The quantum world: Dreams and delusions | Roger Penrose, Sabine Hossenfelder, Michio Kaku, and more!
Watch some of the biggest names in physics debate the mysteries of the quantum and its future, including Roger Penrose, Sabine Hossenfelder, Avshalom Elitzur, Michio Kaku, Suchitra Sebastian, Priya Natarajan, Joscha Bach, Erik Verlinde, Hilary Lawson and Bjørn Ekeberg.
From string theory to quantum gravity and quantum computers, the quantum discourse is all the buzz in physics and beyond. But what is possible and what mere fantasy? Can we bring together relativity and quantum mechanics? Will we ever find a unified theory to explain our universe?
00:00 Introduction
00:45 Why is modern physics in crisis | Roger Penrose, Sabine Hossenfelder, Priya Natarajan, Erik Verlinde
15:44 Are we at the cusp of a revolution? | Avshalom Elitzur, Michio Kaku, Joscha Bach, Bjørn Ekerberg
28:06 What is quantum emergence? | Suchitra Sebastian
#quantumemergence #relativity #quantumphysics
Debates and talks featured:
The trouble with time (London, 2023)
iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with...
Mystery of emergence (London, 2023)
iai.tv/video/the-mystery-of-e...
Gravity and the universe (London, 2023)
iai.tv/video/gravity-and-the-...
Imagining the universe (Hay, 2023)
iai.tv/video/imagining-the-un...
The secrets of quantum emergence (Hay, 2023)
iai.tv/video/the-secrets-of-q...
The quantum hoax (Hay, 2023)
iai.tv/video/the-quantum-hoax...
Reality models and mayhem (Hay, 2023)
iai.tv/video/reality-models-a...
The quantum age (IAI Live, 2023)
iai.tv/video/the-quantum-age-...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
What is your take on all things quantum? Let us know in the comments below! To watch more big names talk physics, visit iai.tv/?KZhead&+comment&
If you want to know how it all works, master special relativity. And I don't mean the tons of math that describes observations of it. SR addresses time, space, mass, and energy. Can't you see how that touches every aspect of our universe? And how it works is EXTREMELY simple. When SR is described, 20 or more earth shaking Nobel prizes will follow in months. Physics will flash ahead with lighting speed.
Physics at our scale are incorrect, so that leads to quantum physics being even more incorrect. Mass is not attracted to mass for a start, mass is repelled by mass. There's no such thing as a pull force, and there is actually only one force. So basically all of physics are delusional to begin with. Peer review means to join the delusional gang. Mass moves towards holes in mass, because it flows with gravity like water moves into a sponge, and can take something with it. The bigger sponge has the most mass, but also the most holes. Observation of the Cavendish experiment does not count as observation at all, it's invisible. Peer review is the Emperor's New Clothes, you see the invisible in the Cavendish experiment, you see mass attracting mass, but the truth is that you see nothing at all. With such bad teachers to follow you will never get anywhere. I ignore everyone... I ignore the crazy gang.
I'll try this again. Try this experiment: Get an in phase light source consisting of the same frequency. Polarize it and focus it on your two precious slits. The accepted pattern will not appear. There will be marks where the humps were. Present science cannot explain this. Get the longest wave length you can. Shorter wavelengths will produce errors. I know why.
The point here is that there is a nobody out there that has an idea. You won't listen to him because all you want is click bait. But this person has suggested an idea. But the organization of philosophers (IAI) has decided he is a waste of time. Even though some of the big brains will not put something in the real world to demonstrate an idea: this person has suggested a real world experiment that might demonstrate something very important. You criticize the system but let your assumptions keep you on a similar path. Was it BCS that told me SR is a dead horse? Com-on man.
I think everyone is thinking about it wrong. I mean take for a example superposition it's not all things at once or so simple. It's how the integrated differences give rise to a difference or become a difference while maintaining itself so both states at the same time but through different methods. Imagine a guy doing the wave, the energy just traveled trough the differences and didn't stay as one thing but moved trough it's integrated differences. What I mean is that the "quantum wave collapse" is the syncing/integration of the differences. Think water and it's differences taking the shape or variable differences but maintaining itself as water or how words embody the difference of other things. Meanings are the same as superposition adnas we integrated more, the uses and differences grow that it can integrate with, like math repping reality and then using an equation to find a prediction and then using us ass connected difference, we can integrate
Roger is 92, it’s staggering how quick and capable his mind still is.
He becomes sharper with age, where as teenagers are already becoming dumber, day by day. Kids don't even know what a woman is, yet that 92 year old has a sharp recollection of deep topics. It's both fantastic and sad at the same time.
@@OriginalPuro what the hell?
Yup, still inventing bullshit like explaining quantum measurement as a gravitational effect. He was always vastly overrated.
@@ultrametric9317Dirac Medal, Prize of the British Institute of Physics, Albert Einstein Medal-I'm sure they give those away for overrated theories. What's your contribution?
That's because he is continually using it, unlike most people.
I’m a simple man . I see sir Roger Penrose and I click the like button
thats quantum reaction.
My microtubules misfired
pretty safe approach.
Yes: he does rely entirely on the support of simpletons who mistake his motor mouthing for erudition
Roger Penrose is my role model, but I am always amazed at his ability to work at this age
At any age, he is still the leading theorist in physics.
Sign of a truly great mind.
It astounds me that he can attend such events at this age, hopefully the mind can work even under extreme physical limitations as Stephen Hawking demonstrated.
I never heard that before.
