I really, truly, honestly believe that of all the folks working on the fringe of modern theoretical physics, Leonard Susskind is not only among the community that is closest to the truth, but also one among the community who can actually communicate their ideas. We keep finding coincidental correspondences that support both the holographic principle and ER=EPR that *nobody* would have had the balls to predict. It's a privilege to have lived in the same time as this man.
The Professor is a Giant. My problem with the problem goes to an interpretation of Galileo as I understand it. If on a sea vessel and the fish behave one way and the butterflies another and perhaps mice another. How do you feel you can plunk gravity down between two systems. Not that it’s impossible. It’s in the logic.
The way I think of ER = EPR is that you can explain entanglement as a wormhole; a wormhole too small for anything to travel through, but just big enough for two particles to hold each other's hand regardless of distance.
What if the every holographic has a boundary not necessarily of classic geometric shape. Then you would need things to adjust interpretation. As in chemistry. Not saying I know doodles about chemistry. Adjustedments need explanation. I’m not off square one here
Thanks. I've followed your talks about Juan Maldacena's work and this really helped me tie things together, as well as opening some new, amazing concepts
I think I’ll remember today as a milestone of my journey to understand physics. Some time ago I took Susskind’s concepts and thinking to be something in the realm of a scientist clinging to a failed theory. Today i have at least progressed far enough to realize how naively arrogant and wrong i was. I feel like I can at least appreciate the thinking presented here enough to understand how far I have to go. I can at least understand enough to appreciate the depth behind what he’s dumbing things down to.
I had posted this before the end of the lecture. On the off chance Professor Susskind happens to see this: at the very least, I feel like this lecture has profoundly changed my perspective by articulating in concrete terms ideas I had at best nebulous inclinations towards. The profound sense of epiphany from ideas explained so simply is both simultaneously humbling and inspiring. That feeling of having come far enough in understanding to glimpse the breadth of what I’ve yet to discover is the quintessence of my appreciation of physics.
Maldacena conjectured that the whole universe is a QC function. He also was the first to point out duality between ADS and CFT, showing that string theory leads to holography. Explained in this video by Susskind, I can see how Maldacena's universe can be crated by two dimensional holographic film out of the meaningless scratches of the film leads to a coherent picture. Imagine the picture of the whole universe of Maldacena, reconstructed from the complexity of the bulk as hologram.
14:35 When Landau's son grew up, he inadvertently remarked one day: "Dad, I've become taller than you." Landau replied calmly: "You've become longer than me." This family episode is very instructive in that a real physicist was not at a loss even in everyday life: he assessed the situation from his frame of reference ("you are longer than me"), then when his son chose someone else's (father's) frame of reference: "I am taller than you." P.S.So, what, where, when, from where, how much, how is “something” longer from something? The equations that formulate the laws of physics must be invariant with respect to any coordinate transformations. In a globally Lorentzian system (pseudo-Cartesian coordinates in inertial systems): du(k)/dт=0, dp(k)/dт=0, where u(k)=dx(k)/dт, p(k)=mu(k). Obviously, we have the same law in a locally Lorentzian system (tangent Minkowski space). Turning to the Riemannian space (to an arbitrary curved coordinate system): Du(k)/dт=0, Dp(k)/dт=0. So, it is possible to make a general statement that the free movement of the test body occurs along geodesic lines. This is the most general formulation of Newton's first law (Galileo's law). When there are other fields besides gravity, for example electromagnetic, the motion of a particle in Riemannian space-time does not occur according to geodesics: forces act on the particle that prevent free movement. Then in a locally Lorentzian system dp(k)/dт=F(k), where F is a four-dimensional force of non-gravitational, for example, quantum origin. P.P.S. In addition, it should be borne in mind that: 1.Newton's first law is not a special case of Newton's second law; 2.Only a homogeneous gravitational field can be eliminated by switching to a non-inertial frame of reference - a free-falling one; 3.Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, so there is no global equivalence between them and non-inertial reference frames. 4. In 1 and 3, a.the principle of equivalence is not applicable; in 2, b. a little applicable.
I noticed that in his case of quantum fluid mechanics, the viscosity zeta formula can be restated as 4pi k_o zeta / S >or = hbar. This now resembles the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation where, eg: momentum x distance >or= hbar. So, is this eq. now as fundamental as the latter Heisenberg relation?
The energy of a body in orbit is given by the sum of its kinetic and potential energy E=m(0)c^2/√(1-GM/Rc^2)-mc^2 - GMm/R for small values of R is E≈m(0)c^2/√(1-GM/c^2R), and if for allowed (possible) radii the relation R=(hn/2π)^2*1/GMm^2 holds, then E≈m(0)c^2/√(1-(GMm2π/hcn)^2). The kinetic energy grows indefinitely and this energy must be supplied to the system. The energy obtained from the intrinsic rest energy is E=m(0)c^2-m(0)c^2*√(1-GM/Rc^2)-GMm/R, where for small R the approximate relationship is E≈m(0)c^2-GMm/R, and if E=0, then c^2=GMm/m(0)R, where the square of c^4=(GMm)^2/m(0)R^2 after correcting for the force c^4/G=G(Mm)^2/(m(0)R)^2.
20:21 : What Einstein originally (before the EPR paper) called spooky action at a distance was the 0-time collapse of the wave function in the Kopenhagen interpretation of QM. Thus entanglement was already the second type of spooky interaction! That first one btw. is still unresolved today.
In the traversable wormhole the growth of complexity is stopped even reversed perhaps. The wormhole does not stretch faster than we can move from one mouth to the other.
Lasers were invented without the use of QED. Einstein A & B coefficients for bosons apparently inspired the invention of lasers, along with the pre existing masers. [If memory serves, it was referred to as the search for optical masers.]
Thankyou. I am a person who only wanted to understand the basic diagraming or maybe graphing might better apply of the columns to the block. No expert now or ever. But gratefull for such a generous and kind opportunity
I think he was making a lot of stretchy claims here to get points across to a non technical audience. QED did not lead to laser invention, but I thought it helped improve lasers a fair bit?
