One question I have about what she said - and others before her - is, "the moon is just following a straight line in the curved space-time of the solar system in which we live in." But that seems wrong, because the path the moon takes depends on its speed. If the moon were travelling 10x faster, it would go in a much straighter path. The only thing that precisely follows a straight line in curved space-time is light, or something going the speed of light.
It's a great satisfaction for a common man like me, to be able to understand the whole presentation, from a scientist of her level. Thanks professor De Rham and Perimeter Institute. 💐
Don't put yourself down. All these expert intelligent talking heads are just as in the dark as your average Joe sixpack. They use lots of impressive words to explain something that they Can not mentally grasp
@@davidwalker5054 Thanks, but I'm an old tool (62) no more able to calculate a square root...but still curious, to try to know a little more. And if, after hearing such a presentation, I can think "it sounds quite clear", I feel like Oppenheimer after the Trinity test. 😊
Always appreciate that the Perimeter Institute shares these lectures and thankful that all 3 levels of government in Canada support their research, thank you
The theory being proposed here sounds like a sub-type of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) whereby the argument is that gravity operates differently at different length scales. From what I can tell, most physicists don't put any credence into this theory because it creates more problems in an attempt to solve only one problem (gravity) and isn't supported by the corroborating evidence (CMB power spectrum, etc.). She is basically arguing that the graviton (which likely exists but has yet to be discovered) should not be massless (she compared it to the weak force bosons W+/- & Z and the Higgs scalar boson). Massless particles must travel at the speed of light; particles with mass cannot. Massless bosons have inifinite range (i.e. photon); massive bosons have finite range. Her proposed theory is controversial to say the least. Gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein's field equations travel at the speed of light. The advanced LIGO observatories have documented numerous events by now; one would think that news of the signals traveling slower than the speed of light would have made world headlines. Granted that LIGO is not sensitive to most frequencies of gravitational waves. Recently there was also a massive and impressive paper on using a Pulsar Timing Array (PTA) to study gravitational waves of all frequencies; nothing from that study that I recall mentioned anything about those waves traveling slower than the speed of light. She is correct in stating that the future planned LISA experiment would be more sensitive and would provide an important rule out, though the PTA study essentially used a naturally occurring apparatus that is far larger in size than anything LISA could achieve. It truly would be surprising if LISA's future data didn't align with LIGO and PTAs. I should also mention, that most physicists (from my understanding) believe that the vacuum energy is the leading candidate for what dark energy most likely is. *Note: this impression is just based on this public talk; I have not read her published work(s) on this.
Perimeter irritates me. I think they have to put this stuff out to attract funding. They know as well as anyone else that MOND does not fit the observable universe. Juan Maldacena is more thought provoking to me.
Good analysis, yep pretty limited presentation for anyone with a moderate understanding in the field. As you correctly stated all attempts to modify gravity have so created more problems (gravitational lensing being the biggest in my opinion). Perhaps they arent claiming gravitons have mass but in some way the gravitational wave frequency drops off over large distances.
@@simontemplar404The Perimeter Institute does do a lot of work on both massive gravity and modified gravity. While I agree MOND does not fit observations very well, neither does the phantom “dark matter” that no one can ever seem to find. Maldacena’s work is very intriguing. So is John Moffet’s Scalar-Tensor-Vector gravity (SVTG) theory, who is also at Perimeter Institute.
@14:04 I love that when Dr. de Rham says the universe would be stretching so fast that the persons sitting next to you would be ripped away and you wouldn’t be able to see them anymore, the man reaches out to the woman sitting next to him to hold her hand. So sweet.❤
How wonderful, I have never even considered the possibility that Gravity had a finite range. But now after prácticing physics for 50 years, I can not unconsider the possibility. The more we know, the more we discover how much we did not (or do not) know
Measurable in what ways? We cannot measure it when it holds water to the earth whether in a glass of water, river, lake, pond, sea or ocean so how and where is it measurable? I would like to examine the tests used and any research papers. Please post me a link to where I can find such data thank you
@@mad_muhammad Well that's not necessarily evidence, it just means there are forces acting on all the accelerating bodies which sum to greater than that which gravity is exerting
Nah that's a false sense of familiarity. Don't fall for sweet talk designed for you to feel good about your level of understanding and her skill of explaining. This was a show
@@bigoptions I like 'Sabine Hossenfelder' videos which is short and out of standard belief. She argued that the Large hydrogen collider may be a waste of money 💸🤪⚗
@@NPC-bs3pm Their theory has gone to particles that are much smaller than a neutron, but they don't know so much about gravity, mass, and atoms. An electron isn't a particle. All atoms have an electric shell, so to understand atomic theory you have to understand that. Watch Dollard's video on, History and theory of electricity. That man is a true scientist! He thinks that what is going on is crazy; the monkeys are running the zoo!
@user-ky5dy5hl4d Watch some of Unzicker's videos. Steinmetz had it right. They had just basic atomic theory wrong; then everyone just soaked it up. I shouldn't pick on people like you. It's a shame that so many people wasted their time for more than 50 years. I am going to do my part to help you guys, soon.
I had the pleasure of attending this lecture in person. Also, I am a CBC junkie so appreciated the interview with Nahlah Ayed (CBC: Ideas and Ideas in the Afternoon)
🤜⚡💥⚡🤛 LOL LOL LOL Typical darkwhatever nonsense. All this and more is better explained with experiment-based plasma science; i.e. Plasma Cosmology. 1] the Universe is based on plasma; 2] plasma's are electric in nature/origin; 3] plasmas inherently self-organize into structures; 4] plasma's produce many EM-band emissions (light, 'rays' and radio frequencies). Conclusion: just another plasma emission. Move on! Nothing unusual here. Astronomer Halton Arp made a good case for it in his books. MSS will continue to be clueless until the scientists admit they have been wrong and adopt new physics in dealing with the 'mysteries' they don't understand. Clearly the current approach doesn't serve them well. == Carrying on with darkwhatever is like religions claiming that Earth etc. are evidence of god. It's all misappropriation just the same. If you can't understand something DON'T just invent fairy tales. Geezus!!! Yeah, science has gone off the rails on other things too. Yes, there are so many blunders that it's become a joke. Some scientists, like Sabine Hossenfelder comment on some of these fallacies. == My comment to Anton Petrov's video *"One of the Largest Stars Known Dimmed Just Like Betelgeuse"* -- don't be surprised when a red supergiant splits into 2 stars or ejects a hot object[s] that will cool to form a planet[s]._ is relevant here, Conventional science is oblivious to this fact... for now, but evidence/observations will force this conclusion. Another observation/fact they will have to concede is that stars of same or similar class will, on average, have similar types of planets with the exception of stars whose Birkeland current has gone through a structural and energetic change in the past which occurs frequently. Variable output stars/objects demonstrate this. Other electrical phenomena affect the aforementioned which add to variations. 🤜⚡💥⚡🤛 ... .. .
I have some background in this field. As a result, I can appreciate this superb presentation. I disagree with some elements of it but, on the other hand, she has managed to provide chapters in a general picture that I found lacking in most other presentations. My appreciation of this presentation becomes borne out when I watch it again. Watching this was a rewarding time investment. Thank you.
@allanshpeley4284 to understand why the majority of phycists disagree with this google "dark energy and why new theories of gravity don't align to observations (e.g gravitational lensing)"
@@deloford Ms. Rham’s story was superb. My response to you was ‘off the cuff’, rude and off-target to boot. I apologize. My primary disagreement with her reasoning had to do with the causes for the expansion of the ‘universe’. This is tied to limitations remaining despite the availability of broadened horizons (pun intended) made available by the JWST. The bases for our conclusions differ and I defer to her formidable background in every regard. Other pursuits have prevented me from continued studies in this exciting field. Yours seems to be a growing interest here and my hat is off to you.
Thank you! I'm an undergraduate in physics, and I've been struggling to decide which field I'll pursue in my masters. This video gave me a lot to think about
Having nothing to do with this video, don’t forget about Medical Physics. It is not glamorous, involves no research, no real teaching, but it pays over $100k/yr. Basically, it is ensuring hospitals are safe with their use of radiation. I am a radiologist, so I appreciate these guys’ (it always seems to be guys) work.
This is how I understand gravity, any cosmologists or quantum physicists out there feel free to correct me: space-time is fluctuating with the quantum vacuum energy or Higgs field, which interacts with mass via the Higgs Boson. All energy and matter is just different ripples and twists and distortions of space-time, starting with photons, quarks and gluons, going up to electrons and protons and all the other particles. Put more mass or energy into an area of space-time and all the ripples and twists from that mass stretches the space-time more. It's like poking the middle of a piece of spandex held in a taut frame, except it's in 3D. This distortion of space-time and the interaction of Higgs Bosons with mass is what we call gravity, or inertia (same thing). The quantum vacuum interactions are sort of "tugging" on the mass as it tries to move through space-time; the more mass or more dense the object, the more it tugs so it's harder to accelerate or decelerate. The space-time distortion causes objects to appear to be attracted to each other, without the distortion we would be thrown off the Earth's surface and the Earth would leave the Solar system and go in a straight line. The faster you travel through the vacuum energy, the more energy it requires to accelerate, because you are interacting with more vacuum fluctuations the faster you go, hence the limit of the speed of light. For the person travelling near the speed of light, time seems to pass slower than for people who are stationary (special relativity). Near to a large mass like a black hole, time passes more slowly compared to being at a galactic void (general relativity). Where space-time is stretched or where you are moving very quickly there's less time passing. At the same time as all that is going on, space-time is also expanding, so that piece of stretched spandex is growing from every point in space. This causes light to red-shift because the wavelength has stretched from blue (short wavelength) to red (longer wavelength). It also means galaxies are generally getting further away from each other, so one day we won't be able to see them anymore. Extremely large galaxies seem to be held together too well, and rotate too quickly on the outer edges. They should fall apart based on our current physics, and based on the amount of mass observed, but they don't. This led to a band-aid being applied called dark matter, which adds the missing mass back in, and we just say it's invisible. To explain the expansion, we made another band-aid called dark energy. These band-aids are a source of contention because there's so far not much evidence they exist, and it's probably more likely that our physics is wrong (The Crisis in Cosmology).
How does gravity and "spacetime fabric" work in 3D? All images presented are always 2D. How can any object move through "infinitely stretched continuous fabric" in 3D without continuously tearing it apart at all points? Doesn't that mean that both gravity and spacetime are discrete and quantized, but our interpretation is wrong because equations work as they are based on mass? Can fields alone account for all of it without any need for gravity and spacetime?
The higgs field doesn't explain Newtonian or Einstein gravity. The higgs boson describes quantum gravity. Larger scale gravity is explained by gluonic forces.
@@autopilot3176 I like to think of spacetime as honey. The honey is thicker near masses, so any object approaching the object submerged in honey, will curve towards the object, as it is slowed more by the thicker honey. The thickness of honey means "how much space there is" within a tile. As space, or honey is compressed, it takes a longer time to move through it, as there is more of it, within the same space or tile of space. Let's examine the moon. The side of the moon that is closer to earth has thicker space to go through, more space within basically the same radius as the outer side of the moon. It moves through the space e.g. 100 space units per second, and the thicker space on the side of the earth has 100 space units per tile, and the outer side of the moon has 95 space units per tile. A tile here meaning a fixed distance. As the moon moves through the thicker space - 1 tile per second on the thicker side of the orbit, and a little bit more than 1 tile on the outer side of the orbit, that means it must turn towards us. This is a very intuitive grasp on gravity, I'm not sure if I managed to verbalize it well.
@@anderpanders6210 Sure, but "thicker space" means what? Building block of honey is matter, what is the building block of "space". How can emptiness be made of anything? If it's just "stuff" such as subatomic particles in the vacuum, it means there's no "space" nor "spacetime", but everyone is saying it like those things physically exist.
Maybe this is an error in thinking, but doesn't this mean that, from the perspective of a photon, time stands still and, as a result, everything in the universe is in the same place, since it takes no time to get there.
Well Presented. Clear Presentation of "What We Don't Know". AS A TECHNOLOGIST , several of us often wondered TWO THINGS, 2 QUESTIONS: 1.) If we captured a Cub Meter of Pure Space - Do We Really Know What Is Inside It? 2.] How do we know that the Universe isn't Expanding Within- HOWEVER it is being "PULLED" By Forces Outside The Universe even other Universes?
