I am not a physicist, I am just a person trying to think outside the box. My son was a physicist and I use to like to discuss things with him, but unfortunately my son Dr Thomas Frawley passed away ( cancer ) aged 30.
Study and think about your son and learn with the idea that he might have survived death and is learning along with you. You will never know this idea is wrong, only if it’s correct.
My deep condolences sir. I think you can find a lot of smart guys similar to your deceased son in this channel. Besides, I am physicist too. We can discuss these scientific topics too.
While current candidates for QG like string theory and LQG are probably not the solution to the problem, and I do think a theory of everything should ultimately be quantitative, I think there is a very big issue with comparing this kind of "numerology" to what Maxwell found. The difference lies with _intensive_ versus _extensive_ properties of the universe. The properties that Maxwell related are all intensive properties (electric constant, magnetic constant, speed of light/causality) which do not correspond to any particular structure and are thus true "universal" properties of the universe that are likely directly birthed from a theory of everything (or are true free parameters birthed at the creation of the universe). The ratios that are present in this video, however, all incorporate extensive properties like the mass of the proton, radius of the proton, mass of the observable universe, and radius of the observable universe. There are two major issues with this: 1. When you allow yourself to consider extensive properties as fundamental constants, the adjustable degrees of freedom that you can use to arbitrarily make approximate equations dramatically increases. This is especially the case for properties of structures (ie protons and the entire universe) versus fundamental particles which there are relatively few of. Some questions: Why the proton specifically? Why not the neutron? Why use the rms charge radius of the proton and not another definition of its radius (since a proton is actually boundary-less)? Why not the electron? Why not any other particle? Why not some other structure of quarks, like mesons, of which there are hundreds (protons being the most common charged baryon due to them being the most stable should not make them uber-special such that their properties would relate to the ratio of the fundamental forces)? Why the ratio of the electric to the gravitational force, and not the strong or weak forces? The strong force very likely has much more influence on the proton charge radius than gravity does. Why the size/matter of the observable universe, and not the minimum size of the known universe which is at least 500 times larger than the observable one based on large-scale cosmology? This doesn't even touch the issue of using other math constants (like pi or the golden ratio or e or any of the many, many constants) to try and make the equations work as experiments get more accurate. Why pi/2, and not pi/4, or 2*pi, or pi^2, or pi^2/2, or the golden ratio, or 8, or 8*e^2, and so on... It is very easy to get agreement to 6, 8, 10 decimal places when you have so many degrees of freedom that you don't need to have real justification for. 2. The deeper issue is that the extensive properties of structures like protons and the universe likely arise from an extremely complicated mess of different aspects of physics coming together to create an essentially arbitrary extensive property with little direct, simple relation to intensive fundamental constants. The radius (and mass) of the proton, for example, likely arises from a complicated mess of primarily strong interactions. The proton is known to have a mess of quarks and virtual gluons that interact in extremely complicated ways. The probability that the radius (or mass which would also involve the Higgs and other effects) that results from this mess of interactions relates cleanly to other fundamental constants is quite low (even if you ignore the first point about many degrees of freedom). This issue is even greater for something like the size of the observable universe and its matter content. The density of baryon matter in the universe arises from several different physical aspects of the early universe (like the varying expansion rate, the ratio of matter to anti-matter, the stability of certain arrangements of quarks, ect.) coalescing into an effectively arbitrary number for density. If this density were to be predicted from a theory of everything using only fundamental constants, it would likely involve, at a minimum, a dizzying array of integrals and other expensive computations, not some simple "nice" formula in terms of fundamental constants. I have no problem with physicists playing around with constants and equations to see if something interesting comes up. I also don't have a problem with _some_ people trying their best to investigate the supposed leads that this numerology gives. However, to claim that these relations are exact or meaningful, or to claim that this way of trying to develop a theory of quantum gravity is the most likely to succeed, is completely unjustified IMO. TL;DR If your physical relation takes advantage of many degrees of freedom to adjust the numbers, and you don't have a fleshed-out physical justification for your relation, its probably shit.
@@AlicanErenKuzu You misunderstand the definition of quantitative. Quantitative in this context just means that the theory predicts a numeric value for physical constants (and other phenomena). An example of a quantitative theory would be the prediction of the number that is the fine structure constant, as opposed to a qualitative theory that would merely say that there _is_ a fine structure constant that plays a certain role in the physics.
Well written. I always challenge everyone who believes to know it all to come and take acid n ketamine with me as science experiment. Every 2weeks , 7 times , smoke dmt , and then ...THEN try n formulate a theory of how the universe works without vomiting over their own essays. Its a mindverse. Our perceptional reality is just a fraction of all that is.
I agree with this analysis. Ideally, if one would want a new numerology-based theory like this to be taken seriously, one would state all the possible degrees of freedom that you've allowed yourself, their justifications (if any) and honestly analyze: Given a random theory taken from the space of possible theories you've constructed by your choice of degrees of freedom, how likely would that random theory be your theory? Lets at least meet social science's bar of 95%
Very well put! This was exactly what I was thinking throughout this video. Why relate the radius of a proton and of the observable universe to anything, as neither of them even come close to being a fundamental property of the universe 🤷🏼♂️
I was lucky enough to attend a lecture by PAM Dirac on the large number hypothesis. He was a good speaker, but lived up to his acerbic reputation. I distinctly remember him referring to "that Wyle mathematician," (with the German pronunciation) and it was very clear the _double entendre_ was intentional - he got a laugh from the audience, smiled, and moved on.
@@TheMachian Ah. The German name Wyle, pronounced with in German, sounds like the English word "vile," meaning morally despicable or abhorent. I'm not sure he looked at Wyle in disdain, but perhaps was being playful.
I also saw Dirac give a lecture at Adelaide University in the midd seventies on this topic. The lecture theatre was packed and as a young student interested in physic I was really unable to grasp the intent of the numerology which seemed then to be speculative to the extreme. Thanks to this video I feel I finally understand the intent of these musings. Took a while…
The number of people 'explaining' a particular subject is inversely proportional to the knowledge that science has on the subject. This means that when many people write books about the subject, little is known. This is a handy tool for determining how far a subject has evolved.
Lol, in a way yes, because it means everybody is having a go at it. Just look at the huge number of Riemann hypothesis "solutions" Lol Mine is the only one correct
@PsyMan Magus X Well, there's a connection between 'Love Island' and quantum physics science popularizes - in both cases the participants actually want fame and money rather than the supposed purpose of the exercise.
As a kid in the 80s I had a mini-Maxwell moment while messing around with a calculator. It had a bunch of built-in physical constants that I was randomly multiplying, dividing, squaring etc. I stumbled upon permittivity * permeability, reciprocal, square root - and out pops the speed of light. I nearly jumped out of my seat!
A pity you were not born 180 years earlier (well no calculator without electrodynamics:)). Actually Kirchhoff and Weber stumbled upon that coincidence, too, while performing their experiments.
@neil u They are basically say that there is an ether medium upon which the speed of light is based. This is the same way the speed of sound is an energy wave in air. Dirac basically states that there is an ether medium, AKA a sea of photons. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea It was the basic premise of Tesla and Steinmetz, that electrons are condensers of this medium, and condense a quantized amount of these particles, or dielectric out of the ether medium. A radio signal is the condensing and rarefying of the dielectric. In fact when you follow this model, that charged particles are condensers of the ether medium, all of the mainstream paradoxes disappear. It appears that energy is created by momentum of these particles, by condensing and rarefying this medium, like an air conditioner uses a fluid medium to transfer energy by compression and rarefaction of a freon, use particle momentum to transfer energy. In fact Ron Hatch and GPS prove that there is a medium. The speed of light varies with the density of this medium. This is the Lorentz ether gauge theory. www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdfwiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Ronald_R_Hatch Hatch has a new version of gravity that is based upon the ether medium density, which dictates the energy level, and the speed of light varies with the flux density, just as redshift, refractive index, clock speed, and back - emf do. www.deere.com/assets/pdfs/navcom/Featured%20Articles/inside_gnss_janfeb08_humaneng_ron_hatch.pdf Here is Hatch on Pound- Rebka. www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_538.pdf Gravity is basically due to the ether medium density condensed within masses, and gravity then is magnetic, or ether medium pressure mediation of the medium condensed within matter. Planck's constant is the only true constant in the Universe.
The weird thing in this theory is that it it presents gravity as a force which is more consistent with the Newtonian approach but today most physicists believe that gravity is the interaction between a massive object and the fabric of spacetime the more relativistic approach.I have a problem with the notion of spacetime because if it is a physical thing we know too little or even nothing about it what it is made of and it is a merely mathematical description that really has proven to work by measuring gravitational time dilation with atomic clocks
I think you have spotted the problem with today's fashions. Challenging the idea of spacetime is precisely what ine must do.. see my other videos or www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Reality-Space-Time-Illusion/dp/B0849ZXQB1
My lovely late Great Grandmother. Told me 40 years ago, That she knew the Dirac family. They were close neighbours in Bristol. She did not know the boys well. They were younger than her. However she often helped Pauls mother with errands etc. She told me that they were a very strange family. I believe her.
Everywhere c^2 appears, one can substitute 1/e0u0 (from Maxwell). That makes sense if e0 and u0 are the determining factors not only of EM but as properties of the vacuum they may have something to do with determining gravity too. E = mc^2 for example, can be written as E = m/e0u0.
I have recently just graduated SUNY Binghamton with a math and a physics batcher and I have to say that within the past few years I have fallen very skeptical of modern physics so much so that I lost the motivation in looking for graduate physics programs and have begun studying to get in graduate math programs to follow in Dirac's footsteps of approaching physics with a math background thank you so much for reaffirming that I'm on a good course
4:02 so if You take into account the new CERN-studies of Anti_Hydrogen and it's most probable "weight" of 0.75_g in Earth's 1.0_g_Field, then You would get F_e+(positron) / Fg = 3,0266666E39 ratio!! This also bears the question: will Anti_Neutrinos "feel" only 3/4th_G ? Very hard to meassure, indeed! Of course this 3/4_G_of_antimatter is still made/measured by only one experiment and is still to be taken with a grain of salt!! if a Neutrino collides with its Anti~ , what will happen? can it anihilate completely, or not? What would those two emit: a Gravitaional wave? the only possibility?
This seems *completely* speculative - I don't see how we take this seriously without some sort of theory behind. Where exactly does that pi/2 come from, etc.?
Einstein's "variable speed of light" isn't a variable speed of light theory, it is the truncation of GR to g_00 only. This means clocks tick at different rates at different positions. You shouldn't interpret it as a 'variable speed of light' because the local speed of light as measured by any experiment would still be roughly constant in the proper theory. I say "roughly", because you are ignoring the small effects of the off-diagonal parts of the metric tensor. The proper solution includes the whole metric tensor, Einstein realized that the scalar theory wasn't complete very quickly, he never expected it to be more than a heuristic guide to a full theory. A full scalar theory is Nordstrom gravity, which has no light deflection, unlike the original Einstein 1907 theory you reference, which has half the correct deflection. The full deflection is due to the space-space components of the metric, which contribute equal amount of deflection for a particle moving at the speed of light, and do not contribute at all to a particle moving slowly, for which Einstein's 1907 theory is sufficiently accurate.
Sure. Newton, Maxwell, Euclid, Darwin, Adam Smith, Keynes, Pasteur and Mendeleev - please step aside for Gödel with his work on logic. Forget about mechanics, electrodynamics, geometry, evolution, economy, microbiology and the discovery of chemical elements. What's important is that some mathematical statements aren't provable (never mind that finding such a statement is really hard and almost all somewhat meaningful statements are provable and have been proven).
The problem with the Large Number Hypothesis is that the known universe is two or three orders of magnitude larger than it was in Dirac's day. So one of his dimensionless numbers has changed so much that it no longer matches the other in any spooky way. Also the proton is not an elementary particle like an electron or a quark, so why should we care about its radius or its mass? The number of particles used by Dirac is also suspect. We know about lots more particles today, e.g. neutrinos. So that number is also not spooky anymore. This whole approach to physics seems more like astrology or numerology -- or as the quote on one of the slides puts it: "a remarkable coincidence." But since the numbers no longer *coincide* you can't even call it that.
I was gonna put up the analogy of solar eclipses which are a coincidence of our time as the moon moves away. Also rings of Saturn, and many other things.
I once explained to someone well versed in science, that sound waves travel faster than sound quite often. He said something to the effect of "Bullsh*t". So I said, "How fast does the Concord fly?" He said "Around twice the speed of sound". I said; "How does the guy at the rear of the airplane call out to the flight attendant at the front to order a drink?"
Machs Principle ist only another interpretation of the fact, that the radius of the universe is equal to the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole with the mass of the universe (R=2MG/c²). Also the density (mass devided by 4/3 pi R³) of a black hole is simply derived from its Schwarzschild radius because itself is proportional to its mass: M=c²R/2G, D=3M/4piR³=3c²/8GMpiR². This leads to the observed number of protons (ca. 2 / m³) in the universe.
Not quite. There is no experiment that would indicate a finite size of the electron; on the other hand, the phenomenology is dominated by Compton's wavelength lam=h/mc. The proton is very different. It has a well-measurable size (known since Rutherford) of 0.84 fm, and that size coincides with the Compton wavelength. This is a remarkable property and, as I show equivalent to Dirac's hypotheses.
there is also a female scientist from germany making videos and the remarks about false claims in physics. She is also a great singer and has some cool videos of her creation.
The radius of the universe is ever increasing due to the expansion of the universe. So where is a constant here. And the speed of light in vacuum is variable ?
Equation 13:57 c = 2Pi f rp; but 2Pi r = circumference, so this says that c = f circumferencep. That is, frequency equals c divided by the circumference of the proton. So the number of times a particle would travel around the cirumference (per second) would be its speed (c) divided by the distance travelled (the circumference). If the speed of light were 10 million times the circumference, the number of times it would travel around would be 10 million (per second).
@@TheMachian I mean, defining radius of p as the Comptom wavelength of p is entirely independent of any large number quotients, is just defining an heuristic scale where single particles cannot be unequivocally resolved, do we agree? all of the original large factors seem to have been cancelled from numerator and denominator
Well, if it is hard for you to do all these complex non-linear differential equations, just declare all that to be "crap" and switch to multiplication and division. :)
that's a very dumb answer. The quality of a physical theory has to be judged by its conceptual simplicity and by its predictive power, not by the math involved. Moreover, Math is just a tool, and non-linear differential equations are quite of standard use in physics.
Numerology is great for approximation's but I disagree. As we know the fine structure constant is bound to change by renomalization. I don't think picking a single value of a running coupling at the lowest energy scales can tell you much about a theory of QG which is meant to be a UV completion for GR at the most extreme energy scales. An analogy would be saying that taking the ratio of two non-relativistic values will tell me something about a theory that describes the ratio of two relativistic quantities, which makes no sense. They don't live in the same regime.
the "running" of alpha is just one of the absurdities of the current particle physics fashion. It is defined by e2/2 h c eps0, there is no change, period. (unless maybe cosmological). On my take on particle physics, see www.amazon.com/gp/product/1492176249
@@TheMachian Your statement is erroneous as it is a reproducible and verifiable aspect of QED. I kindly ask you to formally learn QFT before stating such outlandish and opinionated remarks. It seems that you also do not have any formal education in Physics besides at an undergraduate level, so I implore you to truely understand the inner workings of the Standard Model before becoming a source of misinformation.