@@AstroPatel it’s a very broad subject matter. I assume they at some point use Turing programs. I don’t see how that’s avoided if calculating is computer programming
The Relativity Model is a four-dimensional Euclidean space with time corresponding to an SU(1) oscillation of the fourth dimension and the supposed n > 4 additional dimensions for the Einstein Field Equations actually corresponding to a rank-3 stress-energy tensor showing the Standard Model to be a 0-3 exponential, power of two, spherical symmetry. Spacetime oscillates in four-dimensional units of Għ/c² resulting in kinetic energy fundamental to the basis of both zero-point energy and the cosmological constant and result in the fundamental forces to arise from the three dimensional interactions inherently inertial to fourth-dimensional angular momentum showing that the fundamental force of everything is not to be found in some grand unification of the fundamental field symmetries, but that the fundamental force of everything is to be found in the simple fourth-dimensional oscillating string of time oscillating in the three non-temporal spatial dimensions as the three fundamental forces of nature. The Relativity Model unified field hypothesis is expressed in opposite fourth-dimensional directions (i.e. 1/c² and c²) as M/c² pertaining to gravitation (i.e. the inertia of dark mass to dark energy) and as Mc² pertaining to the spectrum of fundamental forces (i.e. the interaction of dark energy with dark mass) differentiated by dimensional angular momentum (i.e. 4thDω; Cosmological constant, 4thD & 3Dω; Strong interaction, 2Dω; Weak interaction, 1Dω; Electromagnetic interaction) showing that the Standard Model is an overall SU(3) symmetry with U(2) and U(1) symmetrical subdivisions easily derived from the four-dimensional stress-energy tensor when the 16-component rank-2 matrix is raised to a 32-component rank-3 tensor revealing the opposite fourth-dimensional directions of General Relativity (μν0 → 1/c²) and the Standard Model (μν1 → c²) t + 0D = (2^0) = T000, T001 = S0 = the SU(1) symmetry (i.e. fourth-dimensional oscillation), t + 1D = (2^1) = T100, T101 = S1 = the U(1) symmetry, t + 2D = (2^2) = T200, T201, T210, T211 = S2 x S1 = the U(2) symmetry, t + 3D = (2^3) = T300, T301, T310, T311, T320, T321, T330, T331 = π4(S3) = the SU(3) symmetry.
relativity model is non-euclidian, the whole point of general relativity is that space curves, which makes it non-euclidian, but that's just semantics i suppose
@@BM-rm7vr You mean like, a photon with wavelength approximately the diameter of the observable universe (which Wolfram|Alpha says is ~8.8 * 10^26 meters) ? And which would therefore have energy about 3.6 * 10^(-53) Joules? The area of a Schwarzchild black hole with mass that of the earth, divided by the square of the Planck length, gives 16 pi G (mass of Earth)^2 / (hbar c) ≈ 3.8 * 10^66 . The product of these is then ≈1.4 * 10^14 Joules. I’m not sure what you are saying this quantity should approximate? Some difference between gravitational binding energies? I don’t follow.
@@asd-wd5bj No, the Relativity Model is Euclidean. Relativity is non-Euclidean as it only presents time as being the fourth dimension without being spatial. The Relativity Model presents time as being the oscillation of a fourth spatial dimension. That's why the Relativity Model is called the Relativity Model and not simply Relativity.
@@djehutisundaka7998 What? Having a "time" dimension isn't what makes relativity non-euclidian, it's that space-time curves in it. Spatial dimensions still curve, that's the whole point, it doesn't matter if you flip time into a spatial dimension instead(?), and especially if you make it oscillate(???), since that's constantly changing the geometry of the dimension, which inherently makes it non-euclidian. Again, euclidian geomtery just means that it's flat, i don't think you understand that concept. It doesn't even add anything, your "theory" is identical even if you call it non-euclidian, it's just a label If space-time doesn't curve in your "relativity model" then i have no idea what the "relative" part of the name is, because space-time curvature is a necessity of both special and general relativity (speed of light can't be absolute if time and length don't change in order to "account" for the differences between observers)
I think we need to go back to 1/r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law! Spherical 4πr² geometry is fundamental to this process and this is based on Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says, “Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave". We can think of each point as a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction as resonance or vibration. The spherical 4πr² surface forms a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π of everyday life.
Let's explore these ideas: 1. Proving 0D is non-natural vs. 1D-4D being natural: While we can't definitively "prove" this in the strict mathematical sense, we can make a compelling argument: - Natural dimensions (1D-4D) are observable, measurable, and part of our everyday experience. - 0D, representing a dimensionless point, lacks spatial or temporal extension and thus exists outside our natural, observable universe. - In mathematics, natural numbers start from 1, while 0 is often treated separately, suggesting a fundamental difference. This distinction could align with the concept of 0D being more fundamental or "pre-geometric," existing prior to or outside of what we consider natural space-time. 2. Proving natural can't exist without the non-natural: Again, while a formal proof is challenging, we can construct a logical argument: - If 0D entities are truly fundamental and non-natural, and higher dimensions emerge from them, then by definition, the natural (1D-4D) requires the non-natural (0D) as its foundation. - This mirrors how in mathematics, complex structures are built upon more abstract, foundational concepts. - Quantum field theories often rely on abstract, non-observable entities (like virtual particles or fields) to explain observable phenomena. 3. Novel implications: If we accept these premises, several intriguing implications arise: a) Ontological Priority: The non-natural (0D) would have ontological priority over the natural, reversing traditional materialist philosophies. b) Information Fundamentalism: If 0D entities are fundamental, reality at its core might be informational rather than material. c) Emergent Naturalism: Our entire concept of "natural" laws and phenomena would be emergent properties of a more fundamental non-natural substrate. d) Limits of Science: Traditional scientific methods, designed to study the natural world, might be fundamentally limited in probing the true nature of reality. e) Bridging Physics and Metaphysics: This framework could provide a bridge between physical theories and metaphysical or even spiritual concepts that have traditionally been seen as separate from science. f) New Approach to Quantum Gravity: This perspective could offer a novel approach to quantum gravity, where gravity emerges from the interaction of 0D entities rather than being a fundamental force. g) Redefinition of Existence: We might need to redefine what we mean by "existence" if the most fundamental entities exist in a non-natural, 0D state. h) Computational Universe: If 0D entities are informational, it could lend credence to theories that our universe is fundamentally computational in nature. i) New Mathematical Frameworks: This could spur the development of new mathematical frameworks designed to model the emergence of natural dimensions from non-natural 0D foundations. These ideas, while highly speculative, open up exciting avenues for theoretical exploration and could potentially lead to revolutionary changes in our understanding of physics, philosophy, and the nature of reality itself.
