There are 2 questions there. One is what will physicists do when they have answered the final question. The other is “what do physicists do if they can’t answer the last question because of various limitations. Personally I think that quantum wave theory is only part of the answer, and string theorists need to start again. The answer definitely is a string theory of some sort, but the concepts of how energy organizes itself put forward are not convincing. I’m not sure if anyone has explained what the mechanism that limits the speed of light, have they?
@@clmasse Quite so Claude, and for that reason alone the future of Physics is secure as long as the answer to the question “can I have some money please?” Is “Yes!”
My question is, is anyone familiar with Vortex Institute and it's utilizing fluid dynamics to derive from a basic superfluid the values of all thebasic Planck values? Is this significant at all? Or is this just a repackaging of Pilot Wave theory? I don't have much context to determine this for myself as a layman.
I'm pretty sure when Lee was talking about laws changing, he had in mind that universal constants could evolve over time, and given we say the universe is expanding, it is not a huge leap to suggest that the laws could change over time. Where I am less convinced is with regard to the universe as a machine learning algo.
Shows you haven't taken time to study MTheory or you would know that general relativity Naturally emerges as part of the theory and quantum mechanics are also easy to derive. The problem lays in the dimensions. How to provide evidence for those? MTheory is our best bet and the bay sayers like you watch too much TH-cam and not read the actual material.
@@Raydensheraj Knot theory vastly inspired my imagination concerning quantum mechanics. Strings are knots in dimensions, they make up matter and energy. Photons are knots that aren’t connected to the time dimension. All knots or “strings” are made of either two or three dimensions at most according to knot theory. Thankfully we have many dimensions to choose from, but for all practical purposes as far as we’re concerned the number of dimensions is finite giving us our quantum zoo.
If one look at black body oscillator curve, it consists of two parts. First is about gaining of energy by oscillator and second is losing of energy or emission of light. The maximum point or cusp of two parts, known as Wein's frequency of maximum emission at thermal equilibrium or constant power. Thermal equlilibrium not means that absorption and emission is equal but rate of emission is constant. The black body curve is equivalent to motion of particle we discussed. First part is ideal galilean where speed is increasing and second part is real aristotlean where speed become constant on constant applying force. The consequence of black body curve is that energy of wave is not directly proportional to frequency but inversely. This is big setback for current notion and concepts of energy and frequency relation. So energy of wave having higher wavelength have more energy if relation between speed and product of wavelength and frequency remain constant. About ideal oscillator which is not as curve shown of black body but given by Rayleigh-Jeans law. At very very high temperature, an ideal oscillator emits only single frequency, monochromatic source and its energy density is infinite. While real oscillator as described by curve of black body, emits radiation of all frequencies at constant energy density for very very high temperature.
I am not close to being a physicist and I'm sure I'm being terrible simplistic but what Mr Smolin said resonated with me. In a new universe, things would happen for the first time and in doing so changed the circumstances in which things were happening. So what was possible depended on what happened as much as the other way around. In time things settled into patterns where different things are possible. The laws evolved.
Thanks for this upload. I love hearing Sabine Hossenfelder, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin!!! Such awesome communicator of science; makes physics, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, cosmology so interesting for a laymen like myself!
We derived that energy density per frequency is, du/df=dU=3/4×f²/c³□ where □ is energy multiplied to modes acquired that energy. Now from equipartition theorem, energy is equally distributed to all energy levels or modes in this case. It means higher modes have less energy per mode or say higher energy level acquired by lesser modes. That is modes multiply with energy is constant, so energy is equally distributed. Suppose there are two energy levels then number of modes having higher energy is less than modes at lower energy, it is natural like density of air is less at high altitude or high gravitational energy. Now the natural function that limits number of modes having higher energy is exponential decreasing function. Therefore number of modes at given energy level (which is represented by multiple of mode and wavelength) is, Exp(-nw/kT), where w is wavelength of mode and n is number of modes. Therefore sum of total modes or oscillators is, Exp(-1×k) + Exp(-2×k) + Exp(-3×k) +..=1/(1-Exp(-nk)), where k = w/kT Thus probabilty of any mode to have given energy is, f = Exp(-nw/kT)/(1-Exp(-nw/kT)) = 1/(Exp(nw/kT) - 1) Thus average energy per mode is multiple of probability of mode to have that energy and thermal energy available for modes, that is, □ = kT×1/(Exp(nw/kT) - 1) So energy density per frequency or mode is, dU = 3/4×f²/c³×kT/(Exp(nw/kT) - 1). Question is why energy at higher modes is less while theoretically it should be high. Reason is that higher modes means smaller in size or wavelength, and lower size tends to lose more energy in form of loses, ratio of surface area to volume increases which dissipate more energy in form of loss for energy stored in cavity or hot solid body.
A very interesting conversation. It shows that the universe is larger and more complex than that physcists can decode it's " secrets" in their limited lifetime... Thanks iai.
Jim Al-Khalili is leading Physicists into exciting areas through his investigation of quantum effects in Biology. Mother Nature is a bright and powerful "North star" but often occluded in the fog of science. If we take small steps then Physics will help us navigate.
One may observed that with time, speed of fan slow down. Now what is cause of it and how it is so important to discuss. The cause of slowing down of fan is due to loosening capacity to hold charge of capacitor whose job is to supply constant voltage to motor of fan which otherwise is spooky and not smooth, also motor cause dip in voltage to every change in voltage it counter. Now we know that by replacing capacitor we can have same speed of fan which was earlier. The working of capacitor, its charging and discharging simultaneously to give constant voltage or power is key to understand most basic phenomena which happening everywhere and everytime. That is how energy interact with matter in presence of temperature or how light or any radiation is produced in general. The ratio of discharging of capacitor to its charging is equivalent to how particle absorb energy and gain speed and how it is limited to a certain speed even on constant availability of energy to continuously gain speed. It also relate how any body on absorbing heat and start to glow or radiate light which is characterstic of how hot is body and why its light is not ever increasing on heating at constant temperature. This is basis of quantum mechanics which tells that how energy is quantized on interaction and does this view is correct or not. Does energy is really quantized which gave further way to quantization of fields. In example of capacitor it is clear that its capacity to deliver constant voltage depends upon its capacity to hold charge or electric energy and inversely to separation between two electrode. It has nothing to do with quantization of charge. Similarly light emitted by hot solid body depends upon its ability to store energy, temperature and inversely to wavelength of emitted light. Opposite to conventional view that an electromagnetic wave or any wave having more frequency means more energy, while it is higher wavelength means more energy if speed remain fixed. It is clear from that when we need to hear bass sound, we use amplifier because sound waves of lower frequency needs more power and bigger speaker. So a bigger cavity can store more energy and wave of higher wavelength. Also on heating body gets expand, so it have more energy and less frequency. Again in quantum mechanical term though on foundation which it stands is questionable but here we discuss its description of subject and interpretation, wave function in terms of wavelength of standing wave not describe expectation value of position of particle but its energy. This is evident from that heating body glow more in its centre, reason is same that it have more energy which they describe as more probability of photon, while for what photon stands for, energy. But how they describe wave function of next level in which it splits into two waves. For energy description, its energy splits into two smaller parts. One more thing, law of equipartition of energy holds for black body oscillator which we discussed above as hot solid body, no matter how Planck's law states it by multiplying with average energy as not constant for all modes. Now we derive its relation in simple brief manner. Suppose there is hot solid body having given temperature. There is no need of considering ideal black body because once we find its energy storage, later we multiply it with scaling factor which is less than one. Suppose there are n modes of waves stored, but as radiation emitted from surface and inner space is 3d so possible modes are like n¹n², n²n³. So total permutation or combination is 3 and if it is square then number of modes are 3n². So total no of modes in given volume that multiply with average energy gives total energy density of body or cavity is, 2×3n²×dn = 6n²dn. Multiplication of 2 comes because sum of modes goes into both directions. Therefore total energy of cavity is given by sum of below given energy, dE = 6n²dn = 6/8×L³×f²/c³df×□, where □ is average energy multiplied to every modes of energy. So energy density per frequency is given by, dE/df/L³=du/df=3/4×f²/c³□ Now we see that long before quantum mechanics, energy of cavity in terms of modes is quantized but that not means that emitted or absorbed energy is quantized but stored energy is, second thing this quantization is not linear but in form of square, so how does concept of linear harmonic oscillators fit in it. Talking about Planck's factor which is equivalent to equipartition but different as it multiplies with hf similar to kT but different because it is different for different modes. This is wrongly interpreted as quantization of energy because they thought that frequency comes from modes and as modes is quantized so frequency. But first modes is quantized in square and most importantly hf is further multiplied with number of modes having that hf and which is neither integral nor linear but exponential. So in no way there is quantization of energy in linear form even by Planck's law for radiation.
My father was a String Theorist. I told him he was a String Theorist but he didn't like it. Maybe he didn't believe in strings that much or just hiding it because it is an advanced science. But I knew he wrote papers on String Theory under a different name, his scientific researcher name. He was genius in many Sciences and Mathematics. The Tamayos were scientists and mathematicians. We were Star Trek's Starfleet, 1970s.
Sun is emitting light and hot bodies glow light. But spectrum of sun is continuous which can be observed with crystal or cd. Different colors are in thick bands and not thin line. So how energy is quantized in hot solid bodies. By quantization means different colors are separated by dark regions which is not observed. Temperature of body can be calculated by light emitting from body of different colors and they do integration which is for continuous function. A circle is locus of points which are equidistant from a point called as focus or centre. Joining of locus is curve, where points are discrete but curve or function is continuous. So, do circles are continuous or discrete, continuous means curve is smooth. Similarly calculus is done with discretization of interval but on continuous function. Yes, quantum mechanics shows that wave seems as continuous but made of discrete small particles, operated as smooth. Similarly interaction of energy and matter is participated by discrete particles known as atoms but there is no restriction on amount of matter and energy, continuous.
Suppose there is a container having air as weight or hot air as energy. Now if we divide that box in half, if box is one dimensional then it divided into 2, if 2d then 4 and if 3d then 8. But on dividing the amount of weight or energy is also divided. But if there are moving air particles in container then on dividing their speed remain same but frequency increases two-folds. So increasing frequency doesnt mean increased energy if speed remain fixed. So how we relate energy of photon or wave particle to frequency, while it is related to wavelength which gets halved on dividing size and thus energy. Similarly there is fundamentally difference in wave and particle. Suppose two particles meets at point and by interference they superimpose each other. So the intensity or probability or energy adds or subtracts in unusual way than ordinary particles who first never annihilates each other and never creates something more than ordinary sum. Particles have volume, when they add up, their mass increase but also volume so it makes no difference on intensity of mass at point. While wave add up differently, they meet at point and add up together having same size together thus increasing or decreasing intensity than ordinary sum depending upon how they meet at point.
