- 407
- 66 878
Archive Trust for Research
United Kingdom
เข้าร่วมเมื่อ 9 มี.ค. 2023
The Archive Trust is creating a digital audio and video archive of significant scientific meetings, and making it freely available to the international research community. Each month, new meetings are recorded around the world. The archive currently holds over 57,000 video and audio recordings dating back to 1973. The Archive Trust is in the process of digitising the older analogue recordings (up to year 2000) and, in particular, those with a connection to General Relativity and Cosmology.
Check out the playlist tab to see the categories that might interest you.
Check out the playlist tab to see the categories that might interest you.
OSMU Talk 17 by Antonio Marciano, 29 November 2024
OSMU 2024
29/11/24
Speaker: Antonio Marciano
School: Fudan University & INFN - Frascati and Rome2
Title: Gravi-weak unification and the stochastic gauge-geometry flow
29/11/24
Speaker: Antonio Marciano
School: Fudan University & INFN - Frascati and Rome2
Title: Gravi-weak unification and the stochastic gauge-geometry flow
มุมมอง: 36
วีดีโอ
OSMU Talk 16 by David Jackson, 15th November 2024
มุมมอง 24014 วันที่ผ่านมา
OSMU 2024 15/11/24 Speaker: David Jackson Title: Unification by Generalising Proper Time Rather than Appending Dimensions of Space Abstract: Abstract: A new approach to unification will be motivated based upon the generalisation of proper time beyond the familiar local 4-dimensional spacetime quadratic form with Lorentz symmetry. This leads directly to cubic, quartic, and potentially higher-ord...
OSMU Talk 15 by Andrew J. S. Hamilton, 1st November 2024
มุมมอง 145หลายเดือนก่อน
OSMU 2024 01/11/24 Speaker: Andrew J. S. Hamilton School: University of Colorado Boulder Title: String Theory, Unification and Geometric Algebra Abstract: It is commonly held that supersymmetry is essential to string theory, but this is false. The chief arguments against bosonic string theory without any supersymmetry are, first, that it does not admit fermions, and second, that its ground stat...
OSMU 2024 Talk 14 by George Sparling, 18th October 2024
มุมมอง 116หลายเดือนก่อน
OSMU 2024 18/10/24 Speaker: George Sparling School: Laboratory of Axiomatics, University of Pittsburgh Title: Spacetime is six dimensional and the two extra dimensions are time like!
OSMU 2024 Talk 13 by Jürg Fröhlich, 4th October 2024
มุมมอง 78หลายเดือนก่อน
OSMU 2024 13/10/24 Speaker: Jürg Fröhlich School: Formerly at ETH Zurich Title: A theory of quantum jumps
OSMU 2024 Talk 12 by Zoltán Fodor, 20th September 2024
มุมมอง 69หลายเดือนก่อน
OSMU 2024 20/09/24 Speaker: Zoltán Fodor School: The Pennsylvania State University. Wuppertal, FZ Juelich, University of Budapest Title: The magnetic moment of the muon
OSMU 2024 Talk 11 by Kaustubh Agashe, 6th September 2024
มุมมอง 1422 หลายเดือนก่อน
OSMU 2024 06/09/24 Speaker: Kaustubh Agashe School: University of Maryland Title: Is the Higgs boson composite?
OSMU 2024 Talk 8 by Siddhant Das, 21st June 2024
มุมมอง 1894 หลายเดือนก่อน
OSMU 2024 21/06/24 Speaker: Siddhant Das School: Arnold Sommerfeld Center, LMU Munich Title: Quantum arrival-time and Bohmian trajectories Abstract: Computing the probability density of arrival, detection or flight times of a quantum particle at a detector, which is empirically well-accessible, is one of the last areas where physicists disagree about what QM should predict. Over the years, many...