Mapping properties of zero and non-zero numbers onto 0D and higher dimensional concepts in physics could indeed yield fascinating insights. Let's explore some key parallels: 1. Additive Identity: - Arithmetic: 0 is the additive identity; any number plus 0 remains unchanged. - Physics/Geometry: 0D could be seen as the "identity" dimension, from which all other dimensions emerge without changing the fundamental nature of reality. 2. Multiplicative Annihilator: - Arithmetic: Multiplying any number by 0 results in 0. - Physics: Interactions or operations involving 0D entities might "collapse" higher-dimensional structures back to their 0D fundament. 3. Division Undefined: - Arithmetic: Division by 0 is undefined. - Physics: This could parallel the breakdown of physical theories at singularities, suggesting 0D as a limit of our current understanding. 4. Parity: - Arithmetic: 0 is the only number that is neither positive nor negative. - Physics: 0D could represent a state of symmetry or balance from which asymmetries (like matter/antimatter) emerge in higher dimensions. 5. Cardinality: - Set Theory: The empty set {} has 0 elements but is fundamental to building all other sets. - Physics: 0D entities, while "empty" of extension, could be the building blocks of all higher-dimensional structures. 6. Limits: - Calculus: Many limits approach but never reach 0. - Physics: This could relate to quantum uncertainty principles, where precise 0D localization is impossible. 7. Exponents: - Arithmetic: Any number to the 0 power equals 1 (except 0^0 which is indeterminate). - Physics: This might suggest that 0D entities have a kind of "unitary" nature, fundamental to quantum mechanics. 8. Countability: - Number Theory: There are infinitely many non-zero integers, but only one 0. - Physics: This could parallel the idea of a single, unified 0D substrate giving rise to infinite higher-dimensional configurations. 9. Continuum: - Real Analysis: 0 separates positive and negative reals on the number line. - Physics: 0D might represent a kind of "phase transition" point between different states or topologies of higher-dimensional spaces. 10. Complex Plane: - Complex Analysis: 0 is the only point where real and imaginary axes intersect. - Physics: This could relate to 0D as a nexus where different aspects of reality (e.g., matter and spacetime) unify. 11. Polynomial Roots: - Algebra: 0 is often a special case in root-finding (e.g., the constant term in a polynomial). - Physics: This might suggest 0D entities as "ground states" or fundamental solutions in physical theories. 12. Modular Arithmetic: - Number Theory: 0 behaves uniquely in modular systems. - Physics: This could relate to cyclic or periodic behaviors emerging from 0D foundations in higher dimensions. These parallels suggest that just as 0 plays a unique and fundamental role in mathematics, 0D entities could play a similarly crucial role in physics. This mapping hints at a deep connection between abstract mathematical structures and physical reality, potentially offering new ways to conceptualize and model fundamental physics. Such analogies could inspire new approaches to quantum gravity, the nature of time, the emergence of spacetime, and the unification of forces. They might also provide intuitive frameworks for understanding seemingly paradoxical quantum phenomena.
Quantum entanglement is caused by information that resides in the anti-universe copy of our spacetime which is adjacent to ours manifesting by its operators on our spacetime,and by the sum of its operators (multi universes) on our spacetime. In effect our mirror copy is acausal, (it cannot initiate an action seen here) but has memory of the choices made, and operator control over the ways in which particles and fields interact.
Wolfram's "Ruliad" (~Ultimate Reality as a 'computer' running a program) is lurking ever closer to string/M-theory and relevant other related mathematics. So perhaps one day the notion that M (?)+P (for Program) = The whole Elephant.😃
I see two big problems with this: how do two blackholes become fully entangled? Subsequently, how would their positions diverge so greatly in spacetime?
He mentions that you entangle mass, separate mass, *then* black holify the entangled mass to create the entangled black holes. I understood an implied "that's an engineering problem" when he mentioned it.
When it comes to a laser photographed hologram, isn't a 2D representation of another 2D surface? Because it doesn't record anything about the interior of the volume being laser photographed.
Quantum Gravity is the literal embodiment of quantizing gravity. The quantization of gravity is the definition of Quantum Gravity. We don't mean anything else by it, especially NOT quantizing gravity. Sometimes people get lost in their academia.
@@BM-rm7vr I think if photons couldn’t gravitate, that this would violate the equivalence principle? I think he is saying… the thing he said? “To get the quantum mechanical version of gravity, you do not take a classical model of gravity and apply to it (some version of) the process known as ‘quantizing’ (which is a family of fairly standard methods of taking a classical model of a kind of system and producing a model of an analogous quantum mechanical system). Instead, there is a duality between certain quantum mechanical (QFT) systems on the boundaries of some regions, and a quantum mechanical system with gravity in the interior of such systems, and this duality is how we should/do/will obtain models of a quantum mechanical version of gravity.” I don’t think this implies that there are no superpositions between different gravitational field configurations? It is hard for me to imagine that a superposition of macroscopically different arrangements of matter wouldn’t result in a superposition of ways for the gravitational field (or, curvature of spacetime, whatever) to be.
the laws of nature are universal and constant. the effects and cause of gravity are the same everywhere. quantum gravity is the same as gravity. just on a smaller scale. gravity is the strong and weak force. it puts things in the orbit of their relative density. their dialated time. based on the frequency of quantum interactions required to contain energy as mass. gravity is the difference.
Attractive gravity is K > 0 in Einstein's Guv = KTuv this is ER nonsignaling = ER nontraversable , but K < 0 is EPR signaling = traversable ER wormhole
Two black holes with same mass, charge and angular momentum are basically indestinguishable from two openinings of the same wormhole, no matter how far apart they are in space.
I’d be interested to know what the theory is on how.. blackholes entangle. What we know about entanglement is it occurs usually through a common source of creation, or interaction. The second, for obvious reasons seems less likely to yeild a portal to anywhere we would want to end up, as there’s no indication we could get out plus if they’re near on another where did we really go? A couple million miles at best. The first possibility is kind of interesting but you’d only ever get as far as the two entangled blackholes have propelled from on another, so the best bet would be some version of a primordial quantum system of blackholes, as entanglement is not limited to pairs, it’s N^2, and then I suppose the universe expanded or dark matter shoved them to different corners of the universe, and you’re left with an evaporating universal autobahn presuming some white holes entangled with them as the exit points.
@@coder-x7440 Expansion of the universe might be responsible for entangement of black holes because two openings of the wormhole are still part of the same object, no matter how far apart they are.