Why do you think CMB is not uniform? Something Interacted with it before or after the expansion event. And it wasn't "chaos/random"... @@strandedstarfish
incredibly fascinating she's plumbing the depths of how far gravity can actually reach, because it clearly has such a profound effect on the estimate for the expansion rate of the universe. Learning how to harness the energy of the Higgs Field clearly is the task of our generation
Thanks you, Claudia de Rham, for explain to us your original point of view about gravity. There is only one tetradimensional alternative theory to General Relativity. It's called "Teoría Conectada" ,and I want introduce to you. Gravitational potential is a new potential no equal to spacetime metric, like occurs in General Relativity. Movement equations are not geodesics, the are now equations (84) in the next link. Thanks you so much! DEPENDS GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION ON VELOCITY? Argumentative schematism of Einstein's General Relativity (each step is a consequence of the preceding step): 1) Einstein's Equivalence Principle 2) Gravitational motion equations: geodesics DU = 0 3) The gravitational potential is represented by the spacetime metric itself: which guarantees, since the covariant derivatives of the spacetime metric are null, that the gravitational motion equations are given by the geodesics DU = 0 of the Einstein Principle of Equivalence 4) Gravitational Field Equations: These are the so-called Einstein Equations, which are built on the prejudice that the tetradimensional gravitational potential is represented (again in accordance with the Equivalence Principle) by the spacetime metric itself 5) Solution of Einstein's Equations for the symmetrically spherical stationary gravitational field: Schwarzschild metric 6) Zeros and mathematical infinities in spacetime metrics. "Broken" spacetime. Theoretical prediction of black holes and event horizons Reasonable doubts: 1) What would happen if the four-dimensional gravitational potential was not represented by the spacetime metric itself ? : vixra.org/abs/1510.0137 2) What would happen if Einstein's Principle of Equivalence were not rigorously true? : vixra.org/abs/1510.0135
Another way to think of curvature is as a gradient. Think of time as causal energy. Think of mass as "feeding" on causal energy. The space surrounding a mass boundary would have a lower causal energy than the said mass. According to the law of Entropy, high energy states move towards low energy states. Gravity is a causal energy gradient surrounding mass, not a literal curvature of Space. Mass (high causal energy) falls towards the low causal energy. Massive bodies aren't attracted to each other, they're moving towards the causal deficit that each creates in the surrounding space. Clocks tick faster as they get farther away from a massive body because of the increase in available causal energy.
Well, I think of it like this. Massive objects are made up of particles which have elements which move at the speed of light. As they move away from a gravity well, the light speed parts have to traverse less distance during their temporal evolution, so they evolve in time faster than if they stayed in the gravity well. I think of massive objects as a collection of waves buzzing at a possibly fast pace. As it gains speed or enters a gravity well, the buzzing slows down more and more as that “buzzing motion” is being used more and more for translational motion
The Higgs boson truly challenges the Model as standard. Wonderfully interesting theoretical exploration of a beautiful mind, thankyou for being so courageous in your frank and honest expression! Outstanding.
Here's a few superpostioned opinions I had while listening to this fascinating presentation. A doctorate in cosmology as well as cosmetology is indeed very impressive, so I am certain the good doctor has viewed any serious discussion remotely similar to my rambling musings, from all the various mathematical languages and personalities, but i shall mutter a few here: All objects in orbit travel in a linear trajectory. It is not paradoxical that by moving in a straight line over a brief distance, one may return to the original position due to the curvature of space. Time does not elapse at a uniform rate across different locations; however, the variations are negligible when one remains in proximity to the reference point for time comparison. These minor discrepancies in the flow of time give rise to the most profound phenomenon observed: gravity. What distinguishes an object that recedes at an increasing velocity with distance from the perception of time accelerating as an object moves farther away? If I were to experience free fall within an elevator, how would I ascertain that I am not merely in a weightless state, devoid of gravitational influence? It is simply a matter of perspective. If gravity indeed influences the passage of time, then time is affected dramatically and solely within these filaments of energy or dark energy, close to where the most matter is. The observed acceleration of cosmic expansion, or the perception of time advancing more rapidly with increasing distance, may be attributed to the insufficient strength of gravity. This phenomenon could be a consequence of the majority of matter being concentrated within black holes, thereby diminishing the curvature or intensity of gravitational effects over extensive regions of vacuum energy production. The energy of the vacuum, as represented by the Higgs boson, can exert influence on other particles but remains unaffected by gravitational forces. The abundance of this vacuum energy results in an expansion rate that is 28 Oom greater than the gravitational pull, driven by quantum fluctuations. Our observations reveal a greater prevalence of vacuum energy than would be expected from the observed void, suggesting that approximately 99.9^28% of all energy in the universe is comprised of vacuum energy. The phenomenon of spatial separation occurring at a velocity exceeding that of light, for us, shall transpire over time; however, but we are situated near sources of gravity that counteract this dark energy. Nevertheless, this vacuum energy is more abundant in regions beyond our immediate vicinity. This observation implies that the rate of expansion should be slower in our locale and more rapid in areas with a higher concentration of vacuum energy, situated farther from our position. Every object, regardless of its distance, influences the linear trajectory of all others, also resulting in variations in the passage of time at different locations. If the influence of gravity were finite, the necessity for such a substantial amount of dark energy would be diminished. Conversely, one could posit that time progresses at an accelerated rate with increasing distance, necessitating an infinite reach for gravitational influence. The act of accelerating against the effects of dark energy implies that the energy expended concurrently causes time to elapse more slowly for the individual exerting the effort, while appearing to progress more rapidly to an external observer. Thus, the observed differences in the passage of time at greater distances can be likened to the act of resisting dark energy, which sustains the expansion rate at approximately 28 Oom. I don't know if this is what we are observing or what I am hallucinating.
Can someone explain to this layman? Vacuum energy was expected to expand space much faster, but it doesn't. Then we decide to constrain the reach of gravity to solve this. But doesn't this go the opposite direction? Gravity helps hold the objects together, how does restricting it help explain a slower expansion? I heard something close that they only have to consider the vacuum energy over the reach of the gravity, but that leaves me with more questions
Same feeling. Gravity only provides a negative effect on apparent velocities. Changing gravity to be weaker in any way only "preserves" the current velocity, not accelerates it. In math terms, we would approach a limit, the limit being an inflection point of the velocity. It's clear something is wrong, but any changes we make topple thole whole thing(s)
Since we know that gravity pulls things together when they are close in an astronomical sense (say within a galaxy), it is clear that the repulsion of vacuum energy is not sufficient to move objects apart on a "small" scale. On very much larger scales, because the universe is mostly empty, the vacuum energy repulsion would result in a very rapid expansion. However, if both gravity and the effects of vacuum energy were constrained to some finite distance, much greater than galaxy-size, but much smaller than universe-size, then hopefully we can see that the observable effects of gravity would hardly change, but the observable effects of vacuum energy would be greatly diminished.
@@RexxSchneider good answer. The part about vaccume effect also being constrained was the missing part. Could one say vaccum effect is, say, linear but gravity is 1/distance squared, hence the net effect ?
@@pmo764 I'm fairly certain that both effects ought to share a common variation with distance, since in General Relativity it appears as Einstein's "Cosmological Constant", which counterbalances the gravitational attraction and gives a way to model the expansion of the universe. If Einstein had the theory almost exactly right, then whatever tiny modification to the equations needed to limit the range of gravity should have the same effect on the expansion, since they are in the same equation. This is only speculation on my part though, as I don't know how we might modify G.R. to fall off after big distances. Perhaps an expert in the field might be able to correct me.
What would be interesting would be to find out what was the big impedement was that prevented the audience member from silencing their phone once it started to produce it's msg-receivied jingle. No matter the lecture or performance, there is always at least one audience member who find it difficult to comply with the silent mobile phone request. Good on Claudua for not being distracted by the noise and staying on point.
how admirable is her grasp of the English language... Thats all i got from this video. It must be the theoretical physicists are reading much more non-physics books than the non theoretical physicists :) One may even dare to say that they read English literature...
She is British. But she was born in Switzerland, educated in France, gained her PhD at Cambridge, worked in (French) Canada, and now works at Imperial College, London. I would not be at all surprised if she was fluent in both English and French (at the least). See the Wikipedia article "Claudia de Rham".
@@ika5666Blavatnik award. Wolfson merit award. Ph.D. In applied math and theoretical physics. Proposed new models to explain cosmic accelerated expansion. You can sit down now.
@@lieslceleste3395 If you don't know how easy it is to invent new models of acceleration expansion, and how ad hoc is the whole business of different dark energies, you better stay where I sit.
Excellently said. I taught physics 10 years. I would drop the textbook in front of the students and tell them that we would calculate what the distance the Earth falls as they are both falling, not only the book.
Not sure that photons only carry information in one direction - photons transmit the electric force and both particles involved in electrical attraction/repulsion experience equal and opposite forces.
As a duel wave, which it is (Maxwell's model), the waves could be looked at as signals and as carrier waves. But, there are no gravitons or negative momentum gluons or virtual photons. Lol I'm going to explain what gravity is in a video. You will be able to see that there is no need for a graviton. The gravitational force doesn't pull. It's like a flow, but it's probably not a flow. Their made up particals help them put waves into their equations as quantities. It's called symbolic algebra, but like 99% of them don't know that that is what they are doing. The smallest thing you can call a partical is a proton.
Very nice! I'd say that gravity having a finite reach goes hand in hand with the vacuum being non-empty, or that it's having some energy, that it's being non-null (mathematically). Because, in math, if you eliminate "infinity" then you have to eliminate its inverse: "zero". The world we live in is finite, and if you accept that then nothingness needs to be eliminated as well. Very nice presentation, thank you.
I feel like dark matter is the leftover stretch of the fabric of space-time, that's wicking matter along itself like water up a papertowel. Heat death is the ultimate distribution of all things along the fabric. The universe will "dry out." Gravity could've been the 1st force, so concentrated that it forced the other forced together. All the forces are working against the wicking effect. Whatever it takes for matter to stay together and not dissipate.
Something that I have been considering for quite some time now is that there are particles flowing in all directions within the universe. When an object has mass it will affect the flow of these particles. Either by absorbing them, reflecting them or refracting them. That means that the space around an object with mass is different from space without any objects that have mass. If you just consider the particles which are absorbed that would create a kind of void on the other side of the object with mass. As these particles are flowing towards the object from all directions, this void would be globular in nature. The amount of void in the globular structure is dependent on the square law of distance from the object. One of the effects of having a void in space is that objects will try to fill that void, thereby equalizing the pressures involved. This would give the appearance of objects being attracted to the object with mass. But what is actually happening is that the objects are just trying to equalize the void created by the object with mass. As of yet I have not seen this phenomena mentioned in any discussions about gravity or other aspects of physics. This causes me to ask the question why. Can anyone out there answer this question for me?
I recall reading something similar by Feynman regarding the precision by which the speed of light can be measured. Photons can only have a speed that can be measured to a given degree of accuracy. Per this comment, as the gravitational force diminishes by r-squared, the ability to detect it diminishes to such an extent that it falls beneath the limits of measurement similar to the theories of Planck and Heisenberg.
Great video, When i think of the effects of mass on space is that it is increasing the energy density of vacuum and empty space, this increases the dielectric constant of space and even decreases the space between atom in molecules for example. Gravity will always appear to have a finite reach due to the speed of light/gravity where its effects on us is limited to the observable universe. If space appears to be stretched at long distances from us it could mean as you say gravity we feel is weaker so space itself or it will appear to be not as dense. One of things is we feel weightless being in the center of observable universe, so empty space away from dense objects should be stretched in all direction, like for example in the center of the earth. I would think as we observe objects away from us we would be observing objects that themselves would be in their own center of observable universe, but to us we should see the effects of gravity as the are no longer in our center of observable universe. An example of this would be if we were in center of the earth and observing a light on surface of earth, i would expect to see the energy/dielectric constant of space to be more dense so time woul appear to move faster. But this effect would appear to be contrary to what we see when we look at distant objects.
If it's recognized that "empty" space is filled with something, the Higgs Field, then we can no longer make fun of the idea of a universal aether. In fact, it could be that very aether that limits the speed of light, preventing it from being instantaneous, which is a very good thing.
Some of Einsteins latter papers he basically said he thought the aether was likely. I think they discovered anti gravity probably from German scientists and purposely miss lead everyone to protect this technology. I mean Einsteins math is good enough for most everything.
@@tedwalford7615 gravitational waves physics says a wave needs a medium to travel through. wave propagation. If dark matter has a repulsive field matter would clump together just like it does. It even works with the Casimir effect. And the new "NASA Glenn has been advancing high-performance sub-kilowatt (
I love your background. I think I get what it’s saying overall, lol. Love it! Had to pause for a long while and read. I love the repetition in equivalence random or not.
Einstein’s work is only about 120 years old now, it’s good to see people are open to think beyond it as we enter the first quarter of the 21st century.
