Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/y3cw_9ELpQw/w-d-xo.html Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman Guest bio: Andrew Strominger is a theoretical physicist at Harvard.
@@Philosopherinahood If it's understood by the person communicating it, it can be explained in simple physical metaphors at any level of detail needed.
I feel that. Ty teachers arguably have a greater responsibility to than other teachers to instil passion and wonder in their students. Often it’s the opposite. I feel you bro.
Ironically I think that high school was above average compared to lot of other other places. You do the math then. The worst math teacher I ever met was also the football coach. It’s just coincidence then. I’m assuming that he was better at coaching the football team than he was at teaching me calculus, or whatever that was. I wouldn’t know, cause I didn’t play football. I didn’t watch the games either. I avoided the pep rallies like the plague. All these years later the use of that math comes up in the science videos I watch.
Spacetime being flat is just the idea of being confined or restricted in how it exists, simplistic, but not incorrect in the outcome the idea was trying to convey. Positive cosmological constant and dark energy are synonymous, both are the actual restriction and confinement for the spacetime continuum (aka limited growth/expansion allowed). The Spacetime continuum theories to date could be perceived as accumulating digestible information to build up to the idea that there are restrictions, like a simplistic building block, or conversely a heuristic approach pulling from deeper incommunicable knowledge, depending on how you think about it. Either way, cosmological constants and dark energy are barriers of control that do restrict and confine Spacetime, more specifically to not surpass a certain expansion.
I want to spitball an idea about dark matter/dark energy to someone that may understand the math. I'm sure you're aware of the picture representing the gravity well of a massive object, like a sheet with a weight on it. But what about if massless space time is curved inn the opposite direction, not flat? Such that in the deepest, emptiest parts of space time, gravity is actually repulsive. In more massive areas, like the empty space in between galaxies somewhere is flat (actual zero gravity) and near massive objects the curve is the well, which causes an attraction?
@@probably_crater really? I've never heard that, but I figure we really don't understand how gravity works and we definitely don't understand what this dark matter and dark energy is.
Whatever happened to Verlinde's Emergent Gravity Theory? That gravity is an emergent force involving time rather than being one of the four forces. Makes better sense than a Quantum Gravity Theory.
Coincidentally I was just thinking that the idea of quantum gravity doesn’t seem to make much sense. General relativity says that matter and energy cause gravity by curving space-time. So it’s a fundamentally different thing than the “stuff” that is governed by QM. I’ve never heard of the theory you mention but conceptually it sounds more reasonable.
Yeah, this stuff is nonsense. Much like when anyone uses condensation fields to conveniently tidy up mathematical equations. Gravity IS emergent because it is part of the relationship of mass and energy. E=mc^2 was never the complete equation and it is oversimplified for general consumption. Time and Gravity are interrelated. Once you understand this the idea of quanta of time or gravity just doesn't pass the sniff test. With that being said quantum theory has many aspects that on initial inspection are abhorrently illogical but bare out in experiments. So what is the absolute truth never possible to predict with 100% certainty. At this point Verlindes feels more correct.
he's still presenting his theories with updates (and quoting ed whitten). one uploaded about 4 months ago. but his theory relates to information/entropy and how equations resembling GR can be derived using those concepts.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752 Well it's not that nonsensical. Matter and energy are precisely the "stuff" you are talking about. Evidently, they must have some interaction with the spacetime around them in order to change its geometry. The problem Quantum Gravity encounters is that on the particle level, the magnitude of that effect utterly vanishes, due to the warping being very weak and requiring phenomenal amounts of mass-energy to be measurable. This is partly why black holes are of such interest. At the event horizon, we see a very clear gravitational phenomenon, which instersects with quantum physics when you ask what particles behave like on, or close to, that boundary. Additionally, the question of the sungularity undoubtedly involves quantum mechanical effects due to its compact size and it's relation to the event horizon. Hope this helps.
Don’t start by announcing to the readers what you’re going to be talking about. The introduction should rather include of a brief 1-2 sentence summary or overview of the topic.
Couldn't u take the size of earth vs gravity Strength. Find thr ratio and do the math and scale it down to the quantam level? And the Higgs needs its companion particle, it's 2nd half.
Never been able to accept string theory idk why. I feel like theories have been made to fit models. Not the other way around. String theory was the beginning of making up rules to make the math fit the reality. Forcing squares through circle holes.
As the guest said, "We don't know what, or if in any sense, string theory describes the world". IoW, there are theories and Theories. The former are loose attempts to describe phenomenon that haven't been subjected to the the scientific method; in the case of string theory it's not even clear how you could do such a thing. A better example is in quantum mechanics: you have two major competing models (the first is WAY more popular): The Standard Model: "It is what it is. The universe doesn't care whether or not you're comfortable with its non-determinisml" de Broglie-Bohm Model: "We are NOT comfortable with a non-deterministic universe. And if you look closely, the scattering of outputs from a quantum wave behaves like bubbles on surface tension. Here's some math which shows this more rigorously than words can. Non-deterministic predictions coming soon, we hope." If de Broglie-Bohm is ever strengthened to provide greater accuracy than the standard model's distributed prediction, it will become more widely accepted. But you're asking a higher degree of prediction for just one theory to be considered on par with the other. So I dunno, pick one. But until you're mathematically sophisticated enough to follow the arguments as equations, you're doing physics-by-analogy and have a distorted view of the whole thing. So naturally, what it feels like to you isn't really an argument.
@@jessejordache1869 what "feels like" is what determinism gave way to philosophy which gave way to math, laws, social hierarchies, and the languages, governments, and nearly all structures by which Modern Life is governed.. All of it is from philosophy. Not math. I am of the opinion and the feeling that philosophy in and of itself creates language expands mathematics and current thinking. It isnt the math that progresses, it is the understanding in the philosophy of which describes everything that gets ushered forward. The math follows the concepts. I'm not arguing whether or not this is right or wrong but it is what it is and it's just a system that can never understand itself. It is the anthropic principle. We are products of the system therefore we are incapable of devising systems to understand the system of which we are a product of. This is a philosophical law that supersedes any mathematics. Unfortunately it is what it is prevails over math lol
@@nighttrain1565 Well written. Okay, three points -- actually three and a half points: first, and most importantly, we *are* talking about Quantum Gravity. Second, what makes you think your intuition is less a subject of anthropicity than math is? Third, the argument about language and mathematics and what-precedes-what is well taken, and sort of unanswerable. In other contexts I have to constantly argue that elements of mathematics as basic as a contiguous number line are distortions of reality -- that in the actual world, you cannot zoom forever into smaller and smaller numbers, or subsets of the mandelbrot set, or whatever; you will eventually run into particle physics, and you have a hard limit at the Planck constant (but your zooming will bog down long before that). And there's irony, using a mathematical expression to argue that mathematics is distortive. But if so it's a double irony, because it's people's intuition that drives them to accept the great abstraction of mathematics as physically real in the first place. One of the indicators that Quantum Mechanics is involved is when things stop making intuitive sense: Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment involving a cat that is both dead and alive until someone observes it (that the cat can't be the observer is IMO a failure of imagination, but you can posit an egg that's both whole and cracked open if you like), and it was formulated in reaction to Schrodinger's equation. In other words, the man who formulated the "E=MC^2" of the quantum world's reaction to his own discovery was horror. It didn't stop him from publishing it, and the relation between the quantum waveform and general mechanics that it describes is where the rubber hits the road on... everything. It is, as of right now, experimentally and mathematically bulletproof. And a bit of a mindfuck. At the moment, the acid test of "the universe cannot properly understand itself" vs "2 + 2 = 4" is this: science makes things happen. There was an explosion of a magnitude unseen outside of astronomical events, and of a type -- a fissile critical mass -- that had never occurred anywhere in the universe, ever. It was over Hiroshima, Japan, 50 years before I was born to the day, and mathematicians (the word physicist didn't come into vogue until later) were able to predict the output in watts, predicted weeks earlier, with an error amounting to a fraction of a fraction of a percent. It's old news, but the fact that fissile explosions don't naturally occur, ever, and yet... still has the power to shock. At least for me. Now the half point: I think language precedes philosophy, that humans talk, and that's what makes them human, and they cannot stop talking in grammars any more than they can switch off their own binocular vision. But that's a completely different conversation. 😀
@@jessejordache1869 dammit, my entire Schrodinger's cat point isn't in my last comment but I pretty much said the same thing about Schrodinger's cat, don't know why it's not there lol. Universal punchline? 😅 I understand what you are saying but i actually don't agree lol. Have you heard of gauge Theory? I'm not sure if I have it completely right but beginnings and endings are illusions of different subsets of gauges essentially and that we have limitations on what we can consider infinite in both directions of the very small and very large. I don't believe in size. I don't believe that you keep looking smaller you enter the quantum world. I don't believe in quantum world period really. At least not in the sense that modern science defines it. I think the entire field is an expression of how incomplete our math and languages are and always will be. I don't think we will ever understand the quantum world because it doesn't exist and what we are playing in is a world of broken Math that we are translating to quantum physics which isn't actually a thing.. that's like a huge problem to me that we live by two different sets of realities and two different sets of mathematics and they don't agree? And then people pretend to have an understanding of quantum physics? Pretty hysterically arrogant. A lot of people have a problem with this Theory but I can guarantee you with 100% certainty we will never have Quantum computing in our lifetime😅. Very weird that I believe an entire genre of science is a fuck up that nobody has bothered to correct because everyone is scared of saying no, this philosophically does not line up. Nature is in fact natural and if we cannot Define nature naturally we must lack the capacity to. I could tell you a swordfish plus a moose equals a monkey and create a digital software within a world that makes these conditions true but it doesn't make them true just because I barricaded a world for them to work properly as conditions in. The entire science of quantum physics is playtime science. Sometimes somebody will come along with an entirely different proposal as to what is going on and it will merge mathematics and bring us a unified field Theory but until then, lets see those quantum computers give me 2+2=4 without giving me 10 to the 24th wrong answers first lol
I was just effing around with chatgpt - The hypothesis regarding the theory of darkness states that darkness is composed of particles called "dotons" that travel in the opposite direction to photons, at a speed of negative c in a vacuum. This theory suggests that the duality of wave and particle nature of light is actually just the existence of darkness as a wave when light exists as a particle, and darkness existing as a particle when light exists as a wave. The hypothesis also proposes that black holes are made up of darkness, not light. The hypothesis suggests that the negative direction of travel of dotons, in relation to the speed of light, is actually the opposite direction of time, i.e., light travels into the future and darkness travels into the past. The observation of light is the result of time ticking forward, while the observation of darkness could lead to time ticking backwards. The hypothesis also states that the flow of photons creates a gravitational field, and the flow of dotons creates anti-gravity. Additionally, the hypothesis suggests that the big bang was actually caused by antigravity generated by the excessive amounts of darkness or dotons traveling towards the singularity.
