example, I am one of the authors of a so-called model—completely useless things, old material with a few new additions and bells and whistles. But if people buy it and it helps them get grants, who cares? The people who fund us have no idea whether elementary particles really exist. They pay us with public funds, not their own money. Essentially, they are paying for something cool, a new hype, something that allows them to justify their expenses in science budgets or, in the case of universities, to attract students. Your article has caused quite a stir and will likely lead to a redistribution of HEP funds (High-Energy Physics) to other fields. But I doubt you will be able to implement any organizational changes. Also, changes in quality criteria that would reveal the uselessness of someone's work will never be approved. I realize that what I am writing here may sound harsh—my apologies for that—but this is simply how our society is structured. This problem does not only exist in the HEP community but in all scientific disciplines. My heart breaks every time I see brilliant, independent thinkers leave academia or get pushed out, while obedient idiots remain. But there is nothing we can do about it. Those who leave usually find better opportunities outside academia. Those who stay accept the rules and enjoy the comfortable academic lifestyle. Of course, there are exceptions, like string theorists Smolin and Woit, but I doubt you would want to share their fate."* I (Sabine) am reading this out to you as a rare example of someone being honest about the situation. Unlike the person who sent this email, I do not think taxpayers are stupid. We do not pay physicists for a "cool new hype"; we want results. And soon, taxpayers will start asking difficult questions. An example: It is claimed that the DUNE experiment, built with billions of dollars in public funds at Fermilab, will tell us why we exist or why the universe did not disappear. I must disappoint you: it will tell us no such thing. Regardless of the outcome of the experiment, it will not answer the question of why the universe contains more matter than antimatter. That question cannot be answered within our current theories. The matter-antimatter asymmetry that DUNE is supposedly shedding light on is a pseudo-problem. It is a story that physicists have made up and are now selling to the public because they think that once the money is in, it does not matter whether they deliver what they promised. To be fair, I think some physicists themselves are confused about what CP violation in the neutrino sector actually says about antimatter. So, what will the experiment actually do? It will measure some properties of neutrinos. And what is good about that? It ensures that particle physicists keep their jobs. Because some of them have families, and it would be unfair if they had to do something useful for their income, right? Has anyone even noticed that the U.S. government has spent another $2 billion on a new particle accelerator at Brookhaven? The goal is to improve measurements of quark and gluon distributions in heavy ions. What is that good for? You are not supposed to ask. You just have to believe that you are too dumb to understand why this is useful. But let me tell you: it is good for maintaining employment in particle physics. (And now it becomes clear why atheists have issues with philosophers but are fine with current nonsensical science—because the latter gets well-funded, while the former think for themselves without bringing money to the table.) Meanwhile, the Chinese are laughing their heads off that you think this makes your country worth defending. The fact that particle physicists have created these bubbles of useless research is not a problem that can be solved from within. The only way to fix it is to cut the funding. And I am afraid that is exactly what is going to happen. I did not want this to happen. That is why I wrote my commentary in 2017. But at this point, it is too late for them to change anything. I have read this email dozens of times, and every time, I am shocked by the condescending tone toward all the people who work honestly and whose tax money funds academic jobs. It makes me sick. And it makes me glad that I have nothing to do with this so-called research field anymore, which is rotten from the inside out. If you are one of the many physicists who know damn well that I am talking about nonsense research but keep your mouth shut... If you are one of those who laugh at me because "no one believes me"... If you are one of those spreading lies about me, like the story that I was invited to speak at CERN but did not dare to go... Did you make that up? I hope you enjoyed it, but Jesus, use your brain. Your problem is not that I am "making noise." Your problem is that you are lying to the people who pay you. Your problem is that you are a coward without a shred of scientific integrity. Your problem is that every bubble eventually bursts. This is why I now call it "nonsense research" instead of "research." YouTube marks the latter as profanity, and of course, we do not want to be rude on this channel. That would be terrible.' This is a summary of what Sabine Hossenfelder says in her video. She is highly critical of the current state of fundamental research in particle physics and argues that much of the funding is wasted on meaningless projects. What do you think of her stance? Now I understand much better why materialist atheists defend "science" but dismiss philosophers; the latter do not generate money or jobs but seek "truth for truth’s sake," regardless of the amount of employment it creates, sustains, or destroys.