That´s what so great about thinking for a job, only death and dementia can force you to retire. Just look at Hawking, what could he do in the end? Like move his eyelids to communicate with technology in the chair or something and he was still spitting out science papers. What a trooper! Then again, what else was he supposed to do? Its not like he could go surfing...
Penrose is wearing an actual hospital bracelet to this event. At 92, he left some kind of medical situation to attend this just so he could re state his position on qm and relativity. What a mind he still has and apparently will have... to the very end.
god dam!!!!
No, haha, he's not. Scroll through the video and look at the guest speakers' wrists; they all wear that bracelet. It's probably something IAI requires their guests to wear for admission into their events. Penrose is, of course, remarkable nonetheless.
I hope he lives long enough to catch the longevity train
A greater question than anything in quantum physics is why Kaku is included in this group of people😅
Likely because His name is better known, many people wouldn't know of the rest of this august crew. PR, essentially.
He jumped the string theory shark. 🤣
At least it's not the Weinstein brothers.
@@akagordon That is harsh, but really funny because it would be a train wreck if Eric was involved, definitely not useful in this type of venue.
Bro, Kaku has written very good books on Quantum Field Theory which is the most relevant quantum theory to date
Michio Kaku is the Depak Chopra of physics.
Who hurt you? Did Michio Kaku hurt you, or are you just hating?
😂😂
He's a pretty cool dude 😎
yeah he is talking a lot of nonsense and making statements which are either untrue or not proven
@@BrandonCrowl heard of the B&W fallacy?
"String theory is the only game in town so that's the game we play" reminds me of the old joke about looking for your lost key under the street lamp because that's where the light was... Come on Michio, you can do better. LOL
That would be a perfectly sensible thing to do - if that's the only place you can look (at the moment) then why not look there? Just because you know it's not the only place doesn't mean it's not worth looking!
@@adrianwright8685 Because researchers been looking at string theory for a long time and are less convinced that it is right than they were at the start.
What a horribly non scientific "argument"
Haha we have a Chinese idiom for just that 刻舟求剑 look it up with chatgpt, it's a great story
This documentary is a whistle blower, will you watch it? 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🙏
Beautiful Roger Penrose.
"But nature knows how it works, so there's got to be a solution to this." So obvious but still important to say it out loud. 👏
Nature knows..yeah consciousness does underlie everything. You call it "nature."
This resonates so well with Roger's ideas in Orch OR.
Is it obvious that nature is the one doing the knowing? As with the effect of observation on quantum particles, perhaps it is that there is an Observer who is observing the universe and by observing, affects its behaviour. The Observer knows how it works, so yes, there is a solution.
Great video. Just a small note: we need questioners like Dr. Hossenfelder. They force us to rethink things (see also Berthold Brecht: Praise of Doubt). I saw the entire talk and can highly recommend it. Respect for the great panels and guests. And all the best for the future of your work.
Yes, absolutely right. Everyone should read her books.
she's a total waste of space, an embarrassment to herself. There are far better communcators of Theoretical Physics. e.g. Lenny Susskind, Sean Carroll (and NOT that loon Carlo Rovelli with his wishy-washy ramblings) @@Thomas-gk42
6:27 - If electrons can be in many places at once, their gravitational influence would also be spread out in a superposition of all possible influences. However, observing or measuring such effects directly is beyond our current experimental capabilities.
Who told you that's how it works? God? Buddha? Brahma?
If we could measure the gravity of a single electron what would that give us? If we send photons one at a time thru 2 slits, each photon hits a screen at only one point, however the points are spread out in an interference pattern as if each photon went through both slits, as the wave function stated. But if we put a detector after one slit then we will see that half the photons hit our detector and half the photons go straight through the other slit directly to the screen. We could do the same thing with electrons. We cannot detect an electron's gravity, but we can measure its charge. What experiment are we wanting to do with gravity that we can't do now with charge? Aren't we in the situation as with the photon? If we measure the charge then it stops being quantum. We would be in the same situation with gravity unless gravity is not quantum even though the particle is.
@@Nebukanezzer Actually, the idea comes from quantum mechanics and general relativity's principles. In quantum mechanics, particles like electrons can indeed be in a state of superposition, existing in multiple states or places simultaneously until observed. When we apply this concept to gravity, a force that depends on mass, it's logical to infer that an electron's gravitational influence might also exist in a superposition of all possible states. However, our current technology can't directly observe such quantum gravitational effects. This isn't about belief systems but about theoretical physics and the challenges of unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity. It's a fascinating area of ongoing research, not yet fully understood or observed.
@@EinsteinsHair Your comparison misses a key distinction: the aim isn't to substitute charge measurements but to probe gravity's quantum aspects. Quantum mechanics shows particles like electrons in superposition, influencing their electromagnetic interactions. Yet, we wonder if gravity, inherently linked to mass, behaves similarly at quantum scales. This isn't about detecting an analog to charge in gravity but understanding if gravitational fields can exhibit quantum properties. If we could measure such effects, it could unveil new physics, bridging quantum mechanics and general relativity-a leap beyond what charge measurements offer.
@alanrobison4761 I agree. This fact is carefully avoided by our panelists, for (like the with the big bang) the obvious theological implication here cannot be countenanced, which is that since consciousness (measurement they call it) is required to actuate quantum states, it PRECEDES it.
Roger's intelligence is otherworldly......what a gift to humanity......
yes ... he is a last of the super genius of this era
Interesting point Penrose makes. Not match Gravity to QM, but the other way round. We need more research! A unified theory of Physics is a sine qua non condition for science to progress.