So to visualize. The present moment may look like the centre of an infinity sign and one loop is dark waves traveling back in time while photons are in the other loop traveling forward in time. Is there the proposal then that dark waves are dark energy and dotons are dark matter?
My problem with string theory is this: until you can do repeatable PHYSICAL experiments to test it, it'll never be more than a hypothesis. What value does a theory have if only through complex math can you "prove" it?
Because if it is mathematically consistent, it is worth testing, that’s the value of that complex math you’re mentioning. It seems pretty reasonable to think that the more we are trying to prove about the universe, the more complex things are going to get since the universe is so complex.
String theory is, indeed, a good skipping rope to train our minds in the general direction of unifying “the force fields”, but contextually I do not think of gravity as a similarly dimensional “force” - maybe that is one of the problems.
Does it mean that every time an object falls into a black hole, it falls through a set of new plank points (or just adds a new area of plank points), as no particle, no quark, no anything would ever carry itself into the black hole through a plank point already on the black hole? And would that mean that the plank point would somehow be customised, so the information of the object is never lost?
Surely you know that that's a currently debated topic, although I've never heard it formalized as "custom plank points". There ain't no such animal. It's not even clear whether or not Planck's constant has any relevance in a singularity, as things like "angular momentum" would be meaningless.
"Pretty much complete" he says at almost 3 minutes in. I needn't remind you that this is exactly what they were saying before quantisation became a thing. The tiniest misubderstanding can blow everything out of the water when you're trying to map infinity.
@BoManton Please forgive me for any possible errors in my explanation, but the reason why the Universe is considered to be flat is because the matter distribution in the Cosmos falls within the so-called "critical density". So basically, in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity which describes what we feel as gravity as the differing geometry of Spacetime, the Spacetime fabric is flat until there is a presence of matter that would curve it. Now matter is spread throughout the Universe, according to observation, in a greatly unified way where it is both evenly distributed and of a similar value of mass (the technical way of saying this is that on a macroscopic scale, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic). This uniformity of matter is helpful for physicists to understand the overall shape of space because when you take Einstein's field equations which explain how matter curves spacetime, there is a solution called the critical density, which is 10 -26 kg/m3, and what it is saying is that if the matter distribution per cubic meter of the Universe falls within the critical density, the Universe on the largest of scales would be flat; if the matter density is greater than the critical density, then the Universe would be spherical shaped; and if lower, then it would be shaped like a saddle (known as hyperbolic space). So by observational analysis of the Cosmos on a grand scale, and from the Uniformity of the Cosmic Microwave background radiation which suggests the uniform spread of atoms as formed in the early Universe, it appears likely that the matter distribution falls in the critical density which, according to General Relativity, would show that the Universe is considered to be flat. I hope that helps!
Why are we trying to shoehorn gravity into the "force" box, does it need to be a force? I don't think even Einstein considered it one. It is something, obviously... But does it *need* to be a force for some reason?
I think it’s because black holes exist and the standard model fails to explain them in that the math turns into infinities that can’t be resolved in any meaningful way
As I listen to this discussion, I wonder, as I have for some time, about the possible direct connection between the rise in the number of, and size, of black holes and the rise in the amount of DE and DM. If BH have any purpose in the scheme of things it may be that they are the Factories where ordinary Matter and Energy are converted into DE and DM.If so then it follows that there should be a direct correlation between the number and size of BHs and the amount of DM and DE over Time. Since we now have Time Machines in the form of Powerful telescopes that can look back at the early Universe, it may be possible to measure such a correlation if it exists. This would mean that the “Information” that falls into a BH is not lost at some singularity or stored at the EVH, but is fed back into the surrounding Spacetime. The process, if it occurs, should leave some detectable trace of its existence in the immediate vicinity of the BH and should be more detectable around a SMBHs.
This was so interesting! Thanks Les and Andrew. The history of the theories is what to me is the most interesting. As Andrew talks about the each theory's progression, it occurred to me that what they are actually doing is discovering a better explanation of the information that already exists in the universe. But all the information of the universe is always there (unless is it making new information?), and we are just discovering it. We are not changing anything, but rather just getting better and better explanations of the perception (our observations) or description of the universe. The hologram/holographic plate theory is really interesting, again giving us the perception of what is reality. Wow, lot's to think about! Thanks again Les, very intuitive questions.
Man, this guy represents real vibration even in his expression of his awareness of things he is talking about but You- You has found the way to tune....in that case - me as well. I respect what You did so far, but you have become an actual creator this time. The Guy told as much more than he would without You. That is yours the best interview so far - thank you. Plus respect for Him. Of course.
This guest answers the first question asked of him (an extremely complex question) with such certainty it makes me think that his answer is more "puffing" (as in salesmanship) than factual. He follows up by saying, "we don't anticipate anything contradictory" (in other words, the science is settled). I think he's full of it !!
The most remarkable thing is how well he is able to explain some of these concepts with human language when in reality, the concepts are untranslatable to human language and can only be described mathematically.
"Untranslatable." Is a massive overstatement. Yes, the math is crucial and integral, but language is even more fundamental than mathematics (as Russell's paradox shows). We derive ALL truths from analogy. Even mathematical truths. Physicists discuss stuff in words too. (Speaking from experience).
Even if space was curved we don't experience any changes in time. The clock still moves at the same pace neither faster or slower from our frame of reference.
You are talking about space and the fact that all matter, the elements, are products of space, containing space. Space is the essence of everything and effects everything and is the major cause of the universe.
The description he gave of "de Sitter space" is remarkably similar to his work on the "holographic projection plate" of a black hole. Is it possible that our universe could be one of those projection plates on a vastly more grand scale and why it appears to be flat from our perspective? Which is also in it's own pocket of black hole projection plate space, and the loop goes on and on? 🤷♂️
"Dark matter" in that scenario is the stuff at the center of the black hole which is forcing around all the infortmation on the "projection plate". 🤷♂️
Lovely description of the cleverness involved in finding relationships between the various mathematical models. Mathematical models though, are not, in their nature, descriptive of the mechanism which gives rise to the appearances which the maths can be tweaked to fit. What physics seems to have been lacking is an explanation of the mechanism by which the phenomena they measure arise in the first place. Boyle's law does not describe the mechanism whereby pressure arises. Epicycles did not yield the Copernican understanding of orbital motion. True advances in understanding simplify the picture and explain why the mathematical models work. Isn't it time to start considering what gravity, fields, forces, dimensions and the various mathematical objects such "theories" (tweakable mathematical models) require …actually are?
I assume atom can curve space time on its own and couse gravity among let say 2 atom system with no significant effect on large scale world and further more another asumption that strong and weak nucler forces simply overcome this ridiculously small gravity.