The most amazing thing about the universe to my way of thinking is that it eventually gave rise to a living species that is able to examine it and to me it is clear that our coming about was inevitable - because here we are. The chain of events which enabled our coming about is mind-blowing. We are the universe navel-gazing itself.
Roger Penrose suggests a collapsed bllack hole (?) If so what came through to our universe that was reduced to sub atomic particles. HS Science 1 yr physics. Curious, gives one food for thought.
"It [reality] has to exist independently of our observations'. This is clearly the case, But why assume it exists independently of observation? Plotinus explains that the observable world is a consequence of observation, but not the observations of individual human beings. There would be just one observer. Why is the non-dual interpretation of QM never mentioned? is it 'not invented here' syndrome?
If you have only one theory that is both compatible with relativity and quantum mechanics, and this theory is string theory, you'd better freak out, you are on the wrong way.
15:12 Is it possible to annihilate a particle? If so, the matter anti-matter annihilation is ongoing, as we are a part of the universe and it's process, but that doesn't mean we should catalyze the reaction. With that said, ignore the question unless you can create the matter before annihilating it without sum loss.
Annihilation obeys charge conservation, so if there is an excess of electrons over positrons, that excess doesn't go away. Same for quarks, i.e. their bound states in protons. Proton decay would create the required positrons, which would then annihilate with the electrons, but it's unclear whether that reaction is actually happening outside of black holes.
How can there be a future for physics? ......As physics go today.....is like the old story about the hunter who tried to sell the bear' skin before he hunted it.....
First thing, Planck's law in no way proves quantization of energy and thus no quantum mechanics as such. If one look at curve of black body energy density per frequency against frequency then one see that energy density per frequency tends to zero on higher frequencies. So what does it mean, it means that what Planck propose energy distribution as explanation of his relation is not in accord. He explained that energy distribution is not like classical equipartition, while curve shows it is exactly as per equipartition. Okay, try to understand what Planck means, according to him suppose there is dice having six face as six modes and number represents energy level. So as per Planck's view energy is distributed as 1 has 1 unit, 2 has 2 unit and so on. Distribution is not equally or equipartition of energy, means all modes have equal amount of energy. If one divide energy of mode to its number, all modes have same amount of energy, unit. But curve shows that energy decreases with frequency or mode. Now for mode density for energy, divide energy for mode twice by mode number that is square of mode but Planck gave model of linear harmonic oscillator. Now comes to other issues which are falsely publicised. Like they says Planck law laid foundation of quantum mechanics by quantizing energy, but that was started before him and the very model of cavity oscillator having modes as resonant particular harmonics as stored energy and other dies is in itself quabtization of energy. While they attempt to mimic gas molecules thermodynamic relation of speed and temperature. Even their cavity model is away from atomistic or particle view, as they thought that EM wave dont need medium so they can be stored in hollow space of cavity. But question is they were looking for radiation from hot solid body, so why they chose this cavity model. Finally we look at Planck's view of blackbody radiation but before that we should know that Planck's mulriplication of his average energy to number of modes per as said classical view was unnecessary, there is no need to multiply with numbers of mode if he had not average out the energy. So from his view, total energy of cavity is sum of many oscillators of different modes or frequencies of energy. His energy unit is hf where h is constant and f is fundamental frequency and higher frequencies or modes are integer multiple of this, is it really that or some illusion but before that we must know that in binomial series if a unit is divided into infinite smaller parts then it is equivalent to exponential of some transcdental number. And when some finite is divided into infinite smaller terms then they are not having some integral value and instead of discreteness they are more continuous. So his oscillators are in form of 1+2+3... = N, multiplied by basic energy unit hf. Note that numbers 1, 2, 3.. here represents mode, but in sum of oscillators they are no longer integers but fraction. So, hf(1+2+3..) = hf(1N+2N+...) = hf(NExp(-hf/kT)+NExp(-2hf/kT)+..) = Nhf(1/(Exp(hf/kT) - 1) is total energy sum of oscillators. Multiplying this with number of modes of classical model is renormalization, so why there is renormalization when they calculated sum of oscillators already. There are other bigger issues, like energy of wave is related to wavelength and not frequency, so this whole concept of photon as particle unit of light or quantization of energy is bogus. There is no quantization of any kind in final value or curve of bkackbody. In above Planck's relation, oscillator having higher mode or frequency contribute lesser energy, thus higher frequency doesnt mean higher energy, so energy relation of photon hf is incorrect.
Given that only a Very Small Percentage have Achieved these Unique Qualifications of Physics. This Means that This Video by The Institute of Art and Ideas is For Who? Further This Institute Assumes that there is No Cultural Component of the Physics Community that All other Human Cultures has No Idea about and Hence can Never Interpret what is Said here.
Sorry but that multiple in calculating number of modes in hot solid body radiation is 3×8=24 which i mistakenly calculate as 3/4. So now the correct relation of energy density per mode or frequency for black body or hot solid body radiation is given by, dU = 24×f²/c³×kT×Exp(-n²w²/kT) where w is wavelength of mode. Now comparing it to Planck's law and see how Planck's law of radiation is incorrect, there are four main reasons. First, energy of wave is related to wavelength and not frequency. Second, as radiation from body is related to temperature and that heat energy is available to body then how oscillator absorb energy in form of frequency, even though only that amount of energy is absorbed but it is thermal energy. It is like saying LC oscillator have frequency to transmit and recieve signal but that signal have some form of electric energy. Third, when number of modes already calculated then why again sum of oscillators multiplied to give average energy. Fourth, multiple of frequency as energy is increasing with increasing modes, then there should be equal energy density per frequency at lower and higher frequencies which is not observed. So Planck's radiation law was given to show that energy is quantized in exchange with matter, which is not the case even modes quantized the stored energy but overall energy is multiple of exponential function which is smooth and can have any value. What they thought that twinkling of stars is due to some pulsating or breathing kind of emission, but that frequency is very low compared to frequency of light. At fixed speed of light higher frequency means lower energy and only way to imcrease energy of light at higher frequency is increase its speed.
The future of Quantum Physics is to leave it for something else as it is reaching its nodal point, its Zenith. I would prefer to look into another paradigm or model, such as the paradigm of the Ray of Creation or Ouspenskian understanding of the Universe in a broad scope. When we deal with elementary particles of such a small dimension, for which this very very small would be in everything, and would be the ABSOLUTE, we will end up inventing ideas no longer verifiable by observation and experimentation.
Clock at rest measure proper time, so if your clock is moving then relative. But moving objects like planets and stars dont carry clock, clock is on earth. So why dont they give up their false ideas and come out of day dreaming. They are against Mach's idea of relativity, inertial frames are absolute, geocentric model is handy and practical. Okay time measured in S is t, observed by S' is t'. S' is moving relative to S with speed v'. Now another observer S" moving relative to S with speed v" observe time t" as per theory of relativity. S' and S" both measured time differently relative to S. So relativists claim that time dilation is real then which time is more correct t, t', t". Does measurement from S' and S" affect measurement of S, no. Therefore relative measurement is not real or actual and it has no physical significance.
The future of physics will go in several directions (not one) as there are so many minds working on it. Theoretical, empirical, micro, macro,.. Personally, I think more could be learned by establishing some principles of emergence. We have lots of examples of how society emerges from biology, biology from chemistry, chemistry from physics, physics from particle physics, etc. We should develop some heuristics and try to work backwards (to anticipate what the standard model emerged from) and forwards (to understand possible large scale structures of the multiverse).
What relativists thought of that by adding three variable of space and one variable of time, the space-time curvature equation became 4 dimensional tensor of rank 2, that is not case. To explain it, does surface of any shape for instance sphere is 3 dimensional or 2 dimensional in 3 variables. So metric tensor is 2d, 4 variable, rank of tensor represent dimension and root of elements of matrix is variables. They can think of that they have 4d equation so have volume and thus contain matter is incorrect. This is other thing that there is no physicallity of space-time unless they admit that space is not empty or vacuum, so again bring back aether in a sense. Also deformation is not possible in 2d surface. Also equation is written in reverse order, it is stress-energy tensor causing space-time curvature not otherwise. By measuring effect, one can measure cause, so by measuring curvature they can amount mass or energy but how space-time curvature could neasure is questionable. We are not discussing here how mass in space cause stress and how energy could be contained in no volume. This shows that big-bang model was prepared before because energy spread if it starts from point. Also we are not discussing that consequence of geometrical explanation doesnt meet observation, like time period of all planets should be equal, time is dilated in gravity but farther orbits are theoretically due to high speed and observed as time contracted in far orbits, opposite of time dilation. Yes, this model of gravity is not different from older model but attempt to give account for stable orbits. The multiplication of gravitational constant, G is for equating mass to force or weight. But instead of giving stable model of universe it leads to unstable model.
To me, every word in the video is wrong. I can't watch it without just saying wrong, wrong, wrong every 5 seconds. I think the problem is that physics is so wrong that it makes quantum physics look strange, but people accept strange ideas to begin with such as pull forces, and time. Those are already strange ideas, so you end up using strange ideas to get stranger ideas.
I’m sick of these pessimist physicists talking about how we won’t ever know anything. Like where the scientists talking about crazy stuff like faster than light travel and strings?
This is an attempt to explain possible planetary motion on basis of current science formalism. Space-time is hypothetical construct and another way to say how centripetal force (force toward centre by circular motion) counter thermal pressure expanding matter of space by sun. Explanation lacking in old theory of gravitational attraction of masses is that why two masses not collide in long course of time if there is attraction between masses, it is like there is low ground then nearby water flow towards it and eventually there remain no water. In planetary system, pressure from sun causes nearby matter to push further. For this to happen, it is assumed that space is not vacuum but some subtle space matter. So pushing of matter radially expand space nearby sun causing low concentration of matter. This pressure is opposed by outer space, large masses like planets find no space to go far as obstructed by concentration of matter pushed thus they move transversely to sun. Now consider radial length as one dimension of space-time perpendicular to radial direction, where space-time is 2 dimensional surface area perpendicular to radial length and direction is along radial direction. Time is second dimension of space-time perpendicular to plane of motion of planets. Space and time are independent or orthogonal under normal conditions. Orbitting of planets cause torsion whose effect is like screwing of screw to radial direction by distortion of space-time. So space is not further expanded. This is equivalent of divergence of matter causing vortex which result in planetary motion and seen as space-time distortion. Speed remain constant for near and far planets, so periodicity of planets differ, reflected in frequency of orbitting. So it appears that time moves slow in farther orbits as it takes more time to complete revolution. This appearing of slow movement of relative orbit is time dilation, this is apparent not actual because time period of orbit measured from another orbit is relative as there are many possible relative orbits that measured different time period from their orbits.
