It's a privilege to to get to hear a genius from recent history actually speaking, imagine if we had recordings of Brahe or Newton and could hear how they spoke!
Because they ignored him while banking on the misrepresentation of analytic Hermitian transforms of rigid body quadratics as a "Standard Model for Quantum Physics". In fact all they did was put Euler and Lagrange's 19th century pure mathematics theorems in a new dress by the Particle Design Group. Very chic. Just a squeeze and go BOOM. Big monkeys very powerful! His entire contribution was ignored after he refused to dance with the boys.
Even if he were your uncle, you ight not have heard very much of that voice. He was a card-carrying weirdo, and he had quite the economy odf speech, so everybody who knew him said.
@@ronniechilds2002 THE TRUE AND CLEARLY PROVEN MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE: Consider the man who is standing on what is the Earth/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. SO, the mathematical unification of Einstein's equations AND Maxwell's equations (given the addition of A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION) proves that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. By Frank DiMeglio
Frankly, it wouldnt help at all unless it encourages you to pursue becoming one of the greatest geniuses of your time that is if you ever wanted to relate to or understand how he arrived at his ridiculous and miraculous conclusions that encompass the entirety of science & mathematics, and he is one of the many geniuses that turned out to redefine the ability of human beings to think abstractly and intelligently and some combination the infinite variables in what we perceive as reality gave us arguably the greatest genius in known history or at least as far as we can measure to any finite and agreed standard as any sufficiently intelligent and knowledgable human knows that we have inherent limits, but those limits have shown to be no match for the formidable persistence of human cooperation, coordination, and most importantly our collective natural imagination and hunger for knowledge, we may very well owe our entire existence in its entirety to what we have so often blamed for our suffering and peril.
From what I understand he was an introvert in the extreme, basically committed entirely to working on Math at all times. And he was certainly no fan of small talk, often giving rather abrupt single word answers to questions. I'd guess he'd probably not give a lot of emotional support to a nephew or neice but he'd certainly be able to help with their math home work. 🙂
Indeed, i was surprised to understand everything he said from beginning to the end, not missing a beat. I have a high level of education but even so, I didn't expected it.
Thank you very much! It's always a pleasure to restore these old audio pieces when I find them and it feels great to share them with a very receptive audience. I think its great to live in a world where we can hear the distinctive voices from the past stay alive in some form and give us an insight into their way of thinking.
Thanks for uploading this, it's a significant recording ! You don't hear very often physicists as respected as Paul Dirac talking about modifying Einstein's model to include a universal dynamic which would allow these varying constants. It reminds me of the Sakharov papers (published in the late 60's in Russia). In France, Jean-Pierre Petit is the main modern day representative for this branch of investigation, I think. It's useful to hear such a brilliant physicist pushing these ideas, they were revolutionary back then and still are even now, and yet they seem interesting enough to be worth considering, developing and testing. The very idea of linking the ratio of two fundamental interactions (electromagnetism and gravity) to the age of the Universe is quite astonishing. I think the most direct connection that would link these two physical "results" is the holographic description that is offered by Nassim Haramein. I'm not a specialist but I imagine that linking these two "results" appear more feasible if you consider that matter is constantly exchanging information, every piece of matter being linked to every other piece of that puzzle called Universe ! Maybe it's too much for the rational scientists wandering in the comment section, Dirac aficionados, I hope not !
Hello whoever made this available . Thankyou . For me personally , this is so enlightening . I shall watch and listen again. The diction of the narrator , is completely real and soulful . This makes the content even more fascinating . All this aside , godspeed , all scientists philosophers and layfolk , who would advance our understanding of this amazing universe and all its behaviour .
A pure genius! I wonder if we ever will understand how great these few genius were. Einstein, Dirac , Newton etc. Proud to be born in the same century !. ( I know Newton wasn’t) but the magnificent of their works can’t be overstated
I was able to get a general idea of Dirac's statements by simply looking at the ratio pi [3.14...]. As we all know, the expansion of a circle does nothing to that ratio. It therefore made sense to me that universal expansion coupled with the decreasing gravity between large masses could possibly affect coulomb charges at the smallest lengths in the same way that circular expansion affects the diameter of a growing circumference. It also suggests that units such as Planck lengths and other minutely measured values might also be changing in an expanding universe.
I added subtitles. Hit the captions button on the video if you cannot hear. If you liked this please check out this classic archive interview with Werner Heisenberg on The Uncertainty Principle in QM: th-cam.com/video/xbpOMkBMtYU/w-d-xo.html Please Help Support This Channel:www.patreon.com/muonray
misery Well symmetry was to an extent, as I did research on ferromagnetism and materials which have so-called broken symmetries when they undergo a phase transition and this is very much a part of the theoretical modelling of such systems, as is the theory of groups and so on. I am an experimentalist so it was a part of my work but only as a means of quantifying statistics into a replicable model and to relate it to results in literature and so on. Dirac was a theorist and like most theorists the physics, as characterized by the model, is their concept of the reality of it, with the experiments sometimes being of very unrelatable concern. There are some very pro-active theorists out there who do really try to relate their work to experiment, but some theorists are very blue sky - Dirac was not an angel however and his obsession with primes and the fact that he never liked the concept of renormalisation in quantum field theory, even though renormalisation is the only way to relate experimental statistics in a way that it can be used to calibrate a model, really did isolate him in the latter part of his career.