OSMU 2024 Talk 10 by Jochen Szangolies, 19th July 2024
มุมมอง 3704 หลายเดือนก่อน
OSMU 2024 19/07/24 Speaker: Jochen Szangolies School: German Aerospace Center Title: The standard model symmetry and qubit entanglement Abstract: Research at the intersection of quantum gravity and quantum information theory has seen significant success in describing the emergence of spacetime and gravity from quantum states whose entanglement entropy approximately obeys an area law. In a diffe...
OSMU 2024 TALK 9 by Subir Sarkar, 5th July 2024
มุมมอง 4294 หลายเดือนก่อน
OSMU 2024 05/07/24 Speaker: Subir Sarkar School: University of Oxford Title: A challenge to the standard cosmological model Abstract: Abstract: In the ΛCDM cosmological model the Universe is assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous, when averaged on large scales. That the cosmic microwave background has a dipole anisotropy is interpreted as due to our peculiar (non-Hubble) motion because of loca...
SIC, Nicola Carissimi : Bicategorical enriched contructions
มุมมอง 705 หลายเดือนก่อน
Séminaire Itinérant de Catégories (SIC) 05/04/2024 Speaker: Nicola Carissimi Title: Bicategorical enriched constructions Abstract: Starting from the notion of enriched bicategory, generalizing at the same time and in opposite direction those of pseudomonoid and of bicategory, we are going to define the appropriate notion of (co)end for enriched pseudofunctors of the right type, allowing then to...
SIC, Camell Kachour : Cubical ∞-Categories
มุมมอง 425 หลายเดือนก่อน
Séminaire Itinérant de Catégories (SIC) 05/04/2024 Speaker: Camell Kachour Title: Cubical ∞-Categories Abstract: Nous expliquerons une façon de construire les diagrammes de recollements cubiques. Ces constructions mettent en lumière des trames cubiques, ainsi que des objets cubiques dans la catégorie des esquisses. 1ère application: Avec eux on peut décrire précisément la monade des ∞-catégorie...
SIC, Maxime Culot : Les foncteurs dérivées à gauche non additifs
มุมมอง 1075 หลายเดือนก่อน
Séminaire Itinérant de Catégories (SIC) 05/04/2024 Speaker: Maxime Culot Title: Les foncteurs dérivées à gauche non additifs Abstract: Dans un cadre abélien, on peut définir les foncteurs Tor et Ext qui sont basés respectivement sur la notion de foncteur dérivé à gauche et à droite, définis en termes de complexes de chaines. Le problème des foncteurs dérivés à gauche (et à droite) est que la dé...
SIC, Federico Campanini : Théories de torsion et prétorsion
มุมมอง 495 หลายเดือนก่อน
Séminaire Itinérant de Catégories (SIC) 05/04/2024 Speaker: Federico Campanini Title: Théories de torsion et prétorsion Abstract: Les théories de prétorsion sont définies comme des “théories de torsion non pointées”, où l’objet zéro et les morphismes nuls sont remplacés, respectivement, par une classe d’objets “triviaux” et un idéal approprié de morphismes. Les théories de prétorsion ont été in...
SIC, Corentin Vienne : Le cosmash produit et son associativité
มุมมอง 435 หลายเดือนก่อน
Séminaire Itinérant de Catégories (SIC) 05/04/2024 Speaker: Corentin Vienne Title: Le cosmash produit et son associativité Abstract: Dans cet exposé, nous étudierons la construction du cosmash produit (étroitement en lien avec les commutateurs) et les cas dans lequel ce dernier est associatif ou non. Nous verrons qu’à travers ceci il est possible de caractériser catégoriquement les algèbres com...