There is no pyhtagorean for spherical or cylindrical coordinates. Then how should they use tensor as generalized coordinates, and how should minkowski space is correct. Differential geometry cant replace euclidean geometry which is generalized case and shapes are special. There is no great circle through points on constant latitude. So there is no geodesic for all points on sphere.
Hence forth there will be dominance of therotical physics and mathematics simply because we have seen what can be seen and what we can't see today will never be seen , can be imagined and throritised only .
How can Chris Impey so confidently predict a new particle based on the hypothesis of dark matter, when theoretical modifications to the law of gravitation are more likely as well as probably easier to observe? Remember that the observations that suggest dark matter are balanced by other observations that argue against dark matter. Modifying gravity would seem a more probable source for a solution that fits all the observations than inventing a new particle, which would have to fit in with all the others and, hopefully, be detectable in colliders or deep-mine detectors of cosmic ray showers.
I have an idea for quantum gravity. Currently, there are many attempts to describe gravity on the quantum level. String theory predicts that all particles are manifestations of strings vibrations. Loop quantum gravity assumes that spacetime is made of loops. Strings and loop have a size of about Planck length. Quantum field theory assumes that particles are vibrations of their corresponding fields for example electron is a vibration of electron fields, the photon is associated with photon fields, and so on. In general relativity, gravity is the manifestation of curved spacetime. In quantum gravity terms as spacetime, fields in QFT and particles must be the manifestation of the same phenomena. So I proposed that spacetime is made of objects with Planck length size and particles are spacetime vibrations. The particles are not a point but they are an area of vibrating spacetime designated by the wave function. This can explain why a real single particle can be in many places in spacetime. Vibrations of spacetime curve it likewise vibrating atoms change body shape when it has been heated. Constants such as c, h, G are the parameters of spacetime. c - speed of light, h - Planck constant, G - gravitational constant. For example, c^4/G is a Planck force which is around 10^44 N. This is a force between two objects with Planck size separated by Planck length of each other. If spacetime is made of objects with Planck size the spacetime must have enormous strength. Planck force appears in Einstein's General Relativity equation on the right side. The weakness of gravity results from enormous spacetime strength. The huge rest energy in matter and so does cause only very little spacetime curve. If gravity constant increase the Planck force decrease and in consequence spacetime will have less strength so the curve will increase at the same object mass, gravity increase.
I'm just a layman interested in this kind of stuff. I make boxes for a living now. Doesn't gravity just bend(curve) spacetime? You can tell you lost me there.
@@lys7550 I agree. Bosons are massless but still have (rest) energy e.g. photons. However maybe energy can rip spacetime apart (eg. by focusing lasers of sufficient power) whereas mass merely bends it (e.g. to a point / singularity / Planck length in a black hole). Both are interactions with spacetime, which has quantum fields as its properties. But what I'm thinking about is how is it that spacetime is held together?
Particles are manifestations from quantum fields. That explains their wavelike properties. Quantum fields are properties of spacetime. Bosons don't have mass so can't bend / pull on spacetime.
21:00 thee crazy thee world of you thought for to says crazy is thee ovbiuse answer for you thought for is thee truth to follow cuz bet you heart says same as you mind does never says crazy is not answer on what is true
Renee Fatemi: "Our results will only become more certain since only 10% of our data has been release." Really? With the emmense pressure to produce results can one avoid thinking of the possibility that the released data was that which supported the conclusion and the other 90%, say on a sampling basis, says something else? One can only wonder.
Classical distribution of energy known as equipartition is, suppose there are 6 modes of dice and energy to be distributed is 21 units. Then each mode have equal amount 3.5 unit of energy. Divide it by mode or frquency, energy per frequency is 7/2, 7/4, 7/6, 7/8, 7/10, 7/12. Thus energy per frequency is decreasing as shown in black body radiation curve. Now same amount of energy distributed to same modes as per quantum energy distribution given by Planck's law. According to quantum energy distribution, energy is not distributed equally to modes but in linear multiple of fundamental or minimum energy unit to modes. Thus higher modes have more energy and for above 6 dice modes they are like, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 where fundamental unit is 1. Dividing these energy for modes by mode number or frequency they are all same, 1 unit. But this is not evident in black body curve as flat line.
Voltage cause current, and current indicates voltage. But without limited resistance or conductance, relation between voltage and current is not establish, and that resistance is medium dependent and inverse of resistance is conductance, which depends upon speed of charge. If resistance becomes zero then v¹ and v² produce same amount of current, there is no causal relationship between voltage and current. Now replace it with electric and magnetic field. This is supplement, there is no such thing as EM wave, all are mechanical in nature. Surprised, okay what is voltage or electric field, amount of charge and magnetic field is instantaneous amount of charge transported. These amount of whatever transported from one point to another is mechanical overall, but the force behind the motion is electromagnetic. Thus it is untrue that EM wave is independent of medium, it depends upon amount of some quality of medium like charge to be disturbed. Mechanical wave like sound is local transportation of matter or density and EM wave is local transportation of charge or charge density.
Now this is upside down view of Planck's blackbody radiation law. First, it in no way proves that emission by body is in discrete and not continuous, so there is no quantum mechanics. Second, it is never about black body as ideal oscillator. If it would be that so then curve of should be exponential and no radiation from higher frequency and at high temperature there is pure monochromatic radiation. See, if thermal energy is available and there is no loss then curve of energy radiated is keep rising. Third, graph is not between energy density per frequency and frequency but energy density and frequency. Fourth, Wein's displacement law is incorrectly stated, frequency is inversely proportional to temperature. So on increasing temperature, maximum energy transfer is toward lower frequency. Now if Planck's law is for solids, how it is used to explain for interaction of energy with matter in terms of gases or isolated atom. Does gas absorb energy for radiation or motion. And does energy levels are equally parted. In solids there is interatomic structure that binds atoms, so absorbed thermal energy dissipated as light can be supposed by. Also solids on heated expands, so frequency is lowered on expansion by high temperature. The only way it act as quantum oscillator if on temperature increase, radiation from inner core comes to surface but that violates other radiation laws, specially Stefan-Boltzman if i am correct, from which this whole derivation comes.
The universe is strange. I am the universe. I am strange. I like philosophy, I like religion and I like science. The only scientific theory I respect is substantiated by evidence. Let's just be honest, most of these theories are based on deeply philosophical assumptions that contradict our experience of the world.
Take an object, it has height where time is slightly different at top and bottom. What would happen if one could make the time dilation zero or otherwise same time at top and bottom. Gravity a very weak force marries like time dilation but of course the object has mass or say inertial mass. There seems a possibility to make T the same at top and bottom making zero G however to move the object it needs to accelerate with sec per sec which is the problem . So let lateral think how to approach both problems
The future of basic Sciences and philosophical studies is in danger, money is an important tool but we should not put it in over the top of our heads money-money kind of ideology is helping getting more and more materialistic and that materialism should be in control as to keep the curiosity alive.
From Jessica and Eytan. Physics today is dogmatic. Its greatest problem is the particles based approach instead of events based approaches such as Causal Sets and Geometric Chronons. The latter is also based on wave functions but with several differences, 1) the probability of a chronon collapse sums to 1 on an observer object. 2) Forces and thus matter are expected where chronons do not make geodesic integral curves. Like in particles physics, there could be different types of chronons, e.g. electric, electro-weak and strong chronons with symmetries U(1), SU(2), SU(3), however, symmetry is not the engine of the theory.
As I was trained I was trained by Joseph Straily at the University of Kentucky. He is a mathematical physicist. Constructor theory is not only the future of physics as I see it but the future of AI interaction on multiple levels. Ralph Gabbard was the chair at UK. He held doctorates in both physics and divinity. Our future in physics is ambassadors of whatever God there is. Pedagogy of reality. For most of my life consensus held that never again could the whole of knowledge be held by a single mind; there would never again be a society of the wise. I'm going to speak for Joe and Ralph and myself and say we don't believe that.
We always tried to explain how the universe works, God and creation was a theory that has since been displaced by modern science over the last few centuries. Now it's a separate concept to science, they do not mix, personal beliefs are just that, and no amount of scientific experimentation can prove God does or does not exist.
OK, the Law of nature keep changing when is New Era révolution. After the Revolution wish is about 25 to 50 years after EACH start of any Revolution, after it seatel down and the Law of nature become Static at this State. What we can call ( un long fleuve tranquille). Now it's Time to Exchange about this Gravity finally. Sincères amitiés Philippe 😎
Maybe the problem is that the 'math' is flawed. After all...here in Nature we haven't managed to square the circle...and any number to the power of 0 = 1. If you follow me.
If the quantum physics is quantized there's no need for Irrational numbers like 0, e or π. If everything is observable there should be no need for complex numbers.
Do you know what complex numbers are? Who said complex numbers has nothing to do with observable There is nothing imaginary in imaginary number They are just another axis in the number line, It's a misconception
@@BPHAbishekP thanks for the response, you probably think infinity is a number too. Planes of existence might indeed have something in common with complex numbers since many seem to be of two opposite opinions simultaneously, or at least in very short succession. Not you of course.
Every Time Lee speak in a show it's not possible to understand what is saying. Why?some People would not like IT are What. I Love Dr Smolin I whant ear what is saying.😎
Surely matter/anti matter was resolved at the time where pure energy began to form particles, a time where particle creation was occurring in a very compressed space and matter/anti matter particles self destroyed into energy that would then attempt to reform over and over until the dominant particle … dominated completely. Presumably, and this is where not having a resolve concept of string theory is an impediment, energy condensing into particles reduces the energy pressure in the primordial energy ooze so the period of resolution would be short terminating when the energy from matter anti/matter particle collisions would no longer be a reversible reaction, beyond which time collision energy be lost as photonic energy.
I want to do computer simulations of quantum mechanics. Do such simulations have a use for a random number generator, and if so, what? It's a simple question, and I am open to ideas. We could be doing numerical experiments with antimatter if we can answer it.
Apparently the only accurate quantum simulations have to be done with quantum computers. Obviously they are not sophisticated enough yet to simulate whole systems (billions of atoms). From there you would gain insights on macro properties emergent from specific quantum states which will lead to new materials and probably understanding existing materials and complex states much better.
@@sibbyeskie Let's give everyone a choice between using a classical computer for simple systems, and a quantum computer for complex systems, with some overlap to build confidence.
I am still waiting for Physics to begin. All I have seen is Mathmatics. I have yet to see Physical explanations, other than my own of course. I described the Physics of the theory of special relativity, and everyone hated it. They despised me putting the physical, ahead of the mathmatical.