I have so many questions. One of those questions is: what happened to Sabines H.s music videos???? I really liked those
Sir Penrose is still an incredibly sharp mind 👍 respect
thats what thinking about complex problems everysingle day does to do. Alzheimer has no time to catch up
If you think about it, the amount of mental effort that went into an endeavor should be the best parameter to measure progress if you've been following the most efficient methodology, but I don't think that counts for vanguard endeavors with no established methodology.
One of the hardest things to wrap your head around, is the concept that a theory of everything does not describe the universe, but actually is the universe. Just like an astrophysicist has to realize the notion of up and down to be local, theoretical science has to realize the inherent imperfection of theory. 1 + 1 does not equal 2, simply because 1 does not perfectly equal one in any universe, realm or dimension, real or fictional, including mathematics. The source of a theory is the purpose it serves. Thus looking for a theory of everything is like the principal of commerce, a by definition bottomless pit. Not unlike in commerce, the objective should not be the optimisation of a virtuality, but the solution of a well defined practical problem. That step would solve a lot more than just a debate in physics.
Roger Penrose is easily one of my favorite mathematicians.
who is your 3rd favourite?
This is going to sound like shade but I am serious. I love classic physicist hair It's like it mirrors the explosion of ideas inside the mind. Seriously I love this talk and this channel and the fantastic people who do this science and explain it to us.
Seems to me, and I think this is what Roger is getting at, that superposition can continue only so far, because at some point the different possibilities encompassed there within would start to have different impacts with regard to the interaction of the particles with gravity. And that it is those emerging differences that cause the collapse, so that gravity has something 'concrete' to work on, suggesting that gravity won't put up with quantum uncertainty that impacts it, because it is not equipped to do so. It implies that gravity is involved intimately with the quantum world, putting a constraint on it, keeping it within tolerable bounds. And if the world is 'computed', maybe there is a requirement for the collapse, encoded in the software, to ease the compute burden on gravity.
Stephen Wolfram is scratching at the computation aspect of physics, I'm hoping he gets something interesting on that front in the not too distant future.
@@squoblat We've come a long way since Newtonian billiard balls. As we look closer at nature, it disappears like a Cheshire cat. Hence the cat in the box conundrum of quantum theorists. It comes down to information, and the leap to that no doubt was helped by the change in people's thinking brought about by the post-WW2 computer revolution. But there is a lot that goes unexplained, and our current theories eat away at the digestible bits around the edge of the big picture. It is not getting any easier to go further. It's been a long time since the last major paradigm shift such as string theory. We're overdue for another one. Perhaps Wolfram's work is a pointer thereto. He needs more brains to join in, but most of the theorists seem subsumed into string theory. In the longer term, perhaps after Wolfram's work starts to bear new fruits, we still have the problem of consciousness, about which we are currently clueless as to how to even start investigating how it ties in with Physics.
Roger. Penrose. Is 92 years old
A lot older then biden 🥲
So, vote for Biden.
i am quite surprised that i lile JD08 almost in all examples (especially in initial A/B demo) more than JD800 … didn’t expected that, at all .. Great video, thanks !
Michio Kaku's super symmetry has been shown to not exist. videos of string theory or super symmetry should now be shown with a disclaimer so that folks are not confused by physicists touting theories that have failed, are failing or are not testable.
I always get excited that it could be possible, as I do have a liking for geometry to be the underpinning of physics. However yes, Kaku has no shame expressing as fact that which has proven to be wrong or inherently untestable/unfalsifable. Neither of which should ever be acceptable in what you advocate as a leading theory.
@Michael-kp4bd well said. String theory is beautiful but overly complicated. We have two great theories already that have been tested and shown to be accurate or close. But some of quantum theory has been misinterpreted. Einstein was right when he said there is no spooky action at a distance. It is just happening at a Planck scale that is hard to see and interpret. And we are starting to get evidence of quantum gravity. We have all we need right now on both sides of the equal signs, we just need to interpret it better without adding magic and hocus pocus.
@@paulschuster8118 I thought there was action at a distance, no? See: Storz et al (2023), Loophole-free Bell inequality violation with superconducting circuits.
SUSY has NOT been shown to "not exist" or be wrong. Superpartners have not been discovered yet in our range of low energy limits in collider experimentation (< 1 TeV). The HL-LHC is suppose to produce energy levels of around 13 TeV. It is scheduled for initial operation in early 2029.
Simple solution: we can ask our taxpayers to fund building a collider the size of our Galaxy, or we can just add a few more untestable dimensions or more undetectable particles, OR we can move forward with simpler, testable theories based on what we already know. It's easy to defend string theory when you've become rich and famous from the grant money.
Where does the idea a of closed system vs an open system fit into quantum mechanics? To my understanding, when the results of particle collisions is observed, we treat the reactants as being a closed system and we passively detect what escapes to various detectors. But doesn’t this perturb the product “system “?
Nonhermitian qm is used for open systems.
The presence of Roger Penrose in this discussion...unbelievable. I suppose, he carries his own black hole in his pocket which stops his "life clock".