Excellent example of an informal talk by Paul A.M. Dirac. I might add a couple of credible anecdotes regarding Dirac. A French physicist came to Dirac's home to discuss some cutting edge physics. The physicist was escorted into Dirac's study and he preceded for some time, trying with great difficulty to explain his work in English to Dirac. The physicist was clearly having considerable frustration with his limited spoken English. After quite some time, Dirac's sister, Betty, entered the study with some tea and biscuits, speaking fluent French, and wherein Dirac responded in fluent French. The French physicist who had spent considerable time frustrated in trying to express himself in English inquired of Dirac: Why didn't you tell me you spoke French. Dirac replied: You didn't ask. Another anecdote is from his days at Florida State University. The Physics Department held seminars which Dirac would often attend, sitting near the front row. He appeared to be dozing off throughout the presentations, but during the question & answer period, he would make brilliant comments and ask appropriate questions. He seemed asleep, but was all the while quite lucid.
Thanks for posting this! It's really awesome to hear the man in his own voice! He was definitely a genius. But the numerology he voices here gives a sense of the kind of over-mathematization physics fell into starting in the 20th century.
7 6 20 Hey@@paulwary. Now, it seems most people are informed about "celebrities" rather than a person of great intelligence; Dirac. Stay safe, keep calm, & be well. v
This is one of the most fabulous mathematical explanation I have ever heard. Whilst Einstein led all of us into the rabbit hole saluting Newtonian theory almost the whole way. Thank you S0 much for posting this, Dirac Cosmology needs to be taught at the higher University level rather than mentioned. Much love, Fractal
256 is the first profound evidence that the Universe is really a computer simulation - an 8 bit word. Now, all I've got to do is find a simulated Universe made by a simulated Universe? ;) Interesting video - in Bristol, they need a celebratory statue of this intellectual giant.
Very interesting for what he said and the simplicity of how he said it. Bohr is like an uncultivated garden in that respect. Complimentary and Causality - say no more.
I think that Jean-Pierre Petit (a french physicist) likes varying constants as well, his "Janus" model includes a modification of Einstein's relativity in order to allow that. Also, he says that it is key (varying constants) to interpreting the expansion of the Universe data.
It usually goes together. You'll find people who can't explain, don't really grasp. But the greatest of all is those who can navigate errors since every discovery is necessarily in error before being refined.
Most of the 20th century physicists seem to be like, "I'm limited by the technology of my time", well that completely lies to them, but in my opinion it was like, "They were so advanced in theory already than the experimental methods could gather at that time"
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature) 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 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. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “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 the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”? 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 gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (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 Mesons. 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. 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. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. 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. The 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. .
Just a tip... I think if you compressed the sound quite a bit then boosted the whole lot you'd get a more even sound level, its probably just me being picky but all the ducking of the sound makes it hard for me to listen. Great video though :)
+Steve Gad He wasn't complaining about the volume of sound (and anyway you can turn up the volume on your own computer) but rather about the uneveness of the sound level - it goes up and down.
Dirac was an absolute genius and conversed 1:1 with Einstein and also admired Einstein’s theory. On the other hand, he was open to quantum mechanics, which Einstein unfortunately was not.
einstein was a plagiarist anyway. Henri Poincarré did most of the mind heavy lifting. Einstein was good at taking credit and repackaging Poincaré's theory and most important of all he was backed by the powerful media monopoly that even then could "cancel" your career, if you don't follow their twist of reality.
@@igrieger Fool, do a search on Henri Poincarré theory of relativity before talking nonsense. You're brainwashed repeating what the media monopoly spread in the last 50 years.
What you say is not an accepted fact. "Most of the components of Einstein's paper appeared in others' anterior works on the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Poincaré and Alfred Bucherer had the relativity principle. Lorentz and Larmor had most of the Lorentz transformations, Poincaré had them all. Cohn and Bucherer rejected the ether. Poincaré, Cohn, and Abraham had a physical interpretation of Lorentz's local time. Larmor and Cohn alluded to the dilation of time. Lorentz and Poincaré had the relativistic dynamics of the electron. None of these authors, however, dared to reform the concepts of space and time. None of them imagined a new kinematics based on two postulates. None of them derived the Lorentz transformations on this basis. None of them fully understood the physical implications of these transformations. It all was Einstein's unique feat". If Einstein were a hoax, then he wouldn't be admired by Dirac nor many others... Or do you also think that the great Dirac is a victim of media? Hahah, nonsense... I knew about Poincaré. He just did not see the whole picture nor interpreted all that he mathematically wrote. Next thing that you will try to convince people is that earth is flat...