@@lepidoptera9337 Sure bud. I derived the SR equations all on my own, and did so after I discovered the SR phenomena on my own as well. Kind of hard to do that and in turn know nothing about physics.
The fixing theory is Matter meaning the pure matter of Black Holes and Anti-Matter what we call Dark Matter or charge or what electrons are most of. So matter is pure gravity and Anti-Matter is the opposite it pushes each other away meaning has anti-gravity and is massless. But both act there way and both are matters. So Matter attracts Anti-Matter that on the other hand wants to push itself away from that yet attracted Anti-Matter. It is so simple and all fits together like a charm. Integrate it and keep in mind what we really discovered. Example: we don't know that a Proton is in an atom like it is outside or if an electron exists in an orbital. Expect that neutrinos are neutrinos because they have a origin speed over the speed of light and are out of Anti-Matter - Aha, go further, all gets sense... suddenly you can calculate all and all is clear and nice.
There are no particles only fields and no one knows what energy IS. Science assumes it’s dead. Smolin didn’t come out and say it but he was implying (“the laws may have changed via a learning process ... crazy?”) that the Holon that is the Universe, has never been dead and unconscious at any level. It may have cycled through Big Bang birth and heat death for eternity. Science doesn’t do eternity however ... it barely does infinity and is in denial about mystery. There is no sample in any lab anywhere ... of dead energy. It is an absolute fact that no one knows what energy IS ( not it’s description it’s developmental narrative within mainstream ... dead... cosmology ) Fact - The Universe is a holon. A holon cannot manifest consciousness and life (us) if these integrated qualities are not inherent/active/patterned within the whole system top to bottom) The Militant materialistic wing of Science is in denial of the above. That ... is the coming paradigm shift. Voicing the above heresy could have one excluded from the club. Few scientists can afford this. Rupert Sheldrake being an exception ... David Bohm.
Quantum theory works ‘….well on the smallest possible scale’ but what if the universe is fractal in nature? Our mathematics is limited by the Planck length and time but perhaps the hidden variables are embedded and underpin everything at scales infinitely smaller than that so that the universe is not quantum in nature.
The limits imposed by Planck length/volume/mass are due to the fact that you create blackholes when you try to go smaller- blackholes that evaporate almost instantly. So there is no where for hidden variables to hide at that scale.
@@LiLi-or2gm - Yes, but that is the problem with mathematics at the quantum level - it leads to infinities and discontinuities. However, fractals go on with the same granularity forever and do not lead to these inevitable limitations and inconsistencies.
@@richardmasters8424 Fractals have geometric features that mathematically go to infinity, and so are subject to the same limits as any other geometry- suffering from the same issues I mentioned.
@@LiLi-or2gm - not quite - with fractals you can always look at the scales smaller than the one before an infinite number of times so you can avoid the 1/0 problem that you get if you consider any particular scale the smallest. I also believe there is something profound about Euler’s Identity as it’s a beautiful but simple relationship between pi, i and e. The same relationship is relevant to the Mandelbrot set which is plotted on an Argand diagram relating ‘real’ and ‘imaginary, numbers - but could it be that the universe works along similar lines with perhaps ‘locality’ plotted against ‘non-locality’ variables resulting in a fractal?
The unified theories of interactions predicted that the proton would have a half live shorter than 10^32 years. That's because quarks could decay into leptons through a generalized interaction boson. But the experiments to test this have been negative, so that the unified theories are in difficulty. In particular they are necessary for the coupling constants of the different interaction to have the same value at very high temperature like just after the Big Bang.
Quantum Mechanics describes the play, the concert, the recital, but it does not describe the theatre. The players, the audience, the lighting and sound are one thing (particles and radiation), the stage and building are something else (mass, gravity and time). The Kelvin scale only applies to the performance, not the theatre, the building can be much colder and more still than the actors or audience.
@@lepidoptera9337 I was just trying to convey a concept, a possible reason for decades of stagnation. Perhaps i should have concentrated on the Butterfly Effect ?
Physicists need to know how the values of the parameter space got fine tuned. These values guaranteed the creation of particles, atoms, molecules, organic molecules, DNA,RNA chains, genomes etc., creating life and consciousness that is observable and verifiable. Lee Smolin gave a theory of cosmological natural selection that created these values from landscape like biologists, Lee's theory should be incorporated in QM, QC functions, string theory and if possible the algorithm of finite axiom QC function.
Start from consciousness and derive the fondamental constants, no tuning necessary. Fine tuning is essentially a metaphysical stance with no bearing with physics.
@@clmasse That is not how physics works. Einstein didn't start from SR?GR and derived his theories. Atheists think accident or luck brought us here, no, we took billions of years and intelligent design.
I don't see any fine tuning. Indeed, I don't see any tuning, at all. Unless, of course, you can show me the knobs that the white bearded, sandal wearing designer was turning. Where are they?
There are no particles only fields and no one knows what energy IS. Science assumes it’s dead. Smolin didn’t come out and say it but he was implying (“the laws may have changed via a learning process ... crazy?”) that the Holon that is the Universe, has never been dead and unconscious at any level. It may have cycled through Big Bang birth and heat death for eternity. Science doesn’t do eternity however ... it barely does infinity and is in denial about mystery. There is no sample in any lab anywhere ... of dead energy. It is an absolute fact that no one knows what energy IS ( not it’s description it’s developmental narrative within mainstream ... dead... cosmology ) Fact - The Universe is a holon. A holon cannot manifest consciousness and life (us) if these integrated qualities are not inherent/active/patterned within the whole system top to bottom) The Militant materialistic wing of Science is in denial of the above. That ... is the coming paradigm shift. Voicing the above heresy could have one excluded from the club. Few scientists can afford this. Rupert Sheldrake being an exception ... also the late David Bohm
@@nunomaroco583 Smolin didn’t come out and say it but he was implying (“the laws may have changed via a learning process ... crazy?”) that the Holon that is the Universe, has never been dead and unconscious at any level. It may have cycled through Big Bang birth and heat death for eternity. Science doesn’t do eternity however ... it barely does infinity and is in denial about mystery. There is no sample in any lab anywhere ... of dead energy. It is an absolute fact that no one knows what energy IS ( not it’s description it’s developmental narrative within mainstream ... dead... cosmology ) Fact - The Universe is a holon. A holon cannot manifest consciousness and life (us) if these integrated qualities are not inherent/active/patterned within the whole system top to bottom) The Militant materialistic wing of Science is in denial of the above. That ... is the coming paradigm shift. Voicing the above heresy could have one excluded from the club. Few scientists can afford this. Rupert Sheldrake being an exception ... David Bohm.
20:57 We don't have to mention AI as evidence that intelligence exists. We have humans and all other creatures as evidence. It's not crazy to say cosmic structures may be part of a larger intelligence, if there's some kind of organization and inter-communication between cosmic structures. Is there?
@@lepidoptera9337 Well i've heard about gravity, thx. i'm not a physicist, but i'm pretty sure "keeps you nailed to the floor" is neither scientific nor accurate. I'm not qualified to say whether gravity could be a form of "communication" between cosmic bodies. Apparently you've worked it out. You should publish.
Where do you think the future of physics is going? Share your thoughts here! For more content covering physics and beyond go to iai.tv?TH-cam& 🚀🌍🔬
There are 2 questions there. One is what will physicists do when they have answered the final question. The other is “what do physicists do if they can’t answer the last question because of various limitations. Personally I think that quantum wave theory is only part of the answer, and string theorists need to start again. The answer definitely is a string theory of some sort, but the concepts of how energy organizes itself put forward are not convincing. I’m not sure if anyone has explained what the mechanism that limits the speed of light, have they?
The future of physics is going nowhere if we are keeping this same persons. "Physics progress along with the funerals."
@@williambunting803 There is no last question, every answer asks several other questions.
@@clmasse Quite so Claude, and for that reason alone the future of Physics is secure as long as the answer to the question “can I have some money please?” Is “Yes!”
My question is, is anyone familiar with Vortex Institute and it's utilizing fluid dynamics to derive from a basic superfluid the values of all thebasic Planck values? Is this significant at all? Or is this just a repackaging of Pilot Wave theory? I don't have much context to determine this for myself as a layman.
I really enjoy Sabine’s TH-cam channel. So glad she continues to do it. One of my favs for all things physics.
I'm pretty sure when Lee was talking about laws changing, he had in mind that universal constants could evolve over time, and given we say the universe is expanding, it is not a huge leap to suggest that the laws could change over time. Where I am less convinced is with regard to the universe as a machine learning algo.
Vaffa: "String theory combines General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in a consistent way"
Is that so? In what Universe?
In the string theory landdcape, obviously 🤪
Shows you haven't taken time to study MTheory or you would know that general relativity Naturally emerges as part of the theory and quantum mechanics are also easy to derive. The problem lays in the dimensions. How to provide evidence for those? MTheory is our best bet and the bay sayers like you watch too much TH-cam and not read the actual material.
@@Raydensheraj Yeah, I love cat videos.
Sue me.
@@Raydensheraj Knot theory vastly inspired my imagination concerning quantum mechanics. Strings are knots in dimensions, they make up matter and energy. Photons are knots that aren’t connected to the time dimension. All knots or “strings” are made of either two or three dimensions at most according to knot theory. Thankfully we have many dimensions to choose from, but for all practical purposes as far as we’re concerned the number of dimensions is finite giving us our quantum zoo.
At what point does a quantum particle become a wave?
If one look at black body oscillator curve, it consists of two parts. First is about gaining of energy by oscillator and second is losing of energy or emission of light. The maximum point or cusp of two parts, known as Wein's frequency of maximum emission at thermal equilibrium or constant power. Thermal equlilibrium not means that absorption and emission is equal but rate of emission is constant.
The black body curve is equivalent to motion of particle we discussed. First part is ideal galilean where speed is increasing and second part is real aristotlean where speed become constant on constant applying force. The consequence of black body curve is that energy of wave is not directly proportional to frequency but inversely. This is big setback for current notion and concepts of energy and frequency relation. So energy of wave having higher wavelength have more energy if relation between speed and product of wavelength and frequency remain constant.
About ideal oscillator which is not as curve shown of black body but given by Rayleigh-Jeans law. At very very high temperature, an ideal oscillator emits only single frequency, monochromatic source and its energy density is infinite. While real oscillator as described by curve of black body, emits radiation of all frequencies at constant energy density for very very high temperature.
Sabine is a rock of sanity in ever-more-crazy world. I am grateful for steadfast rationality.
Sabine is smart and sane. Just the right amount of skepticism.