@@iDrinkJuice Wasn't the point already made by Dirac that "renomalization" (sic) is unsatisfactory fudging? The intention of the rest of your comment failed to demonstrate your superior grasp, so please let go of the opinionated tone and add something of benefit. This attitude exemplifies much of what is wrong in modern Physics post about 1982 at least.
@@sawlindholme5232 I think you fail to realize that this is a man who responded by trying to sell his books, unpeer reviewed, clearly false, and opinionated. Rarely, do we see someone responding in such manner to be correct. My tone comes from the fact that he is disrespecting the thousands of real and hard working scientists around the world, who in thousands of peer reviewed papers have shown data which is directly conflicting with his false opinions. He is not a physicist, nor does he have a formal education in physics which tells me that he does not have a rigorous understanding of the mathematical process that he outright denies. In order to prove his point, he must show that the two concepts are incompatible and that everyone else is wrong and why they are wrong. He cannot do this without a rigorous understanding of QFT and did not demonstrate said ability. Instead of doing the latter, he doubles down with a single statement and tries to sell me his book. That is the real absurdity here.
@@sawlindholme5232Saying this on a video where a guy with a very opinionated tone tells all of science for the last 40 years that it is wrong despite having no actual physics education is the peak of having zero self-awareness lol
The size of the visible universe increases with time. Does the radius of the proton increase with time? If not, why is this ratio important? Interestingly, the video is titled “way to quantum gravity” yet you say nothing about how one might get to a theory of quantum gravity. Why is that?
No, I don't believe the proton radius in increasing, if one tries an encompassinc picture of variable scales as outlined in my book "Einstein's Lost Key", it appears to even decrease. Thus the Dirac numbers would be (slowly) variable, yes. I did not claim to have a theory of QG, nobody has. I just said Dirac's work is the only reasonable ide in this direction.
Why should the Radius of any particle be fix? They are excitation of fields? They carry fields? So, any radius depends on the kind of measurement and the used amount of energy?
The radius measurement needs to be defined for an elementary particle, but there is no problem as amatter of principle. E.G. the recent charge radius data of the proton.
You haven't read Dirac's papers on quantum gravity, from the early 1950s. His "large numbers hypothesis" is now called "The naturalness problem" and it is unsolved. There is no way to more way calculate the fine-structure constant from first principles than there is to work out the number of stars in the milky-way from first principles, they are both determined by historical accident. This is because the fine-structure constant runs with energy, and at high energy, it depends on how exactly gravity and the other forces are separated.
This isn't true at all. Bose and Einstein and De Broglie all derived Planks Constant in different ways (De Broglie copied Einsteins idea from 1907, but thats a discussion for another day). We derive constants all the time from more foundational ideas. Your comment rests on several assumptions about the epistemology and phenomenology of science that don't appear to be more true than assumptions other physicists make about how physics should be done.
What is the radius of universe? Of the observable? And the mass? Does it includes dark matter or not? Do you know that the ratio of the side if my house and the proton size is approximately the same ratio between the distance from alpha centauri and the radius of Jupiter? A simple coincidence?
The size and mass of the observable universe are measurable numbers, though with huge uncertainties, thus we are talking about orders of magnitude. (DM is one order of magnitude at best). Making up shit is no counterargument.
Although interesting, using dimensional analysis (numerology if you will) to relate concepts isn’t always an effective method of hypothesis or proof. Just because the orders of magnitude of the ratios (F_e)/(F_g) and (R_u)/(r_p) are the same doesn’t mean they are in any way related by the same physical phenomena. The first ratio is related to classical mechanics, which is dependent on the inverse square law, while the second one invokes scales that relate to GTR and QM. With that comparison, you’re relating a classical physics ratio to a modern physics ratio. Not to mention that the orders of magnitude you’re showing are so massive (10^39) that the values of each ratio can be that much more massively different from each other than those approximations elude to. The difference between 1 (10^0) and 2 (2*10^0), numerically, is much smaller than the difference between 100 (10^2) and 200 (2*10^2) so those compared ratio values, at those magnitudes, matter if you’re invoking them in your hypothesis/argument.
I didn't say *always*, and certainly these hints are no proof. The need something else the same way eps0 mue0=1/c2 needs Maxwell's theory. The fact that the numbers involved are so huge justifies to consider orders of magnitude. And don't forget tehre are 2 coincidences, not one. I can also recommend reading Dirac's original 1938.
Unzicker's Real Physics By *always*, I wasn’t referring to you specifically, only in general, through dimensional analysis, that it isn’t always an effective methodology of hypothesis and/or proof pertaining to Physical Arguments. To begin, Maxwell’s theory predicted that the speed of an electromagnetic wave was the same as the speed of light and he argued, theoretically, that light was a propagating electromagnetic wave. The speed of light was first measured by Roemer in 1676 and it was remarkable that Maxwell’s theory had that value spill out with mu_0*eps_0=1/(c^2) as it was the speed coefficient of his derived wave equations, solutions from his 4 proposed field equations. That speed doesn’t *need* Maxwell’s theory and Maxwell’s theory didn’t *need* that speed; it was a remarkable result of his theory. I made the comment about orders of magnitude because I have read Dirac’s paper where he clearly states that these values may be dependent on which Epoch we exist in. His theory was a first approximation based on that these ratios are constants. Dirac even cites that his theory may need to be amended as it ignores factors that *may vary slowly with their arguments.* He even states that the *general formulation of the principle does not enable one to draw exact conclusions with certainty* where he then asserts with Eq. 1 that *a* does not equal *kb* (where a and b are of the orders of magnitude 10^39, and k is a constant of order unity). In that same section, he concedes that these *numerical coincidences* are off by a few orders of magnitude and that these coincidences need to be ignored *for the sake of getting a definite theory*. By in large, these orders of magnitude are massive enough to toss out their coefficients but are tiny compared to the size and structure of our observable Universe where all observable physics works. Additionally, these approximations are also based off of Spiral Galaxies (Nebulae) and their structures, not the radius of the Universe. These are not even the most common type of galaxy, Elliptical Galaxies are. Elliptical Galaxies are also the largest galaxy structures (Giant Ellipticals) in the observable Universe. Furthermore, using the ratio of the mass of the Universe and the mass of a proton ignores a major conservation law in Physics as mass, strictly speaking, is not a conserved quantity; energy is, a result of STR.
What is your opinion on EWT's take on gravity? According to the theory, gravity is a shading effect between particles, as a tiny portion of inbound longitudinal waves are converted to transverse waves due to the particle's spin. I'm bringing this up because it correlates with Dirac's realization that the strength of gravity is related to the mass and size of the universe. Every single particle in the universe "produces" outbound longitudinal waves, which then strike an observed particle from all sides equally if you ignore shading. But because of shading, the more waves per unit volume you have, the more pronounced the shading becomes!
Since the speed of light is actually a property of space-time (we only call it speed of light because photons travel with that speed and they do so because they are massless) it is reasonable to assume that the time that massless particles need to travel across the universe remains constant. And since the radius of the universe is increasing, that speed increases with the same rate. I guess that would explain some observations that led to the assumption of accelerated expansion.
Excellent presentation Sir. Ru/rp is 10^39. But we know that the universe is expanding, which means Ru is keeping on changing. So in order to maintain the ratio constant at 10^39 then rp radius of proton must also be changing. Mu/mp is 10^78 and if mp mass of proton changes then mass of the universe must also be changing. So is rp only changing or both rp, mp is also changing or else is the number of paticles in the universe changing. But protons are not the only particles in the universe there some others like mesons, kaons, electrons also then we have to consider their masses also for finding number of paticles in the universe.
You hit the point. Actually, 10^39 is what Dirach called the epoch, and of course, it is increasing. He suggested a variation of G, which is not ruled ot completely. The interesting thing is the particle number. A solution going back to Rober Dicke is presented in www.amazon.com/dp/B01FKTI4A8
Don't be so quick to say stuff like :' we know the universe is expanding'.. sure redshifts and Hubble and suchlike. By being so 'sure' you have ruled out all other possible options. i'm not at all advocating that anything goes. in any way. Just that fresh eyes need to re-look at all these redshifts to see if this is truly expansion and nothing else. I could be wholly wrong but being too dogmatic is perilous.
@@mauricegold9377 this is an extremely important point. If we start with "we know..." then we created everything we need to deliver the perfect ground for falsification of everything that comes after.
@@TheMachian Along that line, it is easily derived that if the mass (aka number of particles) is increasing, it should be at a rate proportionate to sqrt(t). This implies an expanding universe. There's reason to believe that this does not hold close to t = 0, but observeables at low t are scarce. Possible inflationary early universe via large mase in small spare => more space. Per latest standard gravity theory, as one approached the event horizon, the light from the outside narrows down to a single point, away from the 'center' of the black hole. Non-standard (but calculable, and per standard theory not observable from the outside). Inside, 'down' in polar coordinates becomes 'future' in time, and the former time dimension becomes spatial. The entire event horizon becomes 'the beginning' of time, and is a horizon, not a singularity. But mathematically, the entire universe outside the event horizon diminished to a point at the event horizon. Using one set of equations of the metric (metric from calculations of the inside, but not accounting for z to t axis rotation) , gravity pulls us to the future. Locally, we would observe the arrow of time. Thus the observed speed of light is dependent on gravity. Since the gravitation curvature in that metric increases monotonically, time should slow. At this point, I run out of skill to calculate, but first estimate is Lorenz contraction, and thus in this metric it appears to slow time, which is isomorphic to hyperinflation of distance. I can get to ... Dirac's large numbers. Also equates to watching the area just above the event horizon,
It still gets better founding by the panels. And why is it any worse science then VSL? Sounds like laymen preference to me. I believe MTheory has mathematically much to offer and that all hypotheses and theories should be pursued.
He keeps talking about Dirac's hypothesis. What hypothesis? It's just an observation that there are two numbers that are similar. What is the suggestion? That the strength of quantum gravity depends upon the size of the universe?
I devised the following approach from A-topology in resolving GR/QM conundrum. From A-topology: Theorem #1: In the class of generally ordered spaces, weakly perfect spaces are one and the only true generalization of perfectness; Theorem #2: The existence of weakly perfect spaces that are not perfect is almost a rule. A-topology is based on the following 3 basic axioms: Axiom #1: The set X and the empty set are open. Axiom #2: Any union of open sets is open. Axiom #3: Any finite intersection of open sets is open. Here are key insights and hypotheses: Each point in weakly perfect space W corresponds to a potential quantum state. The open sets in W represent the possible state configurations or superpositions of those quantum states. We define a function to map from W to a state in ℋ Hilbert space that defines the following condition for weakly perfect continuity: f(W) ⊆ ℋ is continuous iff for every open set O in ℋ, f⁻¹(O) is an open set in W. This condition ensures that the mapping preserves the topological structure of quantum states as conceptualized in weakly perfect spaces. Now, if we consider a set S in W comprising multiple points, each corresponding to a different quantum state, then the union of these points (U = ⋃ p_i, where p_i ∈ S) represents the superposition of these states. This union, being an open set in W, adheres to the properties of weakly perfect spaces. In terms of quantum entanglement, we can extend this idea further. If two particles are entangled, their combined state cannot be described independently of each other. In our A-topological framework, this can be represented by a set E in W, where the points in E are so intertwined that their corresponding quantum states in ℋ are non-separable: For p, q ∈ E, the states f(p) and f(q) in ℋ are entangled iff f(p) ⊗ f(q) ≠ f(p) ⨁ f(q).
Is these estimations of Dirac’s era at all accurate? I mean there has been since a LOT of tweaking in the numbers: stars in our own galaxy has roughly ten-folded in the past four decades. Also all kind of discoveries about the universe; all the dark stuff, middle sized black holes, just to give few examples..
How does this hypothesis hold though given the most recent update on the Hubble constant? Variable speed of light could let it tread some water but essentially so far as we can observe, the universe is expanding not only faster than the speed of light but its rate of expansion vs the speed of light is increasing. All the while, the radius of the proton is staying the same.
I don't understand the 10^39 number. The DIAMETER of the observable universe is 880x10^24 m and the proton RADIUS is 0,8414x10^-15. Either you double the radius or half the diameter to set this into relation, but anyway no 10^39 relation I can see. Can someone explain, please?
c/H0 (the hubble constant) is 1.3*10^26 m. Indeed, the number is closer to 10^41. Given the cosmological ucertainties, the coincidence is remarkable though. As Dirac pointed out in his 1937 paper, there could be also numerical factors such as 137 and /or 1836.
Reliance on the proton mass (and proton radius) in dimensionless cosmological ratios, if not considered mere coincidence, would seem to indicate that the geometry of gravitation is dominated by the geometry of particles that are geometrically similar to protons (eg nucleons, ie protons and neutrons). If so, and if dark matter dominates gravitational matter, this would imply that dark matter is predominately baryonic (eg nucleons, ie protons and neutrons). AFAIK, this is inconsistent with the lambdaCDM model of cosmogony.
1:30 Evidence: It took two stars colliding to produce classical evidence of gravity waves. That's a lot of gravitons. Bringing it down to quantum proof experiments asks a lot of instrumentation.
@@TheMachian Started to read. But it got me imagining: Two neutron stars merge, they're spinning faster than they're orbiting. That had to make a horrendous mess and some of the matter must have achieved escape velocity. So neutronium unbound from its source' gravity is in the wild? As long as it doesn't hit my windshield, no problem! #humor Now, back to the article.
Thanks for the article. I'm a hopeful skeptic and his four essential points to establish integrity are very important. I'm a neophyte but the article made his case in an accessible way. At this point I must agree the evidence has glaring weaknesses.