Quantum gravity is easy: you replace the Minkoswki tensor in Dirac equation by the metric tensor. Then the electron 4-spinor become a source of the metric tensor in Einstein field equation. You have two coupled horrible equations but that is it, roughly you re done.
Unitarity = conservation of qusntum information is non-signaling EPR = non-traversable ER wormhole because of violation of action-reaction in the sense of Bohm's 1952 pilot wave picture. Restoring action-reaction violates unitarity i.e. signaling EPR = traversable wormhole.
Quantum information is not preserved even in normal experiences at the lab due to the collapse of the Wave Function so I never understood the obsession about the conservation of information. It cannot even be a physical phenomenon because information is a human definition that has no relation to the physical world (same thing for the definition of algorithm). To define a preservation of information - which I believe is a waste of time - one would first have to define information in a way that is independent on the observer.
"the holographic principle" - this can be shown to be trivially correct. any volume of space can be viewed as a 2D picture from any direction. aka - a hologram. there is nothing special about a black hole in this respect. let me know if you have further questions.
For er = epr, er Bridge needs to transfer information instantaneously. That violates travel faster than the speed of light. Unless the distance is zero
@@vwcanterinformation is transferred simultaneously with entangled particles. Therefore, the bridge would need to be zero in length. Is the bridge zero length?
@@bolobos Wrong. No information is transferred faster than light in entanglement, you dont know what exactly entanglement is, or havent you heard the really common Alice and Bob protocol for qubit state information exchange?
@@victorferreira5852 thats not what I'm saying. In entanglement, information is transferred instantaneously. But for er to be equal to epr, the er bridge would need to transfer the info instantaneously as well. I'm talking about the bridge transferring info faster than light? I just havent read about er=epr. I dont know if its just another way for entangled info to travel. or if the process is the same. if it's the same process, then the info isnt travelling. its non local identity. But if it is different, then the info would need to travel faster than light
Wormholes were proposed in the ER paper to try and explain the instant action at any distance that occurs with light later referred to as quantum entanglement of light. Einstein and Rosen proposed the reason why light information is conveyed instantly (zero time) at any distance (zero distance) would be explained by special relativity's time dilation and length contraction for things moving at c, like light. Imaginary wormholes are not the reason why light information acts the way it does. According to my interpretations of James Maxwell's equations, it occurs instantly because the light is contained inside a single EM field. But, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation light inside an EM field is potential in our reference frame of space, distance, matter and time until it is measured by an observer or measuring device like a telescope. Thus I believe why Maxwell used the infinity symbol to represent the speed of light inside the EM field being measured. I proposed that all light information happens instantly at any distance when the telescope or observer is contained inside the "light" AKA single EM field that's being measured. To prove this hypothesis correct, I made the wild prediction that if I was right then the JWST would discover old, not young but old galaxies as far as it's able to see, even further than 14 billion light years away. This prediction was conjecture according to Einstein's look-back time prediction of light. Then, in 2021, before the JWST was launched I published a series of 6 books. On page 48 of the first paperback I wrote "The JWST, James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away." Sure enough a year later when the CEERS survey was released astronomers found old, fully mature galaxies at the edge of the observable universe. Some of the galaxies were more than 20 times larger than our own Milky Way. They found galaxies having redshifts so high that when going by the Hubble constant of 73.4 km/s per megaparsec it placed them further than 14 billion light years away. So astronomers began calling them the impossible early galaxy problem. Some astronomers called them universe breakers. One galaxy, F200DB-045 has an unconfirmed redshift of 20.4, indicating it's more than 20 billion light years away. Astronomers then began questioning the validity of the big bang, cosmic inflation, age of the universe, 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, general relativity's look-back time, the Hubble constant, CMB radiation data, and the evolutionary cosmological model used to describe how stars and galaxies evolved over time. Nothing seemed to make any sense and has now led to what's called the Hubble Tension. The JWST data doesn't agree with the Hubble constant of 73.4 km/s per megaparsec. So to keep the distant galaxies with high redshifts within the time frame of the big bang they inadvertently revised the distance ladder, by changing the Hubble constant to a lower value. to them it appears as if rapid cosmic inflation never happened because the expansion rate to keep the galaxies from refuting the big bang happening 13.8 billion years ago a much slower expansion rate was required. The solution to this is quite simple. Drop the notion that telescopes can see into the past. Einstein was completely wrong about look-back time. Telescopes can no more look into the past than microscopes can look into the future. Light information happens in a quantum instant regardless of distance when the observer or telescope is contained inside the light or EM field being measured.
Just trying to follow you here. Do you mean the light from the sun didn't leave the sun 8 minutes ago. But is rather instantaneously in my eyes by some quantum process effected or sourced by the sun. At what point "in time" was the this effect. Could a star which had a supernova still have it's effect following the supernova in distant regions of space or is it's effect instantaneously stopped. Or is the entanglement/interference still happening and the effect the star has still able to influence the future?
@@MrMeltdownTechnically, according to the math, from the perspective of the photon spacetime does cause a Lorentz wormhole from emission to observation. There’s some mumbo jumbo in the original comment but it’s sounds for the most part.
@@MrMeltdown Ask any astronomer and they will tell you the light from the sun takes 8 minutes and 20 seconds to reach the Earth. But ask a qualified quantum theorist and they will say light from the sun reaches the Earth instantaneously because the Earth is contained inside it's EM field. As for a supernova explosion, the light of the explosion is instantaneous when the observer or telescope is contained inside it's EM field, thus it is measured by an observer the moment it occurs. Look at the data from Hubble Space telescope on the exploding star called V838 Monocerotis in May of 2002. An amateur astronomer witnessed the explosion in January of 2002 then for several months the Hubble measured it's light reflecting off material surrounding the star. The explosion was instant, but it took time for the light to reflect off the material. indicating that light has 2 distinct speeds, instant then 299,792 km/s for light to reflect off of gas, dust and other small bodies. www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/science/space/the-v838-monocerotis-star-still-has-astronomers-heads-exploding.html
You haven’t really understood the existing literature, have you? The travel time for a pulse of light can be measured. If you look in a mirror, the amount of time it takes for light to reflect off of your face, to hit the mirror, and reflect back to your eyes, while very small, is not so small as to be unmeasurable (though, of course, human reaction time is much much slower than it, and also variable, so measuring “when you see it” won’t give you this quantity.) With this in mind, it is pretty silly to insist that what we see happen very far away is happening *now*. (Though it may sometimes be convenient to describe it in these terms.)