OSMU 2024 TALK 7 by Bernd Henschenmacher, 14th June 2024
มุมมอง 1615 หลายเดือนก่อน
OSMU 2024 TALK 7 by Bernd Henschenmacher, 14th June 2024
OSMU 2024 TALK 6 by Leron Borsten, 24th May 2024
มุมมอง 1386 หลายเดือนก่อน
OSMU 2024 TALK 6 by Leron Borsten, 24th May 2024
P&M, Gilles Godefroy : La belle époque de l'analyse fonctionnelle
มุมมอง 526 หลายเดือนก่อน
P&M, Gilles Godefroy : La belle époque de l'analyse fonctionnelle
R&S, Nathalie Charraud : Les paradigmes logiques de la psychanalyse
มุมมอง 1276 หลายเดือนก่อน
R&S, Nathalie Charraud : Les paradigmes logiques de la psychanalyse
OSMU 2024 TALK 5 by Tim M.P. Tait, 10th May 2024
มุมมอง 1766 หลายเดือนก่อน
OSMU 2024 TALK 5 by Tim M.P. Tait, 10th May 2024
OSMU 2024 TALK 4 by Xavier Hernandez, 29th March 2024
มุมมอง 2118 หลายเดือนก่อน
OSMU 2024 TALK 4 by Xavier Hernandez, 29th March 2024
OSMU 2024 TALK 3 by Maurice De Gosson, 22nd March 2024
มุมมอง 2128 หลายเดือนก่อน
OSMU 2024 TALK 3 by Maurice De Gosson, 22nd March 2024
R&S, Leila Schneps : La pensée qui cherche et la question du sens dans Récoltes et Semailles.
มุมมอง 2578 หลายเดือนก่อน
R&S, Leila Schneps : La pensée qui cherche et la question du sens dans Récoltes et Semailles.
OSMU 2024 TALK 2 by Basil Hiley, 1st March 2024
มุมมอง 8289 หลายเดือนก่อน
OSMU 2024 TALK 2 by Basil Hiley, 1st March 2024
R&S, Bahram Djenab : L’invention et l’expérience du corps : l’intuition en physique [...]
มุมมอง 9210 หลายเดือนก่อน
R&S, Bahram Djenab : L’invention et l’expérience du corps : l’intuition en physique [...]
R&S, Claude Imbert : De Frege à Wittgenstein : pourquoi s'y intéresser
มุมมอง 27510 หลายเดือนก่อน
R&S, Claude Imbert : De Frege à Wittgenstein : pourquoi s'y intéresser
R&S, Gaëtan Pégny : Grothendieck et les portes sur l'univers
มุมมอง 16710 หลายเดือนก่อน
R&S, Gaëtan Pégny : Grothendieck et les portes sur l'univers
Symposium EK, Eberhard Knobloch: Are mathematicians secret astrologers?
มุมมอง 3710 หลายเดือนก่อน
Symposium EK, Eberhard Knobloch: Are mathematicians secret astrologers?
Symposium EK, Martin Grötschel: Digital Humanities, Data Science, and Mathematics
มุมมอง 2310 หลายเดือนก่อน
Symposium EK, Martin Grötschel: Digital Humanities, Data Science, and Mathematics
Symposium EK, Paolo Mancosu: [...] passage on mathematical infinity in Grosseteste's De Luce
มุมมอง 4210 หลายเดือนก่อน
Symposium EK, Paolo Mancosu: [...] passage on mathematical infinity in Grosseteste's De Luce
Damn. Her answers during the Q&A session at the end are brutally watertight. I'm liking this formalism a lot.
I wonder if/how particle temporal vibration can chance our perspective on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Really wish I could make some questions to Hou Yau myself but can't find a way to contact him.
I'm glad to see that both theories (the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Verlinde's Emergent Gravity) are fleshing out incredible insights about gravity and reality. I know that McCulloch's Quantised Inertia is a bit more pseudoscientific (Just because he claims that at lower accelerations than Milgrom's, the Rindler horizon that causes inertia goes beyond the cosmological horizon and modifies the dynamics of matter in a way that we can engineer), but in the end I think all these theories are on the right track: The universe is made up of unfolding interactions, the different event horizons (cosmological, Rindler, black holes...) must somehow account for what they cover, and both the Planck and Hubble scales are actually involved in all physical phenomena, and especially in the "dark" sector, which just shows us a universe trying to reach balance.
Brilliant stuff! I’m citing this in an upcoming paper
Its nice to see they've been paying attention to what i was telling them. I take the magical moment out and put science in. Peace ✌️ 😎.