I am not close to being a physicist and I'm sure I'm being terrible simplistic but what Mr Smolin said resonated with me. In a new universe, things would happen for the first time and in doing so changed the circumstances in which things were happening. So what was possible depended on what happened as much as the other way around. In time things settled into patterns where different things are possible. The laws evolved.
The laws are just human ways to understand what is going on. With no men, not sure there are laws.
@@clmasse : That may be but an electron will behave like an electron with or without human understanding or labels.
@@lrvogt1257 Have you already seen an electron?
@@clmasse : Are you implying electrons don't exist?
Thanks for this upload. I love hearing Sabine Hossenfelder, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin!!! Such awesome communicator of science; makes physics, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, cosmology so interesting for a laymen like myself!
What's with those remixes ? Nothing new here and no discussion among the listed people. You simply mash up old content for clicks.
And why does it contain pseudoscience and bullshit?
I've noticed other science channels doing this too like SciShow and Journey to the microcosm
We derived that energy density per frequency is,
du/df=dU=3/4×f²/c³□
where □ is energy multiplied to modes acquired that energy. Now from equipartition theorem, energy is equally distributed to all energy levels or modes in this case. It means higher modes have less energy per mode or say higher energy level acquired by lesser modes. That is modes multiply with energy is constant, so energy is equally distributed. Suppose there are two energy levels then number of modes having higher energy is less than modes at lower energy, it is natural like density of air is less at high altitude or high gravitational energy.
Now the natural function that limits number of modes having higher energy is exponential decreasing function. Therefore number of modes at given energy level (which is represented by multiple of mode and wavelength) is,
Exp(-nw/kT), where w is wavelength of mode and n is number of modes. Therefore sum of total modes or oscillators is,
Exp(-1×k) + Exp(-2×k) + Exp(-3×k) +..=1/(1-Exp(-nk)),
where k = w/kT
Thus probabilty of any mode to have given energy is,
f = Exp(-nw/kT)/(1-Exp(-nw/kT)) = 1/(Exp(nw/kT) - 1)
Thus average energy per mode is multiple of probability of mode to have that energy and thermal energy available for modes, that is,
□ = kT×1/(Exp(nw/kT) - 1)
So energy density per frequency or mode is,
dU = 3/4×f²/c³×kT/(Exp(nw/kT) - 1).
Question is why energy at higher modes is less while theoretically it should be high. Reason is that higher modes means smaller in size or wavelength, and lower size tends to lose more energy in form of loses, ratio of surface area to volume increases which dissipate more energy in form of loss for energy stored in cavity or hot solid body.
A very interesting conversation. It shows that the universe is larger and more complex than that physcists can decode it's " secrets" in their limited lifetime... Thanks iai.
Jim Al-Khalili is leading Physicists into exciting areas through his investigation of quantum effects in Biology. Mother Nature is a bright and powerful "North star" but often occluded in the fog of science. If we take small steps then Physics will help us navigate.
Fantastic conversations! More, please.
One may observed that with time, speed of fan slow down. Now what is cause of it and how it is so important to discuss. The cause of slowing down of fan is due to loosening capacity to hold charge of capacitor whose job is to supply constant voltage to motor of fan which otherwise is spooky and not smooth, also motor cause dip in voltage to every change in voltage it counter.
Now we know that by replacing capacitor we can have same speed of fan which was earlier. The working of capacitor, its charging and discharging simultaneously to give constant voltage or power is key to understand most basic phenomena which happening everywhere and everytime. That is how energy interact with matter in presence of temperature or how light or any radiation is produced in general.
The ratio of discharging of capacitor to its charging is equivalent to how particle absorb energy and gain speed and how it is limited to a certain speed even on constant availability of energy to continuously gain speed. It also relate how any body on absorbing heat and start to glow or radiate light which is characterstic of how hot is body and why its light is not ever increasing on heating at constant temperature. This is basis of quantum mechanics which tells that how energy is quantized on interaction and does this view is correct or not. Does energy is really quantized which gave further way to quantization of fields. In example of capacitor it is clear that its capacity to deliver constant voltage depends upon its capacity to hold charge or electric energy and inversely to separation between two electrode. It has nothing to do with quantization of charge. Similarly light emitted by hot solid body depends upon its ability to store energy, temperature and inversely to wavelength of emitted light.
Opposite to conventional view that an electromagnetic wave or any wave having more frequency means more energy, while it is higher wavelength means more energy if speed remain fixed. It is clear from that when we need to hear bass sound, we use amplifier because sound waves of lower frequency needs more power and bigger speaker. So a bigger cavity can store more energy and wave of higher wavelength. Also on heating body gets expand, so it have more energy and less frequency.
Again in quantum mechanical term though on foundation which it stands is questionable but here we discuss its description of subject and interpretation, wave function in terms of wavelength of standing wave not describe expectation value of position of particle but its energy. This is evident from that heating body glow more in its centre, reason is same that it have more energy which they describe as more probability of photon, while for what photon stands for, energy. But how they describe wave function of next level in which it splits into two waves. For energy description, its energy splits into two smaller parts. One more thing, law of equipartition of energy holds for black body oscillator which we discussed above as hot solid body, no matter how Planck's law states it by multiplying with average energy as not constant for all modes.
Now we derive its relation in simple brief manner. Suppose there is hot solid body having given temperature. There is no need of considering ideal black body because once we find its energy storage, later we multiply it with scaling factor which is less than one. Suppose there are n modes of waves stored, but as radiation emitted from surface and inner space is 3d so possible modes are like n¹n², n²n³. So total permutation or combination is 3 and if it is square then number of modes are 3n². So total no of modes in given volume that multiply with average energy gives total energy density of body or cavity is, 2×3n²×dn = 6n²dn. Multiplication of 2 comes because sum of modes goes into both directions. Therefore total energy of cavity is given by sum of below given energy,
dE = 6n²dn = 6/8×L³×f²/c³df×□, where □ is average energy multiplied to every modes of energy.
So energy density per frequency is given by,
dE/df/L³=du/df=3/4×f²/c³□
Now we see that long before quantum mechanics, energy of cavity in terms of modes is quantized but that not means that emitted or absorbed energy is quantized but stored energy is, second thing this quantization is not linear but in form of square, so how does concept of linear harmonic oscillators fit in it. Talking about Planck's factor which is equivalent to equipartition but different as it multiplies with hf similar to kT but different because it is different for different modes. This is wrongly interpreted as quantization of energy because they thought that frequency comes from modes and as modes is quantized so frequency. But first modes is quantized in square and most importantly hf is further multiplied with number of modes having that hf and which is neither integral nor linear but exponential. So in no way there is quantization of energy in linear form even by Planck's law for radiation.
My father was a String Theorist. I told him he was a String Theorist but he didn't like it. Maybe he didn't believe in strings that much or just hiding it because it is an advanced science. But I knew he wrote papers on String Theory under a different name, his scientific researcher name. He was genius in many Sciences and Mathematics. The Tamayos were scientists and mathematicians. We were Star Trek's Starfleet, 1970s.
Sun is emitting light and hot bodies glow light. But spectrum of sun is continuous which can be observed with crystal or cd. Different colors are in thick bands and not thin line. So how energy is quantized in hot solid bodies. By quantization means different colors are separated by dark regions which is not observed. Temperature of body can be calculated by light emitting from body of different colors and they do integration which is for continuous function.
A circle is locus of points which are equidistant from a point called as focus or centre. Joining of locus is curve, where points are discrete but curve or function is continuous. So, do circles are continuous or discrete, continuous means curve is smooth. Similarly calculus is done with discretization of interval but on continuous function.
Yes, quantum mechanics shows that wave seems as continuous but made of discrete small particles, operated as smooth. Similarly interaction of energy and matter is participated by discrete particles known as atoms but there is no restriction on amount of matter and energy, continuous.
Interesting ! 🤙🏽 ✌🏽love the green alien puppet next to the last Prof. ✌🏽
Suppose there is a container having air as weight or hot air as energy. Now if we divide that box in half, if box is one dimensional then it divided into 2, if 2d then 4 and if 3d then 8. But on dividing the amount of weight or energy is also divided. But if there are moving air particles in container then on dividing their speed remain same but frequency increases two-folds. So increasing frequency doesnt mean increased energy if speed remain fixed. So how we relate energy of photon or wave particle to frequency, while it is related to wavelength which gets halved on dividing size and thus energy.
Similarly there is fundamentally difference in wave and particle. Suppose two particles meets at point and by interference they superimpose each other. So the intensity or probability or energy adds or subtracts in unusual way than ordinary particles who first never annihilates each other and never creates something more than ordinary sum. Particles have volume, when they add up, their mass increase but also volume so it makes no difference on intensity of mass at point. While wave add up differently, they meet at point and add up together having same size together thus increasing or decreasing intensity than ordinary sum depending upon how they meet at point.
I think you should include Neil Turok when talking about where to go: look for more simple solutions!
What about negative energy states in MQ with inear T-operator ?
The most amazing thing about the universe to my way of thinking is that it eventually gave rise to a living species that is able to examine it and to me it is clear that our coming about was inevitable - because here we are. The chain of events which enabled our coming about is mind-blowing. We are the universe navel-gazing itself.
Jim Al-Khalili..delusional obsession with " reality". You made up, my fine friend
Roger Penrose suggests a collapsed bllack hole (?) If so what came through to our universe that was reduced to sub atomic particles. HS Science 1 yr physics. Curious, gives one food for thought.
"It [reality] has to exist independently of our observations'. This is clearly the case, But why assume it exists independently of observation? Plotinus explains that the observable world is a consequence of observation, but not the observations of individual human beings. There would be just one observer. Why is the non-dual interpretation of QM never mentioned? is it 'not invented here' syndrome?
The object of science is observations, not reality which is a metaphysical concept.
Reality may exist independent of observation, it just wouldn't 'matter' per se.
@@clmasse so faith is a metaphysical thing, although to some singularities it is truth. I get it.
If you have only one theory that is both compatible with relativity and quantum mechanics, and this theory is string theory, you'd better freak out, you are on the wrong way.
Quantum field theory is fully relativistic, kid. At least learn the basics before you comment.
@@lepidoptera9337 One more YT expert…
@@clmasse Better than a YT non-expert. :-)
15:12
Is it possible to annihilate a particle?
If so, the matter anti-matter annihilation is ongoing, as we are a part of the universe and it's process, but that doesn't mean we should catalyze the reaction.
With that said, ignore the question unless you can create the matter before annihilating it without sum loss.
Annihilation obeys charge conservation, so if there is an excess of electrons over positrons, that excess doesn't go away. Same for quarks, i.e. their bound states in protons. Proton decay would create the required positrons, which would then annihilate with the electrons, but it's unclear whether that reaction is actually happening outside of black holes.
The rear guard speaking about the future of physics, don't you see any error?
