วีดีโอ

Thank you for uploading. This lecture is very interesting and informative. The universe is a giant quantum computer is an inspiring idea. I hope it is true, so that it can explain a lot of things. However, before that, I want to understand which part of content is well-proved, and which part is in the phase of debate. For example, the black hole entropy and area equation, it is well-proved, right? How about the "1 unit of entropy occupies 4 units of planck area"? How about the Holographic principle? If the quantum simulation of wormhole can be successfully operated (there was one experiment in 2022 using Google quantum computer, but many scientists argue it is not enough, however, are still optimistic about possible future breakthrough), does it mean the Holographic principle is true, or our universe is indeed a quantum computer? Thank you.

55:02 On the “dark” invariance: 0.in RT the main invariant is the 4-interval (a mathematical description of the constant c), however, it could offer another invariant value based on another physical constant. 1.Comparing with Einstein's equations of 1915, we find a=-c^3/16πG. Strictly speaking, in order to determine the constant a, it was necessary to make a transition to the Poisson equation. Thus, a rigorous derivation of Einstein's equations can be given. The transition to the non-relativistic limit allows us to determine a constant factor for the integral of the gravitational field according to: R[(0)^0]=(4πG/c^2)p; Δφ=-pc^3/4a=4πGр. And a=(1/16π)m(pl)w(pl)=(1/16π)I(pl). 2.Therefore, the Poisson equation can be written as: ∆g(00)=8πGT(00)/c^4, where g(00) is the time component of the metric tensor (for a weakly curved metric the time component of the energy-momentum tensor: T(00)~=pc^2). This equation is true only in the non-relativistic case, but it is applicable to the case of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, when Einstein's equations have only solutions with a time-varying space-time metric. Then the energy density of the gravitational field: g^2/8πG=T(00)=pc^2 {=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4 !}; where the critical density value determining the nature of the model is: p=(3/8π)H^2/G. Hence it follows: g~πcH. Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space. And according to the strong equivalence principle: g=|a*|=πcH [=r(pl)w(relic)^2]. And {w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H !}. 3.From Kepler's third law follows: M/t=v^3/G, where M/t=I(G)=[gram•sec^-1] is the gravitational current. By the way, in SR: I(G)=inv; this follows from the Lorentz transformations: m=m(0)/√(1-v^2/c^2) and t=t(0)/√(1-v^2/c^2). Hence, obviously, we have I(G)=m/t=m(0)/t(0)=inv. However, а*=-2πcа/M(universe), what is F=M(universe)а*=-2πса=-с^4/8G=-(⅛)F(pl). 4.In the case of the Universe: I(G)=M(universe)H=m(pl)w(pl)/8π=c^3/8πG=-2a (~ the "dark" constant~inv), where M(universe)=E/c^2 is the full mass of the Universe, and the total energy E is spent on creating a phase-quantized space-time: m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H. 5.That is: Δφ=-pc^3/4a= рс^3/2M(universe)H^2. And Δφ=4π[с^3/Gm(pl)w(pl)]H^2= 4πH^2; which is evidence of a phenomenon: spontaneous Lorentz transformations. Thus; Δφ(0)/Δφ=w(pl)^2/H^2~6,4*10^121, where Δφ(0)=4πw(pl)^2; the best prediction. Addition On the self repel: 0.“Giving the interval ds the size of time, we will denote it by dт: in this case, the constant k will have the dimension length divided by mass and in CGS units will be equal to 1,87*10^-27", Friedmann, (On the curvature of space, 1922). 1.[The ds, which is assumed to have the dimension of time, we denote by dт; then the constant k has the dimension Length Mass and in CGS-units is equal to 1, 87.10^ ± 27. See Laue, Die Relativitatstheorie, Bd. II, S. 185. Braunschweig 1921.] 2.Apparently, the following expression takes place: μ(0)ε(0)Gi=1, which means that Gi=с^2 where i is inertial constant, i=1,346*10^28[g/cm]; or k°=1/i=7,429*10^-29[cm/g]: k(Friedmann)/k°=8π; where k°=r(pl)/m(pl). 3.For clarity, let's draw an analogy. In electrodynamics, a circular conductor detects the properties of two conductors with currents flowing in opposite directions, since for each section of a conductor with a current on the opposite side there is a reverse current flow. Thus, the conductor is self-repelled by the magnetic force: F(m)=μ(0)I(e)^2, where I(e) is the electric current. 4.Then the force of inertia is: F(i)=(1/i)[I(G)^2], where I(G)=mw. That is, the expansion of the mechanical system is due to the inertial force of self-repelled (it is clear that this is not an anti-gravitational force). 5.In the case of the Universe; the gravitational current flowing along the phase trajectory: I(universe)=M(universe)H, respectively, the inertial force of self-expansion: F(i)=(1/i)I(universe)^2~F(pl). 6.It is clear that this approach is also valid for bodies moving in the same direction: then the inertial force of attraction will "appear", and this is not a gravitational, and even more so, not a "dark matter" effect. {For example, when stars rotate around the center of galaxies.} P.S. The motion of the particle in orbit is equivalent to a closed current, and the current creates an inertial moment, defined by the formula: M(i)= I(G)S, where I(G) is the current strength, S is the area streamlined by the current. Then Planck's constant can be interpreted as a quantum of inertia moment: ħ=I(pl)S(pl). Appendix 0.If, for example, the displacement current is defined as a physical quantity equal to the ratio of the amount of charge Δq that has passed through a certain cross-section during a certain time Δt to the value of this time interval: I(e)=∆q/∆t, then we are talking about the interaction of charges and a site streamlined by current, however, the formula It does not reflect this fact: the presence of a cross-section is ignored here. 1.This was due to the fact that the reference frame and coordinate system can only be associated with material objects, since the implementation of a reference system for an "immaterial cross-section" is allegedly impossible. 2.But now that it is already known that 4-space itself has dynamic properties, it is time to reconsider this point of view from the point of view of the relational principle? 3.Although, it is better to introduce a strong principle of general covariance: the observer is always involved in an unavoidable measurement process. It seems that there have never been any problems with QM already within the framework of GR (for example, in the case of the Schrodinger Cat). 4.A live cat breathes and, accordingly, emits gravitational waves according to the formula GR with intensity: I(G)=(2G/45c^5)(M^2)(l^4)(w^6), where M is the mass of the cat, l is its characteristic size, w is its frequency breathing.The frequency of gravitational radiation should be on the order of w~ 2π/т where т is the characteristic time of accelerated mass movement (pulsation, rotation, collision, non-spherical explosion).It is clear that the dead cat is not breathing and I(G) =0. {By the way, a "smile" without a cat can be detected according to Einstein's equations. Raising one of the indices, substituting I=k and summing, we find: R=-(8πG/c^4)T, where T=T(n) is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor (~ "gravitational memory.").} 5.In principle, all this lends itself to a certain (improbability) constant measurement without opening the "black box", since gravity is not shielded [w=w(m)]. Moreover, the behavior of the radiation source is also controlled, since it emits only in an excited state. 6.{Why didn't Einstein use this argument? He wasn't sure about the reality of gravitational waves and assumed only the presence of hidden parameters…} 7.Then, the formula of the moment of inertia can be rewritten: M=mI(S), where I(S)=Sw is the current of 4-space, more precisely, the flow of the front of a gravitational or light wave ( in fact, this is a relativistic expression of Kepler's second law). 8.Since the interaction of a gravitational or light wave with a material particle leads to the transfer of energy-momentum to the particle, the phenomenon is described by the symmetric formula: E=I(G)I(S). 9.Obviously, in the quantum description of the phenomenon (M=ħ) the formula looks like this: ε(pl)=I[G(pl)]I[S(pl)] {=m(pl)w(pl)*S(pl)w(pl), where I[S(pl)] is the quantum expression of Kepler's second law}. 10.Moreover, I[S(pl)]=ħ/m(pl): is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i) = (½)S(pl)w(pl) = h/4πm(pl). {Magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional.} 11.This approach* leads to the quantization of gravity: in QG, it is a constant in the basic formula of the quantum expression of the Newtonian gravitational potential: ф(G)=-(1/2)[ħ/m(pl)]w=-Ф(i)w. It is clear that we are talking about gravity/inertial induction. Can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment. --------------- *) - The disciple will notice that electrodynamics has achieved great success, compared with mechanics, thanks to the introduction of the concept of current, and will write down Kepler's law as follows: I(G)= mw=v^3/G, where I(G) is the gravitational current: I(G)=[g•sec^-1]. By the way, Maxwell's realization of the displacement current effect is the culmination of all (mechanics+electrodynamics) classical physics.