There has always been plenty of thinking outside of any box science has established as a theory. It is just that the evidence needed to support them did appear.
from what i can tell there is no evidence to support her hypothetical "theory" of gravitational range or the graviton she has brought up in other videos, its a hypothetical particle not theoretical and she doesn't make enough effort to let her audience know that. the more i watch of her the less respect i have for her.
I like to think of gravity being eleastic. When gravity is present, space streches and have greater potential energy. If gravity works on a multipliclative scale, black holes which curves space on an infinite level could cause sufficient energy to power expansion.
In any discussion of Unified Theories, Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces are taken as the four fundamental forces of nature; the first two are part of our everyday, macroscopic experiences. It's curious that Electromagnetism has been uniquely excluded from Cosmology. It makes sense to use all of the tools in the toolbox. "Magnetohydrodynamics & Plasma Physics" is discussed in Chapter 10 of Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" (2nd edition). Revisiting the concepts in "Cosmical Electrodynamics" by Alfvén & Fälthammar, and "Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Peratt deserves attention, especially in light of contemporary observations from JWST and other observatories, for example.
Go read Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne. He goes into all of that. Cosmology works extensively with E&M, especially when you get into neutron stars, black holes, etc.
The mainstream seems to really love the gatekeeper role over what possibilities create our reality. To think, Bruno Giordano... May we all keep an open mind and remember, its because we think we're the center of the Universe, that we're wrong. ✌️ Excellent presentation and thank you for sharing this. 💯
Quantum Gravity: a vacuum force created in space by displacement by an atom. Matter displaces space. The larger the mass, the more space displaced. Displaced space creates a cumulative force equal to the amount of atoms that displaced space. See below. Atoms contain anti-space which prevents space from filling the void of an atom. It's a bit different from the prevailing view of gravity as a result of spacetime curvature. In this concept, matter's presence creates a distortion or "bulge" in space, and gravity is the function of space to return to uniformity. There are some similarities to existing ideas: Homogeneity principle: This idea aligns with the concept of spacetime preferring homogeneity, which is a cornerstone of general relativity. Mechanism: How exactly does matter create this distortion? See above. What properties of space allow this "push" away from uniformity? Space must maintain homogeneity. (Core tenet) Space has the quality of compression when displaced by matter. (Core tenet) The compression of space is the gravity. (Core tenet) The interior of the atom contains, for lack of a better word, anti-space... which currently is considered simply space. Prior to the concept of anti-space, quantum gravity would be impossible to visualize. With this idea visualizing is easy. Anti-space displaces space. The amount one unit of anti-space displaces space is a quantum of gravity. The main unit is the helium quanta. All other larger atoms gain one quanta of anti-space per proton. We recognize anti-space in the same abstract way that led to the concept of dark matter. Looking at a theory that offers a theory of everything, assuming anti-space is a reasonable stretch and a starting point of creating quantum gravity math. Which should be easy enough for an accomplished mathematician. The energetic unit of anti-space is the inverse of the same amount of space. The more atoms accumulate, the greater the gravity. The sun displaces a large amount of space, equal to the volume of the sun. Experimental verification: Can this idea be translated into mathematical models or testable predictions that could differentiate it from general relativity? It seems so. I'm not a physicist and need help to develop this theory. Intuitively I sense this is correct. In a sense, it is the curvature of space, but in the sense that space condenses around a body of matter. Closer to the surface, the space is thicker with greater pressure. This pressure is the strength of gravity. Most of current cosmology still applies. It's just that this nascent augmented viewpoimt solves for a theory of everything, of which, most of the heavy lifting has already been done. Possible avenues of proof. Equivalence principle test: This experiment would test if different types of matter experience the same amount of "anti-space" displacement, perhaps onboard the ISS. General relativity predicts that all matter falls at the same rate in a vacuum, regardless of composition. If this theory deviates from this, a high-precision equivalence principle test could expose the difference. This theory proposes a novel "anti-space" force. Experiments searching for new forces between microscopic particles, like those conducted at particle colliders, could potentially detect interactions that align with this theory's predictions. General relativity predicts specific properties of gravitational waves. If this theory offers distinct predictions about how "anti-space" displacement propagates, astronomers studying gravitational waves might observe discrepancies between this theory and general relativity. These are good starting points as my main wish is to get this idea into the community. ASAP Mick Malkemus, MS
For what it is worth, a long time ago Maxwell noted that even intense levels of energy in the form of radio waves caused a space time modifying effect. The value was determined by him to be a very small factor in his equation that described its propagation. The stronger the energy field the slower the energy propagation rate. If one 'amps' this idea up to the strength of the intensity inside an atom's make up, then it logically makes sense to me that such effects could fully explain how such a large amount of energy could get so knotted up in such a small space. The superior intensities there simply keep 'lensing' the energy flows there back into its high intensity points, thus making a stable state of various patterns and so persist over very serous lengths of time. Just as a possible example, electromagnetic charges and fields in the basic particles may be due to the energy flows expressing a whirling pattern around the energy intense middle. Then there is the potential for a greater rate of propagation outside that center area, yet it is still contained. This pattern may be simpler for the electron compared to that of the proton. Like one whirl that has two basic layers around the intenser core. It is made up of a magnetic expressing flow that stabilized a charge field coiled around it. Then as it all migrates away from the center there is a moment where the magnetic expressing layer is exposed, and the charge expressing layer is both internalized for a bit as being the slower inside part of the outer whirling flows, while also being so far away and dispersed that it gets ahead of the cores and is lensed into a curl that is drawn back in toward the core and therein is flowing in the opposite direction causing a magnetic flow around it there that is supportive of regenerating the outer layers noted flow patterns by flowing in the same direction as the spiraling outer magnetic flow's inner side does as they meet there. Then as that keeps migrating out and moving faster the types of flows that get expressed by the electron revert back to having the charge expressing flow outermost and being supported on its spiraling inner side with a reversal of the layering of the types of flows going on there for the same reason the other one described above happens. To make this all stable, it may well be that the maximum speed of the constructing energy that causes matter to exist is actually twice the speed of light. It is just that the outer most part of the particles that then meet 'empty space' run into flows going in the opposite direction and are limited thereby to the speed we note as light's rate of propagation.
Since high school physics I've always had the picture of a mass pressing a membrane down...but a consequent rise in the membrane around it. In other words; to me, symmetry means a spontaneous creation of anti-mass for every mass, the antimass a diffuse bulge, pushing all stars into strings around the bubbles.
What we call gravity is the tip of the ice burg. It's the "visible light" of the whole EM spectrum in that it's a piece of a larger more fundamental phenomenon. That phenomenon is temporal relativity. Under certain conditions temporal relativity gives rise to this attractive force between masses we call gravity, however under most other conditions temporal relativity leads to repellent forces. The key is understanding that in spacetime, any dimension has the capacity to be temporal, and more importantly, that there is absolutely no requirement for any two observers to agree on what dimension is temporal. So I think she's really close, but it's not that gravity has limits, it's that eventually in the vast void between masses the temporal directions between the void and the large bodies of mass are no longer aligned enough to remain attractive but instead become repellent. With all the insight that Einstein brought to the table with relativity, our community is still so steadfast in its assumption that the direction of time itself is somehow uniform. I really do think the key insight is the realization that the direction of time is itself relative.
It's an interesting take, I feel it more speaks to die-hard relativists that may be relucant to quantizing gravity. Unfortunately QM has a lot of effective tools on how quantizing something turns into behavior, but, emphasizing: although the plain result is it won't work (acceleration is increasing, not flattening) it does 'let more math in' in a way which might be constructive.
21:46 "To be sure mathematics don't lie, so if you come up with a mathematical proof, it must be correct." What? You mean provided the assumptions are correct.. right? To be sure Prof De Rham is very smart. And she certainly moves at high speeds.
It makes a lot of sense... At the very least probably the stretching of the fabric of space-time when closer to other objects, counteract or disipates the gravity impact and reach from other farther... Observations are key and if the observations don't match with infinite reach we may be on the face of a more simple explanation that matches our reality
@@thesoppywankerStill a great lecture. This is so basic and normally I'd have clicked off of this bc it's such a boring intro to cosmology - she for (whatever reason) held my attention. But to your point, yeah - the only reason I clicked the was bc I thought this was going to be something else.
Very interesting. I was wondering who may be delusional over theories about gravity and dark energy. Certainly, most of my focus is on whether gravity can be quantized. But that perhaps gravity’s reach is finite and that dark energy resolves for this discrepancy makes sense. I’m looking forward to the refined study of gravitational waves as to clue us into its reach.
I'm in the same boat and also enjoyed the presentation. I hope I'm still around when the first results come in from LISA. That will spur some great presentations from Perimeter Institute!
So a more accurate way to compare and predict the time in two places would be to ask “what time is it there and, how are you experiencing gravity?” Is that correct?
4:56 "...for thousands of years we thought the Earth was flat..." !! This never happened; no one, including the Greeks thousands of years ago, thought the Earth was flat. Only nowadays we have idiots thinking Earth is flat. How can de Rham not to know this?
Well, our species exists since about 300,000 years and I'm sure that throughout most of this timespan most people assumed that the world is flat. If you know pretty much nothing of the world and you live all of your life in a small area it is very reasonable to think that the earth is flat.
[Thales of Miletus](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus#Cosmological_model) "thought the Earth must be a flat disk or mound of land and dirt which is floating in an expanse of water". His disciples were the ones who gradually figured out that it was roundish.
@@simoncrase5360 Thales is considered as the "first philosopher", and his idea of reality was based on water. This was 25 centuries ago, and his disciples were already able to understand that the Earth was a sphere (about 25 centuries ago)
@@ascaniosobrero If you take the time to find out about Anaximander, Thales' successor, you'll find that he hadn't come up with the idea of a spherical Earth, nor had Anaximenes. That is a bit later. Karl Popper ("Back to the Presocratics") suggested that Thales' biggest contribution was encouraging his successors to criticise his ideas, and come up with something better, rather than blindly following the master's teachings.
gravity only acts at the speed of light, so as the light arrives, we can calculate a location for the source of the mass with which we are currently trading gravitational attraction. If a body is beyond our vision, outside of OUR visible universe, because those objects are accelerating away from us faster than the speed of light, then we don't currently trade gravitational attraction, and gravitation therefore has a limit, because essentially objects beyond our vision cannot transmit their location. If I'm right, then shouldn't there be a sliding scale of gravitational attraction based not just on the mass, distance and direction, but also on the speed of separation? It means that the gravitational force equation requires a new term (1-radialvelocity/c), which may eliminate the need for dark matter.
@@edwardhoppe4294 I don't think you even watched the video. She never mentioned it. I believe my suggestion is new physics. It means that the gravitational force equation requires a new term (1-radialvelocity/c). This may eliminate the need for dark matter.
The problem is the exact opposite. Spiral galaxies spin faster than their visible matter can hold them together at that speed, indicating something we can't see(dark matter/energy). All this woman said is we have to study gravity waves for 10 more years because that's when she retires.
@@WhyteHorse2023What she said was. In going to scam a paycheck out of you for another 10 years. There is no gravitational attraction. Mass is not an actionable force. The ball drop experiments? Mass does not increase acceleration. Newton's 3rd Law of motion. Action and Reaction. Gravity/g-force is a Reactionary force. The resistance of the mass to being accelerated. F=ma. Force comes from Acceleration of the mass. Not the mass itself. The laws of physics are equally applicable in ALL frames of reference. Toss a ball out the back of a truck. It isn't gravitationally attracted to the trailing car. It is no longer being accelerated inna forward motion by the truck. Sane with the vacuum tube. There is no outside force acting on the ball so it decelerates. The earth is in motion around the sun. That's where the 'gravity' comes from. 67000mph worth. And another 1000mph as you move from pole to equator. The ground accelerates you and you accelerate the air above you. It's called atmospheric pressure (force). As you gain altitude, the mass above you decreases so you 'weigh' less. It takes less force to accelerate you because there is less total mass being accelerated. Newton's gravitational attraction is flat earth science. Go back and study the drop tests. Study LIGO. Where the detectors PUSHED put of alignment or pulled. Electromagnetic waves are force carriers. They carry force away from the source. Otherwise you have tractor beam technology. There is no interaction between the earth and moon to create tides. Galileo already showed that it's the Earth's motion, not its mass that creates the tides. Look it. These pseudo-science flat earthers will keep scamming you unless you educate yourself. Galaxy rotation = Hurricane rotation. You don't need mass to create acceleration. You need acceleration to create acceleration. E=mc. Energy = Acceleration. Acceleration = Energy. Mass is not an actionable force. G-force is a Reactionary force. F=ma. Mass or Acceleration. The actionable force can't be both. F=ma -> ma=ma -> m=m & a=a.