Jim Al-Khalili when are you coming out with more BBC documentaries . Miss those.
Love Lee Sholing but I've never seen those, any links mate ? 👍
How can there be a future for physics? ......As physics go today.....is like the old story about the hunter who tried to sell the bear' skin before he hunted it.....
First thing, Planck's law in no way proves quantization of energy and thus no quantum mechanics as such. If one look at curve of black body energy density per frequency against frequency then one see that energy density per frequency tends to zero on higher frequencies. So what does it mean, it means that what Planck propose energy distribution as explanation of his relation is not in accord. He explained that energy distribution is not like classical equipartition, while curve shows it is exactly as per equipartition.
Okay, try to understand what Planck means, according to him suppose there is dice having six face as six modes and number represents energy level. So as per Planck's view energy is distributed as 1 has 1 unit, 2 has 2 unit and so on. Distribution is not equally or equipartition of energy, means all modes have equal amount of energy. If one divide energy of mode to its number, all modes have same amount of energy, unit. But curve shows that energy decreases with frequency or mode. Now for mode density for energy, divide energy for mode twice by mode number that is square of mode but Planck gave model of linear harmonic oscillator.
Now comes to other issues which are falsely publicised. Like they says Planck law laid foundation of quantum mechanics by quantizing energy, but that was started before him and the very model of cavity oscillator having modes as resonant particular harmonics as stored energy and other dies is in itself quabtization of energy. While they attempt to mimic gas molecules thermodynamic relation of speed and temperature. Even their cavity model is away from atomistic or particle view, as they thought that EM wave dont need medium so they can be stored in hollow space of cavity. But question is they were looking for radiation from hot solid body, so why they chose this cavity model.
Finally we look at Planck's view of blackbody radiation but before that we should know that Planck's mulriplication of his average energy to number of modes per as said classical view was unnecessary, there is no need to multiply with numbers of mode if he had not average out the energy.
So from his view, total energy of cavity is sum of many oscillators of different modes or frequencies of energy. His energy unit is hf where h is constant and f is fundamental frequency and higher frequencies or modes are integer multiple of this, is it really that or some illusion but before that we must know that in binomial series if a unit is divided into infinite smaller parts then it is equivalent to exponential of some transcdental number. And when some finite is divided into infinite smaller terms then they are not having some integral value and instead of discreteness they are more continuous.
So his oscillators are in form of 1+2+3... = N, multiplied by basic energy unit hf. Note that numbers 1, 2, 3.. here represents mode, but in sum of oscillators they are no longer integers but fraction. So,
hf(1+2+3..) = hf(1N+2N+...) = hf(NExp(-hf/kT)+NExp(-2hf/kT)+..) = Nhf(1/(Exp(hf/kT) - 1) is total energy sum of oscillators. Multiplying this with number of modes of classical model is renormalization, so why there is renormalization when they calculated sum of oscillators already.
There are other bigger issues, like energy of wave is related to wavelength and not frequency, so this whole concept of photon as particle unit of light or quantization of energy is bogus. There is no quantization of any kind in final value or curve of bkackbody. In above Planck's relation, oscillator having higher mode or frequency contribute lesser energy, thus higher frequency doesnt mean higher energy, so energy relation of photon hf is incorrect.
Nifty ! But how to best model Lee's hairdo .... waves, particles, fields or the uncertainty principle ? 🤔 🤣
Nah, that's all just poor education.
Given that only a Very Small Percentage have Achieved these Unique Qualifications of Physics.
This Means that This Video by The Institute of Art and Ideas is For Who?
Further This Institute Assumes that there is No Cultural Component of the Physics Community that All other Human Cultures has No Idea about and Hence can Never Interpret what is Said here.
Sorry but that multiple in calculating number of modes in hot solid body radiation is 3×8=24 which i mistakenly calculate as 3/4. So now the correct relation of energy density per mode or frequency for black body or hot solid body radiation is given by,
dU = 24×f²/c³×kT×Exp(-n²w²/kT)
where w is wavelength of mode.
Now comparing it to Planck's law and see how Planck's law of radiation is incorrect, there are four main reasons. First, energy of wave is related to wavelength and not frequency. Second, as radiation from body is related to temperature and that heat energy is available to body then how oscillator absorb energy in form of frequency, even though only that amount of energy is absorbed but it is thermal energy. It is like saying LC oscillator have frequency to transmit and recieve signal but that signal have some form of electric energy. Third, when number of modes already calculated then why again sum of oscillators multiplied to give average energy. Fourth, multiple of frequency as energy is increasing with increasing modes, then there should be equal energy density per frequency at lower and higher frequencies which is not observed.
So Planck's radiation law was given to show that energy is quantized in exchange with matter, which is not the case even modes quantized the stored energy but overall energy is multiple of exponential function which is smooth and can have any value. What they thought that twinkling of stars is due to some pulsating or breathing kind of emission, but that frequency is very low compared to frequency of light. At fixed speed of light higher frequency means lower energy and only way to imcrease energy of light at higher frequency is increase its speed.
The future of Quantum Physics is to leave it for something else as it is reaching its nodal point, its Zenith. I would prefer to look into another paradigm or model, such as the paradigm of the Ray of Creation or Ouspenskian understanding of the Universe in a broad scope.
When we deal with elementary particles of such a small dimension, for which this very very small would be in everything, and would be the ABSOLUTE, we will end up inventing ideas no longer verifiable by observation and experimentation.
Clock at rest measure proper time, so if your clock is moving then relative. But moving objects like planets and stars dont carry clock, clock is on earth. So why dont they give up their false ideas and come out of day dreaming. They are against Mach's idea of relativity, inertial frames are absolute, geocentric model is handy and practical.
Okay time measured in S is t, observed by S' is t'. S' is moving relative to S with speed v'. Now another observer S" moving relative to S with speed v" observe time t" as per theory of relativity. S' and S" both measured time differently relative to S. So relativists claim that time dilation is real then which time is more correct t, t', t". Does measurement from S' and S" affect measurement of S, no. Therefore relative measurement is not real or actual and it has no physical significance.
The future of physics will go in several directions (not one) as there are so many minds working on it. Theoretical, empirical, micro, macro,..
Personally, I think more could be learned by establishing some principles of emergence. We have lots of examples of how society emerges from biology, biology from chemistry, chemistry from physics, physics from particle physics, etc. We should develop some heuristics and try to work backwards (to anticipate what the standard model emerged from) and forwards (to understand possible large scale structures of the multiverse).
What relativists thought of that by adding three variable of space and one variable of time, the space-time curvature equation became 4 dimensional tensor of rank 2, that is not case.
To explain it, does surface of any shape for instance sphere is 3 dimensional or 2 dimensional in 3 variables. So metric tensor is 2d, 4 variable, rank of tensor represent dimension and root of elements of matrix is variables.
They can think of that they have 4d equation so have volume and thus contain matter is incorrect. This is other thing that there is no physicallity of space-time unless they admit that space is not empty or vacuum, so again bring back aether in a sense. Also deformation is not possible in 2d surface.
Also equation is written in reverse order, it is stress-energy tensor causing space-time curvature not otherwise. By measuring effect, one can measure cause, so by measuring curvature they can amount mass or energy but how space-time curvature could neasure is questionable. We are not discussing here how mass in space cause stress and how energy could be contained in no volume. This shows that big-bang model was prepared before because energy spread if it starts from point.
Also we are not discussing that consequence of geometrical explanation doesnt meet observation, like time period of all planets should be equal, time is dilated in gravity but farther orbits are theoretically due to high speed and observed as time contracted in far orbits, opposite of time dilation.
Yes, this model of gravity is not different from older model but attempt to give account for stable orbits. The multiplication of gravitational constant, G is for equating mass to force or weight. But instead of giving stable model of universe it leads to unstable model.
To me, every word in the video is wrong. I can't watch it without just saying wrong, wrong, wrong every 5 seconds. I think the problem is that physics is so wrong that it makes quantum physics look strange, but people accept strange ideas to begin with such as pull forces, and time. Those are already strange ideas, so you end up using strange ideas to get stranger ideas.
I’m sick of these pessimist physicists talking about how we won’t ever know anything. Like where the scientists talking about crazy stuff like faster than light travel and strings?
This is an attempt to explain possible planetary motion on basis of current science formalism. Space-time is hypothetical construct and another way to say how centripetal force (force toward centre by circular motion) counter thermal pressure expanding matter of space by sun. Explanation lacking in old theory of gravitational attraction of masses is that why two masses not collide in long course of time if there is attraction between masses, it is like there is low ground then nearby water flow towards it and eventually there remain no water.
In planetary system, pressure from sun causes nearby matter to push further. For this to happen, it is assumed that space is not vacuum but some subtle space matter. So pushing of matter radially expand space nearby sun causing low concentration of matter. This pressure is opposed by outer space, large masses like planets find no space to go far as obstructed by concentration of matter pushed thus they move transversely to sun.
Now consider radial length as one dimension of space-time perpendicular to radial direction, where space-time is 2 dimensional surface area perpendicular to radial length and direction is along radial direction. Time is second dimension of space-time perpendicular to plane of motion of planets. Space and time are independent or orthogonal under normal conditions. Orbitting of planets cause torsion whose effect is like screwing of screw to radial direction by distortion of space-time. So space is not further expanded. This is equivalent of divergence of matter causing vortex which result in planetary motion and seen as space-time distortion.
Speed remain constant for near and far planets, so periodicity of planets differ, reflected in frequency of orbitting. So it appears that time moves slow in farther orbits as it takes more time to complete revolution. This appearing of slow movement of relative orbit is time dilation, this is apparent not actual because time period of orbit measured from another orbit is relative as there are many possible relative orbits that measured different time period from their orbits.
Crappy audio & non fully competent English speaker spoils the content, I switched off having learned nothing.
Quantum Physics has become so degenerated, don't repair, simply flush.
There is no pyhtagorean for spherical or cylindrical coordinates. Then how should they use tensor as generalized coordinates, and how should minkowski space is correct. Differential geometry cant replace euclidean geometry which is generalized case and shapes are special. There is no great circle through points on constant latitude. So there is no geodesic for all points on sphere.
I opt for the Gurdjieffian and the Ouspenskian approach after the Zenith of Quantum dissecting!
String Theory sounds like a minor religion on the come. It calls upon Faith and acceptancof something with no proof. in support of belief.
very good
Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael
Jesus Huh kyung young
Great aletheia
Hence forth there will be dominance of therotical physics and mathematics simply because we have seen what can be seen and what we can't see today will never be seen , can be imagined and throritised only .