It is such a delight to listen to Dirac talk! He’s from another galaxy! Although - is it quite correct to say that the age of the universe is of the order of 10³⁹ au (atomic units of time) ? If the observable universe is 13.772 billion years old, in seconds, it would be about 4.34313792×10¹⁷ s. Converting to atomic units (au) of time, since each second is 4.1341373336493×10¹⁶ au, then the universe is of the order of 10³⁴ au old, which is smaller than 10³⁹ by a factor of 10⁵. Now, even if the zeptosecond is used (1z=10⁻²¹ of a second) instead of “au” still it would be smaller by a factor of 10³. According to physicist Reinhard Dörner of Goethe University in Germany , the smallest fragment of time currently measurable is 247 zeptoseconds. Let's define mut ≡ 1 measurable unit of time = 247 z ( z for zeptoseconds ), then age of universe = (4.34313792 / 247)×10¹⁷×10²¹ = 1.758299595142×10³⁶ mut The above result still does not exactly compare with the magnitude of 10³⁹ as Dirac was comparing it, that is in the same order of the ratio of electron-proton electrostatic force to gravitational force: Fₑᵨ / Fg = k|q₁q₂| / ( GM₁M₂ ) = kq² / ( GMₑMᵨ ) = (8.988×10⁹N⋅m²/C²)(1.602×10⁻¹⁹C)² ÷ (6.674×10×10⁻¹¹N⋅m²/kg²)(9.109×10⁻³¹Kg)(1.673×10⁻²⁷Kg) ≈ 2×10³⁹ dimensionless One might be tempted to use Planck time tp = 5.39 × 10⁻⁴⁴ s which is it is the smallest duration of time that has physical meaning, then the age of the universe would be (4.34313792/5.39) ×10¹⁷/10⁻⁴⁴ = 8×10⁶⁰ tp exceeding by a factor of 10²¹. The estimates of the number of atoms in the universe range from between 10⁷⁸ to 10⁸². If that number happens to be closer to 10⁷⁸, then the previous calculated dimensionless ratio when squared is also of that order (Fₑᵨ / Fg)² = (10³⁹)² = 10⁷⁸. How the time passed since the “Big Bang” relates to this number in whatever time measuring method?
at the very end it is cut off but he says (as I interpret it) basically there is a bound to the size of the universe and that after a period of time, related to the age of the universe, it will start contracting rather than expanding...which intuitively makes sense relative to the known observable nature...vibration, oscillation, waves...
Thanks so much for this. I have not seen anything before that gives Dirac's personality, as you might get from meeting him, not in pictures or anything written about him. He does not sound like the blank persona, who can't relate to people, the stories make him out to be.
Yes, agreed, not at all. It's almost like he is casting too much shadow on einstein and the establishment is trying to cancel a bit of it by making up freudian stories. (freud was a fraud by the way, and einstein a plagiarist of Henri Poincaré the real father of the theory of relativity).
Talking slowly, but very clearly both with regards to voice and how he expresses his thoughts. Not once, not once I repeat, does he hesitate, say eeeh, or correct himself about what he said before. He may have been at the limits of what is a "normal" human being, at least socially - if you doubt that, please read the book "The Strangest Man. The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac Quantum Genius" by Graham Farmelo - but it is obvious that he was able to think and express his thoughts very, very clearly - much clearer than most of his contemporaries.
+S Carter Hmmm...There has been some work on Modified Newtonian Dynamics, which posits that the gravitational force is not 1/r**2 at all distances ...I suppose another way of saying that is that G has distance dependence.
+S Carter I don't think there's any direct relation at all. We postulate dark matter to account for the deviation of the orbits of some astronomical entities from Keplerian orbits. We're basically saying that there must be some other mass that we don't see that causes the entity in question to deviate from the expected orbit. Even if we confirm that G changes over time, this change is so slow compared to the time scale of orbits that it plays no role at all in orbit calculations. If the variation of G indeed played a noticeable role, we'd know it by now and none of the classical physics we use to calculate orbits would work in the first place. +Paul Dirac What you are taking pertains to general relativity which is a whole different paradigm from Newtonian mechanics. The fact that in reality Newton's law of gravitation is not exactly proportional to inverse of the distance squared does not at all imply that G is changing. In fact, as Dirac states in the video, GR requires for G to be constant.
+S Carter no, our prof worked on a project that tried modifying general relativity using those kind of tricks (varying G, smal correction terms,..), they didn't work out
When and where was this recorded? I had the privilege to meet Paul Dirac when he lectured on his large number theory at UNSW in 1975. He stayed at Baxter College where I was a resident at the time. I think he knew our college's dean , Professor George. Prof George once told us something I've never forgotten: "I don't expect you to remember all this but I do expect you to derive it on the back of an envelope".
I'm not sure what he means"atomic unit of time" or why he puts it at 10^39. interestingly, we still don't understand why G is 10^39 times weaker than electromagnetism.
He's not right that "the ones shot out fastest are furthest from us". They all have pretty much the same local proper velocity. What makes them increase in velocity, with distance from us, is simply that space is expanding between us, and it. The more distance, the more velocity is imparted by uniform ubiquitous spatial expansion.
sorry to embarrass you but he is not skeptic of the big bang at all, but that dimensionless numbers necessary to be constant in Henri Poincaré's theory (plagiarized by einstein) of relativity are in fact changing with time.
Dirac is correct. The universe is constantly creating matter. Spontaneously created from Zero matter and currency quantity of about 10 to the power of 39 units of protons and neutrons.... and counting.
The main object of the theory is About a justification of why provided dimensionless quantities by nature at all and why they match correspondingly in both theories The specific values explanation will come next step maybe based on the first step Note: astronomical units are not quite artificial since they must be so As for the atomic units
THE TRUE AND CLEARLY PROVEN MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE: Consider the man who is standing on what is the Earth/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. SO, the mathematical unification of Einstein's equations AND Maxwell's equations (given the addition of A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION) proves that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. By Frank DiMeglio
That can be an explanation why the universe seems to be fine tuned for atoms, molecules to exist and then also for life to exist. The ratio between properties of different fields like electric and magnetic and space time curvature has changed over time, or between particles and atoms (it depends of what theory you agree. Personally I tend to believe everything is a multi property field and the values of each point, infinitely small in space influence the values of points next to it at speed c. Bosons and fermions are only waves, atoms are fast waves surrounding other slow waves ).It is not clear what properties have changed. There was a time when atoms couldn't form because of different matters properties . Life wasn't possible before but now are living in a temporary environment that suits life. That is the concept I believed is more likely to be true.