Certainly, one can view four-vectors as elements of an algebraic vector space equipped with a bilinear form (the Minkowski metric). From a pure math standpoint, that is an algebraic description of a set of vectors and their inner products. However, this algebraic structure also defines a specific kind of geometry—namely Minkowski geometry. In other words, once you endow a vector space with a metric, you move from “just algebra” into the realm of geometry—because that metric tells you how to measure intervals between vectors. Minkowski’s great insight was that this geometric viewpoint (treating time and space as a unified four-dimensional manifold) elegantly explains the relativistic effects of length contraction and time dilation as straightforward geometric consequences of that metric, rather than mere algebraic manipulations. So yes, four-vectors live in an “abstract multidimensional space,” but that metric is what allows us to interpret it geometrically. The geometry may differ from our usual Euclidean intuition—it’s a pseudo-Riemannian or Lorentzian geometry—but it is still very much a geometry. Thanks for your comment. Let me clarify a couple of points: First, regarding the idea that “Einstein said time is an illusion”: The commonly cited phrase comes from a letter Einstein wrote after the death of a friend, where he remarked something along the lines of “For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” It’s often paraphrased or taken somewhat out of context. Einstein was referencing the notion that in a four-dimensional spacetime picture, all events exist “at once” in the block-universe sense, so the usual way we divide events into past, present, and future can be seen as partly a feature of human perception. While he did say something close to “time is an illusion,” it wasn’t meant as a casual denial of time’s physical reality but rather an expression of how relativity treats all of spacetime as one geometric whole. Second, about “observing” the (3+1)-dimensional world: I agree that every real measurement inherently involves time. We always observe phenomena through a window of duration, however brief. What I’m emphasizing is that although our measurements happen in (3+1) dimensions, we don’t get to see the entire 4D spacetime manifold “all at once.” Instead, we experience one slice of it at a time and infer the rest from theory and indirect measurement. “Manifold,” as you say, is indeed a mathematical model. We can’t literally place it under a microscope. Yet it’s precisely that model (the 4D metric plus our experimental data) that unifies the separate measurements we take over time. This is why I referred to the 4D geometry as abstract and not directly visible in one go, because our sensory experience and measuring apparatus only ever sample events sequentially. So yes, we inevitably measure and perceive reality in (3+1)D segments, but that doesn’t mean we can lay out the entire 4D manifold in one visual scene. The manifold remains a powerful conceptual framework allowing us to interpret our sequential observations in a consistent, relativistic whole.

There is nothing morally wrong with it. But it tells you something about the true nature of it. Is it conceptual, this 4D geometry, or is it directly observable as a 4D manifold? The fact is, the 4D geometry not directly accessible when we are in our bodies. As Einstein said, time is an illusion, created by our brain and senses. Once we are out of body (see NDE's, deep meditation, or deep mystical psychedelic experiences) we experience 'all at once', 'all information immediately accessible', etc. We will experience the block universe, in my opinion.

I think what I mean is: you cannot observe the 4D metric directly as one 4D geometry. As this manifold. You can only observe and measure in 3D. This whole 4D geometry as a whole is not visible to us. It's an abstract geometry. You can't see the block universe. You can only see an unfolding of events moment by moment. You can't see the whole sequence at once. But in this 4D-geometry, all the events are accessible at once. as human observers, we perceive time in a sequential manner: one “now” after another. We don’t see the entire 4D structure at once; we only see slices of it in three dimensions, unfolding in what we call “the present moment.” Our senses are adapted to detect 3D space plus the passage of time. There’s no direct way to view or navigate the time dimension the way we do spatial dimensions. You can measure intervals and record events, allowing you to infer aspects of 4D geometry (such as proper time, spacelike separations, etc.), but you never literally “see” all four dimensions together. Abstract Geometry vs. Physical Observation The 4D metric (the mathematical description of spacetime distances) is an abstract object. It unifies space and time into a single geometric framework. Physically, you measure distances and durations in 3D space plus time. That’s why we say the 4D manifold is not directly visible: it’s a model capturing how these measurements fit together across all possible reference frames. we can only observe and measure slices of reality in 3D, one moment at a time, even though the underlying spacetime structure may be “there” in four dimensions all at once. I’d like to suggest a possible connection between the four-dimensional “block universe” of physics and those states sometimes described as timeless or eternal, especially in near-death experiences, deep meditation, or psychedelic journeys. In the relativistic block-universe view, spacetime is treated as a four-dimensional manifold where all events, past, present, and future, are laid out in a single, unchanging geometry. From our usual perspective, however, we perceive only one instant at a time, as though we’re watching individual frames of a film. We can never simultaneously witness the entire “reel.” That sequential flow is simply how our consciousness, anchored in a body, processes the dimension of time. Yet individuals who have undergone especially profound experiences—such as near-death states, intense meditation, or psychedelic visions—often report something radically different: a vivid sensation that time has dissolved, a feeling of union with everything, and a sense that all events and information are equally accessible “at once.” Some describe this as seeing beyond the linear progression of moments into a realm that contains all possible points in time. Philosophically, it’s easy to see how this might echo the block-universe idea. If time is a dimension woven together with space, then in principle, past, present, and future could coexist in a single geometric structure, even though we only experience them sequentially in our day-to-day lives. From this perspective, being embodied may act like a perceptual filter, limiting us to a 3D slice plus the passing of time. In extreme or altered states of consciousness, perhaps that filter loosens, letting us momentarily intuit something more akin to the four-dimensional reality underneath. Naturally, mainstream physics distinguishes between the mathematical framework of spacetime and the subjective realms of experience. Still, there is plenty of room in philosophy, metaphysics, and personal belief to explore whether these transcendent episodes are glimpses of the block universe or simply separate phenomena altogether.