VEM =0Msquared by, Alex 79suited. Peace ✌️ 😎. It's nice to see atleast some scientists were paying attention to what i was saying. The difference is i take the magical moment out of the theory. Keep it strictly scientific. But atleast their trying i guess.
Singularity is incorrect respectfully Neil, it was a star 🌟. Just sayin 🤷. The EMFSYSTEMS created by the star transformed the gaseous state into a plasmic state. But i like how most of this model works. Don't let bias slip into the model. The simplest answer is likely the right ✅️ answer. EMFSYSTEMS inside EMFSYSTEMS all the way down. Great work Neil respectfully my friend. Peace ✌️ 😎 from Alex 79suited. (Genius).
Martinez Christopher Martin Angela Wilson Jennifer
Hall Jose Smith Paul Lewis Jason
Taylor Jessica Anderson Shirley Davis Patricia
This... could really be it. And I mean it this time.
1:33:15 Berry on wineberg
"No fully satisfactory underlying theory" I say: Professor of the Weizmann Institute is the world's greatest living scientist. He is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Professor Milgrom is 20 years overdue for a Nobel Prize & a Wolf Prize - am I wrong about Professor Milgrom? Consider the following: darkmattercrisis.wordpress.com/2024/07/08/93-three-critical-tests-alone-in-this-year-2024-find-dark-matter-and-the-lcdm-model-to-be-incorrect/ Consider some hypotheses: (1) There are 3 fundamental levels of physics: classical field theory, quantum field theory, and string theory. (2) There are 2 fundamental approaches to string theory: MOND-less string theory & MOND-string theory - however, MOND-less string theory is disconfirmed by consider observational evidence. (3) As soon as 20 or 30 of the younger string theorists realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology, there will be a huge conceptual revolution in the foundations of physics. (4) Observational astronomers need to stop assuming that Einstein's field equations are 100% correct - instead the astronomers should take an empirical approach to Einstein's field equations (in view of MOND's many empirical successes). (5) The best available scientific description of gravity is GR + MOND inertia. Are the preceding hypotheses wrong? Think about: "MOND as manifestation of modified inertia" by Mordehai Milgrom, 2023 arxiv.org/abs/2310.14334 in terms of a data-driven approach to MOND astrophysics. What is the verdict on the following? If MOND inertia is physically real, then Einstein's field equations might be modified as follows: Replace G(μ,ν) + Λ g(μ,ν) = κ T(μ,ν) by G(μ,ν) + Λ g(μ,ν) = κ T(μ,ν) + M(T(μ,ν)) , where the function M(T(μ,ν)) represents the MOND-data-function as a function of the energy-momentum tensor and G(μ,ν) = R(μ,ν) - 1/2 g(μ,ν) R . In the MOND regime, put M(T(μ,ν)) = - (3.9±.5 * 10^-5) * g(μ,ν) R . Claim: in the MOND regime, this is approximately correct in terms of empirical data.
Consider Wigner's famous 1960 paper: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences My basic theory is that the multiverse is a digital, holographic, 72-dimensional automaton, in which all of the alternate universes occur on the 71-dimensional boundary. However, according to the Gravity Probe B science team, their 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes malfunctioned in a surprisingly predictable way and decisively disproved my basic theory. My guess is that the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes functioned according to design specifications and actually confirmed the most important prediction of my basic theory. Let us assume that I am wrong and the Gravity Probe B science team is correct. In that case, it seems to me that MOND inertia is, by far, the most likely explanation for MOND's many successful empirical predictions. Prof. Dr. Pavel Kroupa of the University of Bonn has spent more than 25 years searching for a clear failure of MOND in the MOND regime (away from GR problems) - and so far he has found MOND to be correct. Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Study MOND's predictions and judge for yourself.