Subspace: +ve charge cells (charge quanta, base charge +1) held together by an ethereal sea of free-flowing -ve charge Inertia: Energy lost by a free cell squeezing through the lattice is returned with a kick as the lattice decompresses/refreezes/balances behind Momentum: Free cells have inertia, free chunks form energy loops of cells in front moving to fill -ve space behind. Holes are just -ve charge flow Positron: +ve free cell (+1) pulls in -ve charge that rebounds with curved outflows. Drags cells, vibrates the Lattice Electron: -ve hole (-1) pulls in +ve cells that rebound outwards before stopping or looping back in. Drags -ve charge, vibrates the Lattice Neutrino: Over 50% (else back to empty lattice) out of phase Electron + Positron. Free cell and hole are close with tight shared charge loops so tiny mass Proton: 2 positrons (fuzzily) sandwiching/wrapping 1 electron. 3 sub parts and long charge loops so mass is large. Overall electric charge is +1 Neutron: Proton + Electron. Electron joins another proton in the nucleus, (pep)(e)(pep), decays outside via centrifugal force on the dangling electron Alpha Particle: 2N + 2P.. 10 e-, 8 p+.. -2 base charge .. (pep)(e)(pep)+(pep)(e)(pep), +2 valence charge. -ve core in a +ve shell (PPeePP) + Gravity ++++++: Chunks + holes of lattice of various sizes that quickly turn to smaller chunks and holes, until electrons, positrons, neutrinos/back to regular lattice Atom: Lattice density increases to the nucleus centre. Outer electrons may be squashed flat on the nucleus surface or pulled away (completely) Weak Force: A nucleus weak point hit hard enough releases alpha particles, neutrons, protons, electrons, positrons, neutrinos and (gamma) light Nuclear Force: Gravity (-ve charge inflow/charge gradient) + electric attraction beat electric repulsion. Fuzzy balloons recursively pulled into spheres Electron Bond: Electron stretched between two +ve nuclei zones. There is also a 6 ins+6 outs charge flow model of electrons and positrons -ve Charge Flow: Continuous, gravity-centralised inflows, outflows curve with shallow exit angle. Lateral force in random directions cancels (else spin?) Gravity: Mass pulls -ve charge from voids that repel more and expand. Higher -ve charge density compacts the lattice. Inward -ve charge gradient/flow(s) Time: -ve charge density slows -ve charge and light speed so local time slows / Cells crossed in a constant time with more cells per area Velocity: Compresses the lattice (Length Contraction) so higher charge density so local time slows (Time Dilation) Black hole: Drags lattice around (Frame Dragging). Neutrino crystal. Feeding may annihilate core boundary matter to empty lattice (a universe?) Hawking Radiation: Annihilated matter frees trapped -ve charge that radiates in all directions, out of the black hole and into its core Tunnelling: Intrinsic radial energy of positron and electron charge flow directed in one direction for a brief time, possibly travelling at C2, or even C3 Particle Entanglement: Particles linked by charge flows.. Stopping a flow at any point in the network breaks entanglement Spin: Particles (and cells and/or charge flows?) (may) spin (anti)clockwise perpendicular to the direction of travel (charge outflow bias? blocky lattice?) -- Light Blip: Compressed (+extra?) -ve charge dipole pulls in lattice. Concentrates -ve charge so may deplete voids and add to gravity. Dark Matter? Light Wave: Amplitude = number of blipping layers. Shorter wavelength = higher blip frequency = higher wave energy. Velocity = C Photo-Electric Effect: Light frequency over a threshold determined by atomic mass and valency dislodges an electron on impact Photon Entanglement: Vibrating line of cells like an ultra-fine (spinning?) AC current / Warped line of cells between entangled photons -- Big Bang: Lattice explosion flings charge out as matter / Black holes collide so rapid core growth / Black hole hit like a bell / Fast lattice expansion/growth Steady State: Universe could grow slowly. A big hit may start simultaneous (patchy) matter formation across the whole universe, not from a point Boxed Universe: If voids can't expand when they lose -ve charge to matter gravity wells are steeper with more compressed lattice Conservation: Everything is conserved - but if a black hole core annihilates matter to empty lattice that absorbs the energy the information is lost PROS: Simpler, semi-symmetric, recursive, realistic, 3D/4D, visualisable, self-contained, open/closed, (in)finite, (semi)conformal, cyclic , (un)balancing -- This isn't any form of science, not even pseudoscience. It is materialist make-believe in-mind modelling minus maths. A strictly 4D, neo-classical bottom-up approach compatible with a closed, contained and more importantly an open, but self-contained universe/multiverse using the fewest base particles and forces (2+1). There are many possible variations of this BINARY BASE CHARGE FIELD. This variant is a simpler universe to the Standard Model that corrects what seem to me to be obvious fundamental , problematic errors, namely Antimatter-matter and neutrino problem and lack of electro-lumino-gravitational !ETHER! (kind of... mine combines with +ve cells to form a more modern quantum relativistic lattice field).. This model has its merits and the maths can't be too difficult for a math wiz. It is a pretty accommodating, recursive, strictly visualisable premise (as it should be?).. The Lattice is everything, there is no nothing, no thing is perfectly still, balanced lattice. There is no empty space and probably not (much) truly empty lattice containing no thing(s). There is no before or after The Eternal Lattice, there is no outside and The Lattice knows everything because it is everything - but a (collective) conscious entity!
@@srikiraju .. Thankyou. It is the most simple conceptual, self-contained, quantum-relativisitc base model of the universe. I have tried to apply it to the data. PET scans indicate the Quark model is wrong and my model is correct (proton+neutron turns into a neutron, positron and neutrino)... All free particles and nuclei are perfectly spherical by all measurements. Quantum gravity with gravity naturally getting stronger the closer to the nuclei centre, as well as macroscopically towards the centre of gravity, explains The Strong Force. It is a very powerful, simple model people should play around with...
Two years ago Susskind and Mark blended QM and GR explaining, rather incompletely, using Maldacena's ADS/CFT correspondence and discovering quantum gravity. I think it s high time Unzicker gives us his take.
That little guy did not know the history of his science. The nature of gravity was discovered by Euler. He described the mechanism in one of his letters to a German princess.
Excellent video, and the most important current physical theories have put the importance of their theories giving out the right numbers in the back burner, giving more emphasis to its exoticness. Also I think with theories such as string theory and loop quantum gravity, one is at the risk of putting their 'human' notions of strings and loops in explaining what is supposedly the grand superstructure of things. What do you think? Also, do you teach at any university?
I do not think strings and SUSY etc are useful at all. First think about the standard model, that is, question it. To your question: no, I am an author and teach highschool/college level (German Gymnasium).
Can the Vacuum be polarized? Is that the same question as opposed to can the Vacuum be warpedor bent? Harold Putoff polarizable vaccuum paper treats the vaccum like Dirac.Mass just change tje refraction index and therefore the speed of light, according to Putoff
Hello, Alex, I wonder what you think of this. I have, for years, thought of Dark Matter or Dark Gravitation as a form of surface tension. Recently I saw a Max Tegmark video where he rehashed Galactic Clusters passing through each and leaving mass behing, which had collided in the passage, but the Dark Matter passed straight through, did not join together or carom back. And the there's the hypothesis that Dark Matter is responsible for production of Gamma Photons that make up the galactic Fermi Bubbles. I immediately let surface tension fall away because this is not surface tension and I immediately quit believing it could be surface tension. Gamma Photon production is a reaction to Positronium annihilation. But Positronium is difficult to prouce, and that's a lot of Gamma Photons. A lot. So I started plugging the loose ends that had dismissed surface tension into new nodes, assuming Dark Matter had to be some kind of hitheto unimagined antiparticle. And what Max Tegmark said was almost identical to something I had heard Jim Gates say. If two different phenomenae can be described in the same way, it is likely they are the same thing. It seems to me that light passes through light in exactly the same way Dark Matter passes through Dark Matter. I imagined an antiphoton that behaved exactly like a photon in every conceivable way except that it radiates backward in time. So I looked up antiphoton to see if anyone had postulated such a thing. I found that the accepted term is "Dark Photon". Seems that, just this year, 2020, a lot of scientific papers have been published on this subject of Dark Photons, proposing it as a candidate for Dark Matter, including--just on 9-23-2020--a proposed experiment to hunt for them in S. Korea. It seems (to me) like this one tweak to the SM could solve just about every mystery in the universe, from Q-Grav to consciousness to Dark Matter. I wonder, please, could you share any thoughts on this? Thank you for reading to the end. Sincerest regards, Allex
Hi. DM is a profound riddle. I personally would try to relate is to modiefied dynamics (not MOND) due to variable speed of light, but I haven't got a good solution yet, honestly. I am also skeptic of the approach outlined by you and Tegmark, but who knows, I can only encourage you to pursue. The bullet cluster (much advertised) in not really a proof, tehre is also Abell 522. Special cases. An excellent overviem is the book by R. Sanders "The dark matter problem". Best,A.
@@TheMachian Hey, Alex! Sabine Hossenfelder released a video, today, where she brought up the dark photon! Would you do a video on this subject that I brought to your attention two years ago? -Allex
I tought those exact same things but not even close of such an elaborated and well established way. Loved every second of this video, looking forward to read those books in the future.
Possible classical physics explanation for your G ~ c**2R/M factor. Springer Proceedings in Physics (Vol 137 pp 379-382) Nuclear Fusion Drives Cosmic Expansion. In summary, a mirrored Negative Universe on same 2D membrane as our Positive Universe, stellar thermonuclear fusion producing negative energy (repulsive gravity) can qualitatively and quantitatively account for Dark Energy and factor out to your universal G ~c**2R/M factor. Published article shows expansion rate U ~Gp/c where p ~M/R**2 is universal mass density averaged over the 2D shared membrane. Factoring out (dimensions) 1/T~GM/R**2c gives G ~R**2c/TM ~c**2R/M Assuming a uniform distribution of stars in both universes, I was able to use this simple model to determine that classical nuclear energy released from stars produces an expansion rate of U~82km/s.Mpc, which is consistent with the measured Hubble Constant of around 70km/s.Mpc.
@@TheMachian Wow. Way to be dismissive. Your stock just went down.... _and you really can't afford that..._ Aren't you the guy that just said numerology is successful in physics??
Elementary particles being cirular moving light waves is an interesting idea which you only mention besides. Do you have more details about this conception?
@@TheMachian Some time ago, I imagined elementary particles being (the smallest possible) black holes with non-zero quantum numbers. In the view of GR, the elementary knots of space-time. These circularly confined light feels similar.
I keep on watching your videos. Initially I was like "Hmm, interesting", then I was like "Oh, it's even hopeful". Now I'm like "That's the way forward." Be proud or embarrassed, but you changed me.
I, onestly, did not understand what the Dirac's path to QG is. I tend to believe 1) the universe is a fractal 2) the speed of light is derivable somehow 3) the superluminal motion is present 4) all of the above can be explained by now, but by actual physicists
superluminosity is an artifact of maths and is tied to the geometry of spacetime (permiability). The penrose process shows black hole information is dynamic, not captive but even these boosted signals is luminous motion with boosted amplitude.
There are ways to obtain certain constants from others. For example the Maxwell-Heaviside equations for electromagnetism can allow us to find that the speed of an electro-magnetic wave in a vaccum is equal to c. However this requires 2 experimentally determined constants: Vacuum permeability (symbolised by mu nought) and vacuum permittivity (symbolised by epsilon nought).
@@ll-oh2gz Parth G. recently (6 July 2021) posted on TH-cam "The Biggest Clue that the Speed of Light Is Constant | Relativity and Electromagnetism" with the agrument that the speed of electromagnetic waves depends on the ease with which electric and magnetic fields move through vacuum, i.e., c^2 = 1/(ε0µ0). TH-cam won't let me post the link, unforntunately. One could ask, "How can ε0 & µ0 be computed from first principles?" Beats me. It is interesting that these two constants, which first arise in the study of static electric and magnetic fields, are intimately connected to dynamic fields and to yet another constant of Physics.
The main problem is that it is impossible to develop a quantum field theory for gravity using renormalization, but perhaps there are other ways, as long as another prescription is applied in QFT I suppose. Either that, or the idea of a gravitational particle is absurd.
A few comments at length. First, the variable light speed or refractive medium approach to gravity is now a done deal, from Dicke to Puthoff to Yilmaz and me, Shapiro delay being the clincher. The resulting core question "Why does light slow down near a celestial body?" almost answers itself once it is recognised that "mass" is a form of energy which propagates at the characteristic velocity: Nothing is perfect. One cannot increase indefinitely the energy density impressed upon some space region without consequences, altering its physical properties, especially the characteristic velocity itself. As the space gets busy, the energy slows down. The relation governing this emerges from the mathematics. It's just an instance of Gauss's Law: ∇^2 c(r) = κ ρ_E Where ρ_E is the field energy density. Now, once we have mass as energy moving at c, variations in c fall straight through, from angular momentum conservation to clocks that slow down as \sqrt c(r) and rulers that shrink as \sqrt c(r) (Note the result, BTW, that the locally observed value - measuring slow light with short rulers and slow clocks - always equals the constant background free space value, ~3 x 10^8 m/s,). This provides a readily intelligible physical model for the curved space in a 4D generally covariant theory like Yilmaz. Second, the equations on the slide at 13:22 in the video are to be read as field equations, representing integrals over all space of the corresponding field quantities. The "mass", m, in particular is just the space integral of the field inertia density, defined as the ratio of field momentum density over speed. Of course, the final equation should read E = h̄ ω = m c^2, so an extraneous factor of 4 has crept in there, for two main reasons. The field movements (i.e. trajectories of the wave vector) are not circular in the case of a closed 3D trajectory system, as in the case of a massive particle. See Battey-Price E.P., Racey P.J. “Geometric Model for Fundamental Particles”. International Journal of Theoretical Physics (1980), Vol. 19, No. 6, 437-475 which develops the physical picture to accompany the SU(2) understanding why the zitterbewegung undergoes 4 pi evolution per 2 pi cycle of the particle frequency (i.e. the ω we write in E= h̄ ω). Roughly speaking, the trajectories of the wave vector exist on the surfaces of spheres in the rest system, but they are not circumferential. That would give you the zitterbewegung frequency equal to ω rather than 2ω. Clearly, with the trajectories curved on the spherical surface (like the seam on a tennis ball) , this reduces the angular momentum (i.e. the space integral of the field angular momentum density) corresponding to the observed fact that the fermion angular momentum is h/2 instead of the photon's h. This modifies the second relation on the slide. Next, the proton radius may have been accurately measured, but it is less than clearly defined what the measurement corresponds to in the physical model. So, if one had a "billiard ball" atomist particle model it would be well defined as the dimension of the ball, but such models fail miserably in quantum physics. In a local realist field model, the corresponding well defined quantity is the dimension of the sphere on which the wave trajectories lie, but how that relates to the observable Pohl et al quantity shown in the preceding slide is not fully resolved. Overall, this is a good presentation, but the first half is redundant (who knows the size of the universe anyway?) once it is understood that energy propagates at c. And it remains unclear how to go from here to quantum gravity despite this being a really good place to start.
A nuclear engineer for the US navy Ken Wright, came up with an idea that the strong nuclear force is gravity. Kens proofs use Newtons laws, Quantum Mechanics - Schrodinger wave equations, and GR. The paper that he wrote is called Nuclear Gravitation Field Theory. I found his paper very compelling, but i'm not a physicist.
I don't know this particular theory, there are quite a lot. I agree however that the very concept of strong (and weak) force is flawed. Instead of postulating new interactions means we haven't understood something.
Dr. Unzicker, I am most curious about who came up with the formula on your Ernst Mach slide at 7:16 of your presentation. What I like about it is that it relates G to two properties of the universe at large. Should I ever find an explanation, I will be happy to cedit you as my first source, but who would be my second? Many thanks for your stimulating lectures!
The coincidence goes back to Schrödinger 1925, and was then elaborated by Sciama in 1953. However, even in Einstein's thoughts, there is kind of a precursor. See details in "Einstein's Lost Key" and in the book by Mozkowski. See also the VSL series here.
Let's say that we can find a better way if electron mass /4.26 -16) squared x 6.079-41n=3.02-40 n for n=1 in hydrogen that is the g radius for our electron but like the proton in hydrogen when it's orbital radius changes it's particle radius changes so that it's g radius will decrease to 3.02-16 met at n=2
Please look into Mike McCulloch's theory of Quantised Inertia! He predicts many anomalies such as the accelerations at the edges of galaxies, and flyby anomalies. No arbitrary parameters needed!
Let me remind you another 10^78, it is estimetaed that during the cosmic inflation period the space expanded about 10^78 times, and that in about 14billion years after that it has still not expanded as much as it did in that extremely tiny period of time.
The problem is that for that assertion, there is no data... inflation predicts, if anything, a lot of weird stuff. Dirac's idea is appealing, inter alia, for the reason that it makes cosmic inflation superfluos, because given a certain dependence of G and c, the universe is "flat" by definition. Details see www.amazon.com/dp/B01FKTI4A8
Other charged particles have more mass and thus lower force ratio. The ratio is still large, but the ratio is also NOT a fundamental constant obviously. Other than some hypothesis that a larger force ratio might increase particle stability, why should this ratio be relevant?
Gravity? Isn’t an intrinsic force. It is an extrinsic force, meaning it reside outside of matter in space pull and drag matter together, instead of attracting matter together. At the end of pursuing gravity and if you are successful so, you’ll see me standing in front of a blackboard with these written on it - Aether, e0*u0, 9.18m/s/s. It is the substrate of our universe responsible for gravity and electromagnetic, and c reduced into a variable. If we are looking for one thing/theory responsible for all - motion and matter, Aether is it.