Toward the end there seems to be disconnect about “emergence”. I agree with Suchitra Sebastian that we cannot predict nontrivial “emergent” effects like superconductivity. But we should not confuse the limitations of our ability to predict with fundamental laws of nature (assuming they exist, as most physicists do). If one cares only about “Shut up and calculate”, then yes there’s a hard line between what we know about (e.g.) copper atoms and how they combine to produce superconductivity. We can compute it after the fact, knowing from experiments that it happens, but we did not predict it. This limitation of our ability to compute/predict must not be allowed to leak into our notions of the laws of nature. Nature has no such limits, and everything about superconductivity is implicit within the properties of individual copper (or other) atoms. This is a metaphysical distinction, but that is what this video is about.
As Sabine expressed it: "But nature knows how it works."
"We can compute it after the fact, knowing from experiments that it happens, but we did not predict it" . if your theory has not changed and you can compute something afterwards then surely it must have been computable beforehand?
Stephen Wolfram, the halting problem, and DFT would like a word with you about the limitations of prediction in general and regarding predicting superconductivity, as far as I'm aware nothing has ever predicted a room temperature superconductor?
No not true
This is a very good compilation!
If the paradigm of concepts represented in mathematics is failing to enable us to make progress in understanding the world about us, then perhaps a different modeling paradigm would be useful. There are several alternative modeling concepts. Why should we limit ourselves to one the was successful in the past. Why do you think it will continue to be successful? The second point is quite different. If there is one Meta lesson to be learned in physics it is the models exist to be destroyed. The ways to describe planet motions is an excellent example. 1. The earth is the center of the universe. 2.The planets have circular orbits. 3. The planets have elliptical orbits. 4. The planets have motions that cannot be described in any simple way. ergo The General Theory of Relativity. This should immediately bring up the question, what is the model in the future? What is number 5? What makes you think that the idea of concepts represented in mathematics is sufficient? There are other modeling paradigms. I don't see physicists using these alternative modeling methods for the existing data and problems that are unresolved today.
The only question that needs to be answered is: what is the difference between the mechanistic operations of engineering and the "theory" of these reliable results. How it works rather than why it works. I don't question a liquid thermometer, why should I question a computer chip? What would be the benefit of it? Would a better understanding of heat come from a theory about liquid thermometers or from a better thermometer made from a different material?
The "means" of a measurement hold more than just a clue to the theory of the "thing" being measured. The material relationships provide bounds and limits within which new theories can emerge or old theories can be expanded.
The hair styles are awesome 💯
Penrose is a legend. If you havent, go watch What we still dont know. Brilliant 3 part docs from Roger. A bit dated information wise now but excellent docs.
Amazing collection of scientific problems. I think about the emergence problem relationship with the quantum gravity problems. Perhaps IA can help us to find if there are some way to simulate or predict what possible propertires could emerge from situations with few constituents. I meanf: for Sir Roger Penrose the problem is in inconsistence of quantum mechanics, for Sabine Hossenfelder and other (I think) the problem it is in gravity understanding. But, if gravity is an emergence property of quantum systems how can we develop a theory that tell us how "one become another" as in supedrconductivity phenomena? Scientists have observed superconductity and developed a theory to explain it. Can we, with AI maybe, ind a pattern of thinking or a new mathematical construct that help us to understand thay "backwards way"? Or it is different for each phenomena? I guess that understand emergence better will help us to find both inconsistence in quantum theory and lead us to some quantum gravity theory. Thinking in emergence, perhaps it will not bring us to a unified theory, but just to an exaplanation of gravity as an emergence consequence of some aspects of quantum theory...maybe the opposite cab be truth kkk. I just want to thank you for the video with breathteaking problems to think.
Priya is on to something. We need to look seriously at something other than a Platonic/particle view of reality....
Whatever the meaning assigned to the term _complete,_ the following requirement for a complete theory seems to be a necessary one: every element of the physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory. ~EPR What we see depends on light entering the eye. Furthermore we do not even perceive what enters the eye. The things transmitted are waves or - as Newton thought - minute particles, and the things seen are colors. Locke met this difficulty by a theory of primary and secondary qualities. Namely, there are some attributes of the matter which we do perceive. These are the primary qualities, and there are other things which we perceive, such as colors, which are not attributes of matter, but are perceived by us as if they were such attributes. These are the secondary qualities of matter. Why should we perceive secondary qualities? It seems an unfortunate arrangement that we should perceive a lot of things that are not there. Yet this is what the theory of secondary qualities in fact comes to. There is now reigning in philosophy and in science an apathetic acquiescence in the conclusion that no coherent account can be given of nature as it is disclosed to us in sense-awareness, without dragging in its relation to mind. ~Whitehead
Is it a thing to suggest matter is herniated counterspace? Black holes are plug holes back to counterspace? Recycled and pumped back out as galactic jets we see spewing out the tops? I am just a day dreamer
I can never get my head around why physicists believe in time and why they assume a bounded universe.
The Ekeberg guy annoyed me. Mathematics is just the best language we have for describing physics. It grows and evolves as our understanding evolves. Equations in physics are like definitions in spoked language. Many great theoretical physicists weren't great mathematicians, so clearly math isn't the driving force. It's simply the language that is used to describe or define something in clear detail. The diving force is the question "so how do we describe/define this". The quest to find a mathematical descriptions of various particles, interactions, and phenomena is both what dives the math, and what drives the reevaluation of existing theory. The beauty of math as a language is that it enforces it's own consistency, and has an elegance when fully formed. Inconsistency or verbosity naturally point to areas where work is needed. The Standard Model Lagrangian is a perfect example of an elegant and consistent mathematical definition. The fact that we don't have an equation explaining waveform collapse points to an area our understanding is lacking.