For Claudia: This may be a dumb question or observation, however, every time physicists speak of "curvature of space & time" they also speak of the "fabric of space time" & provide the sort of graphic you have - showing "mass" sphere bodies bending space time fabric. My question is simply this. Is this graphic illustration "limited" or "inadequate" to the extent that actually "space-time curvature" is not actually on a flat horizontal frame/plane - but rather, is in all directions and on a fully enveloping 3 dimensional 'medium'. (ie as if the spheres were generating curvature as they passed 3 dimensionally through space. In a simple example as if a ball travelling through some form of semi solid/semi liquid medium - was able to create in the particles of such a medium - in 3 D - the sort of "curvature" shown in graphic??!! I hope that makes sense! Do please perhaps let me / others know of your thoughts and 'clarification' if necessary of the graphic of "space-time curvature" and its association with gravity (gravitational force / 'graviton'(matter) and the limits of gravitational force. I find your theory fascinating as in a way it actually seems to hark back to the huge 'debate' which Sir Isaac Newton had with [????] which was about whether there had to be some "physical substance" between heavenly bodies in order for them to be subject to forces moving them - vs Newton arguing that the gravitational force was operating without any such concept or necessity of there being some 'physical' medium through which forces could operate on and move heavenly bodies! PS: I think your mastery of 'cosmetology' is plainly evident in the absolutely elegant fashion you are so perfectly wearing. (sorry -i'll admit - i have an innocent crush on you as an amazing human being!! ❤❤)
Most people can't get past the Special Relativity Lagrange transform, let alone 10 dimension tensors of General Relativity. Showing silly little graphics in 2D is fairly useless.
It might be that gravity is in fact unlimited in range, but that at a certain distance, it becomes too weak to effect any physical change, even at the smallest possible scales.
Very interesting. I think this will spin of a number of new theories, and may be give us a better insight into how big the universe is or if it is just infinite. Is the universe expanding or is it simply returning to its initial state before the big bang.
The entire burden of the lecture was, that this hypothesis results in a calculated expansion of the universe that matches the observations; one can assume that, as with virtually every present-day cosmological model, computer calculation was part of the process.
It comes from a special part of the universe called ‘our misunderstanding of physics’ it’s actually located right next to an area called ‘speaking confidently about things we don’t know’ . Both of which reside in the minds of certain physicists generally found on TH-cam.
That'd be like asking "where do 'vacuum' fluctuations come from". _Those_ are there. To get the results we see you need them, and to not have them exist gets you wrong answers. Physics has gotten horribly complicated and unfortunately on one side, adding things to existing theories gets you closer to reality in one way, but creates impossibilities or non-reality elsewhere, and opposite, hypotheses beyond our current theories have a laughable number of knobs and buttons that makes almost anything possible. A more useful question is if vacuum fluctuations are a permanently stable feature (which as far as we can discern, they are) then what to make of them having no average gravitational effect? Should we expect vacuum energy _we_ _observe_ _now_ to change? If they only existed in the neighborhood of existing phenomenon, that'd explain why on average there's no extra gravity, but I've yet to see anything question why we don't see anomalous photons all around us, and massive un-accounted gravity if the vacuum is slowly humming away.
Each fold (of a piece of paper, say) reduces the size by one-half. Not one-tenth. In order to put 28 orders of magnitude into 'folds' you'd have to multiply the 28 by a number a little larger than 3 (since one-half, cubed, is one-eighth). So, 80- or 90-fold.
@@meofamily4 Actually, to attain a true 28 fold you would have to fold (if each fold was cumulative upon the last) just under 5 times. This is because the folds are not pertaining to the surface area of the paper, they pertain to the thickness of the paper - where a sheet of paper starts at 1 thickness, after 1 fold becomes 2 thickness, after 3 fold becomes 4 thickness, and so on. The whole idea of 'folds' however, as known colloquially, is simply the multiplicative integer (2) on the initial starting value. Meaning that each new 'fold' is applying the same effect as the first fold. But then again, we're just wasted a substantial amount of our lives talking about folds, we have deeper questions to ask ourselves.
Simple to understand. Gravity may be limited over distance. Like strong and weak forces. Big distances but limited. So expansion of the universe is then as it should be. 😊
Neolithic man understood that the Earth was a globe, evidence found in stone circles precisely positioned relative to the sun, moon, Venus and stars confirm they understood the circicular motion of nature that surrounds us. They had the same mathematical ability as we have today. Their understanding was passed on in songs and performance, these teachers were known as druids. Understanding was lost in time and it is in writing that our understanding is re-established. Flat earth is relatively new in the scheme of things. Understanding of gravity however is new to us. Go Newton, come on Einstein, you guys rock.
I still prefer my theory: There is a conservation of gravity similar to the conservation of energy in that if you take from one, it has to give in another. So if the mass that are PULLING space-time to create attractive gravity are "taking", then something somewhere else has to "give back" to balance it all out. The "giving back" is the space-time in-between galaxies and the rest of the universe that is pushing things away through a force that appears REPULSIVE in nature.
Yes I think you are correct. If the universe began from nothing and somehow spacetime is created, then conservation of energy would suggest the universe should also possess a force that contracts spacetime towards zero. Hence- gravity.
What makes things more sensible, in a way, is if black-holes are effectively accruing space-time, then galaxies are getting slower. A linear velocity of galaxies moving away *and* a linear slowing-down of galaxies gives an accelerating gap between galaxies: _both_ galaxies are operating slower creating time effects, resulting in a lower sampling time, and warping of energy when it approaches the excessively warped galaxy. It is two effects, instead of "everything is really accelerating", but it is testable, that more massive galaxies would have a discrepancy in the Hubble Constant. I think science will end up leaning more towards it, because the Webb telescope finds "impossibly big", "impossibly into their lifespan" evidence of galaxies at old times - this is fine because they only appear too big to us - we're seeing them relativistically dilated in size or age.
I must have missed a reference to Biblical cosmology, Couldn't figure out why a reference to 2 Kings 2:23-24 was here. The Religion For Breakfast TH-cam channel ought to cover this. They are usually scholarly and even-handed. If this event had been presented as a parable, then I think most would take it as a moral lesson, contrasting a village letting children run wild, and two she-bears who are presumably being good parents protecting nearby cubs. But the point I wanted to make was that it did not say the bears ate or killed them. It says they tore 42 of them, leaving it up to the imagination. And it says 42 "of" the children, suggesting that the whole group was larger.
I know it's not right or socially acceptable, but I must say it's very difficult concentrating on what's being said when it's done so by such a lovely woman.
The gravity representation using the rubber sheet is a bit of a misrepresentation. We live in a 3D world and the physics is in with us. The Sun's gravity field has to be seen, accepted as being 3D. The indentation of the rubber sheet has to be viewed from every position - the space around the Sun is 3D, the gravity is affecting all that space. Getting you head around something that is already invisible makes seeing things accurately a real bitch.
The rubber sheet model is alll that we can see and I can accept that a 3d version is possible. However the 2d, rubber sheet model only works because of a 'force' of gravity that pulls the mass into the depression. If we are told that gravity is not a force, this model must be quite decieving as it does not demonstrate anything. If gravity is not a force, how does one mass experience acceleration?
@@brianmason9803 the same way a brick and a feather fall to the ground at the same speed (in a vacuum) and the mass doesn't matter. Gravity is an acceleration not a force; it provides a more direct path through spacetime.
@@tradtke101 They don't reeeally fall for the same time in vacuum though, do they? If they're dropped at the same time, sure, but otherwise the heavier object will pull the earth up more than the feather will, resulting in shorter time until collision. The difference is only something like 10^-14 seconds (immeasurably small), but there is a difference still. This misconception comes from using an abbreviated and simplified version of the equation for gravitational pull, and also from using very small masses. If you scale it up to, say, the moon, it becomes obvious that mass does make difference for the time to fall. You can ser this at work in things like ocean tides. Or if you put a feather, and Mars, at equal distance from earth (and pretend that that all of the catastrophic effects of doing so don't exist, and also ignore atmosphere completely), the time difference would be very noticeable The feather accelerates the earth towards it less than the brick does, hence there is a difference
Doesnt matter the theory. Science is only valuable for creating new technologies for making us live better so that we may have more free time to ponder and make ourselves better for the underlying reality that generates this one. May the love of the one infinite creator find you brother.
Claudia has an amazing gift for making me think I understand what she is saying.
she does, and you do. thats why.
I cannot understand General Relativity unless it is explained by someone with a British accent.
One question I have about what she said - and others before her - is, "the moon is just following a straight line in the curved space-time of the solar system in which we live in." But that seems wrong, because the path the moon takes depends on its speed. If the moon were travelling 10x faster, it would go in a much straighter path. The only thing that precisely follows a straight line in curved space-time is light, or something going the speed of light.
It's a great satisfaction for a common man like me, to be able to understand the whole presentation, from a scientist of her level. Thanks professor De Rham and Perimeter Institute. 💐
Don't put yourself down. All these expert intelligent talking heads are just as in the dark as your average Joe sixpack. They use lots of impressive words to explain something that they Can not mentally grasp
@@davidwalker5054 Thanks, but I'm an old tool (62) no more able to calculate a square root...but still curious, to try to know a little more. And if, after hearing such a presentation, I can think "it sounds quite clear", I feel like Oppenheimer after the Trinity test. 😊
If gravity did not have infinite reach then then gravity would not travel at c
@@davidwalker5054 Moreover, most of them are more manipulators than scientists as we think about them, especially when they give popular talks.
She's a good teacher.
Always appreciate that the Perimeter Institute shares these lectures and thankful that all 3 levels of government in Canada support their research, thank you
Perimeter Institute is like a private investigator agency for the universe and the benefit of all..
I like that 😊
Did they make you thank your government? hahahahaha
Hi@@sandbach7195, a cooler question may be who's governing who?
Aha indeed 😉
@@Zookeeper. I don't know, you're the Zoo keeper, :)) LOLwink wink
Well, I am also the guy who knows the difference between chaos and order around@@sandbach7195..
*_wink wink_* indeed..
The theory being proposed here sounds like a sub-type of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) whereby the argument is that gravity operates differently at different length scales. From what I can tell, most physicists don't put any credence into this theory because it creates more problems in an attempt to solve only one problem (gravity) and isn't supported by the corroborating evidence (CMB power spectrum, etc.). She is basically arguing that the graviton (which likely exists but has yet to be discovered) should not be massless (she compared it to the weak force bosons W+/- & Z and the Higgs scalar boson). Massless particles must travel at the speed of light; particles with mass cannot. Massless bosons have inifinite range (i.e. photon); massive bosons have finite range. Her proposed theory is controversial to say the least. Gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein's field equations travel at the speed of light. The advanced LIGO observatories have documented numerous events by now; one would think that news of the signals traveling slower than the speed of light would have made world headlines. Granted that LIGO is not sensitive to most frequencies of gravitational waves. Recently there was also a massive and impressive paper on using a Pulsar Timing Array (PTA) to study gravitational waves of all frequencies; nothing from that study that I recall mentioned anything about those waves traveling slower than the speed of light. She is correct in stating that the future planned LISA experiment would be more sensitive and would provide an important rule out, though the PTA study essentially used a naturally occurring apparatus that is far larger in size than anything LISA could achieve. It truly would be surprising if LISA's future data didn't align with LIGO and PTAs. I should also mention, that most physicists (from my understanding) believe that the vacuum energy is the leading candidate for what dark energy most likely is.
*Note: this impression is just based on this public talk; I have not read her published work(s) on this.
The lecture reminded me of the phase change model of gravity that Sabine Hossenfelder once talked about.
Perimeter irritates me. I think they have to put this stuff out to attract funding. They know as well as anyone else that MOND does not fit the observable universe. Juan Maldacena is more thought provoking to me.
Good analysis, yep pretty limited presentation for anyone with a moderate understanding in the field. As you correctly stated all attempts to modify gravity have so created more problems (gravitational lensing being the biggest in my opinion).
Perhaps they arent claiming gravitons have mass but in some way the gravitational wave frequency drops off over large distances.
@@simontemplar404The Perimeter Institute does do a lot of work on both massive gravity and modified gravity. While I agree MOND does not fit observations very well, neither does the phantom “dark matter” that no one can ever seem to find. Maldacena’s work is very intriguing. So is John Moffet’s Scalar-Tensor-Vector gravity (SVTG) theory, who is also at Perimeter Institute.
If gravity is carried by a "graviton" that travels at c, how do black holes have gravity?
@14:04 I love that when Dr. de Rham says the universe would be stretching so fast that the persons sitting next to you would be ripped away and you wouldn’t be able to see them anymore, the man reaches out to the woman sitting next to him to hold her hand. So sweet.❤
How wonderful, I have never even considered the possibility that Gravity had a finite range. But now after prácticing physics for 50 years, I can not unconsider the possibility. The more we know, the more we discover how much we did not (or do not) know
Finite measurable range.
yeah she had a great analogy comparing gravity's potential finity to the weak nuclear force... great food for thought
We all was told that gravity was infinite so thinking it is maybe finite is against doctrine. Feels this has a feel of Galileo all over again.