Andrew and Lex, Quantum Gravity and the theory, mathematics, laws, reproducible experiments and observations that underpinned it, is crucial for an empirical real true Quantum Theory of Gravity that would finish Einstein's Revolution in physics. Problem is that, since the 17th century up to the present, the Mathematics that we have so far cannot solve the problem of quantum gravitation. Mathematics is invented and discovered. That's my personal experience. I've invented/discovered a completely new mathematics in the course of my 30-year-long basic research on Quantum Gravity in Singapore. I called it Majulah Matematika in honour of my home country Singapore. I use it to solve one of the most difficult conundrums in physics- the True Nature of Gravity. Here is one of the many solutions that my new mathematics has derived: A Computer Universe that is real. It is run by Quantum Gravitational Computation, Quantum Gravitational Entanglement and Quantum Gravitation covering the entire Universe. An empirical Theory of Quantum Gravity is the key. And it will led us to understanding of how and why Gravity works. It will also at the same time, debunk and invalidate String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, M Theory, Theory of General Relativity and all failed and wrong theories of gravity. But it will proved and validate Einstein's Hidden Variables and EPR's authors Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen correct. The Hidden variables are: Quantum Gravity, Quantum Anti-Gravity, Quantum Neutral Gravity, the macroscopic cosmic scale Gravitational Quantum Entanglement and Gravitational Quantum Computation. All these would complete the Quantum Foundation, Unification of Gravity with Quantum Mechanics and the realization of Theory of Everything in Physics. I have discovered and cracked the code of the true nature of Gravity in my over 30 years of basic research works in Singapore. This discovery/invention/theory of mine include THE GOD EQUATION - THE TRINITY Equations, Laws and Codes For QUANTUM GRAVITATION , QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL ENTANGLE MENT and GRAVITATIONAL QUANTUM COMPUTATION that pave the way for Theory of Everything in Physics: - THE 3-in-1 HOLY GRAILS of Physics: 1. Quantum Anti-Gravity/Spin Up Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/0 Rhu Bit or R Bit: QAG = ∆QGOρ < ∆QGFρ = ↑α 2. Quantum Gravity/Spin Down Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/1 Rhu Bit or R Bit: QG = ∆QGOρ > ∆QGFρ = ↓α 3. Quantum Neutral Gravity/Superposition Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/01 and/or 10 Rhu Bit or R Bit: QNG = ∆QGOρ = ∆QGFρ = ↑↓α We now have a working Quantum Theory of Gravity that is testable and complete with reproducible empirical experiments with the same results if repeated over and over again and again, confirmed by empirical observations in nature with 7-Sigma level results, guided by empirical Laws, Cosmic/Universal Computation and physical/mathematical Trinity God Equations that are predictive, precise and does no collapse even in high energies of Big Bang and singularity of Black Hole. FYI: Quantum Gravity or Quantum Gravitation have three types that are equivalent to and manifested by Quantum Computational Gravitation- the biggest and most powerful Computer Software Program and Hardware in the Universe and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - a Quantum Entanglement at Macroscopic Cosmic Scale namely: 1. Quantum Anti-Gravity = Spin Up Quantum Entanglement State; 2. Quantum Neutral Gravity = Superposition Quantum Entanglement State; and 3. Quantum Gravity = Spin Down Quantum Entanglement State. More detailed information could be found on the published papers 2 years ago in London, Paris, and Zurich, online and at the two scientific Journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE. Alternatively, you can google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA to arrive at the published paper on Quantum Gravity. Most recently, additional two well respected scientific journals namely NATURE and the AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY APS Physical Review Journals have officially invited this author to submit manuscripts on his Research on Quantum Gravity for publication for PRX QUANTUM in preparation for a celebration for International Year of Quantum IYQ 2025 to showcase the best papers of the year. Quantum Gravitation is governed by and follow the Trinity Laws, Mathematics and Physics of Quantum Gravitation, Gravitational Quantum Computation and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement. We now have a new Laws of Physics and two newly discovered Fundamental Forces of Nature - The Quantum Neutral Gravity and Quantum Anti-Gravity which completed the heart of the Quantum Theory of Gravity published in London. Paris and Zurich last December 2022 as follows:
1. First Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Universal Law of Quantum Gravitation: “The greater mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects than the Quantum Gravitational Field causes a downward acceleration of the Quantum Objects in a Quantum Gravitational Field instantaneously mediated by Graviton.” - Roel Real Rovira Equation for Quantum Gravity, and Spin Down Quantum Gravitational Entanglement: QG = ∆QGOρ > ∆QGFρ = ↓α Where: QG is Quantum Gravity in Rovira (value of downward acceleration force due to quantum gravity) in kg. ∆QGOρ is Differential Change in greater mass density of Quantum Gravitating Objects than the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ↓α is the Resultant Downward Acceleration of Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec. 2. Second Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Universal Law of Quantum Anti-Gravity. “The lesser mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects than the Quantum Gravitational Field causes an upward acceleration of the Quantum Objects in a Quantum Gravitational Field instantaneously mediated by Graviton.” -Roel Real Rovira Equation for Quantum Anti-Gravity/Spin Up Quantum Gravitational Entanglement: QAG = ∆QGOρ < ∆QGFρ = ↑α
Where: QAG is Quantum Anti-Gravity in Rovira (value of upward acceleration force due to quantum anti-gravity) in kg. ∆QGOρ is Differential Change in lesser mass density of Quantum Anti-Gravitating Objects than the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ↑α is the Resultant Upward Acceleration of Anti-Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec. 3. Third Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Law of Quantum Neutral Gravitation. “The equal mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects and the Quantum Gravitational Field causes a zero acceleration or floating or hoovering of the gravitating Quantum Objects in a Quantum Gravitational Field, instantaneously mediated by Graviton.” - Roel real Rovira Equation for Quantum Neutral Gravity and Superposition Quantum Gravitational Entanglement: QNG = ∆QGOρ = ∆QGFρ = ↑↓α Where: QNG is Quantum Neutral Gravity in Rovira (value of zero acceleration force due to quantum neutral gravity) in kg. ∆QGOρ is Differential Change in equal mass density of Quantum Neutral Gravitating Objects to the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ↑↓0α is the Resultant zero acceleration or non-acceleration of Neutral Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec. For more detailed information on these 3-in-1 Trinity Laws and Equations for Quantum Gravitation, Gravitational Quantum Computation, and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - The Real True Nature of Quantum Gravitation, look it up at the two scientific journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE or google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA. Copyright 2022 ROEL REAL ROVIRA. All Rights Reserved.
Because she's an example of the problem with Western women. Just because she's pretty and relatively intelligent compared to most doesn't mean she hasn't been deeply damaged. She's certainly not a positive role model, and the rubber-necking was palpable. Most like her don't live to regret it... those who do, do.
Can one of the specialists in gravity write how the weight of bodies on the surface of the Earth changes under the influence of the gravity of the Moon? When the weight will be greater, will you lift at the moon or in the nadir?
I know Dr. Strominger is a genius. However, I'm reminded of the late 19th century physics. They thought they had 99.5 % of everything figured out. Only a few minor discrepancies they couldn't account for.
Why do you need quantum gravity when atomic mass is generated by Glouns, which are a type of light, when we know that light has the capacity to propel through voids of space. Why don't you see that Mass is the property that is accelerating matter in a gravitational field. Atoms possess the agency that drives gravitational acceleration
What string theory does is....propose the graviton, the gravity as a particle, unifying the quantum with general relativity...but gravitons was not find yet
I can't help but think we are looking in the wrong place with the search for the graviton, yet I'm sure new physics will come of it. It just doesn't make sense to have a force carrier for spacetime, honestly it makes more sense that an absence of a force carrier would cause the effects we see in gravity classically speaking. We keep looking for what is, or what should be. But the universe is clever and lazy, I can imagine that what isn't there is just as revealing and important than what is. I wonder if the lack of the graviton is what actually leads to gravity, like the graviton cannot exist so it gives the illusion of a force or more precisely ; an anti force. It could also explain dark matter and dark energy, but I won't go into detail on how it could in these here comments sections lol.
Maybe gravity isn't a force and just the inherent properties of mass. Also I think gravity has a cut off point once you go under a certain mass it has no effect. You'd think we would of found some evidence to support this already
@@SpontaneityJD Fascinating. If light can be bent by gravity (and it is massless), then doesn't that imply that gravity somehow transcends mass as a "force"? What does it mean to bend light? If space is curved, what does that tell us about the statistical likelihood that space has a force carrying particle? I dunno. We will need another Einstein to figure it out and find the TOE.
Do individual particles, exist outside of Space? Do individual particles within a proton, a Quark, etc,etc, Atom exist in conditions with other particles without Space in-between? Forget about the math for a moment, then go do the math. Is it possible, particles cannot escape Space? If I have two Particles, is it possible no matter how close they get, Space will always exist between them? Is it possible, an individual particle, has a Gravitational effect even if the effect isn't enough to capture other particles? How does a particle Vibrate; is it possible, a particle Vibration affects the Space around it? Is it possible particles can transfer information through Space to other particles?