How can Chris Impey so confidently predict a new particle based on the hypothesis of dark matter, when theoretical modifications to the law of gravitation are more likely as well as probably easier to observe? Remember that the observations that suggest dark matter are balanced by other observations that argue against dark matter. Modifying gravity would seem a more probable source for a solution that fits all the observations than inventing a new particle, which would have to fit in with all the others and, hopefully, be detectable in colliders or deep-mine detectors of cosmic ray showers.
I have an idea for quantum gravity.
Currently, there are many attempts to describe gravity on the quantum level. String theory predicts that all particles are manifestations of strings vibrations. Loop quantum gravity assumes that spacetime is made of loops. Strings and loop have a size of about Planck length. Quantum field theory assumes that particles are vibrations of their corresponding fields for example electron is a vibration of electron fields, the photon is associated with photon fields, and so on. In general relativity, gravity is the manifestation of curved spacetime. In quantum gravity terms as spacetime, fields in QFT and particles must be the manifestation of the same phenomena. So I proposed that spacetime is made of objects with Planck length size and particles are spacetime vibrations. The particles are not a point but they are an area of vibrating spacetime designated by the wave function. This can explain why a real single particle can be in many places in spacetime. Vibrations of spacetime curve it likewise vibrating atoms change body shape when it has been heated. Constants such as c, h, G are the parameters of spacetime. c - speed of light, h - Planck constant, G - gravitational constant. For example, c^4/G is a Planck force which is around 10^44 N. This is a force between two objects with Planck size separated by Planck length of each other. If spacetime is made of objects with Planck size the spacetime must have enormous strength. Planck force appears in Einstein's General Relativity equation on the right side. The weakness of gravity results from enormous spacetime strength. The huge rest energy in matter and so does cause only very little spacetime curve. If gravity constant increase the Planck force decrease and in consequence spacetime will have less strength so the curve will increase at the same object mass, gravity increase.
What if gravity is simply the law of attraction. And everything obeys. Subconsciously.
I'm just a layman interested in this kind of stuff. I make boxes for a living now. Doesn't gravity just bend(curve) spacetime? You can tell you lost me there.
But there's an obvious flaw, if you consider particles as a deformation of space-time where does the bosons who have no mass fit ?
@@lys7550 I agree. Bosons are massless but still have (rest) energy e.g. photons. However maybe energy can rip spacetime apart (eg. by focusing lasers of sufficient power) whereas mass merely bends it (e.g. to a point / singularity / Planck length in a black hole). Both are interactions with spacetime, which has quantum fields as its properties. But what I'm thinking about is how is it that spacetime is held together?
Particles are manifestations from quantum fields. That explains their wavelike properties. Quantum fields are properties of spacetime. Bosons don't have mass so can't bend / pull on spacetime.
21:00 thee crazy thee world of you thought for to says crazy is thee ovbiuse answer for you thought for is thee truth to follow cuz bet you heart says same as you mind does never says crazy is not answer on what is true
Goedel corrected Naturals solves the matter anti matter conundrum. PS.
You don't need new maths, you need the right maths
Sabine will always shuffle through the BS for the uninitiated.
At some point fusion research will be running entirely on renewable energy.
Renee Fatemi: "Our results will only become more certain since only 10% of our data has been release." Really? With the emmense pressure to produce results can one avoid thinking of the possibility that the released data was that which supported the conclusion and the other 90%, say on a sampling basis, says something else? One can only wonder.
What is "emmense pressure"?
Classical distribution of energy known as equipartition is, suppose there are 6 modes of dice and energy to be distributed is 21 units. Then each mode have equal amount 3.5 unit of energy. Divide it by mode or frquency, energy per frequency is 7/2, 7/4, 7/6, 7/8, 7/10, 7/12. Thus energy per frequency is decreasing as shown in black body radiation curve.
Now same amount of energy distributed to same modes as per quantum energy distribution given by Planck's law. According to quantum energy distribution, energy is not distributed equally to modes but in linear multiple of fundamental or minimum energy unit to modes. Thus higher modes have more energy and for above 6 dice modes they are like, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 where fundamental unit is 1. Dividing these energy for modes by mode number or frequency they are all same, 1 unit. But this is not evident in black body curve as flat line.
Voltage cause current, and current indicates voltage. But without limited resistance or conductance, relation between voltage and current is not establish, and that resistance is medium dependent and inverse of resistance is conductance, which depends upon speed of charge. If resistance becomes zero then v¹ and v² produce same amount of current, there is no causal relationship between voltage and current. Now replace it with electric and magnetic field.
This is supplement, there is no such thing as EM wave, all are mechanical in nature. Surprised, okay what is voltage or electric field, amount of charge and magnetic field is instantaneous amount of charge transported. These amount of whatever transported from one point to another is mechanical overall, but the force behind the motion is electromagnetic. Thus it is untrue that EM wave is independent of medium, it depends upon amount of some quality of medium like charge to be disturbed. Mechanical wave like sound is local transportation of matter or density and EM wave is local transportation of charge or charge density.
Now this is upside down view of Planck's blackbody radiation law. First, it in no way proves that emission by body is in discrete and not continuous, so there is no quantum mechanics. Second, it is never about black body as ideal oscillator. If it would be that so then curve of should be exponential and no radiation from higher frequency and at high temperature there is pure monochromatic radiation. See, if thermal energy is available and there is no loss then curve of energy radiated is keep rising.
Third, graph is not between energy density per frequency and frequency but energy density and frequency. Fourth, Wein's displacement law is incorrectly stated, frequency is inversely proportional to temperature. So on increasing temperature, maximum energy transfer is toward lower frequency.
Now if Planck's law is for solids, how it is used to explain for interaction of energy with matter in terms of gases or isolated atom. Does gas absorb energy for radiation or motion. And does energy levels are equally parted. In solids there is interatomic structure that binds atoms, so absorbed thermal energy dissipated as light can be supposed by. Also solids on heated expands, so frequency is lowered on expansion by high temperature.
The only way it act as quantum oscillator if on temperature increase, radiation from inner core comes to surface but that violates other radiation laws, specially Stefan-Boltzman if i am correct, from which this whole derivation comes.
Jim a waffling Pommie. Take a tip from Einstein "Universe is infinitely subtle". ie Fields' qualities have yet to be explored further.
My mother lap
Ground water
The universe is strange. I am the universe. I am strange.
I like philosophy, I like religion and I like science.
The only scientific theory I respect is substantiated by evidence.
Let's just be honest, most of these theories are based on deeply philosophical assumptions that contradict our experience of the world.
Lee Smolin is not crazy. He is maybe the most intelligent in there. Even compared to Jim Al-Khalili and Stephen Hawkings.
Take an object, it has height where time is slightly different at top and bottom. What would happen if one could make the time dilation zero or otherwise same time at top and bottom. Gravity a very weak force marries like time dilation but of course the object has mass or say inertial mass. There seems a possibility to make T the same at top and bottom making zero G however to move the object it needs to accelerate with sec per sec which is the problem . So let lateral think how to approach both problems
So yea new build:;)
The future is messy hair
The future of basic Sciences and philosophical studies is in danger, money is an important tool but we should not put it in over the top of our heads money-money kind of ideology is helping getting more and more materialistic and that materialism should be in control as to keep the curiosity alive.
What the future of Physics will be you can find in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
From Jessica and Eytan. Physics today is dogmatic. Its greatest problem is the particles based approach instead of events based approaches such as Causal Sets and Geometric Chronons. The latter is also based on wave functions but with several differences, 1) the probability of a chronon collapse sums to 1 on an observer object. 2) Forces and thus matter are expected where chronons do not make geodesic integral curves. Like in particles physics, there could be different types of chronons, e.g. electric, electro-weak and strong chronons with symmetries U(1), SU(2), SU(3), however, symmetry is not the engine of the theory.
You should publish that. ;-)
OMG ... 'we know...' ='...we believe...'
As I was trained I was trained by Joseph Straily at the University of Kentucky. He is a mathematical physicist. Constructor theory is not only the future of physics as I see it but the future of AI interaction on multiple levels. Ralph Gabbard was the chair at UK. He held doctorates in both physics and divinity. Our future in physics is ambassadors of whatever God there is. Pedagogy of reality. For most of my life consensus held that never again could the whole of knowledge be held by a single mind; there would never again be a society of the wise. I'm going to speak for Joe and Ralph and myself and say we don't believe that.
We always tried to explain how the universe works, God and creation was a theory that has since been displaced by modern science over the last few centuries. Now it's a separate concept to science, they do not mix, personal beliefs are just that, and no amount of scientific experimentation can prove God does or does not exist.
OK, the Law of nature keep changing when is New Era révolution. After the Revolution wish is about 25 to 50 years after EACH start of any Revolution, after it seatel down and the Law of nature become Static at this State. What we can call ( un long fleuve tranquille). Now it's Time to Exchange about this Gravity finally. Sincères amitiés Philippe 😎
10:00 ¹·___
Maybe the problem is that the 'math' is flawed. After all...here in Nature we haven't managed to square the circle...and any number to the power of 0 = 1.
If you follow me.
What knowledge do you have in math?
@@chopin1962 I know that we can't square the circle and that any number to the power of 0 = 1.
Let me know which bit of that you don't understand.
@@charlesnelson5187 Yeah, that's not quite enough to understand physics at this level, I am afraid.
@@lepidoptera9337 Because you do?
@@charlesnelson5187 Do I what? Understand quantum mechanics? Yes, reasonably well.
Holy effing Lee Smolin.
Lee.. a man after my own heart ...for a scientist thats true courage
Does anyone have time to discuss some fascinating topics of physics on Instagram or on mail
Absolutely. But who would I be discussing with? You are absolutely clueless, so I would be talking to myself.
9:58 Must not added but get derivably emerge →•→
If the quantum physics is quantized there's no need for Irrational numbers like 0, e or π. If everything is observable there should be no need for complex numbers.
Do you know what complex numbers are?
Who said complex numbers has nothing to do with observable
There is nothing imaginary in imaginary number
They are just another axis in the number line,
It's a misconception
@@BPHAbishekP thanks for the response, you probably think infinity is a number too. Planes of existence might indeed have something in common with complex numbers since many seem to be of two opposite opinions simultaneously, or at least in very short succession. Not you of course.
Every Time Lee speak in a show it's not possible to understand what is saying. Why?some People would not like IT are What. I Love Dr Smolin I whant ear what is saying.😎
Atoms: cannot be devide.
We have yet to find those
Surely matter/anti matter was resolved at the time where pure energy began to form particles, a time where particle creation was occurring in a very compressed space and matter/anti matter particles self destroyed into energy that would then attempt to reform over and over until the dominant particle … dominated completely. Presumably, and this is where not having a resolve concept of string theory is an impediment, energy condensing into particles reduces the energy pressure in the primordial energy ooze so the period of resolution would be short terminating when the energy from matter anti/matter particle collisions would no longer be a reversible reaction, beyond which time collision energy be lost as photonic energy.