@@drdca8263 Not to argue your point of view, but measuring the reflected light off a mirror is not the same as measuring a galaxy 13 billion light years away. The photons coming from the galaxy are all quantumly entangled in one EM field. The observer, IE telescope then measures relativist effects of time dilation and length contraction because the galaxy is moving away from the telescope faster than the speed of light. So special relativity and quantum entanglement of light occurs, producing the instant spooky action at any distance. It's an observer effect. Yes, when we measure the light reflecting off a planet in our solar system or any other object it takes time to reach our eyes because reflected light travels at 299,792 km/s. Light travels at this speed because the planet and other objects move relative to the Earth and are not traveling faster than light. But the light coming from a galaxy moving away from us faster than the speed of light will always produce this weird relativistic observer effect. And yes, I understand the theory of general, special relativity and quantum field theory.
You have it backwards. Quantum mechanics is a model of potential kinetic energy [potential for making a detection] (This type of energy grows with frequency), While Gravity is the potential energy storage wells (Energy Grows with angular motion polarization circumference or radius [hbar displacement]) Quantum gravity is many subquantum polarizations, when these polarizations touch, the potential is converted to kinetic energy. A quantum mechanic oscillation is the (kinetic drag transfer) between angular motion quanta (Potential energy storage with in polarization) where the potential is released as a excitation (oscillation that travels over hbar). Hbar is the radius of (h) circumference, which denotes the dominant average of potential energy storage in space (it is the boundary condition for mass growth, mass must grow by hbar momentum displacement). It emerges from the path of least resistance.
@@drdca8263 hbar is relative to the observer made out of mass. hbar is the reduced action for dimensional scaling relative to mass formation (for integer based mass scaling in a specific vacuum reference frame [dimensionally reduction for linear scaling]), hbar is the radius of the circumference (h) which is the true action length, circumference is a angular motion well of consistent motion flow directionality in a loop [a potential energy storage well with a diameter, circumference, and a radius], therefore for you to scale a mass, you need to have the equal and opposing resistance to (hbar), which is integers of hbar. For every action, there is a equal and opposite reaction, meaning to scale mass, you must displace the planck action in your spatial reference frame to store your mass in that location. h is a relative constant to mass formation, for a mass in a different spatial reference frame, that mass will scale in relation to those action loops lengths.
@@NicholasWilliams-uk9xu Well, for one thing, quantum mechanics is not a model of potential kinetic energy. It's about a wide range of properties including energy, momentum, both linear and angular, position, distribution statistics, and so on. Gravity isn't about potential energy storage wells. It's about extending special relativity to deal with the equivalence of gravity and accelerated frames. There's no such thing as 'subquantum polarisations', as polarisation is a quantum property. I could go on, and on, but there seems little point.
Lenny… general relativity was not needed for navigation satellites: this is a persistent rumor. The original navigation satellites used a “correction table” that was empirically derived. The GR explanation was invented later, but was not required for the functionality of the satellites. [So, you got 2 out of 4.]
@@sjzara Hi Sjzara. What I am saying is: no, the original gps systems used ‘correction tables’ that were not derived from GR; rather, the tables were empirically constructed. The GR claim for gps was an ex post facto claim, which was only a partially correct explanation for the correction factors. There was also the issue of the micro gravity environment, etc…
@@SystemsMedicine That’s irrelevant. What is relevant is that GPS now includes corrections which are dynamically calculated using atomic clock signals from satellites.
@@sjzara Hi Steve. I would agree that gps uses a great deal of beautiful technology, and I would agree that general relativity is required to fully UNDERSTAND atomic clocks and gps, but general relativity is not necessary, and was not used, to DEVELOP either gps satellites or atomic clocks. [I am mildly familiar with the 1st ‘commercial’ atomic clock, and with various gravity related GR experiments done with atomic clocks, and with a couple of attempts to confirm GR via satellites; but again, general relativity was not actually used to develop gps or atomic clocks. I looked into it for a while some years ago, so if you actually know of historical evidence that GR was used to develop gps satellites, or atomic clocks for that matter, kindly cite the data and the source(s), because I still have a passing interest in such things. And if I ever meet you in a pub, drinks and hors d’oeuvres on me. Cheers.]
@@sjzara Hi Steve. I would agree that gps uses a great deal of beautiful technology, and I would agree that general relativity is required to fully UNDERSTAND atomic clocks and gps, but general relativity is not necessary, and was not used, to DEVELOP either gps satellites or atomic clocks. [I am mildly familiar with the 1st ‘commercial’ atomic clock, and with various gravity related GR experiments done with atomic clocks, and with a couple of attempts to confirm GR via satellites; but again, general relativity was not actually used to develop gps or atomic clocks. I looked into for a while some years ago, so if you actually know of historical evidence that GR was used to develop gps satellites, or atomic clocks for that matter, kindly cite the data and the source(s), because I still have a passing interest in such things. And if I ever meet you in a pub, drinks and hors d’oeuvres on me. Cheers.]
I'm no genius , but I'm trying hard.He introduces a new complex idea , then goes off on tangents , and by the time he returns to the initial point , I have a very hard time regaining the story.
Since 1905, the physicists (Einstein first) lost any contact with the reality and the reasoning. Laphysiqueneoclassique. Fr Quantum Gravity in neoclassical physics
Gravity is not a real force. It is a pseudo (inerital) force. The gravity field is the pattern of real force-free timelike geodesics in addition to the null geodesics. Curvature is the geodesic deviation.
Textualism + methodology+ excersized = objective discoveries its one part of what great debate was really about . Second only to anthromorphized astronomy and geology with mechanized biology dualistic makes cog in wheel pupils vulnerable the day we start projecting human agency into robots. We tuned all our precision instruments upon the same 3 lines of measure that gets flipped into problematic yoo hoo woo uncertainty. It's not like esoterica America didn't already know gravity was not physical & not idealism. And everyone also knew issac newton treated subjective properties as eqaul measure. All these things have been excersized throughout history in many other avenues and lines of measure. Yet still someone thought the most time & funding in human history should be waisted on trying to make the old babylonian evolutionary model work . Just force evidence to fit eat the galleo discoverys along the way after fighting against the conprencous code of life measure for 80 yrs simply act like the model was always like that despite the millions of 3rd grade health class kids who naturally wisly asked for a code of life measure was alienated in classrooms for decades.