All of these theories may be extremely accurate in their predictions but are they necessarily a true reflection of reality? For example, the “curvature” of spacetime is an artifact of pseudo-3-dimensional 2-dimensional mathematics. Wouldn’t it be more of a reflection of the real world to consider the compression and expansion of spacetime? Then you wouldn’t end up with worm holes and other such artifacts. The holographical view seems like extreme mathematical gymnastics along side string theory. Are we sure the universe has to be quantized? Are we so intent upon something from nothing? My view recognizes a classical field and a quantized field co-existing. Wouldn't it be easier to see everything as conservation of energy and dissipative systems? Mathematically the Standard Model works with the theoretical quantum fields from where the Higgs and Gluons, etc. draw their respective energies. What if the fields were described as the following? The maths would still work but with an actual picture of how they relate to each other. Whether this is complete bunk or not, just want to share as I see it as an elegant, complete picture of what could constitute the universe. Here is a descriptive view of the universe with no need for something from nothing, time travel, worm holes, or any other fantastical mathematical assumptions and I believe could satisfy both quantum mechanics as well as general relativity although there is still the hard work of reconciling both. I prefer a view that doesn’t have all of the magical conclusions from the existing models. So if someone could come up with the mathematics for the following or show that it is not possible, or at least could come up with some kind of cogent argument why this or something similar couldn’t be the case, I would appreciate it. What if the universe’s zero point energy were an elastic solid with a viscoelastic liquid suspended in it due to ripping energy apart from the underlying solid and coalescing into quanta from a Planck scale event (a big bang) - similar to an elastic solid/viscous liquid colloidal suspension with gravity being the relationship between the analog energy of the elastic solid and the quantized viscoelastic liquid? Could then gravity be just a matter of conservation of energy at the analog scale appearing to be quantized due to the influence of the relative energies of the quantized liquid? Could that not make space-time the superfluid(-like)/superconducting(-like) elastic solid and the source for dark energy and quantum fields, account for the randomness of black hole evaporation as energy dissipates back into the solid, account for effects attributed to dark matter, account for wave-particle duality, account for the expansion of the universe accounting for the redshift as well as potentially be the source of another big bang as quanta become unstable and then critical due to energy dissipation? On the Big Bang…. “In the beginning there was an explosion. Not an explosion like those familiar on earth, starting from a definite center and spreading out to engulf more and more of the circumambient air, but an explosion which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all space from the beginning, with every particle of matter rushing apart from every other particle.” (Weinberg, Steven. The First Three Minutes - not sure if this view is still valid or perhaps he meant that “everywhere” was compressed, but it works for this view.) And speaking to the potential for a classical-quantized hybrid theory…. "All quantum fields carry energy so they all need to couple to the gravitational field, but we do not know a consistent way to couple a quantum field to a classical field. As Hannah and Eppley have argued [2], the attempt to do such a coupling leads either to a violation of the uncertainty principle (and thus would necessitate a change of the quantum theory) or to the possibility of superluminal signaling, which brings more problems than it solves.... I have argued that the fundamental theory can be neither classical nor quantized, but that quantization may be a phase that results from spontaneous symmetry breaking.... I hope to have convinced the reader that giving up the assumption that a theory is either classical or quantized can be fruitful and offers a new possibility to address the problems with quantum gravity." (Sabine Hossenfelder, Gravity can neither be quantized nor classical, [2] Hannah and Eppley, The Necessity of quantizing gravity) "...these critiques do not directly refute the claim that coupling quantum theories with a Copenhagen collapse postulate to unentanglable classical gravitational degrees of freedom leads to contradiction. I note here that if the gravitational field interacts with matter via the local quantum state, the Eppley-Hannah argument evidently fails. This seems a plausibly natural feature of a hybrid theory, whereas the alternative considered by Eppley-Hannah is evidently inconsistent with relativity.... I hope this paper may help lay that argument to rest, and lead to a broader understanding of the possibilities for classical-quantum hybrid theories and a more balanced and nuanced view of the arguments for quantum gravity." (Adrian Kent, Simple refutation of the Eppley-Hannah argument) I can’t see why this descriptive view couldn’t accommodate the standard model as (mainly) applied to the viscoelastic liquid and general relativity (mainly) applying to the relationship between the elastic solid and the viscoelastic liquid. I've seen papers using "elastic solid" as a model and papers using "viscoelastic liquid", but not both at the same time. What a beautifully elegant picture where conservation of energy and dissipative structures define everything at every scale? Anyhoo…. I really don’t understand the need to continue with solutions based on theories that include fantastical outcomes. At least someone has finally dispelled the “action at a distance” nonsense.
Don’t you think the term quantum gravity is somewhat of a misnomer?? The point in “quantum gravity” is a new conception of a corpuscular nature of spacetime itself and a new view of gravity is just a consequence of that new paradigm!!
What gives the Higgs mass is still unknown so what are you talking about that it's all very well understood Also let me help you in simplifying string theory. 1 string playing many notes generating many different atoms... from 1 string.
All leads back to the 'Big Bang' Theory! All that is also just a guess work! Where did 'matter' come from? From nothing? What was first, and from what did it evolve? Where does the Universe heading? What does the future hold for the Universe?
Locally gravity causes space time to sag continuously, matter has been interacting with gravitational fluid for billions of years, and it works from atoms to super massive black holes. There is an exchange between matter and the gravitational fluid for billions of years and this is causing additive sag, there is no expansion just billions of years of sag. The real question is how is this energy taken is given back, does the limit on massless photons speed mean it is being dragged by the gravitational fluid and eventually gives it back?
I have a question as to why the potential is not considered in terms of Axioms that travel well above the speed of light and then lapse slow to such speeds as they become visible, losing energy until they form matter, thus filling in the voids. Just like experiments in Sophia, the plasma generated by the Cosmos operates in the Ether that allows for light, sound which travels faster, and all being subject to magnetic and electrical forces, but more than that which wii, the "I"s that form human consciousness, can detect and understand. While close, the only research on this is subject to the astral world or alternative realm that, makes all this exercise in futility. Without the keys to the door, wii seek to understand what is going on in the room wii can not enter to be sure that the view is not simply someone's Smartphone screen, not real at all. Once you experience remote viewing, seeing, feeling, and hearing as if you have a body but do not, then the entire concept of physicality comes into question. Since that ability has been proven possible, there is yet to be a scientific explanation unless holographic worlds allow us to slip between them without a time function and therefore, due to no matter, an entirely different set of rules for how that operates that wii can hope to understand from this side of the door of opportunity... kudos for asking the right questions to keep the Bakhtinian dialogism alive.
Could we include gravity in quantum field theory by visualizing gravity as the potential difference between regions of space with many collapsed fields (large masses like earth) and regions of "empty" space with many uncollapsed entanglements?
To expand on the other commenters unhelpful no, there is nothing that necessitates, or even suggest that there would be a potential difference between region of space-time that are compressed, due to the displacement of mass and those which are not
I think we've found the token renormalization skeptic you always find in the comments when someone mentions the standard model. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it unsound. Stop watching bs TH-cam videos about the "electric universe."
@@vogarner im sure you are not aware of how big of an error there is in galactic scale with standard model, they say its astronomical, please educate your self of the errors in theories before coming to comment on this bullshit
![[LIVE] นาทีนี้ต้องพี่ทนาย | ทนายแก้ว vs ทนายไพศาล | #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.47 (02/11/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HmquaO-PL_M/mqdefault.jpg)
Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/y3cw_9ELpQw/w-d-xo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Andrew Strominger is a theoretical physicist at Harvard.
I see a lot of parallels between string theory and climate science. At least there is beautiful math in string theory.
This guy sounds like a 5 year old repeating something he read in a science book.
@@averybrooks2099 are the parallels that both are based on data?
What parallels do you see?
The cutting edge of science is always a search for the right metaphor to explain the data.
And even then the right metaphor can be easily misunderstood.
@@PhilosopherinahoodI find myself having to watch tens of hours of videos sometimes to even slightly understand some concepts.
Not quite.
The right metaphor has to have predictive powers otherwise it's useless.
@@Philosopherinahood If it's understood by the person communicating it, it can be explained in simple physical metaphors at any level of detail needed.
Is that science? Stories?
Lex: "I don't know what I am doing... I am desperately trying to figure it out." This is the story of my life, Lex.
WTF. The higgs were indeed first observed in 2012. I thought it was like, 5 years ago.
and fermat's last theorem proved almost 30 years ago.
My math teacher in high school was the football coach.
I want my money back.
And my brain.
I feel that. Ty teachers arguably have a greater responsibility to than other teachers to instil passion and wonder in their students. Often it’s the opposite. I feel you bro.
Being a football coach shouldn’t preclude someone from teaching math
Ironically I think that high school was above average compared to lot of other other places.
You do the math then.
The worst math teacher I ever met was also the football coach. It’s just coincidence then.
I’m assuming that he was better at coaching the football team than he was at teaching me calculus, or whatever that was. I wouldn’t know, cause I didn’t play football. I didn’t watch the games either. I avoided the pep rallies like the plague. All these years later the use of that math comes up in the science videos I watch.
:D
I wonder which kind of football even thought it does not change anything.
35 min Lex clip, gotta love it haha
This guy is Jason Bateman's smarter older brother.
Why do I hear this guy singing - Hey Soul Sister
Screw you for putting that in my mind! Poor Jason...🤣
more like einsteins dumber occult liar friend
I knew I'd seen that face before 😂
Spot on
This conversation is really just someone explaining the world to someone trying to understand it. Really nice
What does Aella have to do with quantum mechanics!???
-Oh this is not Aella !? Okey 😅😅
That "change the units" malarkey when asked about the speed of light sweeps the question under the rug.
Right off the bat he just throws making sense out the window
I don't even know what the hell you said bro he didn't even answer the question really
Spacetime being flat is just the idea of being confined or restricted in how it exists, simplistic, but not incorrect in the outcome the idea was trying to convey.
Positive cosmological constant and dark energy are synonymous, both are the actual restriction and confinement for the spacetime continuum (aka limited growth/expansion allowed). The Spacetime continuum theories to date could be perceived as accumulating digestible information to build up to the idea that there are restrictions, like a simplistic building block, or conversely a heuristic approach pulling from deeper incommunicable knowledge, depending on how you think about it. Either way, cosmological constants and dark energy are barriers of control that do restrict and confine Spacetime, more specifically to not surpass a certain expansion.
Strominger has a Richard Feynman vibe. It's infectious.
I want to spitball an idea about dark matter/dark energy to someone that may understand the math. I'm sure you're aware of the picture representing the gravity well of a massive object, like a sheet with a weight on it. But what about if massless space time is curved inn the opposite direction, not flat? Such that in the deepest, emptiest parts of space time, gravity is actually repulsive. In more massive areas, like the empty space in between galaxies somewhere is flat (actual zero gravity) and near massive objects the curve is the well, which causes an attraction?