I agree, as relates to string theory. String theory is an elaborate mathematical approach to metaphysics that can never be empirically verified. Science as an empirical endeavor is either seriously off course or at its inherent limits from the perspective of our scale in the universe. We need to bring metaphysics back to the point where it can drive physics forward in a sensible way. Q1 - The problem with Dirac's approach is that the Mass and size of the Universe are still not well established by cosmology. Q2 -"Gravity originates from the distant masses in the universe" sure sounds like spooky action (back to metaphysics)? Dr. Alex thinks outside the box and we need that; having said that, I'd like to hear him explain why these ideas are being overlooked by the mainstream.
It seems normal to me? If you take the formula E= mc2 The speed of light is a measure of distance in modern physics. So that F ~ c would make sense? Now you put into proportion F, so you get the radius of the universe over the radius of the smallest thing with mass, the proton and you get that number. I would say it's the same force, but one is very condensed, while the other is very diluted. Take all the gravitation in the universe and put it in a proton, you get the electro-magnetic force. It's why the proportions are reversed. For the mass, it's the same, but now you use the original formula. So you multiply by c and get this new ratio. Probably because those fields are in two dimensions instead of force and distance? In this case we are talking about energy of both really. It does suggest something like what Mach was trying to say. It's like the whole Universe puts pressure on things from all sides and this create the electro-magnetic forces and nuclear forces, which makes sense (to me at least). It's like if an electron has to get away from another charge, it has to fight the whole Universe type of thing. What we consider gravity like the Earth's is more of a local thing, but there should be a universal gravity. If that's true, and if it's true that the Universe is in expansion, that force should change as well. c should change, but the ration might be the same. I don't know if it has an actual causal reality though, it could be just math.
You don't actually think that that proton radius is permenent put another different particle in orbit around it and it's size will change again if that particles mass is much different than the one orbiting when they measured proton radius last time
you can establish i tighter term 1/2 pi at least for approximations of half measures for gravity wave simulation and it math perfect then throw that same grave wave in LaGrange ask Mr schoedenger
What if the universe is infinite? That would throw a wrench in calculating the size and number of particles it contains. Excellent presentation. Thanks for sharing.
@@VPN14494 Have you come across Milo Wolff's book 'Schroedinger's Universe' (2008) which utilizes Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis and Mach's Principle and links the properties of the electron to the Light Horizon etc.
@@VPN14494 We actually cannot observe the size of the universe. We can only measure in time and as we know, time is not a constant. We don't know where the edge of the universe is, only WHEN it is.
You talk about the "size of the universe", but all we know is the size of the local visible bubble centered around the solar system. This visible bubble changes with time, but the visible mass is not identical to the mass of the "whole universe". Since the universe is geometrically flat, it would have to be much much bigger than what we can see, even if it was a five-dimensional sphere with its surface being our four-dimensional space-time.
Seems if Dirac had been right about positrons having negative mass then it would mean that positrons could not exist below some (relative) kinetic energy level where some supposed negative potential energy nature of positrons can be overcome, kind of incongruous if you ask me. Inconsistent with that is the trivial notion is that there is no published minimum speed limit for positrons, as far as I know. Balancing between kinetic energy and potential energy seems problematic in itself, for what it is worth, whereas it would look nicer with both sides (to some degree independently and complementarily) quantized, but that is another gravity quantization topic.
On the other hand, suppose the jury is out on minimum-velocity anti-electrons or positrons, since electrons never want to sit still anyway. In other words Dirac's negative energy anti-electrons are conceivably positrons. With that being the case the idea of reversed-time for anti-particles seems superfluous. Positrons supposedly slow down in stages, almost like a stone skipping across multiple atomic puddles, before finally settling into one, there is nothing to suggest reversible integration over time.
Dirac accompanies Einstein to a a Hollywood party. When there he spots Marylin Monroe across the room and says he’s going over to her to say hi. Just as he approaches her he trips and falls on top of her. Einstein turns to some friends and says, “Look at Dirac on Marylin Monroe”.
Several of these equations contained m & r elements, suggesting 'Density' is an important factor, also I never realised before that c was dependent upon f IE different 'colours' travel at different speeds?
In addition to not doing numerology on a wildly moving target like the universe mass, we cannot derive any of the fundamental constants in physics -- not just alpha. They are all elusive. The very first mystery to solve is the electron (like charge and mass). The proton is an incredibly complex, composite beast compared to the electron.
@@TheMachian I have seen an interesting derivation of the electron mass and charge, based on the assumption that the electron was a black hole (Kerr metric). It was not spot-on, but close enough to be interesting. But in reality, we are missing a striking amount of basic knowledge (thus the elusiveness). The first thing we should be seeking is the origin of the electron mass and charge. It should fall out of a set of field equations, quantized or not. As for the proton, it is a beast. Though we don't know it's decay time, it's harboring stuff. The standard model and particle physics and all high-energy probing suggest it is composed of 3 quarks, and if you get close enough you see evidence of something that's not purely a spinning charge. It's a composite "particle", and it probably hides some of the missing positrons in our area of the cosmos.
You have strong feelings about this topic, I see. From my humble experience: Pissing people off, especially with the truth that they efforts and profession is futile make them less open for arguments. You don’t have to attack them personally, just the idea they hold on to and you will have a foe for life. Anyway, I love what you do and say and how you do it to. Thanks
Provide where anything he said was verifiably true? Making up lies about people's profession to prop yourself up is also a very good way to make enemies for life.
@@mechamahou8467guess the people who voted for jc punishment had similar arguments. Bad rhetoric my dear. If you are right and possess integrity and a spine you don’t care who is calling you an enemy ( also an jc quote )
Dirac published when the picture with galaxies was still new and generally fuzzy. There are three different gravity/electrostatic force ratio large numbers possibly worth consideration. Proton-to-proton (~10^36), proton-to-electron, which is ~1836 times greater (~10^39) and electron-to-electron, ~1836^2 times greater (~10^42). Rescaling proton size using these three numbers respectively gives a scale close to spiral galaxies, a scale maybe close to a lot of galaxy cluster sizes, and a scale larger than the observable universe. The only obvious coincidence I can see is with galaxies, not to suggest the other two lack any merit. Nonetheless the ~10^39 LNH approach seems distractive relative to proton-to-proton couplings. With proton-to-proton ratios it's a structural energy balance of sorts, R(p)F(e)=R(spiral)F(g) linking a wave-space of ubiquitous charged baryons with a wave-space of ubiquitous galaxy-sized bosonic quantum-gravitational wavelets, maybe. I could talk about what is wrong with physics all day while still lacking the math chops to come up with a good explanation for Hydrogen mass, but that doesn't mean my criticism forever lacks valid utility in helping to unlock that riddle.
Evidently, the factor 1836 is in there. Yet I consider it the most natural thing to look at the p+ e- , it is the hydrogen atom, after all. There is no way to reconcile the square of any number, be it 10^36 to anything else then the mass of the entiure univserse. I agree however that the matter is not settled.
They praise Einstein because he and his defenders are all from a *specific ethno-religious catagory* Einstein plagiarized e=mc^2 from Olinto De Protto anyway.....
So many theoretical physicists spending their time making videos for youtube. The compensation must be much better than the universities are paying these distinguished people. If you are a professional, you should look into dropping your professionsl activities and, instead, becoming a youtube producer.
Dirac jumped on the anti-particle bandwagon after positrons were discovered, but his anti-particles had negative mass and this was turned into time-reversal rather than realizing electron holes without time reversal, sitting in Dirac's atom-centric sea and waiting to be given positive mass and spread all over the cosmos in order to generate energy calculations off by a factor of 10^120.
Dirac was pre string theory matching quantum mechanics with relativity but not stressing space volume measurements and distance and particle mass just relationships between components. Showing the wave nature of string vibrations and harmonic relations of forces and size.
I studied some of Dirac's personal manuscripts and yes, he did think about some very interesting “coincidences", but let us think about it: the radius of the universe is a consequence of the passage of time, related both to its expansion and to the fact that light hasn't had enough time to reach us from a more distanced point. Since the proton's radius seems to be constant, what does this tell us? That dinosaur-Dirac and future-alien-Dirac wouldn't find this to be a remarkable coincidence at all. It is probably just numerology.
Which papers did you study? Take the 1937 nature paper or the 1938 PRS paper, and you'll find the answers. The intriguing idea is that those numbers coincide also in what you call teh dinosaur and the alien case.
@@TheMachian I had a singular chance to read some personal letters exchanged between Dirac and a former student, nowadays a professor here in Brazil, Prof. Daniel Wisnivesky. Prof. Daniel kept these letters (written around 1962) and actually published some of the ideas Dirac shared with him about unification of quantum mechanics and gravity. The works itself are nothing revolutionary but you should take a look. Unfortunately these do not cover all the material included on the letter, which I'm afraid the world won't see since Prof. Daniel keeps them very close to his heart. It is worth mentioning that Prof. Daniel did study under some notable figures, including Yakir Aharonov. doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X01004396 doi.org/10.1016/S0217-751X(00)00218-2
@@TheMachian That is truly amazing. Is there an intuitively obvious explanation for this coinciding? It seems logically unlikely to pedestrian logic. Unless the non-constant nature of the speed of light in flat space must be Necessary?
We humans are both one and many. Most of the time we just carry on our daily life as individuals in circles from house to jobs and back again. However, when our discontent reachs a critical masse (they say 1/4, we transform to a united force and change the system. We are made of this stuff. When I try to understand the forces of nature, I look at my self and the society around me. I look at life .
Well, cosmologic relation gives that universe mass (M) into (r) radius (aprox) :M = (c*4/G).r , In accord to relativistic theory of gravitation. Is a fractal universe
the problem is fairly simple......mass must be multiplied by the astrological constant....the astrological constant is the number of stars visible on a clear night seen through a circle made by opposing thumb and index finger, and then multiplying that number by the square root of the orbit of venus as it transits the fourth sphere of jupiter.....and the result gives you the quantum gravity probability amplitude
The real reason for looking for an equation showing an approximate numerical relation between one known constant and other known constants in physics would be to suggest a direction of research which might lead to an /analytical derivation/ of that equation, thereby reducing by one the number of arbitrary constants. While any such simplification would always be welcome, it should always be remembered that pure mathematics can tell you absolutely nothing about physical reality. In other words, there will always be at least one unexplained constant in physics, because a mathematical model which is not linked to reality by at least one of its parameters being arbitrarily equated with some measurable physical quantity, by way of an arbitrary scale of measurement, has no link with reality. The nearest thing we can ever hope for to a genuinely universal theory of physics would be one in which the only assumed laws were the current laws of human thought. These are the laws on which mathematics itself is based, or was at least derived from. They include mathematical ideas about number, arithmetic, geometry, topology, and such like. Attempts have been made reduce these to as small a logical basis as possible in set theory and logic, but as with physics, even mathematics cannot pull itself up by its own bootlaces. Note also that even such a theory would only be universal amongst humans, or possibly amongst thinking beings.
If we pick an exponent at random from e.g. [0, 50], the probability of getting 39 is 1/50 -- NOT excessively unlikely given the number of physical constants that might be the numerator or denominator. Furthermore, F_e/F_g is certain (probability=1) to have some value so what is relevant is the probability, 1/50, that R_u/R_p has the same order of magnitude. Since the universe we can see might be different from the entire universe, I have trouble lending M_u and R_u any fundamental relevance independent of the universe's lifetime. Perhaps we can invent an hypothesis for why the universe's proton count is not proportional to its volume, R_u^3, other than the observed fact that the volume is increasing and the proton count probably is not. If anything, this might lead to a minimum feasible volume/radius for the universe... perhaps such a radius will allow expansion instead of an immediate black hole.
22-07-2020.Way back in the 80,Unruh showed that gravety was a component of the zpf and there for had a thermal count.l perscribe to this idea.Whats your view?
@@TheMachian Hi again contacted Mike, to answer your question YES Einstien did work with whats his name and they had exchanged papers, l have the info some place at the law office, l have to find them ,and my Graeth Grand Father did write President befor Einstien and informed him how a atomic bomb can be construcked when Oppenhiemer was shown the letter he wanted him on his team, we have that to.keep in contact.
I am not a physicist, I am just a person trying to think outside the box. My son was a physicist and I use to like to discuss things with him, but unfortunately my son Dr Thomas Frawley passed away ( cancer ) aged 30.
My Condolences
Study and think about your son and learn with the idea that he might have survived death and is learning along with you.
You will never know this idea is wrong, only if it’s correct.
I believe you are a physicist you must see that education can stand in the way of understanding physics
My deep condolences sir. I think you can find a lot of smart guys similar to your deceased son in this channel.
Besides, I am physicist too. We can discuss these scientific topics too.
My condolences
While current candidates for QG like string theory and LQG are probably not the solution to the problem, and I do think a theory of everything should ultimately be quantitative, I think there is a very big issue with comparing this kind of "numerology" to what Maxwell found. The difference lies with _intensive_ versus _extensive_ properties of the universe.
The properties that Maxwell related are all intensive properties (electric constant, magnetic constant, speed of light/causality) which do not correspond to any particular structure and are thus true "universal" properties of the universe that are likely directly birthed from a theory of everything (or are true free parameters birthed at the creation of the universe).
The ratios that are present in this video, however, all incorporate extensive properties like the mass of the proton, radius of the proton, mass of the observable universe, and radius of the observable universe. There are two major issues with this:
1. When you allow yourself to consider extensive properties as fundamental constants, the adjustable degrees of freedom that you can use to arbitrarily make approximate equations dramatically increases. This is especially the case for properties of structures (ie protons and the entire universe) versus fundamental particles which there are relatively few of. Some questions: Why the proton specifically? Why not the neutron? Why use the rms charge radius of the proton and not another definition of its radius (since a proton is actually boundary-less)? Why not the electron? Why not any other particle? Why not some other structure of quarks, like mesons, of which there are hundreds (protons being the most common charged baryon due to them being the most stable should not make them uber-special such that their properties would relate to the ratio of the fundamental forces)? Why the ratio of the electric to the gravitational force, and not the strong or weak forces? The strong force very likely has much more influence on the proton charge radius than gravity does. Why the size/matter of the observable universe, and not the minimum size of the known universe which is at least 500 times larger than the observable one based on large-scale cosmology? This doesn't even touch the issue of using other math constants (like pi or the golden ratio or e or any of the many, many constants) to try and make the equations work as experiments get more accurate. Why pi/2, and not pi/4, or 2*pi, or pi^2, or pi^2/2, or the golden ratio, or 8, or 8*e^2, and so on... It is very easy to get agreement to 6, 8, 10 decimal places when you have so many degrees of freedom that you don't need to have real justification for.
2. The deeper issue is that the extensive properties of structures like protons and the universe likely arise from an extremely complicated mess of different aspects of physics coming together to create an essentially arbitrary extensive property with little direct, simple relation to intensive fundamental constants. The radius (and mass) of the proton, for example, likely arises from a complicated mess of primarily strong interactions. The proton is known to have a mess of quarks and virtual gluons that interact in extremely complicated ways. The probability that the radius (or mass which would also involve the Higgs and other effects) that results from this mess of interactions relates cleanly to other fundamental constants is quite low (even if you ignore the first point about many degrees of freedom). This issue is even greater for something like the size of the observable universe and its matter content. The density of baryon matter in the universe arises from several different physical aspects of the early universe (like the varying expansion rate, the ratio of matter to anti-matter, the stability of certain arrangements of quarks, ect.) coalescing into an effectively arbitrary number for density. If this density were to be predicted from a theory of everything using only fundamental constants, it would likely involve, at a minimum, a dizzying array of integrals and other expensive computations, not some simple "nice" formula in terms of fundamental constants.