Where is full version
What is most amazing here is the discrepancy between the quality of the video and the quality of comments from random "physicists" in the comment section. Please disable comments. You will do the world a favor.
A.G.I sora like simulating physics can be used to simulate topological configurations of metamaterials that keep quantum coherence aside environmental interference.
I just wonder if the reality of an electron in H atom depends on how you measure it; measure with photons vs measure with gravity. They may give different answers as if the wave particle duality gives you different answers depending on whether you measure it as a particle or as a wave.
When we know we are missing something fundamental, it is probably time to question some of our most basic assumptions. For instance, what if we are wrong about the invariant nature of light? We have defined the speed of light and taken it off the table for questioning. But consider for a moment the phenomena of water waves, which are well known to display the property of dispersion. Well, they also exhibit frequency downshifting over time (i.e., not invariant). What if light waves do something similar? What if they also exhibit some infinitesimal dispersion? What if the speed of propagation of the change of a field is constant at ‘c’ but electromagnetic waves travel at a very slightly less, but variable, speed? The honest consideration of such questions may just lead to the kinds of new models and understanding that the presenters are saying is needed.
what is that nearly-subsonic pulsing from the beginning? Is that supposed to be music? It sounds like you're adjacent to the engine-room, or something.
It's called music.
Special and general theories of relativity do not take into account “extra” dimensions. Both work with the known 4 dimensions of space and time, and I'm sure mathematicians would have already exhausted this theory but maybe quantum physics could be of a 5th dimension that's why it's difficult to bridge, could be a silly question as I almost know zero about physics .Also maybe there might be a completely different language of mathematics for a 5th dimension not yet discovered, and quantum entanglement, I quote " two particles communicating with each other, faster than the speed of light, without information" maybe the information is beyond the mathematics that is available at the moment, maybe there's a lot of information being transferred, but not of the physical mathematics used.Beautiful and interesting video, I try to make sense with the little knowledge I have, day by day I learn more.💙💫🙏
This is actually a really old idea. Bernhard Reimann first proposed that space on a microscopic space may not have the same properties as the macroscopic, including possibly extra dimensions. Einstein followed in his footsteps formalizing time as a dimension. Very soon after Einstein published general relativity was an attempt made to unify gravity with electromagnetism, called Kaluza Klein theory, which added a compactified 5th dimension to spacetime. Kaluza sent his calculations to Einstein in 1919, so this is before Quantum theory had been formalized. String Theory works with the same idea but with several more extra dimensions, compactified in structures called calabi-yau manifolds. So theoretically formulating theories with extra dimensions isn't an issue, rather it's making testable predictions from those theories that's the problem.
@@randomchannel-px6ho An old idea that never got anywhere, does not mean it doesn't have anywhere to go. How many people tried and failed to achieve flight with the same idea before it was accomplished, thank you for the information. PS fun coinstadance fact for you, K being the 11th letter of alphabet and the mathematician's of the KK theory investigating the 5d, their initials spells 11.11 some will recognise that number and some wont 💙💫🙏
The following ideas agree with you. If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
@@offtheradarsomewhere. all ideas are wrong
@@SpotterVideo the less ingredients to a meal the better it tastes💙💫🙏
Can be at two places in the same time is a misinterpretion of quantum mechanics & wave/particle duality
But an electron diffracts itself in the double slit experiment.
It does? I thought it was a part of a larger wave
It it as of yet an indeterminate phenomenon, so stating that it is or is not “what’s physically happening” is a step too far
Can you scale up quantum observations to gravitational sizes, and/or scale down gravitational observations to quantum sizes, and then hash out the maths of the middle range at which each scale begins to drift out of focus in relation to the other one..?
No..that's exactly why it is so hard
📝 Summary of Key Points: 📌 The video discusses the challenges in reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity, highlighting the limitations of current theories like string theory and loop quantum gravity. 🧐 There is a debate within theoretical physics regarding the clash between quantum mechanics and special/general relativity, with experiments showing anomalies that challenge established theories. 💡 Additional Insights and Observations: 💬 Quotable Moments: "The future is open, but the past is not fixed at the quantum level." 📊 Data and Statistics: Loop quantum gravity faces challenges in incorporating the standard model and controlling divergences, unlike string theory. 🌐 References and Sources: The discussion touches on emergent phenomena like superconductivity, emphasizing the limitations of reductionist approaches. 📣 Concluding Remarks: The video sheds light on the complexities of theoretical physics, showcasing the ongoing quest for a unifying theory while grappling with emergent phenomena and the limitations of current models. The debate between different theories underscores the need for continued exploration and creativity in the field. Generated using TalkBud
Let’s. Go.. very nice comment. A plus sir or miss.
chatGPT - style of summary
This sounds like a highschooler who was only half paying attention and didn't understand the material, so he just pulled out sentences from the video that sounded smart. Generative AI sucks ass.
I'm already so over these LLM summations popping up on every youtube video.
thank you for having sabine here really great to hear her discussing stuff with some others
God damn this is the first time i couldn´t follow the babbling of a 90 year old not because he is too senile, but because he is too smart... I can only pray I'm still half as sharp as Roger when I'm in my 40´s.
Well said. Yet malicious haters still snipe.
@@fred_2021 Oh come on now, who could possibly hate a kind old genius like Penrose? Its not like he is Biden.