I think that is the current theory, but I've never heard it explained like you did.
@@probably_crater really? I've never heard that, but I figure we really don't understand how gravity works and we definitely don't understand what this dark matter and dark energy is.
Newton had a theory of repulsive gravity. GR has a repulsive solution.
@@LuciFeric137 so I'm only 300 odd years behind. 🤔😂😂
Superb tube! Thank you both for your time & effort. Certainly food for thought. 🙂
Shaggy really changed after Scooby-Doo passed...
Lmao
Whatever happened to Verlinde's Emergent Gravity Theory? That gravity is an emergent force involving time rather than being one of the four forces. Makes better sense than a Quantum Gravity Theory.
Coincidentally I was just thinking that the idea of quantum gravity doesn’t seem to make much sense. General relativity says that matter and energy cause gravity by curving space-time. So it’s a fundamentally different thing than the “stuff” that is governed by QM.
I’ve never heard of the theory you mention but conceptually it sounds more reasonable.
Yeah, this stuff is nonsense. Much like when anyone uses condensation fields to conveniently tidy up mathematical equations.
Gravity IS emergent because it is part of the relationship of mass and energy. E=mc^2 was never the complete equation and it is oversimplified for general consumption.
Time and Gravity are interrelated. Once you understand this the idea of quanta of time or gravity just doesn't pass the sniff test.
With that being said quantum theory has many aspects that on initial inspection are abhorrently illogical but bare out in experiments. So what is the absolute truth never possible to predict with 100% certainty.
At this point Verlindes feels more correct.
he's still presenting his theories with updates (and quoting ed whitten). one uploaded about 4 months ago. but his theory relates to information/entropy and how equations resembling GR can be derived using those concepts.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752 Well it's not that nonsensical. Matter and energy are precisely the "stuff" you are talking about. Evidently, they must have some interaction with the spacetime around them in order to change its geometry. The problem Quantum Gravity encounters is that on the particle level, the magnitude of that effect utterly vanishes, due to the warping being very weak and requiring phenomenal amounts of mass-energy to be measurable. This is partly why black holes are of such interest. At the event horizon, we see a very clear gravitational phenomenon, which instersects with quantum physics when you ask what particles behave like on, or close to, that boundary. Additionally, the question of the sungularity undoubtedly involves quantum mechanical effects due to its compact size and it's relation to the event horizon. Hope this helps.
Don’t start by announcing to the readers what you’re going to be talking about. The introduction should rather include of a brief 1-2 sentence summary or overview of the topic.
Yes, came with sincere conversations given just for thee!
At 0:40 what is he talking about? General relativity or quantum gravity?? I'm so confused.
Couldn't u take the size of earth vs gravity Strength. Find thr ratio and do the math and scale it down to the quantam level? And the Higgs needs its companion particle, it's 2nd half.
Never been able to accept string theory idk why. I feel like theories have been made to fit models. Not the other way around. String theory was the beginning of making up rules to make the math fit the reality. Forcing squares through circle holes.
what you weren't blow away by all the handwavy explanations presented by Michio Kaku with neat graphics?
As the guest said, "We don't know what, or if in any sense, string theory describes the world". IoW, there are theories and Theories. The former are loose attempts to describe phenomenon that haven't been subjected to the the scientific method; in the case of string theory it's not even clear how you could do such a thing.
A better example is in quantum mechanics: you have two major competing models (the first is WAY more popular):
The Standard Model: "It is what it is. The universe doesn't care whether or not you're comfortable with its non-determinisml"
de Broglie-Bohm Model: "We are NOT comfortable with a non-deterministic universe. And if you look closely, the scattering of outputs from a quantum wave behaves like bubbles on surface tension. Here's some math which shows this more rigorously than words can. Non-deterministic predictions coming soon, we hope."
If de Broglie-Bohm is ever strengthened to provide greater accuracy than the standard model's distributed prediction, it will become more widely accepted. But you're asking a higher degree of prediction for just one theory to be considered on par with the other. So I dunno, pick one. But until you're mathematically sophisticated enough to follow the arguments as equations, you're doing physics-by-analogy and have a distorted view of the whole thing. So naturally, what it feels like to you isn't really an argument.
@@jessejordache1869 what "feels like" is what determinism gave way to philosophy which gave way to math, laws, social hierarchies, and the languages, governments, and nearly all structures by which Modern Life is governed.. All of it is from philosophy. Not math. I am of the opinion and the feeling that philosophy in and of itself creates language expands mathematics and current thinking. It isnt the math that progresses, it is the understanding in the philosophy of which describes everything that gets ushered forward. The math follows the concepts. I'm not arguing whether or not this is right or wrong but it is what it is and it's just a system that can never understand itself. It is the anthropic principle. We are products of the system therefore we are incapable of devising systems to understand the system of which we are a product of. This is a philosophical law that supersedes any mathematics. Unfortunately it is what it is prevails over math lol
@@nighttrain1565 Well written. Okay, three points -- actually three and a half points: first, and most importantly, we *are* talking about Quantum Gravity.
Second, what makes you think your intuition is less a subject of anthropicity than math is?
Third, the argument about language and mathematics and what-precedes-what is well taken, and sort of unanswerable. In other contexts I have to constantly argue that elements of mathematics as basic as a contiguous number line are distortions of reality -- that in the actual world, you cannot zoom forever into smaller and smaller numbers, or subsets of the mandelbrot set, or whatever; you will eventually run into particle physics, and you have a hard limit at the Planck constant (but your zooming will bog down long before that). And there's irony, using a mathematical expression to argue that mathematics is distortive. But if so it's a double irony, because it's people's intuition that drives them to accept the great abstraction of mathematics as physically real in the first place.
One of the indicators that Quantum Mechanics is involved is when things stop making intuitive sense: Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment involving a cat that is both dead and alive until someone observes it (that the cat can't be the observer is IMO a failure of imagination, but you can posit an egg that's both whole and cracked open if you like), and it was formulated in reaction to Schrodinger's equation. In other words, the man who formulated the "E=MC^2" of the quantum world's reaction to his own discovery was horror. It didn't stop him from publishing it, and the relation between the quantum waveform and general mechanics that it describes is where the rubber hits the road on... everything. It is, as of right now, experimentally and mathematically bulletproof. And a bit of a mindfuck.
At the moment, the acid test of "the universe cannot properly understand itself" vs "2 + 2 = 4" is this: science makes things happen. There was an explosion of a magnitude unseen outside of astronomical events, and of a type -- a fissile critical mass -- that had never occurred anywhere in the universe, ever. It was over Hiroshima, Japan, 50 years before I was born to the day, and mathematicians (the word physicist didn't come into vogue until later) were able to predict the output in watts, predicted weeks earlier, with an error amounting to a fraction of a fraction of a percent. It's old news, but the fact that fissile explosions don't naturally occur, ever, and yet... still has the power to shock. At least for me.
Now the half point: I think language precedes philosophy, that humans talk, and that's what makes them human, and they cannot stop talking in grammars any more than they can switch off their own binocular vision. But that's a completely different conversation. 😀
@@jessejordache1869 dammit, my entire Schrodinger's cat point isn't in my last comment but I pretty much said the same thing about Schrodinger's cat, don't know why it's not there lol. Universal punchline? 😅 I understand what you are saying but i actually don't agree lol. Have you heard of gauge Theory? I'm not sure if I have it completely right but beginnings and endings are illusions of different subsets of gauges essentially and that we have limitations on what we can consider infinite in both directions of the very small and very large. I don't believe in size. I don't believe that you keep looking smaller you enter the quantum world. I don't believe in quantum world period really. At least not in the sense that modern science defines it. I think the entire field is an expression of how incomplete our math and languages are and always will be. I don't think we will ever understand the quantum world because it doesn't exist and what we are playing in is a world of broken Math that we are translating to quantum physics which isn't actually a thing.. that's like a huge problem to me that we live by two different sets of realities and two different sets of mathematics and they don't agree? And then people pretend to have an understanding of quantum physics? Pretty hysterically arrogant. A lot of people have a problem with this Theory but I can guarantee you with 100% certainty we will never have Quantum computing in our lifetime😅. Very weird that I believe an entire genre of science is a fuck up that nobody has bothered to correct because everyone is scared of saying no, this philosophically does not line up. Nature is in fact natural and if we cannot Define nature naturally we must lack the capacity to. I could tell you a swordfish plus a moose equals a monkey and create a digital software within a world that makes these conditions true but it doesn't make them true just because I barricaded a world for them to work properly as conditions in. The entire science of quantum physics is playtime science. Sometimes somebody will come along with an entirely different proposal as to what is going on and it will merge mathematics and bring us a unified field Theory but until then, lets see those quantum computers give me 2+2=4 without giving me 10 to the 24th wrong answers first lol
I was just effing around with chatgpt - The hypothesis regarding the theory of darkness states that darkness is composed of particles called "dotons" that travel in the opposite direction to photons, at a speed of negative c in a vacuum. This theory suggests that the duality of wave and particle nature of light is actually just the existence of darkness as a wave when light exists as a particle, and darkness existing as a particle when light exists as a wave. The hypothesis also proposes that black holes are made up of darkness, not light.