I have no problem with physicists playing around with constants and equations to see if something interesting comes up. I also don't have a problem with _some_ people trying their best to investigate the supposed leads that this numerology gives. However, to claim that these relations are exact or meaningful, or to claim that this way of trying to develop a theory of quantum gravity is the most likely to succeed, is completely unjustified IMO.
TL;DR If your physical relation takes advantage of many degrees of freedom to adjust the numbers, and you don't have a fleshed-out physical justification for your relation, its probably shit.
@@AlicanErenKuzu You misunderstand the definition of quantitative. Quantitative in this context just means that the theory predicts a numeric value for physical constants (and other phenomena). An example of a quantitative theory would be the prediction of the number that is the fine structure constant, as opposed to a qualitative theory that would merely say that there _is_ a fine structure constant that plays a certain role in the physics.
Well written.
I always challenge everyone who believes to know it all to come and take acid n ketamine with me as science experiment. Every 2weeks , 7 times , smoke dmt , and then ...THEN try n formulate a theory of how the universe works without vomiting over their own essays.
Its a mindverse. Our perceptional reality is just a fraction of all that is.
I agree with this analysis. Ideally, if one would want a new numerology-based theory like this to be taken seriously, one would state all the possible degrees of freedom that you've allowed yourself, their justifications (if any) and honestly analyze: Given a random theory taken from the space of possible theories you've constructed by your choice of degrees of freedom, how likely would that random theory be your theory? Lets at least meet social science's bar of 95%
One could argue that we know nothing , we only have predictive equations. It can not be more wrong than any other theory , we do not know better.
Very well put! This was exactly what I was thinking throughout this video. Why relate the radius of a proton and of the observable universe to anything, as neither of them even come close to being a fundamental property of the universe 🤷🏼♂️
I was lucky enough to attend a lecture by PAM Dirac on the large number hypothesis. He was a good speaker, but lived up to his acerbic reputation. I distinctly remember him referring to "that Wyle mathematician," (with the German pronunciation) and it was very clear the _double entendre_ was intentional - he got a laugh from the audience, smiled, and moved on.
thanks for the anecdote, but can you explain to a non-native for which adjective "Weyl" might be mistaken? :-)
@@TheMachian Ah. The German name Wyle, pronounced with in German, sounds like the English word "vile," meaning morally despicable or abhorent. I'm not sure he looked at Wyle in disdain, but perhaps was being playful.
@@TheMachian Weyl can be mistaken for vile.
@@scottmiller2591 Weyl, not Wyle.
I also saw Dirac give a lecture at Adelaide University in the midd seventies on this topic. The lecture theatre was packed and as a young student interested in physic I was really unable to grasp the intent of the numerology which seemed then to be speculative to the extreme. Thanks to this video I feel I finally understand the intent of these musings. Took a while…
The number of people 'explaining' a particular subject is inversely proportional to the knowledge that science has on the subject. This means that when many people write books about the subject, little is known. This is a handy tool for determining how far a subject has evolved.
Lol, in a way yes, because it means everybody is having a go at it. Just look at the huge number of Riemann hypothesis "solutions" Lol Mine is the only one correct
No
@PsyMan Magus X Well, there's a connection between 'Love Island' and quantum physics science popularizes - in both cases the participants actually want fame and money rather than the supposed purpose of the exercise.
So we know more about Quantum Gravity than Feng Shui? Great theory 👍
@@ericpalmer3588This might be more interesting if I could figure out what you were saying "no " to.
As a kid in the 80s I had a mini-Maxwell moment while messing around with a calculator. It had a bunch of built-in physical constants that I was randomly multiplying, dividing, squaring etc. I stumbled upon permittivity * permeability, reciprocal, square root - and out pops the speed of light. I nearly jumped out of my seat!
A pity you were not born 180 years earlier (well no calculator without electrodynamics:)). Actually Kirchhoff and Weber stumbled upon that coincidence, too, while performing their experiments.
@neil u They are basically say that there is an ether medium upon which the speed of light is based. This is the same way the speed of sound is an energy wave in air. Dirac basically states that there is an ether medium, AKA a sea of photons. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea
It was the basic premise of Tesla and Steinmetz, that electrons are condensers of this medium, and condense a quantized amount of these particles, or dielectric out of the ether medium. A radio signal is the condensing and rarefying of the dielectric.
In fact when you follow this model, that charged particles are condensers of the ether medium, all of the mainstream paradoxes disappear. It appears that energy is created by momentum of these particles, by condensing and rarefying this medium, like an air conditioner uses a fluid medium to transfer energy by compression and rarefaction of a freon, use particle momentum to transfer energy.
In fact Ron Hatch and GPS prove that there is a medium. The speed of light varies with the density of this medium. This is the Lorentz ether gauge theory. www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdfwiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Ronald_R_Hatch Hatch has a new version of gravity that is based upon the ether medium density, which dictates the energy level, and the speed of light varies with the flux density, just as redshift, refractive index, clock speed, and back - emf do.
www.deere.com/assets/pdfs/navcom/Featured%20Articles/inside_gnss_janfeb08_humaneng_ron_hatch.pdf
Here is Hatch on Pound- Rebka. www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_538.pdf
Gravity is basically due to the ether medium density condensed within masses, and gravity then is magnetic, or ether medium pressure mediation of the medium condensed within matter. Planck's constant is the only true constant in the Universe.
Jehannum2000 ....at the speed of light?
@@30ftunder39 Is there any speculated tolerance? 1% off of c is a hell of a speed difference.
@@JoeDeglman Yes the aether does exist.
The weird thing in this theory is that it it presents gravity as a force which is more consistent with the Newtonian approach but today most physicists believe that gravity is the interaction between a massive object and the fabric of spacetime the more relativistic approach.I have a problem with the notion of spacetime because if it is a physical thing we know too little or even nothing about it what it is made of and it is a merely mathematical description that really has proven to work by measuring gravitational time dilation with atomic clocks
I think you have spotted the problem with today's fashions. Challenging the idea of spacetime is precisely what ine must do.. see my other videos or www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Reality-Space-Time-Illusion/dp/B0849ZXQB1
My lovely late Great Grandmother. Told me 40 years ago, That she knew the Dirac family. They were close neighbours in Bristol. She did not know the boys well. They were younger than her. However she often helped Pauls mother with errands etc. She told me that they were a very strange family. I believe her.
Believable :-)
He had a somber childhood. I believe one of his brothers committed suicide as well.
Everywhere c^2 appears, one can substitute 1/e0u0 (from Maxwell). That makes sense if e0 and u0 are the determining factors not only of EM but as properties of the vacuum they may have something to do with determining gravity too. E = mc^2 for example, can be written as E = m/e0u0.
Nader Butto published papers deriving e0, u0, fine structure constant etc. using hydrodynamic methods.
9:50 There is 1/137 again. Why is it everywhere ?
Check out Nader Butto's hydrodynamic derivation of the fine structure constant.
I have recently just graduated SUNY Binghamton with a math and a physics batcher and I have to say that within the past few years I have fallen very skeptical of modern physics so much so that I lost the motivation in looking for graduate physics programs and have begun studying to get in graduate math programs to follow in Dirac's footsteps of approaching physics with a math background thank you so much for reaffirming that I'm on a good course
4:02 so if You take into account the new CERN-studies of Anti_Hydrogen and it's most probable "weight" of 0.75_g in Earth's 1.0_g_Field, then You would get F_e+(positron) / Fg = 3,0266666E39 ratio!!
This also bears the question: will Anti_Neutrinos "feel" only 3/4th_G ? Very hard to meassure, indeed!
Of course this 3/4_G_of_antimatter is still made/measured by only one experiment and is still to be taken with a grain of salt!!
if a Neutrino collides with its Anti~ , what will happen? can it anihilate completely, or not? What would those two emit: a Gravitaional wave? the only possibility?
This seems *completely* speculative - I don't see how we take this seriously without some sort of theory behind. Where exactly does that pi/2 come from, etc.?
Einstein's "variable speed of light" isn't a variable speed of light theory, it is the truncation of GR to g_00 only. This means clocks tick at different rates at different positions. You shouldn't interpret it as a 'variable speed of light' because the local speed of light as measured by any experiment would still be roughly constant in the proper theory. I say "roughly", because you are ignoring the small effects of the off-diagonal parts of the metric tensor. The proper solution includes the whole metric tensor, Einstein realized that the scalar theory wasn't complete very quickly, he never expected it to be more than a heuristic guide to a full theory. A full scalar theory is Nordstrom gravity, which has no light deflection, unlike the original Einstein 1907 theory you reference, which has half the correct deflection. The full deflection is due to the space-space components of the metric, which contribute equal amount of deflection for a particle moving at the speed of light, and do not contribute at all to a particle moving slowly, for which Einstein's 1907 theory is sufficiently accurate.
"Most of them are crap"
This is so heartbreaking!
Dirac, Gödel, Pauli - the most important and most underappreciated names in all of science. Thanks for this video!
Neither of the three is underappreciated. They are all justly regarded as geniuses.
Sure. Newton, Maxwell, Euclid, Darwin, Adam Smith, Keynes, Pasteur and Mendeleev - please step aside for Gödel with his work on logic. Forget about mechanics, electrodynamics, geometry, evolution, economy, microbiology and the discovery of chemical elements. What's important is that some mathematical statements aren't provable (never mind that finding such a statement is really hard and almost all somewhat meaningful statements are provable and have been proven).
Who's under-appreciating them? Two of them got the Nobel prize, one of them is considered arguably the greatest logician of all time (Godel).
The problem with the Large Number Hypothesis is that the known universe is two or three orders of magnitude larger than it was in Dirac's day. So one of his dimensionless numbers has changed so much that it no longer matches the other in any spooky way.
Also the proton is not an elementary particle like an electron or a quark, so why should we care about its radius or its mass?
The number of particles used by Dirac is also suspect. We know about lots more particles today, e.g. neutrinos. So that number is also not spooky anymore.
This whole approach to physics seems more like astrology or numerology -- or as the quote on one of the slides puts it: "a remarkable coincidence." But since the numbers no longer *coincide* you can't even call it that.
I was gonna put up the analogy of solar eclipses which are a coincidence of our time as the moon moves away. Also rings of Saturn, and many other things.
I once explained to someone well versed in science, that sound waves travel faster than sound quite often. He said something to the effect of "Bullsh*t". So I said, "How fast does the Concord fly?" He said "Around twice the speed of sound". I said; "How does the guy at the rear of the airplane call out to the flight attendant at the front to order a drink?"
😂😂😂😂
Basically the ether drag hypothesis
Machs Principle ist only another interpretation of the fact, that the radius of the universe is equal to the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole with the mass of the universe (R=2MG/c²).
Also the density (mass devided by 4/3 pi R³) of a black hole is simply derived from its Schwarzschild radius because itself is proportional to its mass: M=c²R/2G,
D=3M/4piR³=3c²/8GMpiR².
This leads to the observed number of protons (ca. 2 / m³) in the universe.
Size of the electron is smaller than the size of the proton no? Is the proton picked because it fits the theory?
Not quite. There is no experiment that would indicate a finite size of the electron; on the other hand, the phenomenology is dominated by Compton's wavelength lam=h/mc. The proton is very different. It has a well-measurable size (known since Rutherford) of 0.84 fm, and that size coincides with the Compton wavelength. This is a remarkable property and, as I show equivalent to Dirac's hypotheses.
there is also a female scientist from germany making videos and the remarks about false claims in physics. She is also a great singer and has some cool videos of her creation.
Sabine Hossenfelder? Yea, her brutal honesty is very much needed.
She's awesome.
@@TyronTention yes!
She's an absolute quack. I'm starting to feel like a "right-wing" of science is beginning to develop with the Sabines of the world lol.@@TyronTention
The radius of the universe is ever increasing due to the expansion of the universe. So where is a constant here.
And the speed of light in vacuum is variable ?
Equation 13:57 c = 2Pi f rp; but 2Pi r = circumference, so this says that c = f circumferencep. That is, frequency equals c divided by the circumference of the proton. So the number of times a particle would travel around the cirumference (per second) would be its speed (c) divided by the distance travelled (the circumference). If the speed of light were 10 million times the circumference, the number of times it would travel around would be 10 million (per second).
so how is the "new form" of Dirac hypothesis different from an expression that relates the radius of the particle with its Compton wavelength?
it is pointed out there, no? maybe you specify your question.
@@TheMachian I mean, defining radius of p as the Comptom wavelength of p is entirely independent of any large number quotients, is just defining an heuristic scale where single particles cannot be unequivocally resolved, do we agree? all of the original large factors seem to have been cancelled from numerator and denominator
@@samanthaqiu3416He always stops responding as soon as it becomes clear someone _actually_ knows what they're talking about lol
Well, if it is hard for you to do all these complex non-linear differential equations, just declare all that to be "crap" and switch to multiplication and division. :)
I hope he can do _those_ ! 😂
that's a very dumb answer. The quality of a physical theory has to be judged by its conceptual simplicity and by its predictive power, not by the math involved. Moreover, Math is just a tool, and non-linear differential equations are quite of standard use in physics.
White background is really hard on the eyes !
Numerology is great for approximation's but I disagree. As we know the fine structure constant is bound to change by renomalization. I don't think picking a single value of a running coupling at the lowest energy scales can tell you much about a theory of QG which is meant to be a UV completion for GR at the most extreme energy scales. An analogy would be saying that taking the ratio of two non-relativistic values will tell me something about a theory that describes the ratio of two relativistic quantities, which makes no sense. They don't live in the same regime.
the "running" of alpha is just one of the absurdities of the current particle physics fashion. It is defined by e2/2 h c eps0, there is no change, period. (unless maybe cosmological). On my take on particle physics, see www.amazon.com/gp/product/1492176249
@@TheMachian Your statement is erroneous as it is a reproducible and verifiable aspect of QED. I kindly ask you to formally learn QFT before stating such outlandish and opinionated remarks. It seems that you also do not have any formal education in Physics besides at an undergraduate level, so I implore you to truely understand the inner workings of the Standard Model before becoming a source of misinformation.
@@iDrinkJuice Wasn't the point already made by Dirac that "renomalization" (sic) is unsatisfactory fudging? The intention of the rest of your comment failed to demonstrate your superior grasp, so please let go of the opinionated tone and add something of benefit. This attitude exemplifies much of what is wrong in modern Physics post about 1982 at least.
@@sawlindholme5232 I think you fail to realize that this is a man who responded by trying to sell his books, unpeer reviewed, clearly false, and opinionated. Rarely, do we see someone responding in such manner to be correct. My tone comes from the fact that he is disrespecting the thousands of real and hard working scientists around the world, who in thousands of peer reviewed papers have shown data which is directly conflicting with his false opinions. He is not a physicist, nor does he have a formal education in physics which tells me that he does not have a rigorous understanding of the mathematical process that he outright denies. In order to prove his point, he must show that the two concepts are incompatible and that everyone else is wrong and why they are wrong. He cannot do this without a rigorous understanding of QFT and did not demonstrate said ability. Instead of doing the latter, he doubles down with a single statement and tries to sell me his book. That is the real absurdity here.