А фазосплиттером не делали. Доктор Бом человек
Никто не делал ф
Ваша Кван оваая физика
Полный породняк у него
I want to do computer simulations of quantum mechanics. Do such simulations have a use for a random number generator, and if so, what? It's a simple question, and I am open to ideas. We could be doing numerical experiments with antimatter if we can answer it.
Apparently the only accurate quantum simulations have to be done with quantum computers. Obviously they are not sophisticated enough yet to simulate whole systems (billions of atoms). From there you would gain insights on macro properties emergent from specific quantum states which will lead to new materials and probably understanding existing materials and complex states much better.
@@sibbyeskie Let's give everyone a choice between using a classical computer for simple systems, and a quantum computer for complex systems, with some overlap to build confidence.
I am still waiting for Physics to begin. All I have seen is Mathmatics. I have yet to see Physical explanations, other than my own of course. I described the Physics of the theory of special relativity, and everyone hated it. They despised me putting the physical, ahead of the mathmatical.
That's because you don't know anything about physics, kid.
@@lepidoptera9337 Sure bud. I derived the SR equations all on my own, and did so after I discovered the SR phenomena on my own as well. Kind of hard to do that and in turn know nothing about physics.
@@new-knowledge8040 Sure you did, kid. My cookie jar is empty, today, but I will get replacements soon and then the cookies will be on the way.
Why do people keep telling, that string theory is the only consisted theory of quantum gravity, huh?
Unsure, its a great metaphorical representation but I’m not exactly sure where it has legitimately revealed anything new yet
The fixing theory is Matter meaning the pure matter of Black Holes and Anti-Matter what we call Dark Matter or charge or what electrons are most of. So matter is pure gravity and Anti-Matter is the opposite it pushes each other away meaning has anti-gravity and is massless. But both act there way and both are matters. So Matter attracts Anti-Matter that on the other hand wants to push itself away from that yet attracted Anti-Matter. It is so simple and all fits together like a charm. Integrate it and keep in mind what we really discovered. Example: we don't know that a Proton is in an atom like it is outside or if an electron exists in an orbital. Expect that neutrinos are neutrinos because they have a origin speed over the speed of light and are out of Anti-Matter - Aha, go further, all gets sense... suddenly you can calculate all and all is clear and nice.
There are no particles only fields and no one knows what energy IS. Science assumes it’s dead.
Smolin didn’t come out and say it but he was implying (“the laws may have changed via a learning process ... crazy?”) that the Holon that is the Universe, has never been dead and unconscious at any level. It may have cycled through Big Bang birth and heat death for eternity. Science doesn’t do eternity however ... it barely does infinity and is in denial about mystery.
There is no sample in any lab anywhere ... of dead energy. It is an absolute fact that no one knows what energy IS ( not it’s description it’s developmental narrative within mainstream ... dead... cosmology )
Fact - The Universe is a holon. A holon cannot manifest consciousness and life (us) if these integrated qualities are not inherent/active/patterned within the whole system top to bottom)
The Militant materialistic wing of Science is in denial of the above. That ... is the coming paradigm shift. Voicing the above heresy could have one excluded from the club. Few scientists can afford this. Rupert Sheldrake being an exception ... David Bohm.
Quantum theory works ‘….well on the smallest possible scale’ but what if the universe is fractal in nature? Our mathematics is limited by the Planck length and time but perhaps the hidden variables are embedded and underpin everything at scales infinitely smaller than that so that the universe is not quantum in nature.
The limits imposed by Planck length/volume/mass are due to the fact that you create blackholes when you try to go smaller- blackholes that evaporate almost instantly. So there is no where for hidden variables to hide at that scale.
@@LiLi-or2gm - Yes, but that is the problem with mathematics at the quantum level - it leads to infinities and discontinuities. However, fractals go on with the same granularity forever and do not lead to these inevitable limitations and inconsistencies.
That's what i believe in.
@@richardmasters8424 Fractals have geometric features that mathematically go to infinity, and so are subject to the same limits as any other geometry- suffering from the same issues I mentioned.
@@LiLi-or2gm - not quite - with fractals you can always look at the scales smaller than the one before an infinite number of times so you can avoid the 1/0 problem that you get if you consider any particular scale the smallest. I also believe there is something profound about Euler’s Identity as it’s a beautiful but simple relationship between pi, i and e. The same relationship is relevant to the Mandelbrot set which is plotted on an Argand diagram relating ‘real’ and ‘imaginary, numbers - but could it be that the universe works along similar lines with perhaps ‘locality’ plotted against ‘non-locality’ variables resulting in a fractal?
Climate change
6:48 Yes, we need a new Einstein
to find a new physics framework
beyond the one we currently have.
We need several Einstein and to get rid of all these.
Hello.
Einstein had experimental and observational data. Your new Einstein doesn't.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy”, Mark McCutcheon.
@@davidrandell2224 Yeah, that's just cheap paperback bullshit.
I understand
How is a small tweak to gravity NOT elegant compared to a whole other particle?
General relativity is already a small tweak to Newton's universal gravity law.
@@clmasse How does your statement relate to my question? It’s not elegant because it’s been done before?
What about the problem of proton decay ?
The unified theories of interactions predicted that the proton would have a half live shorter than 10^32 years. That's because quarks could decay into leptons through a generalized interaction boson. But the experiments to test this have been negative, so that the unified theories are in difficulty. In particular they are necessary for the coupling constants of the different interaction to have the same value at very high temperature like just after the Big Bang.
Quantum Mechanics describes the play, the concert, the recital, but it does not describe the theatre. The players, the audience, the lighting and sound are one thing (particles and radiation), the stage and building are something else (mass, gravity and time). The Kelvin scale only applies to the performance, not the theatre, the building can be much colder and more still than the actors or audience.
And physics is not creative writing, but then, you aren't even good at that.
@@lepidoptera9337 I was just trying to convey a concept, a possible reason for decades of stagnation. Perhaps i should have concentrated on the Butterfly Effect ?
@@AmbivalentInfluence Perhaps you need to pick a more lucrative theme... you could write a novel about young wizards and witches, maybe?
@@lepidoptera9337 OK.
Physicists need to know how the values of the parameter space got fine tuned. These values guaranteed the creation of particles, atoms, molecules, organic molecules, DNA,RNA chains, genomes etc., creating life and consciousness that is observable and verifiable. Lee Smolin gave a theory of cosmological natural selection that created these values from landscape like biologists, Lee's theory should be incorporated in QM, QC functions, string theory and if possible the algorithm of finite axiom QC function.
Start from consciousness and derive the fondamental constants, no tuning necessary. Fine tuning is essentially a metaphysical stance with no bearing with physics.
@@clmasse That is not how physics works. Einstein didn't start from SR?GR and derived his theories. Atheists think accident or luck brought us here, no, we took billions of years and intelligent design.
@@sonarbangla8711 Physics is a metaphysical stance, it doesn't work to address issues like fine tuning.
I don't see any fine tuning. Indeed, I don't see any tuning, at all. Unless, of course, you can show me the knobs that the white bearded, sandal wearing designer was turning. Where are they?
Касольглегер посомтри фазосплиттер
Thank you Lee Smolen for being my muse inspiring a new solution for how CPT works.
The correct sequence is TPC. I will go write that up soon.
Fundamentally perhaps, but I thought the order just happen to be that way from what they can measure first
There are no particles only fields and no one knows what energy IS. Science assumes it’s dead.
Smolin didn’t come out and say it but he was implying (“the laws may have changed via a learning process ... crazy?”) that the Holon that is the Universe, has never been dead and unconscious at any level. It may have cycled through Big Bang birth and heat death for eternity. Science doesn’t do eternity however ... it barely does infinity and is in denial about mystery.
There is no sample in any lab anywhere ... of dead energy. It is an absolute fact that no one knows what energy IS ( not it’s description it’s developmental narrative within mainstream ... dead... cosmology )
Fact - The Universe is a holon. A holon cannot manifest consciousness and life (us) if these integrated qualities are not inherent/active/patterned within the whole system top to bottom)
The Militant materialistic wing of Science is in denial of the above. That ... is the coming paradigm shift. Voicing the above heresy could have one excluded from the club. Few scientists can afford this. Rupert Sheldrake being an exception ... also the late David Bohm
@@seabud6408 physics is inherently quantitative, such vague statement about "not dead energy" will get nobody closer to truth about anything
3:50 - This is everything that is wrong with science today! A carnival shell game. Very Muskonian!
So what happened to you in school? Was it traumatic?
Amazing, life start simple, evolve over time, maybe the Universe act iqual.....
Show me how life starts.
Рабскую нацю набирают - из всех, ставь Вилли
@@aurelienyonrac Hi dont know that, i refer to unicelular organismes, that evolve to multicelular organismes, etc etc
@@nunomaroco583 Smolin didn’t come out and say it but he was implying (“the laws may have changed via a learning process ... crazy?”) that the Holon that is the Universe, has never been dead and unconscious at any level. It may have cycled through Big Bang birth and heat death for eternity. Science doesn’t do eternity however ... it barely does infinity and is in denial about mystery.
There is no sample in any lab anywhere ... of dead energy. It is an absolute fact that no one knows what energy IS ( not it’s description it’s developmental narrative within mainstream ... dead... cosmology )
Fact - The Universe is a holon. A holon cannot manifest consciousness and life (us) if these integrated qualities are not inherent/active/patterned within the whole system top to bottom)
The Militant materialistic wing of Science is in denial of the above. That ... is the coming paradigm shift. Voicing the above heresy could have one excluded from the club. Few scientists can afford this. Rupert Sheldrake being an exception ... David Bohm.
Все вопросы de France
20:57 We don't have to mention AI as evidence that intelligence exists. We have humans and all other creatures as evidence. It's not crazy to say cosmic structures may be part of a larger intelligence, if there's some kind of organization and inter-communication between cosmic structures. Is there?
Yes, it's called gravity. It's what keeps you nailed to the floor.
@@lepidoptera9337 You sound very hostile and abusive. Why are you speaking to me like i never heard of gravity?
@@johnaweiss You might be mistaking me for the Taliban. The Taliban are hostile and abusive. I am merely direct and to the point.
@@lepidoptera9337 Well i've heard about gravity, thx. i'm not a physicist, but i'm pretty sure "keeps you nailed to the floor" is neither scientific nor accurate.
I'm not qualified to say whether gravity could be a form of "communication" between cosmic bodies. Apparently you've worked it out. You should publish.
@@johnaweiss I did. Have a nice day.