Thank you
@2:18:00 Bernd has an expansive mind, but he listened to Neil Turok no??? So why waste the effort on exotic gravity theory? OK, someone should look into the exotic stuff. But Turok & Boyle *_deserve_* a bigger team, their proposals are far more appealing. How can you *_not_* wake up each day super keen to work on a paradigm that is minimalist, elegant, preserves Einstein gravity and does not predict any nonsense that we cannot and have not observed? That also explains dark matter, dark energy and the horizon, flatness and isotropy puzzles, all with no new particles, just CPT symmetry, RH neutrino, and zero-dim Bogoliubov scalars (not new particles). Note: Turok & Boyle work within 4D spacetime, so Lasenby should be in collaboration up to his neck here. I would even doubt that there is a need for E8 theory. We cannot probe such high energy, and so such work is a fairy story today. Maybe not "tomorrow". The best ultrahigh energy data would be primordial gravity waves, which Turok points out would be signal directly from the Big Bang conformal boundary, which could actually test the CPT-Symmetric universe proposal. Amazingly within our youngster's lifetimes gravity wave detectors might get sensitive enough to detect these waves. At least not beyond the realm of possibility.
Also, @2:12:00 I do not think Tejinder should worry too much about getting support from the experimental community. If the algebra is correct they will come on board. But until then, they are not able to help you folks. As Lasenby said, you already have all the data you need. Do you _need_ an influx of young workers to push the program forward? Hardly. Solving quantum gravity and whatnot is not the No.1 concern for humanity these days. It is a nice side project. If we need to struggle without a team of postdoc wage slaves, so be it. The struggle is not a bad thing. If you can convince funding agencies solving the SM algebra or QG algebra will improve the ecology and climate, destroy neoliberalism and fascism together, then you are onto something!
@2:12:00 maybe it is not so gloomy on the prediction side. If this "algebraic approach" of y'all can be confined to the STA, and you get AM phenomenology without needing higher gauge groups, then you can say it is predicting no new particles in the hep colliders until the Planck scale. So you might want to seriously look at a minimal LR-symmetric SM. You have the geometric principle for it (4D spacetime with local nontrivial topology), yielding the SM algebra, and you can stop there and declare "Prediction! Nothing more at the LHC except composite states."
@9:00 this is where "quantum gravity" went down the proverbial garden path. There is a reason to quantize the EM field, (photons). There was no reason at all to quantize spacetime, there never has been. Today graviton detectors have been proposed that might someday work. If they detect gravitons and we see photoelectric type analogues with pure gravity, then.... no,... _even then_ there is no reason to quantize spacetime, because gravitons are gravity wave modes, it in not inconceivable they could be localized in wave packets, and even entangled due to ER=EPR topology, hence capable of forming Bell pairs. But this is a local effect, it does not require a gravitation path integral which presumes all the cosmos can be in a superposition. The field (a continuum) is still the spacetime manifold. Gravity (even though it can be gauged) is qualitatively different to YM. If *_all of spacetime_* (the whole 4D thing) can be shown to exist in superposition or entangled with itself (all of 4D) *_then_* you can start worrying about quantizing gravity. But that experiment I venture will never be done. Nor will we need it. I even doubt we will detect gravitons other than as soliton-like gravity waves. I'll bet anyone the graviton detectors will find gravity waves, but that's all they'll find. I know I could lose the bet, but I'd take the bet because I have an fairly nice plausible alternative (proto)theory that says gravity is already a quantum theory, you just need nontrivial topology (this is sufficient to get nonclassical GR).
@38:10 this compares favourably with the Turok & Boyle idea of including 36 dimension zero scalars (Bogoliubov scalars) which they show to tree order cure *_both_* the vacuum energy and the Weyl anomaly in the Standard Model. So I'd say Lasenby's claim that local scale invariance should be included in GR/GG is pretty spot on. Heck, are they not just the same idea packaged a little differently? The "36" by the way, comes from symmetries of BF gravity I believe, or something like it, from a spin connection. But that _has to be_ related to Lasenby's GTG gauge field Ω. How can it not? I reckon some sort of BF theory has to be functorially related to GTG. The spin connection strength which is a 2-form in the adjoint representation of SO(3,1) surely has to be related to the STA bivectors.