@@sawlindholme5232Saying this on a video where a guy with a very opinionated tone tells all of science for the last 40 years that it is wrong despite having no actual physics education is the peak of having zero self-awareness lol
The size of the visible universe increases with time. Does the radius of the proton increase with time? If not, why is this ratio important? Interestingly, the video is titled “way to quantum gravity” yet you say nothing about how one might get to a theory of quantum gravity. Why is that?
No, I don't believe the proton radius in increasing, if one tries an encompassinc picture of variable scales as outlined in my book "Einstein's Lost Key", it appears to even decrease. Thus the Dirac numbers would be (slowly) variable, yes. I did not claim to have a theory of QG, nobody has. I just said Dirac's work is the only reasonable ide in this direction.
@@TheMachian So you have nothing to add?
Why should the Radius of any particle be fix? They are excitation of fields? They carry fields? So, any radius depends on the kind of measurement and the used amount of energy?
The radius measurement needs to be defined for an elementary particle, but there is no problem as amatter of principle. E.G. the recent charge radius data of the proton.
You haven't read Dirac's papers on quantum gravity, from the early 1950s. His "large numbers hypothesis" is now called "The naturalness problem" and it is unsolved. There is no way to more way calculate the fine-structure constant from first principles than there is to work out the number of stars in the milky-way from first principles, they are both determined by historical accident. This is because the fine-structure constant runs with energy, and at high energy, it depends on how exactly gravity and the other forces are separated.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Nader Butto published a paper deriving the fine structure constant using hydrodynamic principles. No paywall.
This isn't true at all.
Bose and Einstein and De Broglie all derived Planks Constant in different ways (De Broglie copied Einsteins idea from 1907, but thats a discussion for another day).
We derive constants all the time from more foundational ideas.
Your comment rests on several assumptions about the epistemology and phenomenology of science that don't appear to be more true than assumptions other physicists make about how physics should be done.
What is the radius of universe? Of the observable? And the mass? Does it includes dark matter or not? Do you know that the ratio of the side if my house and the proton size is approximately the same ratio between the distance from alpha centauri and the radius of Jupiter? A simple coincidence?
The size and mass of the observable universe are measurable numbers, though with huge uncertainties, thus we are talking about orders of magnitude. (DM is one order of magnitude at best). Making up shit is no counterargument.
@@TheMachianThen stop making up shit lol
Although interesting, using dimensional analysis (numerology if you will) to relate concepts isn’t always an effective method of hypothesis or proof. Just because the orders of magnitude of the ratios (F_e)/(F_g) and (R_u)/(r_p) are the same doesn’t mean they are in any way related by the same physical phenomena. The first ratio is related to classical mechanics, which is dependent on the inverse square law, while the second one invokes scales that relate to GTR and QM. With that comparison, you’re relating a classical physics ratio to a modern physics ratio. Not to mention that the orders of magnitude you’re showing are so massive (10^39) that the values of each ratio can be that much more massively different from each other than those approximations elude to. The difference between 1 (10^0) and 2 (2*10^0), numerically, is much smaller than the difference between 100 (10^2) and 200 (2*10^2) so those compared ratio values, at those magnitudes, matter if you’re invoking them in your hypothesis/argument.
I didn't say *always*, and certainly these hints are no proof. The need something else the same way eps0 mue0=1/c2 needs Maxwell's theory. The fact that the numbers involved are so huge justifies to consider orders of magnitude. And don't forget tehre are 2 coincidences, not one. I can also recommend reading Dirac's original 1938.
Unzicker's Real Physics By *always*, I wasn’t referring to you specifically, only in general, through dimensional analysis, that it isn’t always an effective methodology of hypothesis and/or proof pertaining to Physical Arguments.
To begin, Maxwell’s theory predicted that the speed of an electromagnetic wave was the same as the speed of light and he argued, theoretically, that light was a propagating electromagnetic wave. The speed of light was first measured by Roemer in 1676 and it was remarkable that Maxwell’s theory had that value spill out with mu_0*eps_0=1/(c^2) as it was the speed coefficient of his derived wave equations, solutions from his 4 proposed field equations. That speed doesn’t *need* Maxwell’s theory and Maxwell’s theory didn’t *need* that speed; it was a remarkable result of his theory.
I made the comment about orders of magnitude because I have read Dirac’s paper where he clearly states that these values may be dependent on which Epoch we exist in. His theory was a first approximation based on that these ratios are constants. Dirac even cites that his theory may need to be amended as it ignores factors that *may vary slowly with their arguments.* He even states that the *general formulation of the principle does not enable one to draw exact conclusions with certainty* where he then asserts with Eq. 1 that *a* does not equal *kb* (where a and b are of the orders of magnitude 10^39, and k is a constant of order unity). In that same section, he concedes that these *numerical coincidences* are off by a few orders of magnitude and that these coincidences need to be ignored *for the sake of getting a definite theory*. By in large, these orders of magnitude are massive enough to toss out their coefficients but are tiny compared to the size and structure of our observable Universe where all observable physics works.
Additionally, these approximations are also based off of Spiral Galaxies (Nebulae) and their structures, not the radius of the Universe. These are not even the most common type of galaxy, Elliptical Galaxies are. Elliptical Galaxies are also the largest galaxy structures (Giant Ellipticals) in the observable Universe.
Furthermore, using the ratio of the mass of the Universe and the mass of a proton ignores a major conservation law in Physics as mass, strictly speaking, is not a conserved quantity; energy is, a result of STR.
What is your opinion on EWT's take on gravity? According to the theory, gravity is a shading effect between particles, as a tiny portion of inbound longitudinal waves are converted to transverse waves due to the particle's spin.
I'm bringing this up because it correlates with Dirac's realization that the strength of gravity is related to the mass and size of the universe. Every single particle in the universe "produces" outbound longitudinal waves, which then strike an observed particle from all sides equally if you ignore shading. But because of shading, the more waves per unit volume you have, the more pronounced the shading becomes!
Since the speed of light is actually a property of space-time (we only call it speed of light because photons travel with that speed and they do so because they are massless) it is reasonable to assume that the time that massless particles need to travel across the universe remains constant. And since the radius of the universe is increasing, that speed increases with the same rate. I guess that would explain some observations that led to the assumption of accelerated expansion.
Excellent presentation Sir. Ru/rp is 10^39. But we know that the universe is expanding, which means Ru is keeping on changing. So in order to maintain the ratio constant at 10^39 then rp radius of proton must also be changing. Mu/mp is 10^78 and if mp mass of proton changes then mass of the universe must also be changing. So is rp only changing or both rp, mp is also changing or else is the number of paticles in the universe changing. But protons are not the only particles in the universe there some others like mesons, kaons, electrons also then we have to consider their masses also for finding number of paticles in the universe.
You hit the point. Actually, 10^39 is what Dirach called the epoch, and of course, it is increasing. He suggested a variation of G, which is not ruled ot completely. The interesting thing is the particle number. A solution going back to Rober Dicke is presented in www.amazon.com/dp/B01FKTI4A8
Don't be so quick to say stuff like :' we know the universe is expanding'.. sure redshifts and Hubble and suchlike. By being so 'sure' you have ruled out all other possible options. i'm not at all advocating that anything goes. in any way. Just that fresh eyes need to re-look at all these redshifts to see if this is truly expansion and nothing else. I could be wholly wrong but being too dogmatic is perilous.
@@mauricegold9377 this is an extremely important point. If we start with "we know..." then we created everything we need to deliver the perfect ground for falsification of everything that comes after.
@@TheMachian Along that line, it is easily derived that if the mass (aka number of particles) is increasing, it should be at a rate proportionate to sqrt(t). This implies an expanding universe. There's reason to believe that this does not hold close to t = 0, but observeables at low t are scarce. Possible inflationary early universe via large mase in small spare => more space. Per latest standard gravity theory, as one approached the event horizon, the light from the outside narrows down to a single point, away from the 'center' of the black hole.
Non-standard (but calculable, and per standard theory not observable from the outside). Inside, 'down' in polar coordinates becomes 'future' in time, and the former time dimension becomes spatial. The entire event horizon becomes 'the beginning' of time, and is a horizon, not a singularity. But mathematically, the entire universe outside the event horizon diminished to a point at the event horizon. Using one set of equations of the metric (metric from calculations of the inside, but not accounting for z to t axis rotation) , gravity pulls us to the future. Locally, we would observe the arrow of time. Thus the observed speed of light is dependent on gravity. Since the gravitation curvature in that metric increases monotonically, time should slow.
At this point, I run out of skill to calculate, but first estimate is Lorenz contraction, and thus in this metric it appears to slow time, which is isomorphic to hyperinflation of distance. I can get to ... Dirac's large numbers. Also equates to watching the area just above the event horizon,
String theory not a science !
Suskind wants to know your location.
Well it isn't
It still gets better founding by the panels. And why is it any worse science then VSL? Sounds like laymen preference to me. I believe MTheory has mathematically much to offer and that all hypotheses and theories should be pursued.
Depends on your definition of theory
I always loved dirac…he’s always stood out to me
String theory is crazy
Me too. Dirac is the GOAT. He is underappreciated imo.
He keeps talking about Dirac's hypothesis. What hypothesis? It's just an observation that there are two numbers that are similar. What is the suggestion? That the strength of quantum gravity depends upon the size of the universe?
I devised the following approach from A-topology in resolving GR/QM conundrum. From A-topology:
Theorem #1: In the class of generally ordered spaces, weakly perfect spaces are one and the only true generalization of perfectness;
Theorem #2: The existence of weakly perfect spaces that are not perfect is almost a rule.
A-topology is based on the following 3 basic axioms:
Axiom #1: The set X and the empty set are open.
Axiom #2: Any union of open sets is open.
Axiom #3: Any finite intersection of open sets is open.
Here are key insights and hypotheses: Each point in weakly perfect space W corresponds to a potential quantum state. The open sets in W represent the possible state configurations or superpositions of those quantum states. We define a function to map from W to a state in ℋ Hilbert space that defines the following condition for weakly perfect continuity:
f(W) ⊆ ℋ is continuous iff for every open set O in ℋ, f⁻¹(O) is an open set in W.
This condition ensures that the mapping preserves the topological structure of quantum states as conceptualized in weakly perfect spaces.
Now, if we consider a set S in W comprising multiple points, each corresponding to a different quantum state, then the union of these points (U = ⋃ p_i, where p_i ∈ S) represents the superposition of these states. This union, being an open set in W, adheres to the properties of weakly perfect spaces.
In terms of quantum entanglement, we can extend this idea further. If two particles are entangled, their combined state cannot be described independently of each other. In our A-topological framework, this can be represented by a set E in W, where the points in E are so intertwined that their corresponding quantum states in ℋ are non-separable:
For p, q ∈ E, the states f(p) and f(q) in ℋ are entangled iff f(p) ⊗ f(q) ≠ f(p) ⨁ f(q).
Is these estimations of Dirac’s era at all accurate?
I mean there has been since a LOT of tweaking in the numbers: stars in our own galaxy has roughly ten-folded in the past four decades. Also all kind of discoveries about the universe; all the dark stuff, middle sized black holes, just to give few examples..
How does this hypothesis hold though given the most recent update on the Hubble constant?
Variable speed of light could let it tread some water but essentially so far as we can observe, the universe is expanding not only faster than the speed of light but its rate of expansion vs the speed of light is increasing. All the while, the radius of the proton is staying the same.
I don't understand the 10^39 number. The DIAMETER of the observable universe is 880x10^24 m and the proton RADIUS is 0,8414x10^-15. Either you double the radius or half the diameter to set this into relation, but anyway no 10^39 relation I can see. Can someone explain, please?
c/H0 (the hubble constant) is 1.3*10^26 m. Indeed, the number is closer to 10^41. Given the cosmological ucertainties, the coincidence is remarkable though. As Dirac pointed out in his 1937 paper, there could be also numerical factors such as 137 and /or 1836.
Reliance on the proton mass (and proton radius) in dimensionless cosmological ratios, if not considered mere coincidence, would seem to indicate that the geometry of gravitation is dominated by the geometry of particles that are geometrically similar to protons (eg nucleons, ie protons and neutrons). If so, and if dark matter dominates gravitational matter, this would imply that dark matter is predominately baryonic (eg nucleons, ie protons and neutrons). AFAIK, this is inconsistent with the lambdaCDM model of cosmogony.
Super weird that we can’t rectify “as above, so below.”
1:30 Evidence: It took two stars colliding to produce classical evidence of gravity waves. That's a lot of gravitons. Bringing it down to quantum proof experiments asks a lot of instrumentation.
Im am not really convinced of the LIGO findings. medium.com/swlh/gravitational-waves-the-silent-disaster-ab18857c68f8
@@TheMachian Started to read. But it got me imagining: Two neutron stars merge, they're spinning faster than they're orbiting. That had to make a horrendous mess and some of the matter must have achieved escape velocity. So neutronium unbound from its source' gravity is in the wild? As long as it doesn't hit my windshield, no problem! #humor Now, back to the article.
Thanks for the article. I'm a hopeful skeptic and his four essential points to establish integrity are very important. I'm a neophyte but the article made his case in an accessible way. At this point I must agree the evidence has glaring weaknesses.
I loved "Most of this is crap", I can't stop laughing. Thanks!!!!
it is unfortunate that faith is an unseen variable of modern science
Subspace: +ve charge cells (charge quanta, base charge +1) held together by an ethereal sea of free-flowing -ve charge
Inertia: Energy lost by a free cell squeezing through the lattice is returned with a kick as the lattice decompresses/refreezes/balances behind
Momentum: Free cells have inertia, free chunks form energy loops of cells in front moving to fill -ve space behind. Holes are just -ve charge flow
Positron: +ve free cell (+1) pulls in -ve charge that rebounds with curved outflows. Drags cells, vibrates the Lattice
Electron: -ve hole (-1) pulls in +ve cells that rebound outwards before stopping or looping back in. Drags -ve charge, vibrates the Lattice
Neutrino: Over 50% (else back to empty lattice) out of phase Electron + Positron. Free cell and hole are close with tight shared charge loops so tiny mass
Proton: 2 positrons (fuzzily) sandwiching/wrapping 1 electron. 3 sub parts and long charge loops so mass is large. Overall electric charge is +1
Neutron: Proton + Electron. Electron joins another proton in the nucleus, (pep)(e)(pep), decays outside via centrifugal force on the dangling electron
Alpha Particle: 2N + 2P.. 10 e-, 8 p+.. -2 base charge .. (pep)(e)(pep)+(pep)(e)(pep), +2 valence charge. -ve core in a +ve shell (PPeePP) + Gravity
++++++: Chunks + holes of lattice of various sizes that quickly turn to smaller chunks and holes, until electrons, positrons, neutrinos/back to regular lattice
Atom: Lattice density increases to the nucleus centre. Outer electrons may be squashed flat on the nucleus surface or pulled away (completely)
Weak Force: A nucleus weak point hit hard enough releases alpha particles, neutrons, protons, electrons, positrons, neutrinos and (gamma) light
Nuclear Force: Gravity (-ve charge inflow/charge gradient) + electric attraction beat electric repulsion. Fuzzy balloons recursively pulled into spheres
Electron Bond: Electron stretched between two +ve nuclei zones. There is also a 6 ins+6 outs charge flow model of electrons and positrons
-ve Charge Flow: Continuous, gravity-centralised inflows, outflows curve with shallow exit angle. Lateral force in random directions cancels (else spin?)