@@1112viggowhen he starts using neurological phenomena that perfectly fit within the confines of known physics and chemistry, and uses it to support an idea of “conciseness harnessing quantum physics to create retrocausal action” I roll my eyes a bit. Maybe it’s a pet theory, but it shows the classic “when you have a hammer everything is a nail” behavior by a physicist extending into another branch of science without first learning it, which I find sad to see. Penrose is an absolute titan in his field, so it’s not that i even want him to “stay in line” but rather look into the science he is not learned in (neuro) before using it to explain something that it has no actual connection to (or moreover, extensive evidence that proves contrary to what he thinks it means)
@@Michael-kp4bd It is proven that many animals use quantum phenomena either to locate themselves in space and for other things. Penrose has every right to investigate quantum effects in the brain.
Surely if you measure it you add focused energy. Which changes results.
Sabines clear mind and pointed thinking is always an enlightment. She´s an enrichment for humanity. Everone should read her books.
Everyone*
String theory is not the only game in town and it really ought to get its act together before coming back with that. The supersymmetric particles did not appear. That's some nice math you have there, but you need to predict what exists.
I find it amusing reading all these self-appointed experts on the Internet claim that string theory has failed as if they knew what they were talking about.
i find it amusing reading all these self-appointed experts on the internet claim that string theory hasn't failed as if they knew what they were talking about!@@ludviglidstrom6924
Supersymmetry works in a parallel universe ;-)
Who else disappointed this wasn't just Penrose vs Sabine?
They are good friends though.
since when? @@Thomas-gk42
Namaste ❤
For physics to move forward consider these challenges Summary Here are the key components of all my physics posts. Photons are eternal and outside of time and distance. The singularity of photons began the Big Bang. Photons created mass through pair conversion of electron positron pairs in the Big Bang. These electrons and positrons made the elementary particles which in turn made the atoms. Neutrons and hydrogen atoms may be the same thing in different form. The proton neutron bond in the nucleus, kept neutrons from decay and was key to building all elements. Neutrons may be unstable protons. Protons, for the most part could only be created in the immediate era after the Big Bang. The key to atoms stability may be the deuterium nucleus or deuteron that help binds one proton to one neutron. The missing anti matter is in protons and neutrons. Photons, electrons, and positrons, are all different versions of the same thing. Virtual particles may be a key part of quantum leaps. The mass of the universe comes from photons converting to electron positron pairs in pair conversion. The energy of the universe comes from electrons and positrons annihilating and converting to photons. The universe is 5% charged matter and 95% neutral force. Dark matter is not gravity from invisible baryons pulling, but antigravity pushing from empty space. Dark matter and Dark Energy are both anti gravity pushing from empty space. The cosmological redshift supports this. The force from the Big Bang singularity was photons / dark energy / dark matter /anti gravity . They are the same. The force caused by acceleration is anti gravity, not gravity. Time has speed limits up to the speed of light. 95% of the universe seems to be without charge, detectable matter, or gravity: dark energy plus dark matter. The universe is open ended and will continue to expand.
All the science is wonderful thank you for posting. Sabine looks good in that pink, it's her color.
Intresting talks...
Shouldn’t Kaku be sweeping a CUNY dorm room somewhere?
Underrated comment
In relation to the size of universe, humanity is insignificantly small. Are we really in position to ever understand what is happening around us or are we like bacteria are on an apple? It seams to me that we may have those 4 or 5 puzzles but the missing 1995 are just unobtainable tu us.
Quantum mechanics and special relativity are extremely simple theories, at least mathematically. Finding a way to combine these will of course be a challenge but well within reach this or next century. This is not the say every problem is answerable in any meaningful way but foundations in physics is.
@@user-uf4rx5ih3v Yes, theories and math… What is math, does it exist outside of a human mind, is it all real, how do we know? What does math reveal and what not, is it sometimes misleading? What i want to say is that despite of how far we came there still are X amount of questions and not many reliable answers 😄
If you speed up how the brain processes light, then increase your velocity under certain conditions, could the light hitting the eye be seen to pass differently? Stretching current moments out?
Making use of the time it takes for light to hit the eye, then the brains time to perceive and interpret the light.
Kind of like a brain in a jar hooked to an optical light sensor, stimulating the brain. The brain is slowed in perceiving the light and a really fast camera.
6:53 - We know the gravitational pull of an observed electron using Newton's law of universal gravitation.
Why is the expansion of the universe not being calculated down to a quantum level. We have the inverse law to describe the Newtonian Force of gravity, and the relative theory to expand on space/time, can we not extrapolate the expansion using the expansion of Space/time on a quantum level using the inverse law divided by c?
I think there is evidence that the expansion isn't constant or contiguous. It is definitely thought to be increasing (using Type-1a novae as 'standard candles') but recent & upcoming understanding of supernovae from JWST and others may change our understanding again!
We can visualize to dream certain creative thoughts and open up the world my sweet heart Dr. Hossenfelder.
wrong, it's OUR BRAIN which does all the work, we - our consciousness - is not situated in brain im not english speaker so idk how to say кора головного мозга to you yet we do not have full control of our thoughts, if we had no schizophrenia at all as an illness. sabine knows better dear little dude
@@bangtanssera Very corrupt with Russians and point taken.
@@bangtansseralet him stay in his mind and believe he's having an objective sense of reality, he 's not ready..
Sabina mam is more clear on topic rather than assumptions
David Deutsch explains quantum computing very clearly
Realy I like this video so so much its interestyng
Gravity is a direct result of the paradox which initiated the current universe. It is caused by the tendency of matter and energy to reduce the strain caused by the paradox for example by matter clumping together. Dark matter is not going to be easy to measure because it is likely a function of the paradox and doesn't exist in the same way as observable matter.