The hypothesis suggests that the negative direction of travel of dotons, in relation to the speed of light, is actually the opposite direction of time, i.e., light travels into the future and darkness travels into the past. The observation of light is the result of time ticking forward, while the observation of darkness could lead to time ticking backwards.
The hypothesis also states that the flow of photons creates a gravitational field, and the flow of dotons creates anti-gravity. Additionally, the hypothesis suggests that the big bang was actually caused by antigravity generated by the excessive amounts of darkness or dotons traveling towards the singularity.
So to visualize. The present moment may look like the centre of an infinity sign and one loop is dark waves traveling back in time while photons are in the other loop traveling forward in time. Is there the proposal then that dark waves are dark energy and dotons are dark matter?
"Theory is knowledge that doesn't work. Practice is when everything works and you don't know why."
Hermanan Hesse
My problem with string theory is this: until you can do repeatable PHYSICAL experiments to test it, it'll never be more than a hypothesis. What value does a theory have if only through complex math can you "prove" it?
Still seems worth considering as a hypothesis, so long as it fits the facts. Someday there may be a way to test it.
Because if it is mathematically consistent, it is worth testing, that’s the value of that complex math you’re mentioning.
It seems pretty reasonable to think that the more we are trying to prove about the universe, the more complex things are going to get since the universe is so complex.
String theory is, indeed, a good skipping rope to train our minds in the general direction of unifying “the force fields”, but contextually I do not think of gravity as a similarly dimensional “force” - maybe that is one of the problems.
@lex clips should watch the Space Time TH-cam Channel
Does it mean that every time an object falls into a black hole, it falls through a set of new plank points (or just adds a new area of plank points), as no particle, no quark, no anything would ever carry itself into the black hole through a plank point already on the black hole? And would that mean that the plank point would somehow be customised, so the information of the object is never lost?
Surely you know that that's a currently debated topic, although I've never heard it formalized as "custom plank points". There ain't no such animal. It's not even clear whether or not Planck's constant has any relevance in a singularity, as things like "angular momentum" would be meaningless.
Feels like describing fractals from inside one.
Agreed. That's my intuition of it
Explain!
Andrew Strominger: The USA's Roger Penrose.
He's great at explaining things
long live this channel and these guys
Always enjoyable listening to physics at the cutting edge .
"Pretty much complete" he says at almost 3 minutes in. I needn't remind you that this is exactly what they were saying before quantisation became a thing. The tiniest misubderstanding can blow everything out of the water when you're trying to map infinity.
The problem is gravity isn’t a force it’s an emergence that’s needs certain factors , if particles are massless you won’t find gravity anywhere
that's not true, gravity comes from energy and/or mass
I wish I understood why the universe is considered to be flat.
@BoManton Please forgive me for any possible errors in my explanation, but the reason why the Universe is considered to be flat is because the matter distribution in the Cosmos falls within the so-called "critical density". So basically, in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity which describes what we feel as gravity as the differing geometry of Spacetime, the Spacetime fabric is flat until there is a presence of matter that would curve it. Now matter is spread throughout the Universe, according to observation, in a greatly unified way where it is both evenly distributed and of a similar value of mass (the technical way of saying this is that on a macroscopic scale, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic).
This uniformity of matter is helpful for physicists to understand the overall shape of space because when you take Einstein's field equations which explain how matter curves spacetime, there is a solution called the critical density, which is 10 -26 kg/m3, and what it is saying is that if the matter distribution per cubic meter of the Universe falls within the critical density, the Universe on the largest of scales would be flat; if the matter density is greater than the critical density, then the Universe would be spherical shaped; and if lower, then it would be shaped like a saddle (known as hyperbolic space). So by observational analysis of the Cosmos on a grand scale, and from the Uniformity of the Cosmic Microwave background radiation which suggests the uniform spread of atoms as formed in the early Universe, it appears likely that the matter distribution falls in the critical density which, according to General Relativity, would show that the Universe is considered to be flat. I hope that helps!
@@josephsgountzos1702 thank you
Why are we trying to shoehorn gravity into the "force" box, does it need to be a force? I don't think even Einstein considered it one.
It is something, obviously... But does it *need* to be a force for some reason?
I think it’s because black holes exist and the standard model fails to explain them in that the math turns into infinities that can’t be resolved in any meaningful way
@@getoffthegames89 Exactly
Gravity is = accelleration.
Maybe they should look for what's accellerating.
As I listen to this discussion, I wonder, as I have for some time, about the possible direct connection between the rise in the number of, and size, of black holes and the rise in the amount of DE and DM.
If BH have any purpose in the scheme of things it may be that they are the Factories where ordinary Matter and Energy are converted into DE and DM.If so then it follows that there should be a direct correlation between the number and size of BHs and the amount of DM and DE over Time. Since we now have Time Machines in the form of Powerful telescopes that can look back at the early Universe, it may be possible to measure such a correlation if it exists. This would mean that the “Information” that falls into a BH is not lost at some singularity or stored at the EVH, but is fed back into the surrounding Spacetime. The process, if it occurs, should leave some detectable trace of its existence in the immediate vicinity of the BH and should be more detectable around a SMBHs.
This was so interesting! Thanks Les and Andrew. The history of the theories is what to me is the most interesting. As Andrew talks about the each theory's progression, it occurred to me that what they are actually doing is discovering a better explanation of the information that already exists in the universe. But all the information of the universe is always there (unless is it making new information?), and we are just discovering it. We are not changing anything, but rather just getting better and better explanations of the perception (our observations) or description of the universe. The hologram/holographic plate theory is really interesting, again giving us the perception of what is reality. Wow, lot's to think about! Thanks again Les, very intuitive questions.
If antimatter has surface tension,it will work fine as a background for matter. Since they existed together matter we know it as a foreground.
Man, this guy represents real vibration even in his expression of his awareness of things he is talking about but You- You has found the way to tune....in that case - me as well. I respect what You did so far, but you have become an actual creator this time. The Guy told as much more than he would without You. That is yours the best interview so far - thank you. Plus respect for Him. Of course.
Vibrant and informative podcast
What is a Quantum Gravity ?
This guest answers the first question asked of him (an extremely complex question) with such certainty it makes me think that his answer is more "puffing" (as in salesmanship) than factual. He follows up by saying, "we don't anticipate anything contradictory" (in other words, the science is settled). I think he's full of it !!
The most remarkable thing is how well he is able to explain some of these concepts with human language when in reality, the concepts are untranslatable to human language and can only be described mathematically.
He is pretty awful in that actually
"Untranslatable." Is a massive overstatement. Yes, the math is crucial and integral, but language is even more fundamental than mathematics (as Russell's paradox shows).
We derive ALL truths from analogy. Even mathematical truths. Physicists discuss stuff in words too. (Speaking from experience).
Is he able to? I was confused instead of mind blown 🤷 I might be stupid.
Even if space was curved we don't experience any changes in time. The clock still moves at the same pace neither faster or slower from our frame of reference.
You are talking about space and the fact that all matter, the elements, are products of space, containing space. Space is the essence of everything and effects everything and is the major cause of the universe.
Flash forward a year here and it would seem like String Theory is in a bit of trouble according to the architects themselves.
"Describe quantum gravity"
Yes.
Imaginary. Like regular gravity. The universe is electric friend.
th-cam.com/video/xCW61E_Pyec/w-d-xo.html
The bottle is 100% full always.
The description he gave of "de Sitter space" is remarkably similar to his work on the "holographic projection plate" of a black hole. Is it possible that our universe could be one of those projection plates on a vastly more grand scale and why it appears to be flat from our perspective? Which is also in it's own pocket of black hole projection plate space, and the loop goes on and on? 🤷♂️
"Dark matter" in that scenario is the stuff at the center of the black hole which is forcing around all the infortmation on the "projection plate". 🤷♂️
Lovely description of the cleverness involved in finding relationships between the various mathematical models.
Mathematical models though, are not, in their nature, descriptive of the mechanism which gives rise to the appearances which the maths can be tweaked to fit.
What physics seems to have been lacking is an explanation of the mechanism by which the phenomena they measure arise in the first place.
Boyle's law does not describe the mechanism whereby pressure arises.
Epicycles did not yield the Copernican understanding of orbital motion.
True advances in understanding simplify the picture and explain why the mathematical models work.
Isn't it time to start considering what gravity, fields, forces, dimensions and the various mathematical objects such "theories" (tweakable mathematical models) require …actually are?
Where’s the actually teaching, the understanding, this is so packed full of wool I m actually looking for the lost sheep.
Great topic🤗
I assume atom can curve space time on its own and couse gravity among let say 2 atom system with no significant effect on large scale world and further more another asumption that strong and weak nucler forces simply overcome this ridiculously small gravity.
Andrew and Lex, Quantum Gravity and the theory, mathematics, laws, reproducible experiments and observations that underpinned it, is crucial for an empirical real true Quantum Theory of Gravity that would finish Einstein's Revolution in physics. Problem is that, since the 17th century up to the present, the Mathematics that we have so far cannot solve the problem of quantum gravitation.
Mathematics is invented and discovered. That's my personal experience. I've invented/discovered a completely new mathematics in the course of my 30-year-long basic research on Quantum Gravity in Singapore. I called it Majulah Matematika in honour of my home country Singapore. I use it to solve one of the most difficult conundrums in physics- the True Nature of Gravity.