Gravity: Mass pulls -ve charge from voids that repel more and expand. Higher -ve charge density compacts the lattice. Inward -ve charge gradient/flow(s)
Time: -ve charge density slows -ve charge and light speed so local time slows / Cells crossed in a constant time with more cells per area
Velocity: Compresses the lattice (Length Contraction) so higher charge density so local time slows (Time Dilation)
Black hole: Drags lattice around (Frame Dragging). Neutrino crystal. Feeding may annihilate core boundary matter to empty lattice (a universe?)
Hawking Radiation: Annihilated matter frees trapped -ve charge that radiates in all directions, out of the black hole and into its core
Tunnelling: Intrinsic radial energy of positron and electron charge flow directed in one direction for a brief time, possibly travelling at C2, or even C3
Particle Entanglement: Particles linked by charge flows.. Stopping a flow at any point in the network breaks entanglement
Spin: Particles (and cells and/or charge flows?) (may) spin (anti)clockwise perpendicular to the direction of travel (charge outflow bias? blocky lattice?)
--
Light Blip: Compressed (+extra?) -ve charge dipole pulls in lattice. Concentrates -ve charge so may deplete voids and add to gravity. Dark Matter?
Light Wave: Amplitude = number of blipping layers. Shorter wavelength = higher blip frequency = higher wave energy. Velocity = C
Photo-Electric Effect: Light frequency over a threshold determined by atomic mass and valency dislodges an electron on impact
Photon Entanglement: Vibrating line of cells like an ultra-fine (spinning?) AC current / Warped line of cells between entangled photons
--
Big Bang: Lattice explosion flings charge out as matter / Black holes collide so rapid core growth / Black hole hit like a bell / Fast lattice expansion/growth
Steady State: Universe could grow slowly. A big hit may start simultaneous (patchy) matter formation across the whole universe, not from a point
Boxed Universe: If voids can't expand when they lose -ve charge to matter gravity wells are steeper with more compressed lattice
Conservation: Everything is conserved - but if a black hole core annihilates matter to empty lattice that absorbs the energy the information is lost
PROS: Simpler, semi-symmetric, recursive, realistic, 3D/4D, visualisable, self-contained, open/closed, (in)finite, (semi)conformal, cyclic , (un)balancing
--
This isn't any form of science, not even pseudoscience. It is materialist make-believe in-mind modelling minus maths. A strictly 4D, neo-classical bottom-up approach compatible with a closed, contained and more importantly an open, but self-contained universe/multiverse using the fewest base particles and forces (2+1). There are many possible variations of this BINARY BASE CHARGE FIELD. This variant is a simpler universe to the Standard Model that corrects what seem to me to be obvious fundamental , problematic errors, namely Antimatter-matter and neutrino problem and lack of electro-lumino-gravitational !ETHER! (kind of... mine combines with +ve cells to form a more modern quantum relativistic lattice field).. This model has its merits and the maths can't be too difficult for a math wiz. It is a pretty accommodating, recursive, strictly visualisable premise (as it should be?).. The Lattice is everything, there is no nothing, no thing is perfectly still, balanced lattice. There is no empty space and probably not (much) truly empty lattice containing no thing(s). There is no before or after The Eternal Lattice, there is no outside and The Lattice knows everything because it is everything - but a (collective) conscious entity!
what is this? this sounds cool
@@srikiraju .. Thankyou. It is the most simple conceptual, self-contained, quantum-relativisitc base model of the universe. I have tried to apply it to the data. PET scans indicate the Quark model is wrong and my model is correct (proton+neutron turns into a neutron, positron and neutrino)... All free particles and nuclei are perfectly spherical by all measurements. Quantum gravity with gravity naturally getting stronger the closer to the nuclei centre, as well as macroscopically towards the centre of gravity, explains The Strong Force. It is a very powerful, simple model people should play around with...
@@srikiraju .... It is also very funny if you read it a certain way!
Two years ago Susskind and Mark blended QM and GR explaining, rather incompletely, using Maldacena's ADS/CFT correspondence and discovering quantum gravity. I think it s high time Unzicker gives us his take.
Maybe I should start a series "useless fantasies"? :-)
@@TheMachian Do you really think quantum gravity a useless fantasy?
Very interesting video ✅👍🏻Please use a tie mic to suppress the very noisy background. Thanks!
That little guy did not know the history of his science. The nature of gravity was discovered by Euler. He described the mechanism in one of his letters to a German princess.
Excellent video, and the most important current physical theories have put the importance of their theories giving out the right numbers in the back burner, giving more emphasis to its exoticness. Also I think with theories such as string theory and loop quantum gravity, one is at the risk of putting their 'human' notions of strings and loops in explaining what is supposedly the grand superstructure of things. What do you think?
Also, do you teach at any university?
I do not think strings and SUSY etc are useful at all. First think about the standard model, that is, question it. To your question: no, I am an author and teach highschool/college level (German Gymnasium).
@@TheMachianIn other words you aren't actually qualified or even educated on the things you are trying to critique. Gotcha.
Can the Vacuum be polarized? Is that the same question as opposed to can the Vacuum be warpedor bent? Harold Putoff polarizable vaccuum paper treats the vaccum like Dirac.Mass just change tje refraction index and therefore the speed of light, according to Putoff
Hello, Alex,
I wonder what you think of this.
I have, for years, thought of Dark Matter or Dark Gravitation as a form of surface tension.
Recently I saw a Max Tegmark video where he rehashed Galactic Clusters passing through each and leaving mass behing, which had collided in the passage, but the Dark Matter passed straight through, did not join together or carom back.
And the there's the hypothesis that Dark Matter is responsible for production of Gamma Photons that make up the galactic Fermi Bubbles.
I immediately let surface tension fall away because this is not surface tension and I immediately quit believing it could be surface tension.
Gamma Photon production is a reaction to Positronium annihilation.
But Positronium is difficult to prouce, and that's a lot of Gamma Photons. A lot.
So I started plugging the loose ends that had dismissed surface tension into new nodes, assuming Dark Matter had to be some kind of hitheto unimagined antiparticle.
And what Max Tegmark said was almost identical to something I had heard Jim Gates say.
If two different phenomenae can be described in the same way, it is likely they are the same thing.
It seems to me that light passes through light in exactly the same way Dark Matter passes through Dark Matter.
I imagined an antiphoton that behaved exactly like a photon in every conceivable way except that it radiates backward in time.
So I looked up antiphoton to see if anyone had postulated such a thing. I found that the accepted term is "Dark Photon".
Seems that, just this year, 2020, a lot of scientific papers have been published on this subject of Dark Photons, proposing it as a candidate for Dark Matter, including--just on 9-23-2020--a proposed experiment to hunt for them in S. Korea.
It seems (to me) like this one tweak to the SM could solve just about every mystery in the universe, from Q-Grav to consciousness to Dark Matter.
I wonder, please, could you share any thoughts on this?
Thank you for reading to the end.
Sincerest regards,
Allex
Hi. DM is a profound riddle. I personally would try to relate is to modiefied dynamics (not MOND) due to variable speed of light, but I haven't got a good solution yet, honestly. I am also skeptic of the approach outlined by you and Tegmark, but who knows, I can only encourage you to pursue. The bullet cluster (much advertised) in not really a proof, tehre is also Abell 522. Special cases. An excellent overviem is the book by R. Sanders "The dark matter problem". Best,A.
@@TheMachian Thank you for being accessible!
I will find that book!
Ciao!
@@TheMachian Hey, Alex!
Sabine Hossenfelder released a video, today, where she brought up the dark photon!
Would you do a video on this subject that I brought to your attention two years ago?
-Allex
Imagine having the audacity to shit on thousands of scientist like that.
Hubris and ego are common in physicists.
I tought those exact same things but not even close of such an elaborated and well established way. Loved every second of this video, looking forward to read those books in the future.
Possible classical physics explanation for your G ~ c**2R/M factor. Springer Proceedings in Physics (Vol 137 pp 379-382) Nuclear Fusion Drives Cosmic Expansion. In summary, a mirrored Negative Universe on same 2D membrane as our Positive Universe, stellar thermonuclear fusion producing negative energy (repulsive gravity) can qualitatively and quantitatively account for Dark Energy and factor out to your universal G ~c**2R/M factor.
Published article shows expansion rate U ~Gp/c where p ~M/R**2 is universal mass density averaged over the 2D shared membrane. Factoring out (dimensions) 1/T~GM/R**2c gives G ~R**2c/TM ~c**2R/M
Assuming a uniform distribution of stars in both universes, I was able to use this simple model to determine that classical nuclear energy released from stars produces an expansion rate of U~82km/s.Mpc, which is consistent with the measured Hubble Constant of around 70km/s.Mpc.
The fine structure constant can be expressed as a simple geometry. 1/4Pi^3 + Pi^2 + Pi.
Are you kidding me? This is about 20.76... (??)
@@TheMachian Try (4Pi^3 + Pi^2 + Pi) and its inverse relationship. My calculator does not lie.
@@TheMachian 4Pi^3 + Pi^2 + Pi = 137.0363038
Ok, but it is still 2 ppm off. Unfortunately, the measurement is very precise 137.035999... not *really*impressive.
@@TheMachian Wow. Way to be dismissive. Your stock just went down.... _and you really can't afford that..._ Aren't you the guy that just said numerology is successful in physics??
Elementary particles being cirular moving light waves is an interesting idea which you only mention besides. Do you have more details about this conception?
There has been done some work, e.g. www.researchgate.net/publication/273418514_Is_the_electron_a_photon_with_toroidal_topology
I find the vortex concept most logical approach. Carl F. Krafft developed a rational model of atom structure and magnetic field, etc.
@@TheMachian Some time ago, I imagined elementary particles being (the smallest possible) black holes with non-zero quantum numbers. In the view of GR, the elementary knots of space-time. These circularly confined light feels similar.
I keep on watching your videos. Initially I was like "Hmm, interesting", then I was like "Oh, it's even hopeful". Now I'm like "That's the way forward."
Be proud or embarrassed, but you changed me.
I, onestly, did not understand what the Dirac's path to QG is. I tend to believe 1) the universe is a fractal 2) the speed of light is derivable somehow 3) the superluminal motion is present 4) all of the above can be explained by now, but by actual physicists
superluminosity is an artifact of maths and is tied to the geometry of spacetime (permiability). The penrose process shows black hole information is dynamic, not captive but even these boosted signals is luminous motion with boosted amplitude.
@@ramkitty nope :)
@@frun effective argumentation
@@ramkitty depends on the observer
@@frun relatively ;)
Has any 'fundamental' constant of nature ever been predicted from a theory? Like G, c or h?
There are ways to obtain certain constants from others. For example the Maxwell-Heaviside equations for electromagnetism can allow us to find that the speed of an electro-magnetic wave in a vaccum is equal to c. However this requires 2 experimentally determined constants: Vacuum permeability (symbolised by mu nought) and vacuum permittivity (symbolised by epsilon nought).
@@ll-oh2gz Parth G. recently (6 July 2021) posted on TH-cam "The Biggest Clue that the Speed of Light Is Constant | Relativity and Electromagnetism" with the agrument that the speed of electromagnetic waves depends on the ease with which electric and magnetic fields move through vacuum, i.e., c^2 = 1/(ε0µ0).
TH-cam won't let me post the link, unforntunately.
One could ask, "How can ε0 & µ0 be computed from first principles?" Beats me.
It is interesting that these two constants, which first arise in the study of static electric and magnetic fields, are intimately connected to dynamic fields and to yet another constant of Physics.
The main problem is that it is impossible to develop a quantum field theory for gravity using renormalization, but perhaps there are other ways, as long as another prescription is applied in QFT I suppose. Either that, or the idea of a gravitational particle is absurd.
Renormalization is a flawed concept anyway. I agree with Dirac.
@@TheMachian Do you have an alternative to renormalization?
@@narek323 We don't need an *alternative* to renormalization. We need a theory that doesn't require it in the first place!
A few comments at length. First, the variable light speed or refractive medium approach to gravity is now a done deal, from Dicke to Puthoff to Yilmaz and me, Shapiro delay being the clincher. The resulting core question "Why does light slow down near a celestial body?" almost answers itself once it is recognised that "mass" is a form of energy which propagates at the characteristic velocity:
Nothing is perfect. One cannot increase indefinitely the energy density impressed upon some space region without consequences, altering its physical properties, especially the characteristic velocity itself. As the space gets busy, the energy slows down. The relation governing this emerges from the mathematics. It's just an instance of Gauss's Law:
∇^2 c(r) = κ ρ_E
Where ρ_E is the field energy density.
Now, once we have mass as energy moving at c, variations in c fall straight through, from angular momentum conservation to clocks that slow down as \sqrt c(r) and rulers that shrink as \sqrt c(r) (Note the result, BTW, that the locally observed value - measuring slow light with short rulers and slow clocks - always equals the constant background free space value, ~3 x 10^8 m/s,). This provides a readily intelligible physical model for the curved space in a 4D generally covariant theory like Yilmaz.
Second, the equations on the slide at 13:22 in the video are to be read as field equations, representing integrals over all space of the corresponding field quantities. The "mass", m, in particular is just the space integral of the field inertia density, defined as the ratio of field momentum density over speed. Of course, the final equation should read E = h̄ ω = m c^2, so an extraneous factor of 4 has crept in there, for two main reasons.
The field movements (i.e. trajectories of the wave vector) are not circular in the case of a closed 3D trajectory system, as in the case of a massive particle. See Battey-Price E.P., Racey P.J. “Geometric Model for Fundamental Particles”. International Journal of Theoretical Physics (1980), Vol. 19, No. 6, 437-475 which develops the physical picture to accompany the SU(2) understanding why the zitterbewegung undergoes 4 pi evolution per 2 pi cycle of the particle frequency (i.e. the ω we write in E= h̄ ω). Roughly speaking, the trajectories of the wave vector exist on the surfaces of spheres in the rest system, but they are not circumferential. That would give you the zitterbewegung frequency equal to ω rather than 2ω. Clearly, with the trajectories curved on the spherical surface (like the seam on a tennis ball) , this reduces the angular momentum (i.e. the space integral of the field angular momentum density) corresponding to the observed fact that the fermion angular momentum is h/2 instead of the photon's h. This modifies the second relation on the slide.
Next, the proton radius may have been accurately measured, but it is less than clearly defined what the measurement corresponds to in the physical model. So, if one had a "billiard ball" atomist particle model it would be well defined as the dimension of the ball, but such models fail miserably in quantum physics. In a local realist field model, the corresponding well defined quantity is the dimension of the sphere on which the wave trajectories lie, but how that relates to the observable Pohl et al quantity shown in the preceding slide is not fully resolved.
Overall, this is a good presentation, but the first half is redundant (who knows the size of the universe anyway?) once it is understood that energy propagates at c. And it remains unclear how to go from here to quantum gravity despite this being a really good place to start.
A nuclear engineer for the US navy Ken Wright, came up with an idea that the strong nuclear force is gravity. Kens proofs use Newtons laws, Quantum Mechanics - Schrodinger wave equations, and GR. The paper that he wrote is called Nuclear Gravitation Field Theory. I found his paper very compelling, but i'm not a physicist.
I don't know this particular theory, there are quite a lot. I agree however that the very concept of strong (and weak) force is flawed. Instead of postulating new interactions means we haven't understood something.
Amazingly interesting and very hopeful!
Dr. Unzicker, I am most curious about who came up with the formula on your Ernst Mach slide at 7:16 of your presentation. What I like about it is that it relates G to two properties of the universe at large. Should I ever find an explanation, I will be happy to cedit you as my first source, but who would be my second? Many thanks for your stimulating lectures!