Measurable in what ways? We cannot measure it when it holds water to the earth whether in a glass of water, river, lake, pond, sea or ocean so how and where is it measurable? I would like to examine the tests used and any research papers. Please post me a link to where I can find such data thank you
@@mad_muhammad
Well that's not necessarily evidence, it just means there are forces acting on all the accelerating bodies which sum to greater than that which gravity is exerting
Professor De Rham is certainly a great teacher, she made such complicated subject approachable by laymen.
Nah that's a false sense of familiarity. Don't fall for sweet talk designed for you to feel good about your level of understanding and her skill of explaining. This was a show
Awesome! This is the kind of 'outside-the-box' thinking we need more of in theoretical physics. Thank you!!!
Problem is that she was taught by the box, and she's staying in the box.
@@bigoptions I like 'Sabine Hossenfelder' videos which is short and out of standard belief. She argued that the Large hydrogen collider may be a waste of money 💸🤪⚗
@@NPC-bs3pm Their theory has gone to particles that are much smaller than a neutron, but they don't know so much about gravity, mass, and atoms. An electron isn't a particle. All atoms have an electric shell, so to understand atomic theory you have to understand that. Watch Dollard's video on, History and theory of electricity. That man is a true scientist! He thinks that what is going on is crazy; the monkeys are running the zoo!
@user-ky5dy5hl4d Watch some of Unzicker's videos. Steinmetz had it right. They had just basic atomic theory wrong; then everyone just soaked it up. I shouldn't pick on people like you. It's a shame that so many people wasted their time for more than 50 years. I am going to do my part to help you guys, soon.
I liked her dress code.
I had the pleasure of attending this lecture in person. Also, I am a CBC junkie so appreciated the interview with Nahlah Ayed (CBC: Ideas and Ideas in the Afternoon)
Is the interview uploaded anywhere on TH-cam?
Lucky person.
@@NeilRieck Thank you very much!
🤜⚡💥⚡🤛 LOL LOL LOL Typical darkwhatever nonsense. All this and more is better explained with experiment-based plasma science; i.e. Plasma Cosmology. 1] the Universe is based on plasma; 2] plasma's are electric in nature/origin; 3] plasmas inherently self-organize into structures; 4] plasma's produce many EM-band emissions (light, 'rays' and radio frequencies). Conclusion: just another plasma emission. Move on! Nothing unusual here.
Astronomer Halton Arp made a good case for it in his books. MSS will continue to be clueless until the scientists admit they have been wrong and adopt new physics in dealing with the 'mysteries' they don't understand. Clearly the current approach doesn't serve them well.
==
Carrying on with darkwhatever is like religions claiming that Earth etc. are evidence of god. It's all misappropriation just the same. If you can't understand something DON'T just invent fairy tales. Geezus!!! Yeah, science has gone off the rails on other things too. Yes, there are so many blunders that it's become a joke. Some scientists, like Sabine Hossenfelder comment on some of these fallacies.
==
My comment to Anton Petrov's video *"One of the Largest Stars Known Dimmed Just Like Betelgeuse"* -- don't be surprised when a red supergiant splits into 2 stars or ejects a hot object[s] that will cool to form a planet[s]._ is relevant here, Conventional science is oblivious to this fact... for now, but evidence/observations will force this conclusion. Another observation/fact they will have to concede is that stars of same or similar class will, on average, have similar types of planets with the exception of stars whose Birkeland current has gone through a structural and energetic change in the past which occurs frequently. Variable output stars/objects demonstrate this. Other electrical phenomena affect the aforementioned which add to variations. 🤜⚡💥⚡🤛
...
..
.
..."a cbc junkie"?
😂
You poor, poor lost soul.
I have some background in this field. As a result, I can appreciate this superb presentation. I disagree with some elements of it but, on the other hand, she has managed to provide chapters in a general picture that I found lacking in most other presentations. My appreciation of this presentation becomes borne out when I watch it again. Watching this was a rewarding time investment. Thank you.
Why not tell us what you disagreed with?
@allanshpeley4284 to understand why the majority of phycists disagree with this google "dark energy and why new theories of gravity don't align to observations (e.g gravitational lensing)"
@@deloford Ms. Rham’s story was superb. My response to you was ‘off the cuff’, rude and off-target to boot. I apologize. My primary disagreement with her reasoning had to do with the causes for the expansion of the ‘universe’. This is tied to limitations remaining despite the availability of broadened horizons (pun intended) made available by the JWST.
The bases for our conclusions differ and I defer to her formidable background in every regard. Other pursuits have prevented me from continued studies in this exciting field. Yours seems to be a growing interest here and my hat is off to you.
Thank you! I'm an undergraduate in physics, and I've been struggling to decide which field I'll pursue in my masters. This video gave me a lot to think about
Having nothing to do with this video, don’t forget about Medical Physics. It is not glamorous, involves no research, no real teaching, but it pays over $100k/yr. Basically, it is ensuring hospitals are safe with their use of radiation. I am a radiologist, so I appreciate these guys’ (it always seems to be guys) work.
nobody gets masters in physics
@@Mike-zf4xg My homie did.
@@Mike-zf4xgI did
@@humble_ape yea, when they failed to get a phd
This is how I understand gravity, any cosmologists or quantum physicists out there feel free to correct me: space-time is fluctuating with the quantum vacuum energy or Higgs field, which interacts with mass via the Higgs Boson. All energy and matter is just different ripples and twists and distortions of space-time, starting with photons, quarks and gluons, going up to electrons and protons and all the other particles. Put more mass or energy into an area of space-time and all the ripples and twists from that mass stretches the space-time more. It's like poking the middle of a piece of spandex held in a taut frame, except it's in 3D. This distortion of space-time and the interaction of Higgs Bosons with mass is what we call gravity, or inertia (same thing). The quantum vacuum interactions are sort of "tugging" on the mass as it tries to move through space-time; the more mass or more dense the object, the more it tugs so it's harder to accelerate or decelerate. The space-time distortion causes objects to appear to be attracted to each other, without the distortion we would be thrown off the Earth's surface and the Earth would leave the Solar system and go in a straight line.
The faster you travel through the vacuum energy, the more energy it requires to accelerate, because you are interacting with more vacuum fluctuations the faster you go, hence the limit of the speed of light. For the person travelling near the speed of light, time seems to pass slower than for people who are stationary (special relativity). Near to a large mass like a black hole, time passes more slowly compared to being at a galactic void (general relativity). Where space-time is stretched or where you are moving very quickly there's less time passing.
At the same time as all that is going on, space-time is also expanding, so that piece of stretched spandex is growing from every point in space. This causes light to red-shift because the wavelength has stretched from blue (short wavelength) to red (longer wavelength). It also means galaxies are generally getting further away from each other, so one day we won't be able to see them anymore.
Extremely large galaxies seem to be held together too well, and rotate too quickly on the outer edges. They should fall apart based on our current physics, and based on the amount of mass observed, but they don't. This led to a band-aid being applied called dark matter, which adds the missing mass back in, and we just say it's invisible. To explain the expansion, we made another band-aid called dark energy. These band-aids are a source of contention because there's so far not much evidence they exist, and it's probably more likely that our physics is wrong (The Crisis in Cosmology).
How does gravity and "spacetime fabric" work in 3D? All images presented are always 2D. How can any object move through "infinitely stretched continuous fabric" in 3D without continuously tearing it apart at all points? Doesn't that mean that both gravity and spacetime are discrete and quantized, but our interpretation is wrong because equations work as they are based on mass? Can fields alone account for all of it without any need for gravity and spacetime?
The higgs field doesn't explain Newtonian or Einstein gravity. The higgs boson describes quantum gravity. Larger scale gravity is explained by gluonic forces.
@@autopilot3176 I like to think of spacetime as honey. The honey is thicker near masses, so any object approaching the object submerged in honey, will curve towards the object, as it is slowed more by the thicker honey. The thickness of honey means "how much space there is" within a tile. As space, or honey is compressed, it takes a longer time to move through it, as there is more of it, within the same space or tile of space.
Let's examine the moon. The side of the moon that is closer to earth has thicker space to go through, more space within basically the same radius as the outer side of the moon. It moves through the space e.g. 100 space units per second, and the thicker space on the side of the earth has 100 space units per tile, and the outer side of the moon has 95 space units per tile. A tile here meaning a fixed distance. As the moon moves through the thicker space - 1 tile per second on the thicker side of the orbit, and a little bit more than 1 tile on the outer side of the orbit, that means it must turn towards us.
This is a very intuitive grasp on gravity, I'm not sure if I managed to verbalize it well.
@@anderpanders6210 Sure, but "thicker space" means what? Building block of honey is matter, what is the building block of "space". How can emptiness be made of anything? If it's just "stuff" such as subatomic particles in the vacuum, it means there's no "space" nor "spacetime", but everyone is saying it like those things physically exist.
Maybe this is an error in thinking, but doesn't this mean that, from the perspective of a photon, time stands still and, as a result, everything in the universe is in the same place, since it takes no time to get there.
Well Presented. Clear Presentation of "What We Don't Know". AS A TECHNOLOGIST , several of us often wondered TWO THINGS, 2 QUESTIONS: 1.) If we captured a Cub Meter of Pure Space - Do We Really Know What Is Inside It? 2.] How do we know that the Universe isn't Expanding Within- HOWEVER it is being "PULLED" By Forces Outside The Universe even other Universes?
Dark matter/energy out of phase or in another dimension repulsion of matter as we know it. It does not want to share space with physical matter.
Why do you think CMB is not uniform? Something Interacted with it before or after the expansion event. And it wasn't "chaos/random"... @@strandedstarfish
incredibly fascinating she's plumbing the depths of how far gravity can actually reach, because it clearly has such a profound effect on the estimate for the expansion rate of the universe. Learning how to harness the energy of the Higgs Field clearly is the task of our generation
All you smart people in the video and in the comments give me such a burst of joy. Keep thinking😎
👋🕶️💐 For the Brilliant Miss Anna
🤓🧐🤔
Great scientific explorations dear Claudia !
Appreciate your efforts to enlighten us in our short bubbly lives as human beings !
Thanks.
4:32 RIP that mans phone (in the lower right corner)
Gravity's fault
Thanks you, Claudia de Rham, for explain to us your original point of view about gravity. There is only one tetradimensional alternative theory to General Relativity. It's called "Teoría Conectada" ,and I want introduce to you. Gravitational potential is a new potential no equal to spacetime metric, like occurs in General Relativity. Movement equations are not geodesics, the are now equations (84) in the next link.
Thanks you so much!
DEPENDS GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION ON VELOCITY?
Argumentative schematism of Einstein's General Relativity (each step is a consequence of the preceding step):
1) Einstein's Equivalence Principle
2) Gravitational motion equations: geodesics DU = 0
3) The gravitational potential is represented by the spacetime metric itself: which guarantees, since the covariant derivatives of the spacetime metric are null, that the gravitational motion equations are given by the geodesics DU = 0 of the Einstein Principle of Equivalence
4) Gravitational Field Equations: These are the so-called Einstein Equations, which are built on the prejudice that the tetradimensional gravitational potential is represented (again in accordance with the Equivalence Principle) by the spacetime metric itself
5) Solution of Einstein's Equations for the symmetrically spherical stationary gravitational field: Schwarzschild metric
6) Zeros and mathematical infinities in spacetime metrics. "Broken" spacetime. Theoretical prediction of black holes and event horizons
Reasonable doubts:
1) What would happen if the four-dimensional gravitational potential was not represented by the spacetime metric itself ? : vixra.org/abs/1510.0137
2) What would happen if Einstein's Principle of Equivalence were not rigorously true? :
vixra.org/abs/1510.0135
Another way to think of curvature is as a gradient. Think of time as causal energy. Think of mass as "feeding" on causal energy. The space surrounding a mass boundary would have a lower causal energy than the said mass. According to the law of Entropy, high energy states move towards low energy states. Gravity is a causal energy gradient surrounding mass, not a literal curvature of Space. Mass (high causal energy) falls towards the low causal energy. Massive bodies aren't attracted to each other, they're moving towards the causal deficit that each creates in the surrounding space. Clocks tick faster as they get farther away from a massive body because of the increase in available causal energy.
Nick Lucid says "everything is a gradient."