According to his biographer, Farmelo, Dirac had a strong Bristolian accent. Well, I guess that Farmelo has never been to Bristol; that is nothing like a Bristolian accent. In fact, Dirac, although brought up in Bristol, here sounds like a foreigner. My guess is that it is actually the accent of Dirac's father ... who was Swiss.
4 28 2018 Hello Muon Ray, Thanks for for the very informative post! And, thanks to the people that added their thoughtful comments; very helpful indeed. Be well. v P.S.: It's ALWAYS fun to learn I know NOTHING...
He might be labeling by spin, in which case those labels would be correct. You can see over his shoulder he has the potential written in terms of the spin operators, so spin may have been the focus of his discussion.
Apparently our Paul Dirac has made a good progress with his increasing age! From his opinions voiced so strongly at the occassion of the Solvay Conference in 1927 (I refer to a book from Heisenberg: Der Teil und das Ganze, in English something like: A Part and the Whole) this is a far cry! He was not evan 25 then, but had a pretty clearly cut opinions! Remember how Niels Bohr has chastised him by saying: >Our friend Dirac has a religion. The main thesis of this religion is: "God does not exist and Dirac is his Prophet< and all laughed, Dirac including. Oh dear...tempora mutantur...
"This balancing on the dizzying path between genius and madness is awful." Albert Einstein ( commenting on Paul Dirac) "The aim of science is to make difficult things understandable in a simpler way; the aim of poetry is to state simple things in an incomprehensible way. The two are incompatible." Paul Dirac
It's a privilege to to get to hear a genius from recent history actually speaking, imagine if we had recordings of Brahe or Newton and could hear how they spoke!
You can call Newton's spirit and hear him speak. It is easy, I've done it.
Brahe is nowhere near..
Brave had a prosthetic nose. Might have influenced the way he spoke.
@@iniohos2 LOL 😂
@@iniohos2 What did he tell you?
what a simple way to explain something so complicated i need a teacher like mr dirac
I still tingle from having shared a few moments of my life with such an exquisite mind.
Philip B Wow just what I was thinking
Same feelings here ....
Hard to belief the deep thought.... Philosophy the hard way- through math- and he translates it all for us.
What a magnificent man, his contributions to cosmology in his later years are somehow overlooked by most physicists.
Because they ignored him while banking on the misrepresentation of analytic Hermitian transforms of rigid body quadratics as a "Standard Model for Quantum Physics".
In fact all they did was put Euler and Lagrange's 19th century pure mathematics theorems in a new dress by the Particle Design Group. Very chic. Just a squeeze and go BOOM. Big monkeys very powerful!
His entire contribution was ignored after he refused to dance with the boys.
@@haniamritdas4725 "dance with the boys" 🤣
The greatest physicist no one has heard of.
Paul Dirac a legend 🙌
I love his voice. Can you imagine having had him as an uncle growing up?!
Even if he were your uncle, you ight not have heard very much of that voice. He was a card-carrying weirdo, and he had quite the economy odf speech, so everybody who knew him said.
@@ronniechilds2002 THE TRUE AND CLEARLY PROVEN MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE:
Consider the man who is standing on what is the Earth/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. SO, the mathematical unification of Einstein's equations AND Maxwell's equations (given the addition of A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION) proves that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY.
By Frank DiMeglio
Frankly, it wouldnt help at all unless it encourages you to pursue becoming one of the greatest geniuses of your time that is if you ever wanted to relate to or understand how he arrived at his ridiculous and miraculous conclusions that encompass the entirety of science & mathematics, and he is one of the many geniuses that turned out to redefine the ability of human beings to think abstractly and intelligently and some combination the infinite variables in what we perceive as reality gave us arguably the greatest genius in known history or at least as far as we can measure to any finite and agreed standard as any sufficiently intelligent and knowledgable human knows that we have inherent limits, but those limits have shown to be no match for the formidable persistence of human cooperation, coordination, and most importantly our collective natural imagination and hunger for knowledge, we may very well owe our entire existence in its entirety to what we have so often blamed for our suffering and peril.
@@ronniechilds2002 card-carrying weirdo? and who the hell are you?
From what I understand he was an introvert in the extreme, basically committed entirely to working on Math at all times. And he was certainly no fan of small talk, often giving rather abrupt single word answers to questions.
I'd guess he'd probably not give a lot of emotional support to a nephew or neice but he'd certainly be able to help with their math home work. 🙂
How gratifying to hear a complex subject explained with such clarity.
Indeed, i was surprised to understand everything he said from beginning to the end, not missing a beat. I have a high level of education but even so, I didn't expected it.
Dirac the mathematical legend!!
Wonderful to hear the voice of the great man. Thankyou.
My heartfelt gratitude to Muon Ray. It was a pleasure to listen to Dirac. Pure genius!
Thank you very much! It's always a pleasure to restore these old audio pieces when I find them and it feels great to share them with a very receptive audience. I think its great to live in a world where we can hear the distinctive voices from the past stay alive in some form and give us an insight into their way of thinking.