The coincidence goes back to Schrödinger 1925, and was then elaborated by Sciama in 1953. However, even in Einstein's thoughts, there is kind of a precursor. See details in "Einstein's Lost Key" and in the book by Mozkowski. See also the VSL series here.
@@TheMachian Thank you!!
Let's say that we can find a better way if electron mass /4.26 -16) squared x 6.079-41n=3.02-40 n for n=1 in hydrogen that is the g radius for our electron but like the proton in hydrogen when it's orbital radius changes it's particle radius changes so that it's g radius will decrease to 3.02-16 met at n=2
Please look into Mike McCulloch's theory of Quantised Inertia! He predicts many anomalies such as the accelerations at the edges of galaxies, and flyby anomalies. No arbitrary parameters needed!
Ok this is interesting i am always a big fan of quantised theory
Let me remind you another 10^78, it is estimetaed that during the cosmic inflation period the space expanded about 10^78 times, and that in about 14billion years after that it has still not expanded as much as it did in that extremely tiny period of time.
The problem is that for that assertion, there is no data... inflation predicts, if anything, a lot of weird stuff. Dirac's idea is appealing, inter alia, for the reason that it makes cosmic inflation superfluos, because given a certain dependence of G and c, the universe is "flat" by definition. Details see www.amazon.com/dp/B01FKTI4A8
Other charged particles have more mass and thus lower force ratio. The ratio is still large, but the ratio is also NOT a fundamental constant obviously. Other than some hypothesis that a larger force ratio might increase particle stability, why should this ratio be relevant?
Gravity? Isn’t an intrinsic force. It is an extrinsic force, meaning it reside outside of matter in space pull and drag matter together, instead of attracting matter together.
At the end of pursuing gravity and if you are successful so, you’ll see me standing in front of a blackboard with these written on it - Aether, e0*u0, 9.18m/s/s.
It is the substrate of our universe responsible for gravity and electromagnetic, and c reduced into a variable.
If we are looking for one thing/theory responsible for all - motion and matter, Aether is it.
Quantised Inertia explains inertia using the boundary of the observable universe. That seems to be a theory that could account for the ratio.
I agree, as relates to string theory. String theory is an elaborate mathematical approach to metaphysics that can never be empirically verified. Science as an empirical endeavor is either seriously off course or at its inherent limits from the perspective of our scale in the universe. We need to bring metaphysics back to the point where it can drive physics forward in a sensible way.
Q1 - The problem with Dirac's approach is that the Mass and size of the Universe are still not well established by cosmology. Q2 -"Gravity originates from the distant masses in the universe" sure sounds like spooky action (back to metaphysics)?
Dr. Alex thinks outside the box and we need that; having said that, I'd like to hear him explain why these ideas are being overlooked by the mainstream.
Our understanding of the size of the Universe has increased over decades. Does Dirac's theory still accurate?
Not easily measurable.
It seems normal to me?
If you take the formula E= mc2
The speed of light is a measure of distance in modern physics.
So that F ~ c would make sense?
Now you put into proportion F, so you get the radius of the universe over the radius of the smallest thing with mass, the proton and you get that number. I would say it's the same force, but one is very condensed, while the other is very diluted. Take all the gravitation in the universe and put it in a proton, you get the electro-magnetic force. It's why the proportions are reversed.
For the mass, it's the same, but now you use the original formula. So you multiply by c and get this new ratio. Probably because those fields are in two dimensions instead of force and distance? In this case we are talking about energy of both really.
It does suggest something like what Mach was trying to say. It's like the whole Universe puts pressure on things from all sides and this create the electro-magnetic forces and nuclear forces, which makes sense (to me at least). It's like if an electron has to get away from another charge, it has to fight the whole Universe type of thing.
What we consider gravity like the Earth's is more of a local thing, but there should be a universal gravity. If that's true, and if it's true that the Universe is in expansion, that force should change as well. c should change, but the ration might be the same. I don't know if it has an actual causal reality though, it could be just math.
You don't actually think that that proton radius is permenent put another different particle in orbit around it and it's size will change again if that particles mass is much different than the one orbiting when they measured proton radius last time
He understands chemical elements I'm sure...
you can establish i tighter term 1/2 pi at least for approximations of half measures for gravity wave simulation and it math perfect then throw that same grave wave in LaGrange ask Mr schoedenger
What if the universe is infinite? That would throw a wrench in calculating the size and number of particles it contains. Excellent presentation. Thanks for sharing.
By size of universe he meant the size of "observable universe"
@@VPN14494 Have you come across Milo Wolff's book 'Schroedinger's Universe' (2008) which utilizes Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis and Mach's Principle and links the properties of the electron to the Light Horizon etc.
@@VPN14494 but the size of the observable universe is constantly changing
@Phumgwate Nagala infinity doesn't exist beyond a concept yet too many people treat it as objectively real.
@@VPN14494 We actually cannot observe the size of the universe. We can only measure in time and as we know, time is not a constant. We don't know where the edge of the universe is, only WHEN it is.
You talk about the "size of the universe", but all we know is the size of the local visible bubble centered around the solar system. This visible bubble changes with time, but the visible mass is not identical to the mass of the "whole universe". Since the universe is geometrically flat, it would have to be much much bigger than what we can see, even if it was a five-dimensional sphere with its surface being our four-dimensional space-time.
Seems if Dirac had been right about positrons having negative mass then it would mean that positrons could not exist below some (relative) kinetic energy level where some supposed negative potential energy nature of positrons can be overcome, kind of incongruous if you ask me. Inconsistent with that is the trivial notion is that there is no published minimum speed limit for positrons, as far as I know.
Balancing between kinetic energy and potential energy seems problematic in itself, for what it is worth, whereas it would look nicer with both sides (to some degree independently and complementarily) quantized, but that is another gravity quantization topic.
On the other hand, suppose the jury is out on minimum-velocity anti-electrons or positrons, since electrons never want to sit still anyway. In other words Dirac's negative energy anti-electrons are conceivably positrons. With that being the case the idea of reversed-time for anti-particles seems superfluous. Positrons supposedly slow down in stages, almost like a stone skipping across multiple atomic puddles, before finally settling into one, there is nothing to suggest reversible integration over time.
Dirac accompanies Einstein to a a Hollywood party. When there he spots Marylin Monroe across the room and says he’s going over to her to say hi. Just as he approaches her he trips and falls on top of her. Einstein turns to some friends and says, “Look at Dirac on Marylin Monroe”.
Several of these equations contained m & r elements, suggesting 'Density' is an important factor, also I never realised before that c was dependent upon f IE different 'colours' travel at different speeds?
In addition to not doing numerology on a wildly moving target like the universe mass, we cannot derive any of the fundamental constants in physics -- not just alpha. They are all elusive. The very first mystery to solve is the electron (like charge and mass). The proton is an incredibly complex, composite beast compared to the electron.
Why should constants be illusive? Calling the proton inbcredibly complex is also a faith-based statement.
@@TheMachian I have seen an interesting derivation of the electron mass and charge, based on the assumption that the electron was a black hole (Kerr metric). It was not spot-on, but close enough to be interesting. But in reality, we are missing a striking amount of basic knowledge (thus the elusiveness). The first thing we should be seeking is the origin of the electron mass and charge. It should fall out of a set of field equations, quantized or not. As for the proton, it is a beast. Though we don't know it's decay time, it's harboring stuff. The standard model and particle physics and all high-energy probing suggest it is composed of 3 quarks, and if you get close enough you see evidence of something that's not purely a spinning charge. It's a composite "particle", and it probably hides some of the missing positrons in our area of the cosmos.
At least one physician who questions the theories and look for simplicity!
You have strong feelings about this topic,
I see.
From my humble experience:
Pissing people off, especially with the truth that they efforts and profession is futile make them less open for arguments.
You don’t have to attack them personally, just the idea they hold on to and you will have a foe for life.
Anyway, I love what you do and say and how you do it to. Thanks
Provide where anything he said was verifiably true? Making up lies about people's profession to prop yourself up is also a very good way to make enemies for life.
@@mechamahou8467guess the people who voted for jc punishment had similar arguments. Bad rhetoric my dear. If you are right and possess integrity and a spine you don’t care who is calling you an enemy ( also an jc quote )
Dirac published when the picture with galaxies was still new and generally fuzzy. There are three different gravity/electrostatic force ratio large numbers possibly worth consideration. Proton-to-proton (~10^36), proton-to-electron, which is ~1836 times greater (~10^39) and electron-to-electron, ~1836^2 times greater (~10^42). Rescaling proton size using these three numbers respectively gives a scale close to spiral galaxies, a scale maybe close to a lot of galaxy cluster sizes, and a scale larger than the observable universe. The only obvious coincidence I can see is with galaxies, not to suggest the other two lack any merit. Nonetheless the ~10^39 LNH approach seems distractive relative to proton-to-proton couplings. With proton-to-proton ratios it's a structural energy balance of sorts, R(p)F(e)=R(spiral)F(g) linking a wave-space of ubiquitous charged baryons with a wave-space of ubiquitous galaxy-sized bosonic quantum-gravitational wavelets, maybe. I could talk about what is wrong with physics all day while still lacking the math chops to come up with a good explanation for Hydrogen mass, but that doesn't mean my criticism forever lacks valid utility in helping to unlock that riddle.
Evidently, the factor 1836 is in there. Yet I consider it the most natural thing to look at the p+ e- , it is the hydrogen atom, after all. There is no way to reconcile the square of any number, be it 10^36 to anything else then the mass of the entiure univserse. I agree however that the matter is not settled.
I don’t understand why / how two theories contradicting one another being “celebrated” for so many years, Special and General Relativity?
Good question.
Unzicker's Real Physics
Any advice on that?
They praise Einstein because he and his defenders are all from a *specific ethno-religious catagory*
Einstein plagiarized e=mc^2 from Olinto De Protto anyway.....
@@mykalkelley8315 you are one of few out there who learn and think equally well.
So many theoretical physicists spending their time making videos for youtube. The compensation must be much better than the universities are paying these distinguished people. If you are a professional, you should look into dropping your professionsl activities and, instead, becoming a youtube producer.
Dirac jumped on the anti-particle bandwagon after positrons were discovered, but his anti-particles had negative mass and this was turned into time-reversal rather than realizing electron holes without time reversal, sitting in Dirac's atom-centric sea and waiting to be given positive mass and spread all over the cosmos in order to generate energy calculations off by a factor of 10^120.
I never appreciated that reinterpretation of negative mass as negative charge...
The red puzzle piece would not fit in the open space! Oversight?
1/137 pure numerology
Dirac was pre string theory matching quantum mechanics with relativity but not stressing space volume measurements and distance and particle mass just relationships between components. Showing the wave nature of string vibrations and harmonic relations of forces and size.
What do you mean? Instead of string fantasies, Dirac did real physics.
@@TheMachian Yes.
I studied some of Dirac's personal manuscripts and yes, he did think about some very interesting “coincidences", but let us think about it: the radius of the universe is a consequence of the passage of time, related both to its expansion and to the fact that light hasn't had enough time to reach us from a more distanced point. Since the proton's radius seems to be constant, what does this tell us? That dinosaur-Dirac and future-alien-Dirac wouldn't find this to be a remarkable coincidence at all. It is probably just numerology.
Which papers did you study? Take the 1937 nature paper or the 1938 PRS paper, and you'll find the answers. The intriguing idea is that those numbers coincide also in what you call teh dinosaur and the alien case.
@@TheMachian I had a singular chance to read some personal letters exchanged between Dirac and a former student, nowadays a professor here in Brazil, Prof. Daniel Wisnivesky. Prof. Daniel kept these letters (written around 1962) and actually published some of the ideas Dirac shared with him about unification of quantum mechanics and gravity. The works itself are nothing revolutionary but you should take a look. Unfortunately these do not cover all the material included on the letter, which I'm afraid the world won't see since Prof. Daniel keeps them very close to his heart.
It is worth mentioning that Prof. Daniel did study under some notable figures, including Yakir Aharonov.
doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X01004396
doi.org/10.1016/S0217-751X(00)00218-2
@@TheMachian That is truly amazing. Is there an intuitively obvious explanation for this coinciding? It seems logically unlikely to pedestrian logic. Unless the non-constant nature of the speed of light in flat space must be Necessary?
We humans are both one and many. Most of the time we just carry on our daily life as individuals in circles from house to jobs and back again. However, when our discontent reachs a critical masse (they say 1/4, we transform to a united force and change the system. We are made of this stuff. When I try to understand the forces of nature, I look at my self and the society around me. I look at life .
Well, cosmologic relation gives that universe mass (M) into (r) radius (aprox) :M = (c*4/G).r , In accord to relativistic theory of gravitation. Is a fractal universe
I was told that the speed of light is actually the maximum hysteresis of the aether, by Ken Wheeler, I think. It could have been Dollard.
the problem is fairly simple......mass must be multiplied by the astrological constant....the astrological constant is the number of stars visible on a clear night seen through a circle made by opposing thumb and index finger, and then multiplying that number by the square root of the orbit of venus as it transits the fourth sphere of jupiter.....and the result gives you the quantum gravity probability amplitude
Good work! Maybe the electric universe model Alfven etc. Is the beginning of the solution to physical science?
The real reason for looking for an equation showing an approximate numerical relation between one known constant and other known constants in physics would be to suggest a direction of research which might lead to an /analytical derivation/ of that equation, thereby reducing by one the number of arbitrary constants. While any such simplification would always be welcome, it should always be remembered that pure mathematics can tell you absolutely nothing about physical reality. In other words, there will always be at least one unexplained constant in physics, because a mathematical model which is not linked to reality by at least one of its parameters being arbitrarily equated with some measurable physical quantity, by way of an arbitrary scale of measurement, has no link with reality.
The nearest thing we can ever hope for to a genuinely universal theory of physics would be one in which the only assumed laws were the current laws of human thought. These are the laws on which mathematics itself is based, or was at least derived from. They include mathematical ideas about number, arithmetic, geometry, topology, and such like. Attempts have been made reduce these to as small a logical basis as possible in set theory and logic, but as with physics, even mathematics cannot pull itself up by its own bootlaces. Note also that even such a theory would only be universal amongst humans, or possibly amongst thinking beings.
I really respect you for having the courage to go against Groupthink.
If we pick an exponent at random from e.g. [0, 50], the probability of getting 39 is 1/50 -- NOT excessively unlikely given the number of physical constants that might be the numerator or denominator. Furthermore, F_e/F_g is certain (probability=1) to have some value so what is relevant is the probability, 1/50, that R_u/R_p has the same order of magnitude. Since the universe we can see might be different from the entire universe, I have trouble lending M_u and R_u any fundamental relevance independent of the universe's lifetime. Perhaps we can invent an hypothesis for why the universe's proton count is not proportional to its volume, R_u^3, other than the observed fact that the volume is increasing and the proton count probably is not. If anything, this might lead to a minimum feasible volume/radius for the universe... perhaps such a radius will allow expansion instead of an immediate black hole.
22-07-2020.Way back in the 80,Unruh showed that gravety was a component of the zpf and there for had a thermal count.l perscribe to this idea.Whats your view?
Interesting, yet I am not working in this direction at the moment. Mike McCulloch has taken up on Unruh recently.
@@TheMachian Hi again contacted Mike, to answer your question YES Einstien did work with whats his name and they had exchanged papers, l have the info some place at the law office, l have to find them ,and my Graeth Grand Father did write President befor Einstien and informed him how a atomic bomb can be construcked when Oppenhiemer was shown the letter he wanted him on his team, we have that to.keep in contact.