Well, I think of it like this. Massive objects are made up of particles which have elements which move at the speed of light. As they move away from a gravity well, the light speed parts have to traverse less distance during their temporal evolution, so they evolve in time faster than if they stayed in the gravity well. I think of massive objects as a collection of waves buzzing at a possibly fast pace. As it gains speed or enters a gravity well, the buzzing slows down more and more as that “buzzing motion” is being used more and more for translational motion
@@ElectronFieldPulse Nice! There's more than one way to cook a tasty dinner. We need many points of view to understand the true nature of reality.
Great lecture. I would love to spend a hour or two asking her questions.
What a superbly-presented lecture on a long-debated mystery.
The Higgs boson truly challenges the Model as standard. Wonderfully interesting theoretical exploration of a beautiful mind, thankyou for being so courageous in your frank and honest expression! Outstanding.
I remember the day I started to understand gravity and straight lines,it was like a eureka moment.
Here's a few superpostioned opinions I had while listening to this fascinating presentation. A doctorate in cosmology as well as cosmetology is indeed very impressive, so I am certain the good doctor has viewed any serious discussion remotely similar to my rambling musings, from all the various mathematical languages and personalities, but i shall mutter a few here:
All objects in orbit travel in a linear trajectory. It is not paradoxical that by moving in a straight line over a brief distance, one may return to the original position due to the curvature of space.
Time does not elapse at a uniform rate across different locations; however, the variations are negligible when one remains in proximity to the reference point for time comparison. These minor discrepancies in the flow of time give rise to the most profound phenomenon observed: gravity.
What distinguishes an object that recedes at an increasing velocity with distance from the perception of time accelerating as an object moves farther away? If I were to experience free fall within an elevator, how would I ascertain that I am not merely in a weightless state, devoid of gravitational influence? It is simply a matter of perspective.
If gravity indeed influences the passage of time, then time is affected dramatically and solely within these filaments of energy or dark energy, close to where the most matter is. The observed acceleration of cosmic expansion, or the perception of time advancing more rapidly with increasing distance, may be attributed to the insufficient strength of gravity. This phenomenon could be a consequence of the majority of matter being concentrated within black holes, thereby diminishing the curvature or intensity of gravitational effects over extensive regions of vacuum energy production.
The energy of the vacuum, as represented by the Higgs boson, can exert influence on other particles but remains unaffected by gravitational forces. The abundance of this vacuum energy results in an expansion rate that is 28 Oom greater than the gravitational pull, driven by quantum fluctuations. Our observations reveal a greater prevalence of vacuum energy than would be expected from the observed void, suggesting that approximately 99.9^28% of all energy in the universe is comprised of vacuum energy.
The phenomenon of spatial separation occurring at a velocity exceeding that of light, for us, shall transpire over time; however, but we are situated near sources of gravity that counteract this dark energy. Nevertheless, this vacuum energy is more abundant in regions beyond our immediate vicinity. This observation implies that the rate of expansion should be slower in our locale and more rapid in areas with a higher concentration of vacuum energy, situated farther from our position.
Every object, regardless of its distance, influences the linear trajectory of all others, also resulting in variations in the passage of time at different locations. If the influence of gravity were finite, the necessity for such a substantial amount of dark energy would be diminished. Conversely, one could posit that time progresses at an accelerated rate with increasing distance, necessitating an infinite reach for gravitational influence.
The act of accelerating against the effects of dark energy implies that the energy expended concurrently causes time to elapse more slowly for the individual exerting the effort, while appearing to progress more rapidly to an external observer. Thus, the observed differences in the passage of time at greater distances can be likened to the act of resisting dark energy, which sustains the expansion rate at approximately 28 Oom. I don't know if this is what we are observing or what I am hallucinating.
dammit I forgot red shift, NEVERMIND! Dark Energy just affects the age of the universe.
Can someone explain to this layman? Vacuum energy was expected to expand space much faster, but it doesn't. Then we decide to constrain the reach of gravity to solve this. But doesn't this go the opposite direction? Gravity helps hold the objects together, how does restricting it help explain a slower expansion?
I heard something close that they only have to consider the vacuum energy over the reach of the gravity, but that leaves me with more questions
Same feeling. Gravity only provides a negative effect on apparent velocities. Changing gravity to be weaker in any way only "preserves" the current velocity, not accelerates it. In math terms, we would approach a limit, the limit being an inflection point of the velocity. It's clear something is wrong, but any changes we make topple thole whole thing(s)
Because empty space is full of something like dark matter out of phase or dimensions pushing matter away it isn't pulling.
Since we know that gravity pulls things together when they are close in an astronomical sense (say within a galaxy), it is clear that the repulsion of vacuum energy is not sufficient to move objects apart on a "small" scale. On very much larger scales, because the universe is mostly empty, the vacuum energy repulsion would result in a very rapid expansion.
However, if both gravity and the effects of vacuum energy were constrained to some finite distance, much greater than galaxy-size, but much smaller than universe-size, then hopefully we can see that the observable effects of gravity would hardly change, but the observable effects of vacuum energy would be greatly diminished.
@@RexxSchneider good answer. The part about vaccume effect also being constrained was the missing part. Could one say vaccum effect is, say, linear but gravity is 1/distance squared, hence the net effect ?
@@pmo764 I'm fairly certain that both effects ought to share a common variation with distance, since in General Relativity it appears as Einstein's "Cosmological Constant", which counterbalances the gravitational attraction and gives a way to model the expansion of the universe. If Einstein had the theory almost exactly right, then whatever tiny modification to the equations needed to limit the range of gravity should have the same effect on the expansion, since they are in the same equation. This is only speculation on my part though, as I don't know how we might modify G.R. to fall off after big distances. Perhaps an expert in the field might be able to correct me.
What would be interesting would be to find out what was the big impedement was that prevented the audience member from silencing their phone once it started to produce it's msg-receivied jingle.
No matter the lecture or performance, there is always at least one audience member who find it difficult to comply with the silent mobile phone request. Good on Claudua for not being distracted by the noise and staying on point.
Whenever I think about gravity it brings me down
Six out of ten.😂
how long have you been holding on to this one? 🤣😅
I work at a funeral home and we are the last people to let you down.
@@im1who84u true
@@Master_Robert "For their entire lives, of course."
-Earth
Thanks for explaining it in such a way that everyone could understand.
how admirable is her grasp of the English language... Thats all i got from this video. It must be the theoretical physicists are reading much more non-physics books than the non theoretical physicists :) One may even dare to say that they read English literature...
Or the fact she's British?
@@imwelshjesus or the language of the video is in English ?
th-cam.com/video/Ve_Mpd6dGv8/w-d-xo.html this woman is not British, stilla good grasp of the "lingua franca"
She is British. But she was born in Switzerland, educated in France, gained her PhD at Cambridge, worked in (French) Canada, and now works at Imperial College, London. I would not be at all surprised if she was fluent in both English and French (at the least). See the Wikipedia article "Claudia de Rham".
What does her language have to do with anything?
The best lecture on Cosmology I have ever listened to!
Absolutely brilliant!!
What an incredibly clear challenge to conventional thinking by an absolutely brilliant theoretical physicist !
nope. None of 3 statements here is true.
@@ika5666Blavatnik award. Wolfson merit award. Ph.D. In applied math and theoretical physics. Proposed new models to explain cosmic accelerated expansion.
You can sit down now.
@@lieslceleste3395 It is all hype, and "new models of cosmic acceleration" one can fabricate without much intellectual effort monthly or even weekly.
@@lieslceleste3395 If you don't know how easy it is to invent new models of acceleration expansion, and how ad hoc is the whole business of different dark energies, you better stay where I sit.
@@ika5666 write a paper of your own, send me a pre-print.
She does a great job explaining the gravity of the situation.
The gravity of listening to Claudia de Rham is such that one cannot resist her pull. I’m very grateful to be able to watch her in action.
Excellently said. I taught physics 10 years. I would drop the textbook in front of the students and tell them that we would calculate what the distance the Earth falls as they are both falling, not only the book.
Thank you so much for posting! We all appreciate it
when a photon is detected, it's carrying information in one direction. when a 'graviton' carries information, how are both distant masses entwined?
Not sure that photons only carry information in one direction - photons transmit the electric force and both particles involved in electrical attraction/repulsion experience equal and opposite forces.
As a duel wave, which it is (Maxwell's model), the waves could be looked at as signals and as carrier waves. But, there are no gravitons or negative momentum gluons or virtual photons. Lol I'm going to explain what gravity is in a video. You will be able to see that there is no need for a graviton. The gravitational force doesn't pull. It's like a flow, but it's probably not a flow. Their made up particals help them put waves into their equations as quantities. It's called symbolic algebra, but like 99% of them don't know that that is what they are doing. The smallest thing you can call a partical is a proton.
BS,
Hello.This is TH-cam channel is the best thing since sliced bred! Take very good care of yourself!
Well, this is something really new. :)
2:42 text: "your cells are not torn or pushed apartheid."
😂@@FishDoExist
2:50 "Gravity is the most universal feminine that exists"
0:59 Goes with the transgender Einstein
Very nice! I'd say that gravity having a finite reach goes hand in hand with the vacuum being non-empty, or that it's having some energy, that it's being non-null (mathematically). Because, in math, if you eliminate "infinity" then you have to eliminate its inverse: "zero". The world we live in is finite, and if you accept that then nothingness needs to be eliminated as well. Very nice presentation, thank you.
Wow. That was so clear. Thank you.
I feel like dark matter is the leftover stretch of the fabric of space-time, that's wicking matter along itself like water up a papertowel. Heat death is the ultimate distribution of all things along the fabric. The universe will "dry out."
Gravity could've been the 1st force, so concentrated that it forced the other forced together. All the forces are working against the wicking effect. Whatever it takes for matter to stay together and not dissipate.
If there is a Planck length, I don't see how gravity could be both continuous and have an infinite extent.
Something that I have been considering for quite some time now is that there are particles flowing in all directions within the universe. When an object has mass it will affect the flow of these particles. Either by absorbing them, reflecting them or refracting them. That means that the space around an object with mass is different from space without any objects that have mass. If you just consider the particles which are absorbed that would create a kind of void on the other side of the object with mass. As these particles are flowing towards the object from all directions, this void would be globular in nature. The amount of void in the globular structure is dependent on the square law of distance from the object. One of the effects of having a void in space is that objects will try to fill that void, thereby equalizing the pressures involved. This would give the appearance of objects being attracted to the object with mass. But what is actually happening is that the objects are just trying to equalize the void created by the object with mass.
As of yet I have not seen this phenomena mentioned in any discussions about gravity or other aspects of physics. This causes me to ask the question why. Can anyone out there answer this question for me?
Sounds like she is the Max Planck of gravity: she quantised its reach
I recall reading something similar by Feynman regarding the precision by which the speed of light can be measured. Photons can only have a speed that can be measured to a given degree of accuracy. Per this comment, as the gravitational force diminishes by r-squared, the ability to detect it diminishes to such an extent that it falls beneath the limits of measurement similar to the theories of Planck and Heisenberg.
If only, the fact is that Dark Energy and Dark Matter, like it or not, are real observed, measured, proven facts of reality.
A pleasure to watch you quantumly fluctuate along the time direction, like a longitudinal wave of harmonic oscillators driving consciousness.
22:20 you get this animation if you think a particle wave moves up and down like open water, and not back ad forth like the tide.
the modern version of aether. No, it does not have a "wind". Never did. Yes it has energy 1/137th which is where the cosmological constant comes from.
Great video, When i think of the effects of mass on space is that it is increasing the energy density of vacuum and empty space, this increases the dielectric constant of space and even decreases the space between atom in molecules for example.
Gravity will always appear to have a finite reach due to the speed of light/gravity where its effects on us is limited to the observable universe.
If space appears to be stretched at long distances from us it could mean as you say gravity we feel is weaker so space itself or it will appear to be not as dense.
One of things is we feel weightless being in the center of observable universe, so empty space away from dense objects should be stretched in all direction, like for example in the center of the earth. I would think as we observe objects away from us we would be observing objects that themselves would be in their own center of observable universe, but to us we should see the effects of gravity as the are no longer in our center of observable universe. An example of this would be if we were in center of the earth and observing a light on surface of earth, i would expect to see the energy/dielectric constant of space to be more dense so time woul appear to move faster. But this effect would appear to be contrary to what we see when we look at distant objects.
If it's recognized that "empty" space is filled with something, the Higgs Field, then we can no longer make fun of the idea of a universal aether. In fact, it could be that very aether that limits the speed of light, preventing it from being instantaneous, which is a very good thing.
Ether was never disproven
Some of Einsteins latter papers he basically said he thought the aether was likely. I think they discovered anti gravity probably from German scientists and purposely miss lead everyone to protect this technology. I mean Einsteins math is good enough for most everything.
There is no problem with Ether or the Higgs Field if they are Lorentz invariant. A non-empty "vacuum" does not imply absolute space.