Thanks for uploading this, it's a significant recording ! You don't hear very often physicists as respected as Paul Dirac talking about modifying Einstein's model to include a universal dynamic which would allow these varying constants. It reminds me of the Sakharov papers (published in the late 60's in Russia). In France, Jean-Pierre Petit is the main modern day representative for this branch of investigation, I think. It's useful to hear such a brilliant physicist pushing these ideas, they were revolutionary back then and still are even now, and yet they seem interesting enough to be worth considering, developing and testing.
The very idea of linking the ratio of two fundamental interactions (electromagnetism and gravity) to the age of the Universe is quite astonishing. I think the most direct connection that would link these two physical "results" is the holographic description that is offered by Nassim Haramein. I'm not a specialist but I imagine that linking these two "results" appear more feasible if you consider that matter is constantly exchanging information, every piece of matter being linked to every other piece of that puzzle called Universe ! Maybe it's too much for the rational scientists wandering in the comment section, Dirac aficionados, I hope not !
=close
Adsdddfffffffgggghjjhhhhh
=close
Hello whoever made this available . Thankyou . For me personally , this is so enlightening . I shall watch and listen again. The diction of the narrator , is completely real and soulful . This makes the content even more fascinating . All this aside , godspeed , all scientists philosophers and layfolk , who would advance our understanding of this amazing universe and all its behaviour .
this video clip is pure gold
Thank you. You are very welcome. Please subscribe and hit the notification bell for more physics video updates.
recorded voice contains much more than a mere transcript, the vibrating spirit touches any listener beyond time. Credit to the uploader.
A pure genius! I wonder if we ever will understand how great these few genius were. Einstein, Dirac , Newton etc. Proud to be born in the same century !. ( I know Newton wasn’t) but the magnificent of their works can’t be overstated
Einstein as well ;)
Amazing to hear his voice!
I visited his museum on the campus of FSU.. What an honor!
So soft spoken, with blasting genius
I was able to get a general idea of Dirac's statements by simply looking at the ratio pi [3.14...]. As we all know, the expansion of a circle does nothing to that ratio. It therefore made sense to me that universal expansion coupled with the decreasing gravity between large masses could possibly affect coulomb charges at the smallest lengths in the same way that circular expansion affects the diameter of a growing circumference. It also suggests that units such as Planck lengths and other minutely measured values might also be changing in an expanding universe.
I added subtitles. Hit the captions button on the video if you cannot hear.
If you liked this please check out this classic archive interview with Werner Heisenberg on The Uncertainty Principle in QM: th-cam.com/video/xbpOMkBMtYU/w-d-xo.html
Please Help Support This Channel:www.patreon.com/muonray
Thanks, are you a physicist ?
Taqu3 Yes.
Muon Ray are symmetry and primes involved in your work as a physicist ?
misery Well symmetry was to an extent, as I did research on ferromagnetism and materials which have so-called broken symmetries when they undergo a phase transition and this is very much a part of the theoretical modelling of such systems, as is the theory of groups and so on. I am an experimentalist so it was a part of my work but only as a means of quantifying statistics into a replicable model and to relate it to results in literature and so on.
Dirac was a theorist and like most theorists the physics, as characterized by the model, is their concept of the reality of it, with the experiments sometimes being of very unrelatable concern. There are some very pro-active theorists out there who do really try to relate their work to experiment, but some theorists are very blue sky - Dirac was not an angel however and his obsession with primes and the fact that he never liked the concept of renormalisation in quantum field theory, even though renormalisation is the only way to relate experimental statistics in a way that it can be used to calibrate a model, really did isolate him in the latter part of his career.
+Muon Ray please what can you tell me about the poincare group i must know? thankyou
Excellent example of an informal talk by Paul A.M. Dirac. I might add a couple of credible anecdotes regarding Dirac.
A French physicist came to Dirac's home to discuss some cutting edge physics. The physicist was escorted into Dirac's study and he preceded for some time, trying with great difficulty to explain his work in English to Dirac. The physicist was clearly having considerable frustration with his limited spoken English. After quite some time, Dirac's sister, Betty, entered the study with some tea and biscuits, speaking fluent French, and wherein Dirac responded in fluent French. The French physicist who had spent considerable time frustrated in trying to express himself in English inquired of Dirac: Why didn't you tell me you spoke French. Dirac replied: You didn't ask.
Another anecdote is from his days at Florida State University. The Physics Department held seminars which Dirac would often attend, sitting near the front row. He appeared to be dozing off throughout the presentations, but during the question & answer period, he would make brilliant comments and ask appropriate questions. He seemed asleep, but was all the while quite lucid.
7 6 20 Hey Robert Schlesinger, Fun story; thanks for sharing. It's interesting that great minds are so interesting. Stay safe, keep calm, & be well. v
Such a gentle priest of truth
beautiful comment and accurate.
This is a great historical audio. And how actual are his observations and questions!!
didn't know QM was a person. How was your holiday? how you doing? choose one
'Spiral nebulae' is what they used to call galaxies back then!
Thanks for posting this! It's really awesome to hear the man in his own voice! He was definitely a genius. But the numerology he voices here gives a sense of the kind of over-mathematization physics fell into starting in the 20th century.
Wow! He lived near to me in Bristol. A real unsung hero of physics.
He's not unsung but quite famous
7 6 20 Hey@@paulwary. Now, it seems most people are informed about "celebrities" rather than a person of great intelligence; Dirac. Stay safe, keep calm, & be well. v
I'm reading "The strangest man", Dirac is really one of the most interesting characters in the history of physics.
You probably know this, but there's an hour-long You Tube vid of the author, Farmelo, talking about Dirac.