Debating Kaku be like: "multiverse! strings good other theory bad. infinitely many goats in a parallel universe"
MTS 9/10 great intro by Sir RP, Sabine addresses the problem the other way around from Einsteinian problematic perspective
They both are great.
Shakespeare said it best: “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
love penrose because he sees things in 4 dimension....not like most physicists whom they are thinking in linear mode...❤
At 7:40 I have the formula for Quantum gravity, I can alter matter by altering the gravitational spin of a element.
Here’s a fun idea I have: Imagine you are a video character. How would you go about finding out what fundamentally makes up the game you live in? What experiments could you perform to verify how the universe was created? It is it even possible? We can figure out how the game works but not how it was created. We can infer how something is created within the universe the character lives in, there must be an initial mechanism for which the mechanics operate. The software and hardware. What experiments could one run existing within the video game to find the software and hardware the game runs on? Can a 2d being understand the mechanics of the 3d world it exists in? Can one determine the activities outside the cave by only seeing the shadow of the activities projected on the wall of the cave? There is a lack of information, we cannot determine what information is lacked.
I, of course, dont have answers, but to take your example... the way to search for something that would indicate the simulation would be like searching for floating point errors which accumulate in some situations, or the equivalent of a bit flip. I dont think its stupid to spend a minimal amount of time to look for these things in a physical sense, and its conceivable to me that some external informarion could be derived. Lets say that we have a simulation in a computer, and that the characters spend a lot of time monitoring all values they can find, or are allowed to observe. Stupidly, they would be able to observe something like the rate at which bits are flipped from cosmic rays. There would be no context, but it certainly would be external informarion about "something". In the end, I say it is best to stay curious on all physical phenomena, and to sometimes look where we wouldnt expect anything odd. Science is much more built on "Oh, that's really strange", than it is on "Eureka".
Some ideas for the "video characters" you describe: - Going to the limits of the ruleset they are existing in, e.g. getting closer to fundamental (atomar) functional elements, the spacial and temporal resolution, finding unintuitive behaviour and systems, apparent sources of "randomness". - Analyzing their own epistemologic scope and limitations, giving hints about the character and capabilities of the larger context they are embedded in. - Comparing their computer simulations with the actual world they live in. To the "real shadows" they see in their (allegory of the) cave, compare "simulated shadows" - "shadows of shadows" so to speak. - Examine the path of discovery itself, e.g. how it could or couldn't be predicted, in how far it is guided by teleological elements versus a posteriori knowledge i.e. experience. And for something different, if they have access to it, for recreational purposes, there's still metaphysics ;)
I'm not sure a video game is the best example for this. Real life phenomena, in stark contrast to video game objects, have the capacity to interact with everything. In video games, all interactions must be added by hand. In real life though, Magnetism, gravity, matter and EM waves all interact with other. Even if just very slightly in some cases, they do interact with each other. This means that they must share a very fundamental property that allows for this type of communication. There is a slight parallel to your video game example though. Whereas a video game character might only see the final product of the calculations, we as "higher beings" in this case know that everything processed and shown is actually purely electrical in nature. In that way, we "unified" (but also grossly oversimplified) all the computer-related phenomena. However, in the case of the video game character, I think it would be difficult for him to find out about this, since there are probably very few hints sprinkled about in the world that offer opportunities to learn about the fundamental mechanics. Reality is much more in-depth and also (at least seemingly) much more complete in that regard.
@@fexus9730 Since ancient times up to this day, most thinkers share the intuition that the number of interaction categories in the (inanimate) physical world might be limited; some go a bit farther, also saying that the observable interactions might only be a subset of all interactions in our universe. On the other hand, simulated worlds don't have such limitations: their size, scope, variety of interactions can always be e.g. procedurally or stochastically expanded, they can be made virtually endless, only limited by available memory for certain interaction categories. The contrast between the former intuition and the latter fact is remarkable.
I would say holographic duality best explains this. There’s a world of quantum interactions without gravity and this quantum world contains a full description of things like general relativity. So the classical world emerges from these quantum interactions. So the classical universe is a holographic projection of information in 1 less dimension without gravity.
My occult teacher the Venerable Qua tum taught me that gravity is a spiral interlocking of ether spirals. How does ether interact with matter? My guess is some sort of a net is created.
Lectures like this redeem the internet somewhat! So refreshing compared with all the distorted and biased reporting on world events.
Michio kaku saying that string theory doesn’t have a rival reminds me when lord kelvin said “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now” or “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”😂, here we have 2 examples when the greatest physicist of his time was completely sure but wrong; I like Kaku but I thought this arrogance were out of the table in science, I understand that is difficult to realize that your life job is not the best explanation for something but don’t say is the only one. Eric W. is an amazing physicist and his ideas are very interesting and “new”, worth trying.
Dr. Kaku should really pay attention to prof. Neil Turok and colleagues' recent work. There are "other games in town" now.
Could listen more to Nassim Harameins theory?
Could the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of time, with classical physics represents processes over a ‘period of time’ as in Newton's differential equations? The spontaneous absorption and emission of light photon ∆E=hf energy or quanta is continuously exchanging potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of electrons. Kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy is the energy of motion of what is actually happening as an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future continuously comes into existence with each photon electron interaction or coupling. In this theory photon energy (quanta) are not a property of space and time; it is the other way around the characteristics of time and structure of three dimensional space forms out of an exchange of photon energy. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light quanta forms the continuous motion that we measure as the passage of time.