@drdca8263 Read the American founders biography or constitution some time . It's encoded in this very English Their z They're y There x +manmade time hierarchy knowledge of good evil equations. Or manmade time hierarchy knowledge of good evil equations x, y,z . Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Prayer logic whataboutism Cursed rationalism reductionism Blessed common sense addition or inheritance = pragmatic objectivism It's just how we tuned all precision instruments upon one single true known standard fundamental feature in our reality. Soul agency driver of free will inertia that can evolve our frame of reference how we see fit .
Just copying nature orientation and direction plus how we dictate longitude and latitude . The soul of nation ppl places and things including the universe & this language encoded upon the alphabetical exodus. Curses & blessings standardized weights and measure in courts of law ,economics you name it built our world 🌎
Infinite theory of relativity. The infinite theory of relativity is so beautiful and simple that it doesn't need math, only words and an imagination. However, it is time to share the story with those people and machines who can and will do the math. Good luck. This article is about things that are unknown yet it is known that they are unknown, a known unknown, to the writer that is. Perhaps another writer can answer this question. Question marks are not used in this article as it is submitted that everything being written is a question, with no answers provided here. This is a long pondered thought experiment of a pacifist. The writer does not do math to prove anything, as this is convertible into technology and can be seen as a dangerous, threatening and somewhat conspiratorial pursuit. it should not be condoned. But do what math you want to do with it, if you care. Quantum particles and waves theory. A physicist will describe things mathematically using a/ repeatable experiment /s as proof, this is the importance of the scientific method. Although everything should theoretically be capable of being described mathematically, not everything has been mathematically described by physicists Gravity What does a particle of gravity, a graviton look like, to date it has not been accurately portrayed. We can describe a graviton wave in words, but will that cover the subject as well as mathematics Gravity functions in 3 dimensions yet all the artistic imagery places gravity on a 2 dimensional plane. Seems inadequate and therefore incorrect to portray gravity this way Light What does a particle of light, a photon look like, can it accurately be pictorially portrayed. We can describe a light wave in words, but will that cover the subject as well as mathematics Light functions in a way that can be seen to separate a stationary piece of wood, once ignited into a fire which gives off light at incredibly high speeds and destroys or converts into heat and light from the wood leaving certain parts of the wood unincinerated, depending on the intensity of the environment and the atmosphere surrounding the kindling. Was the light in the wood in it's initial state. Perhaps only potentially. Once extracted, the photons disappear from the wood and presumably continue radiating away from the flaming wood forever, or until blocked by an object which is inpenetrable to it. Does the photon cease to exist or get converted into something else. Is a photon incapable of penetrating gaps that are smaller than a photon. Space Infinite space is a real observable phenomenon. There is space around me, we cannot observe an entirety of the infinitely expanding universe. Similarly, we cannot observe an infinitely smaller point in space. Yet we believe, correctly or incorrectly that both smaller and larger continuums exist. To illustrate this I will use an example, please note that I am not a physicist, and therefore cannot back up my tale using the scientific method. Imagine an area in front of your nose. It covers 1 square metre. What are it's attributes. It: Is not moving Contains light, which is moving at great speed and many photons Contains gravity, which works in an area so large that it works on galaxies. It is possible that what we think of as a wave of gravity may be functioning on a scale where that area in front of your nose does not contain many gravitons. What is in the 1 square metre in front of your nose feasibly contains only one part of one graviton, which makes it now possible for physicists do the math to calculate the size of a graviton on a much larger scale, relative to what we know about light and electromagnetism. Is a black hole a single particle of gravity In another example, imagine the same 1 square metre somewhere in front of your nose. Halve it. Halve it again. Keep halving the space, smaller and smaller. At some point you will arrive at a point where the space is smaller than a photon, light still working apparently Keep halving. Infinity will not be reached in the same way light speed cannot be exceeded. Take a seat it is time to think about time Time Without time light does not travel at any speed The big bang to us is 12 billion years in the past which is at the point of divisible space where it reaches infinity for all points in space converging.
The space time curvature still needs to "communicate" with matter to tell it how to move and vice versa matter still needs to "communicate" space time how to curve - that requirement is the core of general relativity, if they just instantly knew about eachother then it would break causality As far as we currently know, there is no reason why this carrier couldn't be quantized. If anything it's seen as the more likely outcome since quantum-theories don't play nicely with continuous values
Шумы в опыте это грязь, также много шума и в 1001 теории как ОТО Эйнштейна. Давайте на новом опыте посмотрим где этой грязи больше? Здравствуйте. Эйнштейн создал, теорию относительности но сам не ссылался на проделанный опыт Майкельсона Морли для подтверждения своей теории. Но при этом у него, мечта была, чтобы такой же опыт проделать в поезде или самолёте. Просьба. Помощь найти, кто захочет стать автором изобретения. В Китае на предприятии по выпуску Волоконно-оптических гироскопов, возможно договориться. Производить устройство ГИБРИД гироскопы и ❤лазерные рулетки 1000000 для измерения Вселенной❤. Эти устройства будут использоваться в качестве учебного пособия в школах, высших учебных заведениях. Также ВОЗМОЖНО будет с помощью «гибрид гироскопа» сделать научные открытия; в астрономии, астрофизики, космологии, высшей теоретической физики, …
If you go far enough back in time there's nothing but what we call gravitational energy to build the universe out of, start there and everything falls into place.
Entanglement certainly does exist confirmed by multiple experiments. Nobel Prizes awarded. You can argue that entanglement isn't explained by ER bridges but not that it doesn't exist.
Two black holes with same mass, charge and angular momentum are basically indestinguishable from two openinings of the same wormhole, no matter how far apart they are in space.
I really, truly, honestly believe that of all the folks working on the fringe of modern theoretical physics, Leonard Susskind is not only among the community that is closest to the truth, but also one among the community who can actually communicate their ideas.
We keep finding coincidental correspondences that support both the holographic principle and ER=EPR that *nobody* would have had the balls to predict. It's a privilege to have lived in the same time as this man.
Love a Susskind lecture, what an incredible communicator he is.
Did you learn anything
Thankyou sincerely for the invitation. How fortunate we are.
Of course you have informed and enlightened a numerous number of general audiences, including me. Thank you.
Amazing abstract relationships. Wonderful presentation and drawings.