Sir, you must trim your beard. It's too easy to criticize, but your beard looks like it needs care.

What are your thoughts on tenet? Its a fun thought experiment, but i think worrying about aliens is far more immediate a threat than time travelers

Did you like the series?

Subtitles would be really appreciated. It's a bit hard to understand what you're saying especially on mobile

Well this good news cause they are releasing another Back to the Future this year!. 😆 I've heard that future time travel would be even more difficult than travelling back in time. Not that backward time travel is exactly easy. i think wise people say things like "it would be really difficult" because as you elude to, technologies may one day exist that make the what we now consider "impossible" - "possible". For example imagine telling someone from the Middle Ages that in the future "we have landed and walked on the moon".

Thank you for this informative piece, George! Perhaps "alien life" is already in our midst but we're missing the clues because we're seeking through eyesight instead of our perceiving through insight. Perhaps finding alien life is actually an insight-out job :-)🙃👽.

Dear Prof. Smoot, I know physicists generally don't enjoy the process of having to engage with the random theories of laypeople, but this is something I've been working on for several years at this point, and I was wondering if I could run it by you. I had this idea that gravitational fields are electron densities, and I've found little in the research literature that seems to repudiate that position. If you think, for instance, about background (or 'vacuum') energy, I think it's quite an organic proposition to think that tunneling electrons in the background could be emitting that radiation. In terms of quantum gravity, I suspect that; if you take a 1cm^3 container containing two hydrogen atoms at a Lagrange point; the electrons from one atom will tunnel to within the electroweak range of the nucleus of the other atom, and there will be a force of attraction between the two atoms. Put more simply, all objects made of atoms would have this cloud of electrons surrounding them, and objects falling into those gravitational fields would experience the electrostatic force of attraction generated by electrons therein over their protons. Do you think this idea has the potential to explain quantum gravity? Any help you can provide would be much appreciated; if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Best wishes, Sam Cottle.

There is no universal law that states that all life is technologically advanced

How does AI help save resources and keep things energy-efficient in space habitats or spacecraft?

Professor smoot, your videos and lasting passion for science are so inspiring!

Professor,what's your favourite books in physics ?

Black holes are based on a mathematical misconception. General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center. It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies. The "missing mass" is dilated mass. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with very, very low mass because they do not have enough mass in their centers to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very, very low mass galaxies have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. This also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates. Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that singularities are not possible, he put it in writing. Nobody believed in them when he was alive including Plank, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman etc