Diracs boring. I will put him on whenever I am trying to sleep. Not to mention, his "hypothesis" has been proven completely wrong.
This is so awesome, I want more.
I have another old archived interview with Werner Heisenberg here: th-cam.com/video/xbpOMkBMtYU/w-d-xo.html
@@MuonRay Thanks a ton.
Great clip! Thanks for uploading it. I'd love to ask were you find some of these gems, but I suppose that would be giving away the secret sauce!
One of Bristol's greatest sons, but little known in his (and my) native city.
This is one of the most fabulous mathematical explanation I have ever heard. Whilst Einstein led all of us into the rabbit hole saluting Newtonian theory
almost the whole way. Thank you S0 much for posting this, Dirac Cosmology needs to be taught at the higher University level rather than mentioned.
Much love, Fractal
The mathematician Henri Poincaré, not his plagiarist, einstein; but it sure helps to have a media monopoly on your side and it still is.
@@goognamgoognw6637 why are u so lame?
At 1:06 Dirac asks the question why the inverse fine structure constant is 137 not 256. The Higgs field is 256 GeV/c^2. Is this just a coincidence?
As 256 is 2^8, it's probably a number Dirac's brain plucked out easily I guess
256 is the first profound evidence that the Universe is really a computer simulation - an 8 bit word. Now, all I've got to do is find a simulated Universe made by a simulated Universe? ;) Interesting video - in Bristol, they need a celebratory statue of this intellectual giant.
5:33 The Gravitational and Coulomb constants don't have to be the only items changing.... could also be the charges and the masses?
Very interesting for what he said and the simplicity of how he said it. Bohr is like an uncultivated garden in that respect. Complimentary and Causality - say no more.
He does not sound so strange, he sounds like a nice old English gentleman
A fellow Bristolian and neighbour of my great grandmother.
Thank you for uploading this.
Thank u so much for uploading this😊 actually it really make me feel fortunate after getting the true flavour of physics and mathematics
I Googled your account and you should be ashamed of yourself.
@@whirledpeas3477 could u please clarify the reason what you found out shameful about me
@@createandconvey8364 mabe somebody has been untruthful about your account, look at it for yourself and check it out.
@@whirledpeas3477 yeah probably u get mislead by some other person because there r somany people with the same name
@@whirledpeas3477 by the way thank you for what you did 🙏
I love Dirac!
thanks for sharing this on youtube
I think that Jean-Pierre Petit (a french physicist) likes varying constants as well, his "Janus" model includes a modification of Einstein's relativity in order to allow that. Also, he says that it is key (varying constants) to interpreting the expansion of the Universe data.
Awesome.Great scientist a great explainer as well.
It usually goes together. You'll find people who can't explain, don't really grasp. But the greatest of all is those who can navigate errors since every discovery is necessarily in error before being refined.
3:57. what "atomic unit " of time is he talking about?
Thank you for this wonderful upload.
Phenomenal thinking !!!
Most of the 20th century physicists seem to be like, "I'm limited by the technology of my time", well that completely lies to them, but in my opinion it was like, "They were so advanced in theory already than the experimental methods could gather at that time"
Amazing video, I always assume Dirac was french, guess I was wrong again. I wonder what year this was.
Thanks for the upload
Super nice, could you normalize the recording?
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature)
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 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.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“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 the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”? 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 gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (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 Mesons. 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.
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. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
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. The 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.
.
Just a tip... I think if you compressed the sound quite a bit then boosted the whole lot you'd get a more even sound level, its probably just me being picky but all the ducking of the sound makes it hard for me to listen. Great video though :)
+Steve Gad He wasn't complaining about the volume of sound (and anyway you can turn up the volume on your own computer) but rather about the uneveness of the sound level - it goes up and down.
Dirac was an absolute genius and conversed 1:1 with Einstein and also admired Einstein’s theory. On the other hand, he was open to quantum mechanics, which Einstein unfortunately was not.
einstein was a plagiarist anyway. Henri Poincarré did most of the mind heavy lifting. Einstein was good at taking credit and repackaging Poincaré's theory and most important of all he was backed by the powerful media monopoly that even then could "cancel" your career, if you don't follow their twist of reality.
@@goognamgoognw6637 These must be conspiracy theories. Einstein never denied the achievements of others.
@@igrieger Fool, do a search on Henri Poincarré theory of relativity before talking nonsense. You're brainwashed repeating what the media monopoly spread in the last 50 years.
What you say is not an accepted fact. "Most of the components of Einstein's paper appeared in others' anterior works on the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Poincaré and Alfred Bucherer had the relativity principle. Lorentz and Larmor had most of the Lorentz transformations, Poincaré had them all. Cohn and Bucherer rejected the ether. Poincaré, Cohn, and Abraham had a physical interpretation of Lorentz's local time. Larmor and Cohn alluded to the dilation of time. Lorentz and Poincaré had the relativistic dynamics of the electron. None of these authors, however, dared to reform the concepts of space and time. None of them imagined a new kinematics based on two postulates. None of them derived the Lorentz transformations on this basis. None of them fully understood the physical implications of these transformations. It all was Einstein's unique feat".
If Einstein were a hoax, then he wouldn't be admired by Dirac nor many others... Or do you also think that the great Dirac is a victim of media? Hahah, nonsense... I knew about Poincaré. He just did not see the whole picture nor interpreted all that he mathematically wrote.
Next thing that you will try to convince people is that earth is flat...
It is such a delight to listen to Dirac talk! He’s from another galaxy!