The Professor is a Giant. My problem with the problem goes to an interpretation of Galileo as I understand it. If on a sea vessel and the fish behave one way and the butterflies another and perhaps mice another. How do you feel you can plunk gravity down between two systems. Not that it’s impossible. It’s in the logic.
The way I think of ER = EPR is that you can explain entanglement as a wormhole; a wormhole too small for anything to travel through, but just big enough for two particles to hold each other's hand regardless of distance.
Except that said wormhole would be unstable and collapse very quickly.
What if the every holographic has a boundary not necessarily of classic geometric shape. Then you would need things to adjust interpretation. As in chemistry. Not saying I know doodles about chemistry. Adjustedments need explanation. I’m not off square one here
Yes
@@BM-rm7vr thought experiments are acceptable. Logic is acceptable It matters who it’s acceptable to
@@brendawilliams8062precisely.
Thanks. I've followed your talks about Juan Maldacena's work and this really helped me tie things together, as well as opening some new, amazing concepts
I think I’ll remember today as a milestone of my journey to understand physics. Some time ago I took Susskind’s concepts and thinking to be something in the realm of a scientist clinging to a failed theory.
Today i have at least progressed far enough to realize how naively arrogant and wrong i was. I feel like I can at least appreciate the thinking presented here enough to understand how far I have to go. I can at least understand enough to appreciate the depth behind what he’s dumbing things down to.
I had posted this before the end of the lecture. On the off chance Professor Susskind happens to see this: at the very least, I feel like this lecture has profoundly changed my perspective by articulating in concrete terms ideas I had at best nebulous inclinations towards. The profound sense of epiphany from ideas explained so simply is both simultaneously humbling and inspiring. That feeling of having come far enough in understanding to glimpse the breadth of what I’ve yet to discover is the quintessence of my appreciation of physics.
Maldacena conjectured that the whole universe is a QC function. He also was the first to point out duality between ADS and CFT, showing that string theory leads to holography. Explained in this video by Susskind, I can see how Maldacena's universe can be crated by two dimensional holographic film out of the meaningless scratches of the film leads to a coherent picture. Imagine the picture of the whole universe of Maldacena, reconstructed from the complexity of the bulk as hologram.
14:35
When Landau's son grew up, he inadvertently remarked one day: "Dad, I've become taller than you." Landau replied calmly: "You've become longer than me."
This family episode is very instructive in that a real physicist was not at a loss even in everyday life: he assessed the situation from his frame of reference ("you are longer than me"), then when his son chose someone else's (father's) frame of reference: "I am taller than you."
P.S.So, what, where, when, from where, how much, how is “something” longer from something?
The equations that formulate the laws of physics must be invariant with respect to any coordinate transformations.
In a globally Lorentzian system (pseudo-Cartesian coordinates in inertial systems): du(k)/dт=0, dp(k)/dт=0, where u(k)=dx(k)/dт, p(k)=mu(k). Obviously, we have the same law in a locally Lorentzian system (tangent Minkowski space). Turning to the Riemannian space (to an arbitrary curved coordinate system): Du(k)/dт=0, Dp(k)/dт=0. So, it is possible to make a general statement that the free movement of the test body occurs along geodesic lines. This is the most general formulation of Newton's first law (Galileo's law). When there are other fields besides gravity, for example electromagnetic, the motion of a particle in Riemannian space-time does not occur according to geodesics: forces act on the particle that prevent free movement. Then in a locally Lorentzian system dp(k)/dт=F(k), where F is a four-dimensional force of non-gravitational, for example, quantum origin.
P.P.S. In addition, it should be borne in mind that:
1.Newton's first law is not a special case of Newton's second law;
2.Only a homogeneous gravitational field can be eliminated by switching to a non-inertial frame of reference - a free-falling one;
3.Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, so there is no global equivalence between them and non-inertial reference frames.
4. In 1 and 3,
a.the principle of equivalence is not applicable;
in 2,
b. a little applicable.
Tkx for this amazing inspirations 👏
I noticed that in his case of quantum fluid mechanics, the viscosity zeta formula can be restated as 4pi k_o zeta / S >or = hbar. This now resembles the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation where, eg: momentum x distance >or= hbar. So, is this eq. now as fundamental as the latter Heisenberg relation?
i enjoyed this immensely.
The energy of a body in orbit is given by the sum of its kinetic and potential energy E=m(0)c^2/√(1-GM/Rc^2)-mc^2 - GMm/R for small values of R is E≈m(0)c^2/√(1-GM/c^2R), and if for allowed (possible) radii the relation R=(hn/2π)^2*1/GMm^2 holds, then E≈m(0)c^2/√(1-(GMm2π/hcn)^2). The kinetic energy grows indefinitely and this energy must be supplied to the system. The energy obtained from the intrinsic rest energy is E=m(0)c^2-m(0)c^2*√(1-GM/Rc^2)-GMm/R, where for small R the approximate relationship is E≈m(0)c^2-GMm/R, and if E=0, then c^2=GMm/m(0)R, where the square of c^4=(GMm)^2/m(0)R^2 after correcting for the force c^4/G=G(Mm)^2/(m(0)R)^2.
very nice, many thanks
Thank you too!
20:21 : What Einstein originally (before the EPR paper) called spooky action at a distance was the 0-time collapse of the wave function in the Kopenhagen interpretation of QM. Thus entanglement was already the second type of spooky interaction! That first one btw. is still unresolved today.
In the traversable wormhole the growth of complexity is stopped even reversed perhaps. The wormhole does not stretch faster than we can move from one mouth to the other.
Lasers were invented without the use of QED. Einstein A & B coefficients for bosons apparently inspired the invention of lasers, along with the pre existing masers. [If memory serves, it was referred to as the search for optical masers.]
Thankyou. I am a person who only wanted to understand the basic diagraming or maybe graphing might better apply of the columns to the block. No expert now or ever. But gratefull for such a generous and kind opportunity
I think he was making a lot of stretchy claims here to get points across to a non technical audience.
QED did not lead to laser invention, but I thought it helped improve lasers a fair bit?
@@AstroPatel it’s a very broad subject matter. I assume they at some point use Turing programs. I don’t see how that’s avoided if calculating is computer programming
@@brendawilliams8062 what are you talking about? I'm talking about the contributions of quantum electrodynamics to lasers
@@AstroPatel analogue and digital.