@@tedwalford7615 gravitational waves physics says a wave needs a medium to travel through. wave propagation. If dark matter has a repulsive field matter would clump together just like it does. It even works with the Casimir effect. And the new "NASA Glenn has been advancing high-performance sub-kilowatt (
@ladymercy5275 well we use LIGO - A Gravitational-Wave Observatory now.
I love your background. I think I get what it’s saying overall, lol. Love it! Had to pause for a long while and read. I love the repetition in equivalence random or not.
Einstein’s work is only about 120 years old now, it’s good to see people are open to think beyond it as we enter the first quarter of the 21st century.
Newton's work lasted for 250 years. But science develops faster nowadays...
We may sit on Einstein for another hundred twenty years.
There has always been plenty of thinking outside of any box science has established as a theory. It is just that the evidence needed to support them did appear.
from what i can tell there is no evidence to support her hypothetical "theory" of gravitational range or the graviton she has brought up in other videos, its a hypothetical particle not theoretical and she doesn't make enough effort to let her audience know that.
the more i watch of her the less respect i have for her.
120 years old, and never shown wrong.
I like to think of gravity being eleastic. When gravity is present, space streches and have greater potential energy. If gravity works on a multipliclative scale, black holes which curves space on an infinite level could cause sufficient energy to power expansion.
In any discussion of Unified Theories, Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces are taken as the four fundamental forces of nature; the first two are part of our everyday, macroscopic experiences. It's curious that Electromagnetism has been uniquely excluded from Cosmology.
It makes sense to use all of the tools in the toolbox.
"Magnetohydrodynamics & Plasma Physics" is discussed in Chapter 10 of Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" (2nd edition). Revisiting the concepts in "Cosmical Electrodynamics" by Alfvén & Fälthammar, and "Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Peratt deserves attention, especially in light of contemporary observations from JWST and other observatories, for example.
Go read Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne. He goes into all of that. Cosmology works extensively with E&M, especially when you get into neutron stars, black holes, etc.
The mainstream seems to really love the gatekeeper role over what possibilities create our reality.
To think, Bruno Giordano...
May we all keep an open mind and remember, its because we think we're the center of the Universe, that we're wrong. ✌️
Excellent presentation and thank you for sharing this. 💯
Practically gravity already has a finite reach. When the curvature of space is smaller than the Planck length, it's negligible.
This looks very good, thank you for this idea.
Negligible is not zero
Quantum Gravity:
a vacuum force created in space by displacement by an atom.
Matter displaces space.
The larger the mass, the more space displaced.
Displaced space creates a cumulative force equal to the amount of atoms that displaced space.
See below.
Atoms contain anti-space which prevents space from filling the void of an atom.
It's a bit different from the prevailing view of gravity as a result of spacetime curvature.
In this concept, matter's presence creates a distortion or "bulge" in space, and gravity is the function of space to return to uniformity.
There are some similarities to existing ideas:
Homogeneity principle: This idea aligns with the concept of spacetime preferring homogeneity, which is a cornerstone of general relativity.
Mechanism:
How exactly does matter create this distortion? See above.
What properties of space allow this "push" away from uniformity?
Space must maintain homogeneity. (Core tenet)
Space has the quality of compression when displaced by matter. (Core tenet)
The compression of space is the gravity. (Core tenet)
The interior of the atom contains, for lack of a better word, anti-space... which currently is considered simply space.
Prior to the concept of anti-space, quantum gravity would be impossible to visualize.
With this idea visualizing is easy.
Anti-space displaces space.
The amount one unit of anti-space displaces space is a quantum of gravity.
The main unit is the helium quanta. All other larger atoms gain one quanta of anti-space per proton.
We recognize anti-space in the same abstract way that led to the concept of dark matter.
Looking at a theory that offers a theory of everything, assuming anti-space is a reasonable stretch and a starting point of creating quantum gravity math.
Which should be easy enough for an accomplished mathematician.
The energetic unit of anti-space is the inverse of the same amount of space.
The more atoms accumulate, the greater the gravity.
The sun displaces a large amount of space, equal to the volume of the sun.
Experimental verification: Can this idea be translated into mathematical models or testable predictions that could differentiate it from general relativity?
It seems so. I'm not a physicist and need help to develop this theory. Intuitively I sense this is correct.
In a sense, it is the curvature of space, but in the sense that space condenses around a body of matter.
Closer to the surface, the space is thicker with greater pressure.
This pressure is the strength of gravity.
Most of current cosmology still applies. It's just that this nascent augmented viewpoimt solves for a theory of everything, of which, most of the heavy lifting has already been done.
Possible avenues of proof.
Equivalence principle test:
This experiment would test if different types of matter experience the same amount of "anti-space" displacement, perhaps onboard the ISS.
General relativity predicts that all matter falls at the same rate in a vacuum, regardless of composition. If this theory deviates from this, a high-precision equivalence principle test could expose the difference.
This theory proposes a novel "anti-space" force.
Experiments searching for new forces between microscopic particles, like those conducted at particle colliders, could potentially detect interactions that align with this theory's predictions.
General relativity predicts specific properties of gravitational waves. If this theory offers distinct predictions about how "anti-space" displacement propagates, astronomers studying gravitational waves might observe discrepancies between this theory and general relativity.
These are good starting points as my main wish is to get this idea into the community. ASAP
Mick Malkemus, MS
if quantized then gravity's reach must be finite, unless some new definition of what it means to be quantized.
For what it is worth, a long time ago Maxwell noted that even intense levels of energy in the form of radio waves caused a space time modifying effect. The value was determined by him to be a very small factor in his equation that described its propagation. The stronger the energy field the slower the energy propagation rate. If one 'amps' this idea up to the strength of the intensity inside an atom's make up, then it logically makes sense to me that such effects could fully explain how such a large amount of energy could get so knotted up in such a small space. The superior intensities there simply keep 'lensing' the energy flows there back into its high intensity points, thus making a stable state of various patterns and so persist over very serous lengths of time.
Just as a possible example, electromagnetic charges and fields in the basic particles may be due to the energy flows expressing a whirling pattern around the energy intense middle. Then there is the potential for a greater rate of propagation outside that center area, yet it is still contained. This pattern may be simpler for the electron compared to that of the proton. Like one whirl that has two basic layers around the intenser core. It is made up of a magnetic expressing flow that stabilized a charge field coiled around it. Then as it all migrates away from the center there is a moment where the magnetic expressing layer is exposed, and the charge expressing layer is both internalized for a bit as being the slower inside part of the outer whirling flows, while also being so far away and dispersed that it gets ahead of the cores and is lensed into a curl that is drawn back in toward the core and therein is flowing in the opposite direction causing a magnetic flow around it there that is supportive of regenerating the outer layers noted flow patterns by flowing in the same direction as the spiraling outer magnetic flow's inner side does as they meet there. Then as that keeps migrating out and moving faster the types of flows that get expressed by the electron revert back to having the charge expressing flow outermost and being supported on its spiraling inner side with a reversal of the layering of the types of flows going on there for the same reason the other one described above happens.
To make this all stable, it may well be that the maximum speed of the constructing energy that causes matter to exist is actually twice the speed of light. It is just that the outer most part of the particles that then meet 'empty space' run into flows going in the opposite direction and are limited thereby to the speed we note as light's rate of propagation.
Since high school physics I've always had the picture of a mass pressing a membrane down...but a consequent rise in the membrane around it. In other words; to me, symmetry means a spontaneous creation of anti-mass for every mass, the antimass a diffuse bulge, pushing all stars into strings around the bubbles.
What we call gravity is the tip of the ice burg. It's the "visible light" of the whole EM spectrum in that it's a piece of a larger more fundamental phenomenon. That phenomenon is temporal relativity. Under certain conditions temporal relativity gives rise to this attractive force between masses we call gravity, however under most other conditions temporal relativity leads to repellent forces. The key is understanding that in spacetime, any dimension has the capacity to be temporal, and more importantly, that there is absolutely no requirement for any two observers to agree on what dimension is temporal.
So I think she's really close, but it's not that gravity has limits, it's that eventually in the vast void between masses the temporal directions between the void and the large bodies of mass are no longer aligned enough to remain attractive but instead become repellent.
With all the insight that Einstein brought to the table with relativity, our community is still so steadfast in its assumption that the direction of time itself is somehow uniform. I really do think the key insight is the realization that the direction of time is itself relative.
"the key insight is the realization that the direction of time is itself relative."
On paper perhaps.
It's an interesting take, I feel it more speaks to die-hard relativists that may be relucant to quantizing gravity. Unfortunately QM has a lot of effective tools on how quantizing something turns into behavior, but, emphasizing: although the plain result is it won't work (acceleration is increasing, not flattening) it does 'let more math in' in a way which might be constructive.
Who else noticed that some of the equations behind the speaker contain errors?
😂👍
No, they are all correct.🤔
3:38 Thank you for making that Earth rotate the correct way.
21:46 "To be sure mathematics don't lie, so if you come up with a mathematical proof, it must be correct."
What? You mean provided the assumptions are correct.. right?
To be sure Prof De Rham is very smart. And she certainly moves at high speeds.
It makes a lot of sense... At the very least probably the stretching of the fabric of space-time when closer to other objects, counteract or disipates the gravity impact and reach from other farther... Observations are key and if the observations don't match with infinite reach we may be on the face of a more simple explanation that matches our reality
An unusually bombastic title
ARE YOU NOT ENGAGED?!
@@thesoppywankerStill a great lecture. This is so basic and normally I'd have clicked off of this bc it's such a boring intro to cosmology - she for (whatever reason) held my attention. But to your point, yeah - the only reason I clicked the was bc I thought this was going to be something else.
It is an amazingly bold title.
If it were very wordy and populated with loaded or bloated or hyperbolic words, then it would be bombastic.
@@Jaggerbushshe respects that any ignorance on our part is a temporary condition and is no reflection on our dignity.
Maybe I did not listen properly, but where was the delusion? I'm not listening to it again.
Claudia de Rham such an inspiring lovely wise intelligent elegant person, woman, scientist!
Very interesting. I was wondering who may be delusional over theories about gravity and dark energy. Certainly, most of my focus is on whether gravity can be quantized.
But that perhaps gravity’s reach is finite and that dark energy resolves for this discrepancy makes sense.
I’m looking forward to the refined study of gravitational waves as to clue us into its reach.
I'm in the same boat and also enjoyed the presentation. I hope I'm still around when the first results come in from LISA. That will spur some great presentations from Perimeter Institute!
Dark energy is a dark hole of folly.
@@jovetj I don’t look at it as folly. I look at it as a placeholder until we discover what it really is.
So a more accurate way to compare and predict the time in two places would be to ask “what time is it there and, how are you experiencing gravity?” Is that correct?
Does anyone listening have a hope of understanding the curvature of space and time?
Not me, but isn’t this lovely to listen to❤
Sadly, if you can't get past high school algebra, you have zero chance of doing the math of Relativity.
Awesome presentation!
4:56 "...for thousands of years we thought the Earth was flat..." !! This never happened; no one, including the Greeks thousands of years ago, thought the Earth was flat. Only nowadays we have idiots thinking Earth is flat. How can de Rham not to know this?
Well, our species exists since about 300,000 years and I'm sure that throughout most of this timespan most people assumed that the world is flat. If you know pretty much nothing of the world and you live all of your life in a small area it is very reasonable to think that the earth is flat.
The Earth is flat. It's space that is curved.
[Thales of Miletus](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus#Cosmological_model) "thought the Earth must be a flat disk or mound of land and dirt which is floating in an expanse of water". His disciples were the ones who gradually figured out that it was roundish.
@@simoncrase5360 Thales is considered as the "first philosopher", and his idea of reality was based on water. This was 25 centuries ago, and his disciples were already able to understand that the Earth was a sphere (about 25 centuries ago)
@@ascaniosobrero If you take the time to find out about Anaximander, Thales' successor, you'll find that he hadn't come up with the idea of a spherical Earth, nor had Anaximenes. That is a bit later. Karl Popper ("Back to the Presocratics") suggested that Thales' biggest contribution was encouraging his successors to criticise his ideas, and come up with something better, rather than blindly following the master's teachings.
Outstanding. Thank you Claudia.
Incredible
No idea what she said but i enjoyed it
gravity only acts at the speed of light, so as the light arrives, we can calculate a location for the source of the mass with which we are currently trading gravitational attraction. If a body is beyond our vision, outside of OUR visible universe, because those objects are accelerating away from us faster than the speed of light, then we don't currently trade gravitational attraction, and gravitation therefore has a limit, because essentially objects beyond our vision cannot transmit their location. If I'm right, then shouldn't there be a sliding scale of gravitational attraction based not just on the mass, distance and direction, but also on the speed of separation? It means that the gravitational force equation requires a new term (1-radialvelocity/c), which may eliminate the need for dark matter.