Although - is it quite correct to say that the age of the universe is of the order of 10³⁹ au (atomic units of time) ?
If the observable universe is 13.772 billion years old, in seconds, it would be about 4.34313792×10¹⁷ s. Converting to atomic units (au) of time, since each second is 4.1341373336493×10¹⁶ au, then the universe is of the order of 10³⁴ au old, which is smaller than 10³⁹ by a factor of 10⁵.
Now, even if the zeptosecond is used (1z=10⁻²¹ of a second) instead of “au” still it would be smaller by a factor of 10³. According to physicist Reinhard Dörner of Goethe University in Germany , the smallest fragment of time currently measurable is 247 zeptoseconds.
Let's define mut ≡ 1 measurable unit of time = 247 z ( z for zeptoseconds ), then
age of universe = (4.34313792 / 247)×10¹⁷×10²¹ = 1.758299595142×10³⁶ mut
The above result still does not exactly compare with the magnitude of 10³⁹ as Dirac was comparing it, that is in the same order of the ratio of electron-proton electrostatic force to gravitational force:
Fₑᵨ / Fg = k|q₁q₂| / ( GM₁M₂ ) = kq² / ( GMₑMᵨ )
= (8.988×10⁹N⋅m²/C²)(1.602×10⁻¹⁹C)² ÷
(6.674×10×10⁻¹¹N⋅m²/kg²)(9.109×10⁻³¹Kg)(1.673×10⁻²⁷Kg) ≈ 2×10³⁹ dimensionless
One might be tempted to use Planck time tp = 5.39 × 10⁻⁴⁴ s which is it is the smallest duration of time that has physical meaning, then the age of the universe would be
(4.34313792/5.39) ×10¹⁷/10⁻⁴⁴ = 8×10⁶⁰ tp exceeding by a factor of 10²¹.
The estimates of the number of atoms in the universe range from between 10⁷⁸ to 10⁸².
If that number happens to be closer to 10⁷⁸, then the previous calculated dimensionless ratio when squared is also of that order
(Fₑᵨ / Fg)² = (10³⁹)² = 10⁷⁸.
How the time passed since the “Big Bang” relates to this number in whatever time measuring method?
Paul is right time is causing more particles-conversions of the atom. 💙😎
What is the source of this audio fragment ?
at the very end it is cut off but he says (as I interpret it) basically there is a bound to the size of the universe and that after a period of time, related to the age of the universe, it will start contracting rather than expanding...which intuitively makes sense relative to the known observable nature...vibration, oscillation, waves...
Great insights, whether he's right or not ...
Happy 100 year birthday to Richard Feynman
who the heck is feynman, another plagiarist like einstein ?
imagine people like this born 1000's of years ago but with basic scientific data to analyse...he would have gone insane
can anyone tell me what's the equation written on the chalk board?
Thanks so much for this. I have not seen anything before that gives Dirac's personality, as you might get from meeting him, not in pictures or anything written about him. He does not sound like the blank persona, who can't relate to people, the stories make him out to be.
Yes, agreed, not at all. It's almost like he is casting too much shadow on einstein and the establishment is trying to cancel a bit of it by making up freudian stories. (freud was a fraud by the way, and einstein a plagiarist of Henri Poincaré the real father of the theory of relativity).
Nice to hear.
Talking slowly, but very clearly both with regards to voice and how he expresses his thoughts. Not once, not once I repeat, does he hesitate, say eeeh, or correct himself about what he said before. He may have been at the limits of what is a "normal" human being, at least socially - if you doubt that, please read the book "The Strangest Man. The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac Quantum Genius" by Graham Farmelo - but it is obvious that he was able to think and express his thoughts very, very clearly - much clearer than most of his contemporaries.
Richard Feynman was not comfortable with renormalization. He talks about this in his book "The Strange Theory of Light and Matter".
Google Dirac Large Number Hypothesis for great background - very interesting talk - tnx
this is amazing
Fascinating.
Amazing
How is the new matter being created?
"Dirac on Large Number Hypothesis" would have been a better title I think.
He is really sweet makes even the math haters wanna learn mathematics.
If G is not constant, does this negate the need for dark matter/energy?
+S Carter Hmmm...There has been some work on Modified Newtonian Dynamics, which posits that the gravitational force is not 1/r**2 at all distances ...I suppose another way of saying that is that G has distance dependence.
+S Carter
I don't think there's any direct relation at all. We postulate dark matter to account for the deviation of the orbits of some astronomical entities from Keplerian orbits. We're basically saying that there must be some other mass that we don't see that causes the entity in question to deviate from the expected orbit. Even if we confirm that G changes over time, this change is so slow compared to the time scale of orbits that it plays no role at all in orbit calculations. If the variation of G indeed played a noticeable role, we'd know it by now and none of the classical physics we use to calculate orbits would work in the first place.
+Paul Dirac What you are taking pertains to general relativity which is a whole different paradigm from Newtonian mechanics. The fact that in reality Newton's law of gravitation is not exactly proportional to inverse of the distance squared does not at all imply that G is changing. In fact, as Dirac states in the video, GR requires for G to be constant.
+S Carter no, our prof worked on a project that tried modifying general relativity using those kind of tricks (varying G, smal correction terms,..), they didn't work out
Any experts out there who can shed light on any new thoughts or developments about these ideas?