Total respect for Bernd working in the public sector and funding the time to do this super interesting research.✊🏽
@13:00 this is the only bit of cringe in a "beautiful" presentation. Why oh why use the west coast metric? With the east coast metric for the STA you can factor Klein-Gordon to immediately obtain solutions to the Dirac equation, without introducing a unit imaginary. You can recover the Hestenes-Dirac equation with a preferred spin frame, but are not forced to do so. I do not know for certain, but I think that'll allow a more general Dirac theory (possibly even leading to a chiral Standard Model in the STA?... which Lasenby has trouble producing).
@7:05 the ℂ numbers should not be needed even for Lasenby's STA octonion approach to the su(3) generators. You just want to abstract like a Misha Gromov ("matrriiiceees are stupeeed." and "Eeets all joust theee pythaaagoooorean theeeorum.") that is, you realize ℂ structure is always about orthogonality. So is su(n). So you will _never_ get an "uninterpreted" unit imaginary. When Lasenby needs his cartesian product structure for su(3) he fails to see this is still _spacetime_ geometric, it is bipartite structure (wormholes, or ER=EPR origins, basically, crudely speaking).
@1:27:00 I am not so sure it is a numerical "coincidence". Consider, *(a)* Latham and Neil _demanded_ Weyl invariance and vanishing Λ, so that _is_ a principle. Have we not learned from GR and the SM that nature's laws are pretty much governed by symmetry principles all around? (Why that is so might be my question, but I have a thought or two about that as well‡). *(b)* Taking a geometric (Clifford) algebra frame, my bet is Lasenby's efforts will pan out and we will see all the structure of the SM is within the spacetime algebra, just 4D, but with the critical ingredient of non-trivial topology, rather than ad hoc "quantum fields" (which will explain the local compactness of the gauge groups, the most natural reason why gravity is totally different to the gauge forces, and yet "the same" in the sense of being governed by symmetry principles). The whole idea of _quantum fields_ is a terrible sickness, a fever, that few top physicists have woken up from. There need be only _one_ continuum field in all of physics, and that is spacetime. I think this even beats Turok's Minimalism. ‡ See t4gu.gitlab.io/t4gu/blog/118_cosmic_wonder/
Interesting. If TI-QM really asserts the dark matter _is_ MOND, then I think we have a _reductio ad absurdem_ that Cramer's TI is *_false._* Because the dark matter is almost certainly the right-handed neutrino. This will be known within the decade I believe. See the talks by Neil Turok (he's no slouch and is a "good guy", don't trust me, trust Neil). More speculatively, the way to resolve the conundrum of textbook QM is with ER=EPR. The entanglement really is due to wormhole topology. But then spacetime is real, it is not "emergent". This flips Verlinde upside down. The entropic counting for cosmology is topological and nonequlibrium, it has to be _all of the cosmos._ Then you get the correct numbers for the Standard Model, 48 fermions, 12 gauge fields, a composite Higgs, and 36 dimension zero Bogoliubov scalars which cure the Weyl anomaly and the vacuum energy, and "predict" exactly three generations of fermions. I mean to say dear people, if "beauty" is ever a guide, this is one of those circumstances.
Because something is emergent does not mean it's not real. Also, asserting that there is a dark matter substance and that is neutrinos does not constitute a 'reductio ad absurdum' of anything. If the phenomena attributed to 'dark matter' turned out to be adequately explained by right-handed neutrinos, that would simply lend support to that theory, nothing more.
If a particle is subject to gravitational and electric field forces of the same magnitude but opposite directions, then there must be a force interaction (binding energy) between charge and mass that will be zero almost everywhere except where the particle is located F=-i.√[-E(g)(m-hf/c^2)E(e)q] (Stability and energy release (hf) similar to Bohr's model of the atom). Magnitude of force if m1=m2 and q1=q2. F=√(G/4πe).q.m/R^2.(a).∫ δ(x)dx where δ(x) is the Dirac delta,(a)=m/M determines the influence (efficiency) of the electric field (electric charge) on the gravitational field (mass).