Yes, that’s correct, but those spacetime distances are not directly visible. They can only be calculated. They do not belong to the immediately observable or measurable 3D reality of observers. It's an abstract distance. More absolute than our relative observable 3D observations of space and time. The true nature of these proper distances is conceptual. But more real, then our relativistic observations of space (and time).

But a reference frame is always required in order to talk about time and space coordinates; in that sense, the 'observer' is inevitably present.

(additional thoughts to the Timescape model of scientist David Wiltshire ) Did you know that we, as observers of space and time, have not only our own particular clock ‘(time is relative) , but we also have our own particular idea of what ‘standing still’ in non-moving uncurved flat spaces, means from our location in space (and time). In some sense, the flat Earthers are partly right… We have a particular local idea of what ‘standing still’ in flat unmoving spaces means and that’s our reference point for for seeing curved rotating objects and expanded spaces elsewhere. Wherever you are, you have a particular idea of straight uncurved spaces, that stands still. And that idea determines what you will observe outhere in space, moving, rotating, expanding And your local idea of a straight line that is not moving differs from the straight line that stands still of other observers with different clocks. You have not only a different clock (time is relative) you also have a differen ruler. (your local idea of unmoving eucledean space is relative) Let me explain with a well known example: You feel that you stand still in space on Earth, right? That’s your referenceframe right there, as an observer in space. When you start escaping Earth with your spaceship and reach escape velocity, you will see the curved space of Earth more and more under you, relative to your timestretched new environment in space you are now entering with your spaceship. You will see the Earth turning around more and more from your new point of view. If you escape gravity of the solar system, you will see the Earth and moon wobbling together and moving in the solar system around the sun more and more from your new perspectives. Because you have a new ‘idea’ of what ‘standing still’ means and a new idea of a flat space. And: the duration of your actual moment is the same for you, wherever you are. It is not stretched in your experience as an observer of time. Even if there is grafvitational timestretch when you leave the fields of gravity, you experience the same actual moment duration. Your actual moment is not stretched or dilated in the fields of gravity. So, you will see rotating and curved objects all around you further away from you. Your clock and your ruler are the standards for observing spaces further away from you. (f.e. intergalactic space). Why is your clock always ticking ‘normal’ in your experience, wherever you are, even near the vicinity of a black hole of near to the speed of light? Because to every observer, the duration of the actual moment is the same, wherever he is. The duration of the actual moment is the same, for every observer, wherever he of she is. Therefore: he will always measure ‘deformations of space’ elsewhere’. (expansions of spaces, curvatures of massive objects, rotations of massive curved objects, lengthcontraction, lengthstretch relative to him/her). Outthere, there is spacetime. A 4D geometry where past, present and future events exist simultaneously. (Einstein) But an observer exists only in the actual moment. That’s why he or she can only experience an unfolding of events, moment by moment. While in spacetime, all events exist simultaneously. Only living beings can exist in the actual moment. Objects are events existing simultaneously in spacetime in different moments in time. An observer always has a local idea of a straight line, that is not moving. (a reference frame for spaces and massive objects). You have your own clock, and your personal measurement of the timeflow, locally, is connected to your local idea of a straight line, that is not moving. Earth stands still, relative to you. Same clocks. Same timeflow. Locally, your idea of a eucledean space that is not moving is here on Earth. That’s an inertial frame of reference for an observer. In the world there are only these observers of time and space and no chosen coordinate systems. A reference frame randomly chosen by a mathematician is therefore something different from a physical observer with an actual moment experience who experiences the unfolding of the events moment by moment (and not simultaneously like in spacetime) in a 3D-world, with its own idea of standing still in unmoving straight spaces. The Observer cannot be found in material reality. The observer is a blind spot. A blind spot while measuring. It’s not measurable, but it is deducibly present, which is reduced to a zero point in mathematics Introducing a vague term such as ‘observation’ into science could meet resistance within physics because it falls outside the domain of what is considered ‘material or measurable reality’. But this difference in perspective makes a world of difference with regard to what kind of explanations you get for the observed phenomena, such as the observed expansion of space. (see timestamp model with ‘expanded space’ as relativistic space, depending on our experience of time) An observer always uses his own standards for space and time (his own frame of reference, as it is called) to measure a ‘length contraction’ or ‘time distortion’ elsewhere. Wherever he or she is. Genesis of this world? First there was spacetime. An invisible (pure non-material?) 4D geometry where all events exist or are accessible simultaneously. (people in near-death experiences talk about this timelessness experience and accessibility to all events simultaneously…). Then the first observer came into being and he or she experienced a 3D-world from his of her perspective with a particular clock (a local duration) and a particular ruler (a local particular idea of eucledean spaces that stands still, locally). Then he or she observed the curved and expanded spaces, rotating or not, elsewhere, with his or her clock and his or her ruler as the standard for these measurements. So, no Big Bang needed. Maarten Vergucht 24/12/2024 Antwerp, Belgium