I wouldn’t limit it to light, per se, but causality. Gravitational waves operate at this same “speed of causality” _c_ ,and have nothing to do with photons. Both must be accounted for.
The Rosetta Stone of quantum mechanics is made of a substance called nitrogen tri-iodide. Just two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide can make up an alpha particle detector in the classical sense. The interaction between an alpha particle and these two molecules involves a radical destruction of unitarity, which I propose could be modelled in a computer simulation by adding what I call tachyonic Brownian motion, though other ideas are most welcome. These two molecules are the smallest possible detector, but their computer simulation will require at least 24 dimensions of configuration space just counting atoms alone. This is not possible. What we can do instead is to model a detector using classical Brownian motion. This is decoherence but with tachyonic Brownian motion as a proposed aetiology.
We are on the precipice of massive change and our current knowledge is insufficient to describe important ideas to construct the whole image
String theory is the only game in town apparently. He really needs to get out more.
In the intro, the hair was getting more and more legendary with each presenter until Joscha quietly brought it down to earth.
supersymetry backward in time subatomic particles or super-coincidence insted of loops?
"There are no hidden variables" - there's something special about this sentence.
...and it´s perhaps wrong.
@@Thomas-gk42 Who, back in the day, whould have imagined that e.g. the yet unconfirmed theory of the atom, named and thought as the smallest functional element there can be, or Newton's precise and beautiful equations aren't the end of the story?
@@DarkSkay Mainstream QM has given up to find a solution that describes the process of measurement. So hidden variables are ruled out til they stumble over it, like Sabine expressed it on another statement.
I would sort of agree with Penrose that's its not just down to "consciousness" wave collapse. there's a necessary entangled component, re hidden variable, NON LOCAL. It takes two to tango. I discussed a symbiotic type of wave collapse once with David Chalmers in emails in the 2000s, where the object of our desire so to speak, beckons to be better defined, so the observer and observed need to sort of acquiesce to create REALITY, an entangled non local process. But it still requires a check for either "consciousness" (whatever that entails) as a minimum and perhaps as i am starting to suspect, a UNIQUE soul...in other words entangled to source/issuer and no COPIES in existence, this is key. Clones don't SURF! (waves) The triverse wont allow it.
From 1 Newton & G to G grad ≈ 1 predicted gravitational constant gradient according to projective unified field theory = ((-0.2425 α c^3)/Universe mass)
It's a wonderful day 💚☘️🌈
Roger Penrose ❤Michio kaku a great mind
Michio Kaku and Eric Weinstein need to debate. Would blow up the internet.
Is it possible that the strong nuclear force acts perpendicular to the constant inflow of gravity, as in EM, and adds velocity and/or spin to anything in that realm? Just guessing?
It’s like saying that rain doesn’t turn a water mill nor grind flour,…. but , yes it does?
It's a QCD weaved Neutrino Ocean under electron excitement, one resonant in phase wave pressure. The other, resonant in evolving transversal energies. Together they create our space-time as we see it. Gravity is still in part refractional displacement, but at the neutrino and electron level (elementary particles) it involves phase states and neutrino oscillation/concentration/energy or wave phase state/conditions. We phase as a part of this. We do not understand this process. The measurement isn't the refractional property..it's in using photons (always) for making observation. The set refracts in each direction of time and paradox with every electron/photon invasion. Neutrino Ocean wriggled in resonant nuclear chromoelectromagnetic resonation concentrations, both entropic in nature, together evolving inverse to both entropic entities in refraction
Suchitra Sebastian rocks. Penrose does too.
6:30 Maybe the issue isn’t with the quantum theory but gravity itself? That there is something about gravity we get wrong or maybe that it isn’t Even what it seems to be.. idk ofc. But what if it’s not it’s own force?
What is vacuum deposition?. Furthermore, why is gravity a fundamental force?, could you not treat it as a function of the laws of thermodynamics? If the passage of light through time causes distortions to the fabric of spacetime, wouldnt that be seen as gravity?
You have 'The entropic gravity' by Erik Verlinde.
I’m with the understanding that gravity isn’t a force, but is just the curvature of spacetime. That’s the way that Eisenstein defines it.
@@DrVonJay*einstein. eisenstein appears somewhere else. but yes, gravity is not a force from that pov.
@@rafitiki i swipe and misspell often
Is the bottom of a waterfall a selective black hole of the descending water above???
light observed by a leafe also know as photo.s is also a black hole.
What about love 😍 ❤ is that gravity and Positive effect On negative effects is it love likewise we humans and what's happening?
I think they're on to something. QM is still a mystery, out in space there is no "observer" collapsing any wave function, still the universe works. Gravity is very different from the other 3 forces, so better understanding of that is crucial. The standard model of particle physics is clearly not the final answer with 20 free parameters. As for many particle emergence, statistical mechanics is well known. To be sure, the next level of theory will be just that, at another level. My guess is that both dark energy and dark matter will be out.
Invert Space with Time. Instead on showing time going up with an upward arrow, it needs to be seen as a forward arrow. Time only happens when looking forward.
When I look backward, time still happens, so you must be wrong, lol.
@@fred_2021Accually you’re wrong. Owls can look backwards because they are in a superposition of forward and backward spin. Plug time into the equation and we can determine the stresses on the spinal neck muscles.
@@-tarificpromo-7196 Great insight! I overlooked twitterpation at the speed of flight.
@@-tarificpromo-7196 Great insight! I overlooked twitterpation at the speed of flight.