Thanks for giving the talk!
As the evidence piles up, Subir inches ever closer to a Nobel Prize.
and simultaneously disavow the one awarded to Perlmutter, et al.
Neutron decay cosmology. A homeostatic universe maintained by the reciprocal processes of electron capture at event horizons and free neutron decay in deep voids. Gravity gathers mass to event horizons. All matter is made neutrons at event horizons because of electron capture. Neutrons drop kinetic energy off as mass for event horizon Neutron takes an EinsteinRosen bridge from highest energy pressure conditions to lowest energy density point of space where the quantum basement is lowest and easiest to penetrate. Neutron out in deep void Decays into amorphous monatomic hydrogen, proton electron soup, Dark matter. The decay from neutron 0.6fm⁴ to 1m³ of hydrogen gas is a volume increase of 10⁴⁵. Expansion. Dark energy. In time this amorphous hydrogen stabilizes and coalesces and tasks towards event horizons. Neutron decay cosmology is inevitable. No new particles. Respect for the Dark matter which exists curving space to cause cosmological red shift.
Excellente conférence ! Super intervenant, super PowerPoint
phoronomy Term used by Kant in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786) for the study of the motions of bodies, without regard to forces or the nature of the bodies themselves: kinematics. Leibniz invented the word in the 1680s to denote the doctrine of the “laws of nature,” whereby he meant the dynamical principles of collision theory.
Great talk - following....
Thank you. Excellent presentation- clear, thoughtful, insightful, and useful. My hats off to Tejinder for organizing this OSMU series. It is so refreshing to see well prepared PPT graphics (vs. the eclectic scribbling of tedious chalk talks).
Thank you. Excellent presentation- clear, thoughtful, insightful, and useful. My hats off to Tejinder for organizing this OSMU series. It is so refreshing to see well prepared PPT graphics (vs. the eclectic scribbling of tedious chalk talks).
Its cosmic!😅
#WOLFram #AVram
Could time be a non-zero number that when squared is zero? Or could 3+1 space time be a minimal hyperbolic geometry. Sorry, tool little sleep and too much rum. I'll go away now.
2 views in 1 hour you fell off
If you are going to get rid of the quantum gravity renormalization problem by adding those 36 fields that have no particles, I assume you have to make some assumptions about how those fields interact with the Standard Model fields. Isn't that a significant addition to the Standard Model? I don't understand how to judge simplicity of a model so I can't tell if that is better than, say, string theory with whatever number of dimensions and topology required to make things work. Oppenheim's post-quantum gravity approach doesn't add new particles or dimensions AFAICT but the equations are complex enough to need new tricks to fit on a page that I haven't seen before. It is an objective collapse scheme. Does your story have wave functions objectively collapsing? If not, what do you think should be done about the measurement problem?
Did I just witness a very historic moment in human history?
imho, yes! Although Neil and Latham have been presenting for a few years now.
Curious to see how this work relates to the PhD thesis of Cohl Furey.
What the hell is this gobledeegook
The comment about Inertia is very good!
Great stuff, guys! Does anyone have the first talk by Penrose? I bookmarked it for later, but it disappeared from youtube. Not sure if it was your channel, or someone else's.
Who has questions for Basil? Please drop them here. We're having a lay conversation about these ideas.
Has professor Hiley read Jonathan Oppenheim's post-quantum theory of classical gravity? If so, what does he make of it and how far does it differ from Professor Bohm's implicate and explicate order in regards to the double-split experiment? Thank you.
Fellow South African expat here University of Cape Town mechanical engineering degree living in Portland Oregon USA. Physics has been my hobby for 30 years. Thank you Neil for all you have done for theoretical physics. Baie lekker:)
I don't speak french and it's so frustrating right now
Where is osmu 2024 talk 1 by Roger Penrose?
Sehr unterhaltsam und interessant danke
You are our pride and honor
Excellent ! And so respectful of the questioners. Class act !