This timescape model says exactly what I'm saying: the observed relativistic expansion is because of a relativistic timestretch. Not only the time on your clock is relative, but you also have a particular ruler... Your local ruler and your clock are the standard for measurements elsewhere.

I think my theory is been (partly) proven by scientists: Dark energy doesn't exist, according to new NZ study | University of Canterbury "the “timescape” model of cosmic expansion, which doesn’t have a need for dark energy because the differences in stretching light aren't the result of an accelerating universe but instead a result of how we calibrate time and distance. It takes into account that gravity slows time, so an ideal clock in empty space ticks faster than inside a galaxy."

Traveling at speeds close to the speed of light does introduce significant time dilation, meaning that while less time passes for the traveler, more time passes for those who remain behind on Earth. However, this doesn't necessarily mean it's only a one-way trip where "one just flies away and gone." While traveling at relativistic speeds, the astronaut's experienced time (proper time) is much shorter than the time elapsed on Earth. This means that a round trip is possible from the traveler's perspective within their own lifetime. Example Suppose an astronaut travels to a star 10 light-years away at a speed close to c.For the astronaut, due to length contraction and time dilation, the journey might take only a few years each way. However, from Earth's frame of reference, decades might have passed. :The traveler can return to Earth, but they would find that much more time has passed on Earth than they have experienced. and family may have aged significantly or passed away, and society could have changed drastically. Not Just "Gone": The traveler isn't lost or unable to return; they can physically come back. The key issue is the asymmetry in experienced time between the traveler and those on Earth. Practical Considerations: Relativity of Simultaneity: Events that are simultaneous in one frame of reference are not necessarily simultaneous in another moving at a high relative speed.This affects synchronization of time between Earth and the spacecraft. Communication Delays: Even at light speed, messages would take years to travel between distant points, complicating real-time communication. Conclusion: Not Necessarily One-Way: While the social and personal implications are significant due to time dilation, the journey isn't strictly one-way.The traveler has the ability to return, but must be prepared for the changes that have occurred during their absence. Future Possibilities: Advances in technology and understanding of physics might offer solutions to mitigate these issues, such as:Cryogenic Sleep: Extending the life of travelers to better align with Earth's time frame. Warp Drives or Wormholes: Hypothetical methods that could allow for faster-than-light travel without violating relativity. Summary: Traveling at relativistic speeds allows for round trips within the traveler's lifetime, but significant time will have passed on Earth due to time dilation. While this presents emotional and social challenges, it's not accurate to say the traveler is simply "gone." The possibility of return exists, but it comes with the understanding that the world they return to may be vastly different from the one they left.