Here is one of the many solutions that my new mathematics has derived: A Computer Universe that is real. It is run by Quantum Gravitational Computation, Quantum Gravitational Entanglement and Quantum Gravitation covering the entire Universe. An empirical Theory of Quantum Gravity is the key. And it will led us to understanding of how and why Gravity works. It will also at the same time, debunk and invalidate String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, M Theory, Theory of General Relativity and all failed and wrong theories of gravity. But it will proved and validate Einstein's Hidden Variables and EPR's authors Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen correct. The Hidden variables are: Quantum Gravity, Quantum Anti-Gravity, Quantum Neutral Gravity, the macroscopic cosmic scale Gravitational Quantum Entanglement and Gravitational Quantum Computation. All these would complete the Quantum Foundation, Unification of Gravity with Quantum Mechanics and the realization of Theory of Everything in Physics.
I have discovered and cracked the code of the true nature of Gravity in my over 30 years of basic research works in Singapore. This discovery/invention/theory of mine include THE GOD EQUATION - THE TRINITY Equations, Laws and Codes For QUANTUM GRAVITATION , QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL ENTANGLE MENT and GRAVITATIONAL QUANTUM COMPUTATION that pave the way for Theory of Everything in Physics: - THE 3-in-1 HOLY GRAILS of Physics:
1. Quantum Anti-Gravity/Spin Up Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/0 Rhu Bit or R Bit:
QAG = ∆QGOρ < ∆QGFρ = ↑α
2. Quantum Gravity/Spin Down Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/1 Rhu Bit or R Bit:
QG = ∆QGOρ > ∆QGFρ = ↓α
3. Quantum Neutral Gravity/Superposition Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/01 and/or 10 Rhu Bit or R Bit:
QNG = ∆QGOρ = ∆QGFρ = ↑↓α
We now have a working Quantum Theory of Gravity that is testable and complete with reproducible empirical experiments with the same results if repeated over and over again and again, confirmed by empirical observations in nature with 7-Sigma level results, guided by empirical Laws, Cosmic/Universal Computation and physical/mathematical Trinity God Equations that are predictive, precise and does no collapse even in high energies of Big Bang and singularity of Black Hole. FYI: Quantum Gravity or Quantum Gravitation have three types that are equivalent to and manifested by Quantum Computational Gravitation- the biggest and most powerful Computer Software Program and Hardware in the Universe and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - a Quantum Entanglement at Macroscopic Cosmic Scale namely: 1. Quantum Anti-Gravity = Spin Up Quantum Entanglement State; 2. Quantum Neutral Gravity = Superposition Quantum Entanglement State; and 3. Quantum Gravity = Spin Down Quantum Entanglement State.
More detailed information could be found on the published papers 2 years ago in London, Paris, and Zurich, online and at the two scientific Journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE. Alternatively, you can google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA to arrive at the published paper on Quantum Gravity.
Most recently, additional two well respected scientific journals namely NATURE and the AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY APS Physical Review Journals have officially invited this author to submit manuscripts on his Research on Quantum Gravity for publication for PRX QUANTUM in preparation for a celebration for International Year of Quantum IYQ 2025 to showcase the best papers of the year.
Quantum Gravitation is governed by and follow the Trinity Laws, Mathematics and Physics of Quantum Gravitation, Gravitational Quantum Computation and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement. We now have a new Laws of Physics and two newly discovered Fundamental Forces of Nature - The Quantum Neutral Gravity and Quantum Anti-Gravity which completed the heart of the Quantum Theory of Gravity published in London. Paris and Zurich last December 2022 as follows:
1. First Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Universal Law of Quantum Gravitation:
“The greater mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects than the Quantum
Gravitational Field causes a downward acceleration of the Quantum Objects in a
Quantum Gravitational Field instantaneously mediated by Graviton.”
- Roel Real Rovira
Equation for Quantum Gravity, and Spin Down Quantum Gravitational Entanglement:
QG = ∆QGOρ > ∆QGFρ = ↓α
Where:
QG is Quantum Gravity in Rovira (value of downward acceleration force due to quantum gravity) in kg.
∆QGOρ is Differential Change in greater mass density of Quantum Gravitating Objects than the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
↓α is the Resultant Downward Acceleration of Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec.
2. Second Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Universal Law of Quantum Anti-Gravity.
“The lesser mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects than the Quantum Gravitational
Field causes an upward acceleration of the Quantum Objects in a Quantum Gravitational
Field instantaneously mediated by Graviton.”
-Roel Real Rovira
Equation for Quantum Anti-Gravity/Spin Up Quantum Gravitational Entanglement:
QAG = ∆QGOρ < ∆QGFρ = ↑α
Where:
QAG is Quantum Anti-Gravity in Rovira (value of upward acceleration force due to quantum anti-gravity) in kg.
∆QGOρ is Differential Change in lesser mass density of Quantum Anti-Gravitating Objects than the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
↑α is the Resultant Upward Acceleration of Anti-Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec.
3. Third Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Law of Quantum Neutral Gravitation.
“The equal mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects and the Quantum Gravitational
Field causes a zero acceleration or floating or hoovering of the gravitating Quantum Objects
in a Quantum Gravitational Field, instantaneously mediated by Graviton.”
- Roel real Rovira
Equation for Quantum Neutral Gravity and Superposition Quantum Gravitational Entanglement:
QNG = ∆QGOρ = ∆QGFρ = ↑↓α
Where:
QNG is Quantum Neutral Gravity in Rovira (value of zero acceleration force due to quantum neutral gravity) in kg.
∆QGOρ is Differential Change in equal mass density of Quantum Neutral Gravitating Objects to the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
↑↓0α is the Resultant zero acceleration or non-acceleration of Neutral Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec.
For more detailed information on these 3-in-1 Trinity Laws and Equations for Quantum Gravitation, Gravitational Quantum Computation, and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - The Real True Nature of Quantum Gravitation, look it up at the two scientific journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE or google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA.
Copyright 2022 ROEL REAL ROVIRA. All Rights Reserved.
I suspect the multiverse is baloney.
Bologna lol but I suspect we are probably living in a Kang the conqueror type scenario lol jk
The Aella interview really triggered a big part of this audience 😂 I wonder why.
They don’t get pussy, I though it was pretty interesting
Because she's an example of the problem with Western women. Just because she's pretty and relatively intelligent compared to most doesn't mean she hasn't been deeply damaged.
She's certainly not a positive role model, and the rubber-necking was palpable. Most like her don't live to regret it... those who do, do.
Yep and the clowns do love to spout nonsense. Look at the wizard…
@@dman375 She's not going to fuck you bro.
Can one of the specialists in gravity write how the weight of bodies on the surface of the Earth changes under the influence of the gravity of the Moon? When the weight will be greater, will you lift at the moon or in the nadir?
Remember HIS HOSTS are not puppets, pawns, nor tumbleweeds in front!
5 minutes in are we talking different realms
I know Dr. Strominger is a genius. However, I'm reminded of the late 19th century physics. They thought they had 99.5 % of everything figured out. Only a few minor discrepancies they couldn't account for.
Sorry this was just awful interviewing technique - luckily Strominger handled it like a champ
Apparently Lex had plans to meet up with Sabine Hossenfelder at the bar later that night.
Lex @29 minutes -- human science is always anthropic.
It cant be anything else.
Why do you need quantum gravity when atomic mass is generated by Glouns, which are a type of light, when we know that light has the capacity to propel through voids of space. Why don't you see that Mass is the property that is accelerating matter in a gravitational field. Atoms possess the agency that drives gravitational acceleration
What string theory does is....propose the graviton, the gravity as a particle, unifying the quantum with general relativity...but gravitons was not find yet
I can't help but think we are looking in the wrong place with the search for the graviton, yet I'm sure new physics will come of it. It just doesn't make sense to have a force carrier for spacetime, honestly it makes more sense that an absence of a force carrier would cause the effects we see in gravity classically speaking. We keep looking for what is, or what should be. But the universe is clever and lazy, I can imagine that what isn't there is just as revealing and important than what is. I wonder if the lack of the graviton is what actually leads to gravity, like the graviton cannot exist so it gives the illusion of a force or more precisely ; an anti force. It could also explain dark matter and dark energy, but I won't go into detail on how it could in these here comments sections lol.
Maybe gravity isn't a force and just the inherent properties of mass. Also I think gravity has a cut off point once you go under a certain mass it has no effect.
You'd think we would of found some evidence to support this already
@@danf7411Well, given that light, which has no mass, is still subject to gravity… I think that answers your question
@@SpontaneityJD He should have included energy. GR is mass-energy curving space-time and the latter determining the motion of the former.
@@SpontaneityJD Fascinating. If light can be bent by gravity (and it is massless), then doesn't that imply that gravity somehow transcends mass as a "force"?
What does it mean to bend light? If space is curved, what does that tell us about the statistical likelihood that space has a force carrying particle? I dunno.
We will need another Einstein to figure it out and find the TOE.
why is youtube alway slipping in lex i dont even want to watch him
Remember what is the difference between puppets, pawns, nor tumbleweeds in front of HIM?
But Isaac Newton wrote in his "Opticks", that gravity is caused by particles that come from the empty regions of space. See book 3 and the queries.
Great stuff
The problem with quantum gravity is that he math always ends with infinity. if infinity shows up in your math, your math is wrong.
So interesting. Got a lot out of this one.