Yes, bit I'm pretty sure that's been taken into consideration.
@@edwardhoppe4294 I don't think you even watched the video. She never mentioned it. I believe my suggestion is new physics. It means that the gravitational force equation requires a new term (1-radialvelocity/c). This may eliminate the need for dark matter.
dark matter or dark energy?
The problem is the exact opposite. Spiral galaxies spin faster than their visible matter can hold them together at that speed, indicating something we can't see(dark matter/energy). All this woman said is we have to study gravity waves for 10 more years because that's when she retires.
@@WhyteHorse2023What she said was. In going to scam a paycheck out of you for another 10 years.
There is no gravitational attraction. Mass is not an actionable force.
The ball drop experiments? Mass does not increase acceleration.
Newton's 3rd Law of motion. Action and Reaction. Gravity/g-force is a Reactionary force. The resistance of the mass to being accelerated.
F=ma. Force comes from Acceleration of the mass. Not the mass itself.
The laws of physics are equally applicable in ALL frames of reference. Toss a ball out the back of a truck. It isn't gravitationally attracted to the trailing car. It is no longer being accelerated inna forward motion by the truck. Sane with the vacuum tube. There is no outside force acting on the ball so it decelerates.
The earth is in motion around the sun. That's where the 'gravity' comes from. 67000mph worth. And another 1000mph as you move from pole to equator.
The ground accelerates you and you accelerate the air above you. It's called atmospheric pressure (force). As you gain altitude, the mass above you decreases so you 'weigh' less. It takes less force to accelerate you because there is less total mass being accelerated.
Newton's gravitational attraction is flat earth science. Go back and study the drop tests. Study LIGO. Where the detectors PUSHED put of alignment or pulled. Electromagnetic waves are force carriers. They carry force away from the source. Otherwise you have tractor beam technology.
There is no interaction between the earth and moon to create tides. Galileo already showed that it's the Earth's motion, not its mass that creates the tides. Look it.
These pseudo-science flat earthers will keep scamming you unless you educate yourself.
Galaxy rotation = Hurricane rotation. You don't need mass to create acceleration. You need acceleration to create acceleration.
E=mc.
Energy = Acceleration. Acceleration = Energy.
Mass is not an actionable force. G-force is a Reactionary force.
F=ma. Mass or Acceleration. The actionable force can't be both.
F=ma -> ma=ma -> m=m & a=a.
For Claudia: This may be a dumb question or observation, however, every time physicists speak of "curvature of space & time" they also speak of the "fabric of space time" & provide the sort of graphic you have - showing "mass" sphere bodies bending space time fabric.
My question is simply this. Is this graphic illustration "limited" or "inadequate" to the extent that actually "space-time curvature" is not actually on a flat horizontal frame/plane - but rather, is in all directions and on a fully enveloping 3 dimensional 'medium'. (ie as if the spheres were generating curvature as they passed 3 dimensionally through space. In a simple example as if a ball travelling through some form of semi solid/semi liquid medium - was able to create in the particles of such a medium - in 3 D - the sort of "curvature" shown in graphic??!!
I hope that makes sense! Do please perhaps let me / others know of your thoughts and 'clarification' if necessary of the graphic of "space-time curvature" and its association with gravity (gravitational force / 'graviton'(matter) and the limits of gravitational force. I find your theory fascinating as in a way it actually seems to hark back to the huge 'debate' which Sir Isaac Newton had with [????] which was about whether there had to be some "physical substance" between heavenly bodies in order for them to be subject to forces moving them - vs Newton arguing that the gravitational force was operating without any such concept or necessity of there being some 'physical' medium through which forces could operate on and move heavenly bodies!
PS: I think your mastery of 'cosmetology' is plainly evident in the absolutely elegant fashion you are so perfectly wearing. (sorry -i'll admit - i have an innocent crush on you as an amazing human being!! ❤❤)
Most people can't get past the Special Relativity Lagrange transform, let alone 10 dimension tensors of General Relativity. Showing silly little graphics in 2D is fairly useless.
Existence is the most universal phenomenon that exists.
It might be that gravity is in fact unlimited in range, but that at a certain distance, it becomes too weak to effect any physical change, even at the smallest possible scales.
Shes smart.
Very interesting. I think this will spin of a number of new theories, and may be give us a better insight into how big the universe is or if it is just infinite. Is the universe expanding or is it simply returning to its initial state before the big bang.
Gravity with a finite reach should be fairly "easy" to simulate in a computer model. Has this been done?
Gravity doesn’t have a finite reach it just becomes insignificant in the mathematics.
The entire burden of the lecture was, that this hypothesis results in a calculated expansion of the universe that matches the observations; one can assume that, as with virtually every present-day cosmological model, computer calculation was part of the process.
Wonderful presentation, thank you
I wonder where 'dark energy' is supposed to be sourced from, given the perpetually accelerating expansion of the universe.
It comes from a special part of the universe called ‘our misunderstanding of physics’ it’s actually located right next to an area called ‘speaking confidently about things we don’t know’ . Both of which reside in the minds of certain physicists generally found on TH-cam.
That'd be like asking "where do 'vacuum' fluctuations come from". _Those_ are there. To get the results we see you need them, and to not have them exist gets you wrong answers. Physics has gotten horribly complicated and unfortunately on one side, adding things to existing theories gets you closer to reality in one way, but creates impossibilities or non-reality elsewhere, and opposite, hypotheses beyond our current theories have a laughable number of knobs and buttons that makes almost anything possible.
A more useful question is if vacuum fluctuations are a permanently stable feature (which as far as we can discern, they are) then what to make of them having no average gravitational effect? Should we expect vacuum energy _we_ _observe_ _now_ to change? If they only existed in the neighborhood of existing phenomenon, that'd explain why on average there's no extra gravity, but I've yet to see anything question why we don't see anomalous photons all around us, and massive un-accounted gravity if the vacuum is slowly humming away.
Amazing explanation!
28 fold discrepancy! Almost like the universe is laughing at our ignorance!
Each fold (of a piece of paper, say) reduces the size by one-half. Not one-tenth.
In order to put 28 orders of magnitude into 'folds' you'd have to multiply the 28 by a number a little larger than 3 (since one-half, cubed, is one-eighth).
So, 80- or 90-fold.
@@meofamily4thank you for making me smile. Keep thinking. Keep questioning. You may be surprised at how rare those activities are.❤
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-fold, give or take
@@meofamily4 Actually, to attain a true 28 fold you would have to fold (if each fold was cumulative upon the last) just under 5 times.
This is because the folds are not pertaining to the surface area of the paper, they pertain to the thickness of the paper - where a sheet of paper starts at 1 thickness, after 1 fold becomes 2 thickness, after 3 fold becomes 4 thickness, and so on.
The whole idea of 'folds' however, as known colloquially, is simply the multiplicative integer (2) on the initial starting value. Meaning that each new 'fold' is applying the same effect as the first fold.
But then again, we're just wasted a substantial amount of our lives talking about folds, we have deeper questions to ask ourselves.
Thank You. Thank You. You are brilliant. You win a copy of the book "I Have Become Space" along with its new addendum.
Simple to understand.
Gravity may be limited over distance.
Like strong and weak forces.
Big distances but limited.
So expansion of the universe is then as it should be. 😊
You sign as "goldeneye" elsewhere, yes?
@@robbannstrom no.
Thank you for the video.
Neolithic man understood that the Earth was a globe, evidence found in stone circles precisely positioned relative to the sun, moon, Venus and stars confirm they understood the circicular motion of nature that surrounds us.
They had the same mathematical ability as we have today. Their understanding was passed on in songs and performance, these teachers were known as druids. Understanding was lost in time and it is in writing that our understanding is re-established. Flat earth is relatively new in the scheme of things.
Understanding of gravity however is new to us. Go Newton, come on Einstein, you guys rock.
your amazing! we love your work! long live the death of the ghost!
I still prefer my theory: There is a conservation of gravity similar to the conservation of energy in that if you take from one, it has to give in another. So if the mass that are PULLING space-time to create attractive gravity are "taking", then something somewhere else has to "give back" to balance it all out. The "giving back" is the space-time in-between galaxies and the rest of the universe that is pushing things away through a force that appears REPULSIVE in nature.
Yes I think you are correct. If the universe began from nothing and somehow spacetime is created, then conservation of energy would suggest the universe should also possess a force that contracts spacetime towards zero. Hence- gravity.
Sounds good but since universe is expanding it seems it gives much more than it takes?
What makes things more sensible, in a way, is if black-holes are effectively accruing space-time, then galaxies are getting slower. A linear velocity of galaxies moving away *and* a linear slowing-down of galaxies gives an accelerating gap between galaxies: _both_ galaxies are operating slower creating time effects, resulting in a lower sampling time, and warping of energy when it approaches the excessively warped galaxy. It is two effects, instead of "everything is really accelerating", but it is testable, that more massive galaxies would have a discrepancy in the Hubble Constant. I think science will end up leaning more towards it, because the Webb telescope finds "impossibly big", "impossibly into their lifespan" evidence of galaxies at old times - this is fine because they only appear too big to us - we're seeing them relativistically dilated in size or age.
This lady won't quit popping up in my recommended
A very good speech!!!
So excellent lecture.
What about the part where the kids get eaten by bears for mocking the bald guy ? That’s one of my favorites .
I must have missed a reference to Biblical cosmology, Couldn't figure out why a reference to 2 Kings 2:23-24 was here. The Religion For Breakfast TH-cam channel ought to cover this. They are usually scholarly and even-handed. If this event had been presented as a parable, then I think most would take it as a moral lesson, contrasting a village letting children run wild, and two she-bears who are presumably being good parents protecting nearby cubs. But the point I wanted to make was that it did not say the bears ate or killed them. It says they tore 42 of them, leaving it up to the imagination. And it says 42 "of" the children, suggesting that the whole group was larger.
@@EinsteinsHair True . But since I’m bald I found it a fitting punishment . We’re very sensitive.
I know it's not right or socially acceptable, but I must say it's very difficult concentrating on what's being said when it's done so by such a lovely woman.
All of that education and she still has a great sense of fashion.
The gravity representation using the rubber sheet is a bit of a misrepresentation. We live in a 3D world and the physics is in with us. The Sun's gravity field has to be seen, accepted as being 3D. The indentation of the rubber sheet has to be viewed from every position - the space around the Sun is 3D, the gravity is affecting all that space. Getting you head around something that is already invisible makes seeing things accurately a real bitch.
The rubber sheet model is alll that we can see and I can accept that a 3d version is possible. However the 2d, rubber sheet model only works because of a 'force' of gravity that pulls the mass into the depression. If we are told that gravity is not a force, this model must be quite decieving as it does not demonstrate anything. If gravity is not a force, how does one mass experience acceleration?
@@brianmason9803 the same way a brick and a feather fall to the ground at the same speed (in a vacuum) and the mass doesn't matter. Gravity is an acceleration not a force; it provides a more direct path through spacetime.
No shit it's a misrepresentation. It's a metaphor. That's how those work.
@@tradtke101 They don't reeeally fall for the same time in vacuum though, do they? If they're dropped at the same time, sure, but otherwise the heavier object will pull the earth up more than the feather will, resulting in shorter time until collision. The difference is only something like 10^-14 seconds (immeasurably small), but there is a difference still. This misconception comes from using an abbreviated and simplified version of the equation for gravitational pull, and also from using very small masses. If you scale it up to, say, the moon, it becomes obvious that mass does make difference for the time to fall. You can ser this at work in things like ocean tides.
Or if you put a feather, and Mars, at equal distance from earth (and pretend that that all of the catastrophic effects of doing so don't exist, and also ignore atmosphere completely), the time difference would be very noticeable
The feather accelerates the earth towards it less than the brick does, hence there is a difference
If spacetime is itself quantized, then gravity should have a minimum limit (one quantum of gravity).
Started to watch this video to find out something new, but no such luck. Just the same chew again and again.
So does this mean you are satisfied with what you know about all this “chew”?
@@lucianofinardi7222 Not at all! But it’s the same old chew.
Summary of her point: If gravity was not thought of as infinitely far-reaching, but limited, then some calculations could work out better.
Here come the comments of the aluminum hats 😂
Is the dark energy in the room with you now?
Doesnt matter the theory. Science is only valuable for creating new technologies for making us live better so that we may have more free time to ponder and make ourselves better for the underlying reality that generates this one.
May the love of the one infinite creator find you brother.
These videos and conversations should be speculated in dramatic ways. That's how progress is made
Got to protect your brain from 5G somehow.
Wow this was mindblowing and she is right i think...