It is true that accelerating an object with mass to the exact speed of light c would require infinite energy, and that this is physically impossible. However, it is not necessary to reach the speed of light to experience significant relativistic effects such as length contraction and time dilation. Length Contraction: The distance to your destination becomes significantly shorter in your own frame of reference. This makes it possible to bridge enormous cosmic distances within a human lifetime without needing to reach the speed of light. Energy Requirements: While it is true that the energy needed to get closer to the speed of light increases exponentially, this energy remains finite as long as the velocity is below c. The energy E required for acceleration is given by: E = (γ - 1) * m * c^2 where: m is the rest mass of the spacecraft. γ (gamma) is the Lorentz factor, defined as: γ = 1 / √(1 - v² / c²) Although E becomes large at high γ, it is not infinite as long as v < c . Practical Approach: Constant Acceleration: If we maintain a constant acceleration of, for example, 1g (9.81 m/s²), we can reach very high speeds within a reasonable proper time without overburdening the human body. Travel Time to Nearby Stars: To Alpha Centauri (4.37 light-years away): The travel time in proper time (your experienced time) would be only a few years with constant acceleration and deceleration. Technological Advancements: Although our current technology does not yet allow for this, it is theoretically possible that future technologies could provide the necessary energy—through means such as antimatter propulsion, nuclear fusion, or other advanced methods. Conclusion: Theoretical Possibility: According to the theory of special relativity, it is possible to traverse enormous distances in the universe within a finite and practical time span in your own frame of reference, without requiring infinite energy. Practical Challenges: While there are significant technological and energy challenges remaining, this does not exclude the possibility that such journeys could become feasible in the future. In summary, while it is physically impossible to reach the speed of light due to the infinite energy that would be required, it is not necessary to reach c to benefit from the relativistic effects that make interstellar travel within a human lifetime possible. By traveling at speeds close to, but below the speed of light, we can theoretically bridge any distance in the universe thanks to length contraction and time dilation, without the need for infinite energy.

According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, when traveling at speeds close to the speed of light, you experience a significant shortening of distances in the direction of your motion. This phenomenon is known as length contraction. This means that any distance in the universe is reachable as long as we can travel close enough to the speed of light, because as v approaches c, γ\gamma becomes very large, and thus L becomes very small. For an observer who is stationary relative to your motion (an "outsider"), your clock seems to run slower; this is called time dilation. But from your own perspective inside the spaceship, time proceeds normally, and it is the distance to your destination that becomes shorter. This can be expressed using the following formulas from special relativity: L = L₀ / γ Where: Lo is the rest length (the length measured in the reference frame where the object is at rest), γ\gamma (gamma) is the Lorentz factor, defined as: γ = 1 / √(1 - v² / c²) v is the speed of the moving object, c is the speed of light. Time Dilation The dilated time Δt measured by the stationary observer is given by: Δt = γ * Δt₀ Where: Δt₀ is the proper time (the time measured in the reference frame of the moving observer). Explanation For you in the spaceship: The distance to your destination L is smaller than the rest distance L₀ due to length contraction. Time passes normally for you; you don't notice any difference in the flow of time in your own reference frame. For the outsider: Your clock seems to tick slower due to time dilation. The distance between the starting point and the destination remains L₀. There is no length contraction in their reference frame. These effects become significant at speeds that are a substantial fraction of the speed of light. They result from the way space and time are interwoven in the theory of relativity. Conclusion Any distance becomes reachable once you travel close to the speed of light.

Think about it: the brain is nothing different than electricity flowing through wires. The brain is an electricity-producing machine. That's what we are. And electricity flowing through wires produces magnetism. And maybe, magnetism = consciousness.

The brain is nothing more than an electronic device. So, every electronic device with a lot of interconnected wires should be conscious too while switched on. We can use a bunch of steel wool and run electricity through it and we should have recreated a small artificial brain. The question is: how do you ask questions to it.

Time is relative, depending on the opinion of an observer. An observer who went a few times in the neighborhood of a black hole and returned back to Earth has another idea of the age of Earth and the decay rate of these radioisotopes, than an observer who stayed on Earth. Time is relative. No absolute property of the universe in itself. Since Einstein there is no universe with absolute time properties (and absolute space properties).