That's what she said.
Hey back to learning something intellectual and not soft porn...
Why?
spacetime is only expanding (due to dark energy) between galaxies, in other words, only outside a large-scale gravitational domain.
Jason Bateman’s twin?
What’s up with Lex?
It would be revealing to have him comment on the physics of Bob Lazar.
and who doesn’t love hypotheticals?
Do individual particles, exist outside of Space? Do individual particles within a proton, a Quark, etc,etc, Atom exist in conditions with other particles without Space in-between?
Forget about the math for a moment, then go do the math.
Is it possible, particles cannot escape Space? If I have two Particles, is it possible no matter how close they get, Space will always exist between them?
Is it possible, an individual particle, has a Gravitational effect even if the effect isn't enough to capture other particles? How does a particle Vibrate; is it possible, a particle Vibration affects the Space around it? Is it possible particles can transfer information through Space to other particles?
“Renovated the farm”?
It's what you do after you've bought the farm.
He may know something we don't.
All of these theories may be extremely accurate in their predictions but are they necessarily a true reflection of reality? For example, the “curvature” of spacetime is an artifact of pseudo-3-dimensional 2-dimensional mathematics. Wouldn’t it be more of a reflection of the real world to consider the compression and expansion of spacetime? Then you wouldn’t end up with worm holes and other such artifacts. The holographical view seems like extreme mathematical gymnastics along side string theory.
Are we sure the universe has to be quantized? Are we so intent upon something from nothing? My view recognizes a classical field and a quantized field co-existing. Wouldn't it be easier to see everything as conservation of energy and dissipative systems?
Mathematically the Standard Model works with the theoretical quantum fields from where the Higgs and Gluons, etc. draw their respective energies. What if the fields were described as the following? The maths would still work but with an actual picture of how they relate to each other. Whether this is complete bunk or not, just want to share as I see it as an elegant, complete picture of what could constitute the universe.
Here is a descriptive view of the universe with no need for something from nothing, time travel, worm holes, or any other fantastical mathematical assumptions and I believe could satisfy both quantum mechanics as well as general relativity although there is still the hard work of reconciling both. I prefer a view that doesn’t have all of the magical conclusions from the existing models. So if someone could come up with the mathematics for the following or show that it is not possible, or at least could come up with some kind of cogent argument why this or something similar couldn’t be the case, I would appreciate it.
What if the universe’s zero point energy were an elastic solid with a viscoelastic liquid suspended in it due to ripping energy apart from the underlying solid and coalescing into quanta from a Planck scale event (a big bang) - similar to an elastic solid/viscous liquid colloidal suspension with gravity being the relationship between the analog energy of the elastic solid and the quantized viscoelastic liquid? Could then gravity be just a matter of conservation of energy at the analog scale appearing to be quantized due to the influence of the relative energies of the quantized liquid? Could that not make space-time the superfluid(-like)/superconducting(-like) elastic solid and the source for dark energy and quantum fields, account for the randomness of black hole evaporation as energy dissipates back into the solid, account for effects attributed to dark matter, account for wave-particle duality, account for the expansion of the universe accounting for the redshift as well as potentially be the source of another big bang as quanta become unstable and then critical due to energy dissipation?
On the Big Bang….
“In the beginning there was an explosion. Not an explosion like those familiar on earth, starting from a definite center and spreading out to engulf more and more of the circumambient air, but an explosion which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all space from the beginning, with every particle of matter rushing apart from every other particle.” (Weinberg, Steven. The First Three Minutes - not sure if this view is still valid or perhaps he meant that “everywhere” was compressed, but it works for this view.)
And speaking to the potential for a classical-quantized hybrid theory….
"All quantum fields carry energy so they all need to couple to the gravitational field, but we do not know a consistent way to couple a quantum field to a classical field. As Hannah and Eppley have argued [2], the attempt to do such a coupling leads either to a violation of the uncertainty principle (and thus would necessitate a change of the quantum theory) or to the possibility of superluminal signaling, which brings more problems than it solves.... I have argued that the fundamental theory can be neither classical nor quantized, but that quantization may be a phase that results from spontaneous symmetry breaking.... I hope to have convinced the reader that giving up the assumption that a theory is either classical or quantized can be fruitful and offers a new possibility to address the problems with quantum gravity." (Sabine Hossenfelder, Gravity can neither be quantized nor classical, [2] Hannah and Eppley, The Necessity of quantizing gravity)
"...these critiques do not directly refute the claim that coupling quantum theories with a Copenhagen collapse postulate to unentanglable classical gravitational degrees of freedom leads to contradiction. I note here that if the gravitational field interacts with matter via the local quantum state, the Eppley-Hannah argument evidently fails. This seems a plausibly natural feature of a hybrid theory, whereas the alternative considered by Eppley-Hannah is evidently inconsistent with relativity.... I hope this paper may help lay that argument to rest, and lead to a broader understanding of the possibilities for classical-quantum hybrid theories and a more balanced and nuanced view of the arguments for quantum gravity." (Adrian Kent, Simple refutation of the Eppley-Hannah argument)
I can’t see why this descriptive view couldn’t accommodate the standard model as (mainly) applied to the viscoelastic liquid and general relativity (mainly) applying to the relationship between the elastic solid and the viscoelastic liquid. I've seen papers using "elastic solid" as a model and papers using "viscoelastic liquid", but not both at the same time.
What a beautifully elegant picture where conservation of energy and dissipative structures define everything at every scale?
Anyhoo…. I really don’t understand the need to continue with solutions based on theories that include fantastical outcomes. At least someone has finally dispelled the “action at a distance” nonsense.
Don’t you think the term quantum gravity is somewhat of a misnomer?? The point in “quantum gravity” is a new conception of a corpuscular nature of spacetime itself and a new view of gravity is just a consequence of that new paradigm!!
I would be impressed.
Does quantum gravity have practical applications?
What gives the Higgs mass is still unknown so what are you talking about that it's all very well understood
Also let me help you in simplifying string theory. 1 string playing many notes generating many different atoms... from 1 string.
How can you claim your theory as perfect when renormalization is termed 'wrong'.
Because the results match what we see extremely accurately.
Another moron who doesn't understand something so rather than trying to learn, decides everyone else is wrong. Hilarious 😆
All leads back to the 'Big Bang' Theory! All that is also just a guess work! Where did 'matter' come from? From nothing? What was first, and from what did it evolve? Where does the Universe heading? What does the future hold for the Universe?
That was fun
I have an Idea
Locally gravity causes space time to sag continuously, matter has been interacting with gravitational fluid for billions of years, and it works from atoms to super massive black holes. There is an exchange between matter and the gravitational fluid for billions of years and this is causing additive sag, there is no expansion just billions of years of sag. The real question is how is this energy taken is given back, does the limit on massless photons speed mean it is being dragged by the gravitational fluid and eventually gives it back?
Now who among able to bring back flavor unto these without taste in front?
I have a question as to why the potential is not considered in terms of Axioms that travel well above the speed of light and then lapse slow to such speeds as they become visible, losing energy until they form matter, thus filling in the voids. Just like experiments in Sophia, the plasma generated by the Cosmos operates in the Ether that allows for light, sound which travels faster, and all being subject to magnetic and electrical forces, but more than that which wii, the "I"s that form human consciousness, can detect and understand. While close, the only research on this is subject to the astral world or alternative realm that, makes all this exercise in futility. Without the keys to the door, wii seek to understand what is going on in the room wii can not enter to be sure that the view is not simply someone's Smartphone screen, not real at all. Once you experience remote viewing, seeing, feeling, and hearing as if you have a body but do not, then the entire concept of physicality comes into question. Since that ability has been proven possible, there is yet to be a scientific explanation unless holographic worlds allow us to slip between them without a time function and therefore, due to no matter, an entirely different set of rules for how that operates that wii can hope to understand from this side of the door of opportunity... kudos for asking the right questions to keep the Bakhtinian dialogism alive.
He kind of looks like a much older Rob Lowe
Could we include gravity in quantum field theory by visualizing gravity as the potential difference between regions of space with many collapsed fields (large masses like earth) and regions of "empty" space with many uncollapsed entanglements?
No
To expand on the other commenters unhelpful no, there is nothing that necessitates, or even suggest that there would be a potential difference between region of space-time that are compressed, due to the displacement of mass and those which are not
@@sethrenville798 Except gravity.
Word salad
@@karabomothupi9759 extremely verbos
There are places where quantum mechanics and gravity are reconciled, and on display - our answer lies in understanding black holes.
As a matter of fact, we really cant talk about The Holographic Principle without mentioning his work...
Wrong come here in front and remind! Can be corrected! Indeed increase in knowledge!
when you use math trickery to explain how 32.33% accuracy is actually 99.99% then you must be in a right path, right?
sarcasm?
I think we've found the token renormalization skeptic you always find in the comments when someone mentions the standard model. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it unsound. Stop watching bs TH-cam videos about the "electric universe."
@@companguero yes, planty, thats how quantum is so "succesfull" its actually so succesfull that nothing before come even close
@@vogarner im sure you are not aware of how big of an error there is in galactic scale with standard model, they say its astronomical, please educate your self of the errors in theories before coming to comment on this bullshit
@@vogarner just put an ad hoc into it, im sure it makes your precious model more precise
String theory is nice sci-fi and thats about it.
By scientific standards, it's not actually a theory