When and where was this recorded? I had the privilege to meet Paul Dirac when he lectured on his large number theory at UNSW in 1975. He stayed at Baxter College where I was a resident at the time. I think he knew our college's dean , Professor George. Prof George once told us something I've never forgotten: "I don't expect you to remember all this but I do expect you to derive it on the back of an envelope".
This was recorded sometime in the early 70s, I think around 1973 as I got it from an archive with similar recordings taken from around that time.
7 6 20 Hey rikerion, Lucky you! It's humbling to see & hear "genius". Stay safe, keep calm, & be well. v
I'm not sure what he means"atomic unit of time" or why he puts it at 10^39.
interestingly, we still don't understand why G is 10^39 times weaker than electromagnetism.
G is just Vibin'
“How do I know how things were at the beginning? I look inside myself, and see what is inside me.” - The Tao de Ching
Was he old when this was recorded
Yes I think he would have been in his 70s or possibly older when this was recorded.
“Alright, who drew tits on the chalkboard again?!”
He's not right that "the ones shot out fastest are furthest from us".
They all have pretty much the same local proper velocity. What makes them increase in velocity, with distance from us, is simply that space is expanding between us, and it.
The more distance, the more velocity is imparted by uniform ubiquitous spatial expansion.
I share Dirac's skepticism of big bang and think we aren't done yet, there is a lot more to learn.
sorry to embarrass you but he is not skeptic of the big bang at all, but that dimensionless numbers necessary to be constant in Henri Poincaré's theory (plagiarized by einstein) of relativity are in fact changing with time.
Dirac is correct. The universe is constantly creating matter. Spontaneously created from Zero matter and currency quantity of about 10 to the power of 39 units of protons and neutrons.... and counting.
The main object of the theory is About a justification of why provided dimensionless quantities by nature at all and why they match correspondingly in both theories
The specific values explanation will come next step maybe based on the first step
Note: astronomical units are not quite artificial since they must be so
As for the atomic units
Profound Way to think of our universe MILKY WAY GALAXY as my condolences to not attending the solvay confrence in 1927
How old are you? 215?
7 6 20 Hey@@SumDumGai5, Me thinks the comment is a bit of humour? Stay safe, keep calm, & be well. v
Respect.
please subtitle this,, cant hear
what about zero?
THE TRUE AND CLEARLY PROVEN MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE:
Consider the man who is standing on what is the Earth/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. SO, the mathematical unification of Einstein's equations AND Maxwell's equations (given the addition of A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION) proves that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY.
By Frank DiMeglio
Please do not pollute this page with your pseudoscientific nonsense.
That can be an explanation why the universe seems to be fine tuned for atoms, molecules to exist and then also for life to exist. The ratio between properties of different fields like electric and magnetic and space time curvature has changed over time, or between particles and atoms (it depends of what theory you agree. Personally I tend to believe everything is a multi property field and the values of each point, infinitely small in space influence the values of points next to it at speed c. Bosons and fermions are only waves, atoms are fast waves surrounding other slow waves ).It is not clear what properties have changed. There was a time when atoms couldn't form because of different matters properties . Life wasn't possible before but now are living in a temporary environment that suits life. That is the concept I believed is more likely to be true.
Fine -Structure Constant is approximately 1/137.
Who am I to compare myself to Dirac, but I do not see the relevance of comparing the number of particles in the universe to the age of the universe.
RIP Paul Allen, unsure as to why I came here after finding out he passed away.
My head blew up.
According to his biographer, Farmelo, Dirac had a strong Bristolian accent. Well, I guess that Farmelo has never been to Bristol; that is nothing like a Bristolian accent. In fact, Dirac, although brought up in Bristol, here sounds like a foreigner. My guess is that it is actually the accent of Dirac's father ... who was Swiss.
4 28 2018 Hello Muon Ray, Thanks for for the very informative post! And, thanks to the people that added their thoughtful comments; very helpful indeed. Be well. v P.S.: It's ALWAYS fun to learn I know NOTHING...
It is not easy to dismiss Dirac, many coincidences occur in nature, he may have a point here.!
The symmetric and antisymmetric orbitals are labeled backwards...
He might be labeling by spin, in which case those labels would be correct. You can see over his shoulder he has the potential written in terms of the spin operators, so spin may have been the focus of his discussion.
good!
Apparently our Paul Dirac has made a good progress with his increasing age! From his opinions voiced so strongly at the occassion of the Solvay Conference in 1927 (I refer to a book from Heisenberg: Der Teil und das Ganze, in English something like: A Part and the Whole) this is a far cry! He was not evan 25 then, but had a pretty clearly cut opinions! Remember how Niels Bohr has chastised him by saying: >Our friend Dirac has a religion. The main thesis of this religion is: "God does not exist and Dirac is his Prophet< and all laughed, Dirac including. Oh dear...tempora mutantur...
Paul Faigl As long as i remember the one who said "God does not exist and Dirac is his Prophet" is Wolfgang Pauli not Niels Bohr.
+Humam Fauzi It was, indeed, Pauli...
In case you didn't know, Paul Dirac is Feynman's hero.
...and when they met Dirac remained silent until finally venturing, "I have an equation, do you have one too?" Classic Diraq, bless him.
Meditative voice. But this particular theory ...
Paul clearly tried entertaining himself in old age
"This balancing on the dizzying path between genius and madness is awful."
Albert Einstein ( commenting on Paul Dirac)
"The aim of science is to make difficult things understandable in a simpler way; the aim of poetry is to state simple things in an incomprehensible way. The two are incompatible."
Paul Dirac