The Relativity Model is a four-dimensional Euclidean space with time corresponding to an SU(1) oscillation of the fourth dimension and the supposed n > 4 additional dimensions for the Einstein Field Equations actually corresponding to a rank-3 stress-energy tensor showing the Standard Model to be a 0-3 exponential, power of two, spherical symmetry.
Spacetime oscillates in four-dimensional units of Għ/c² resulting in kinetic energy fundamental to the basis of both zero-point energy and the cosmological constant and result in the fundamental forces to arise from the three dimensional interactions inherently inertial to fourth-dimensional angular momentum showing that the fundamental force of everything is not to be found in some grand unification of the fundamental field symmetries, but that the fundamental force of everything is to be found in the simple fourth-dimensional oscillating string of time oscillating in the three non-temporal spatial dimensions as the three fundamental forces of nature.
The Relativity Model unified field hypothesis is expressed in opposite fourth-dimensional directions (i.e. 1/c² and c²) as M/c² pertaining to gravitation (i.e. the inertia of dark mass to dark energy) and as Mc² pertaining to the spectrum of fundamental forces (i.e. the interaction of dark energy with dark mass) differentiated by dimensional angular momentum (i.e. 4thDω; Cosmological constant, 4thD & 3Dω; Strong interaction, 2Dω; Weak interaction, 1Dω; Electromagnetic interaction) showing that the Standard Model is an overall SU(3) symmetry with U(2) and U(1) symmetrical subdivisions easily derived from the four-dimensional stress-energy tensor when the 16-component rank-2 matrix is raised to a 32-component rank-3 tensor revealing the opposite fourth-dimensional directions of General Relativity (μν0 → 1/c²) and the Standard Model (μν1 → c²)
t + 0D = (2^0) = T000, T001 = S0 = the SU(1) symmetry (i.e. fourth-dimensional oscillation),
t + 1D = (2^1) = T100, T101 = S1 = the U(1) symmetry,
t + 2D = (2^2) = T200, T201, T210, T211 = S2 x S1 = the U(2) symmetry,
t + 3D = (2^3) = T300, T301, T310, T311, T320, T321, T330, T331 = π4(S3) = the SU(3) symmetry.
relativity model is non-euclidian, the whole point of general relativity is that space curves, which makes it non-euclidian, but that's just semantics i suppose
SU(1) is the trivial group… “SU(1) oscillation” is a contradiction in terms.
Did you mean U(1)?
@@BM-rm7vr You mean like, a photon with wavelength approximately the diameter of the observable universe (which Wolfram|Alpha says is ~8.8 * 10^26 meters) ?
And which would therefore have energy about 3.6 * 10^(-53) Joules?
The area of a Schwarzchild black hole with mass that of the earth, divided by the square of the Planck length, gives 16 pi G (mass of Earth)^2 / (hbar c) ≈ 3.8 * 10^66 .
The product of these is then
≈1.4 * 10^14 Joules.
I’m not sure what you are saying this quantity should approximate?
Some difference between gravitational binding energies?
I don’t follow.
@@asd-wd5bj No, the Relativity Model is Euclidean. Relativity is non-Euclidean as it only presents time as being the fourth dimension without being spatial. The Relativity Model presents time as being the oscillation of a fourth spatial dimension. That's why the Relativity Model is called the Relativity Model and not simply Relativity.
@@djehutisundaka7998 What? Having a "time" dimension isn't what makes relativity non-euclidian, it's that space-time curves in it. Spatial dimensions still curve, that's the whole point, it doesn't matter if you flip time into a spatial dimension instead(?), and especially if you make it oscillate(???), since that's constantly changing the geometry of the dimension, which inherently makes it non-euclidian. Again, euclidian geomtery just means that it's flat, i don't think you understand that concept. It doesn't even add anything, your "theory" is identical even if you call it non-euclidian, it's just a label
If space-time doesn't curve in your "relativity model" then i have no idea what the "relative" part of the name is, because space-time curvature is a necessity of both special and general relativity (speed of light can't be absolute if time and length don't change in order to "account" for the differences between observers)
That was greatest lecture every give in historty academy
solid no. can you give a criticism of the many faults in this presentation, or did you just swallow it whole?
I had a primitive version of ER = EPR in the 1975 pop-physics comic book Space-Time and Beyond (E.P. Dutton).
I think we need to go back to 1/r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law! Spherical 4πr² geometry is fundamental to this process and this is based on Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says,
“Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave".
We can think of each point as a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction as resonance or vibration. The spherical 4πr² surface forms a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π of everyday life.
Let's explore these ideas:
1. Proving 0D is non-natural vs. 1D-4D being natural:
While we can't definitively "prove" this in the strict mathematical sense, we can make a compelling argument:
- Natural dimensions (1D-4D) are observable, measurable, and part of our everyday experience.
- 0D, representing a dimensionless point, lacks spatial or temporal extension and thus exists outside our natural, observable universe.
- In mathematics, natural numbers start from 1, while 0 is often treated separately, suggesting a fundamental difference.
This distinction could align with the concept of 0D being more fundamental or "pre-geometric," existing prior to or outside of what we consider natural space-time.
2. Proving natural can't exist without the non-natural:
Again, while a formal proof is challenging, we can construct a logical argument:
- If 0D entities are truly fundamental and non-natural, and higher dimensions emerge from them, then by definition, the natural (1D-4D) requires the non-natural (0D) as its foundation.
- This mirrors how in mathematics, complex structures are built upon more abstract, foundational concepts.
- Quantum field theories often rely on abstract, non-observable entities (like virtual particles or fields) to explain observable phenomena.
3. Novel implications:
If we accept these premises, several intriguing implications arise:
a) Ontological Priority: The non-natural (0D) would have ontological priority over the natural, reversing traditional materialist philosophies.
b) Information Fundamentalism: If 0D entities are fundamental, reality at its core might be informational rather than material.
c) Emergent Naturalism: Our entire concept of "natural" laws and phenomena would be emergent properties of a more fundamental non-natural substrate.
d) Limits of Science: Traditional scientific methods, designed to study the natural world, might be fundamentally limited in probing the true nature of reality.
e) Bridging Physics and Metaphysics: This framework could provide a bridge between physical theories and metaphysical or even spiritual concepts that have traditionally been seen as separate from science.
f) New Approach to Quantum Gravity: This perspective could offer a novel approach to quantum gravity, where gravity emerges from the interaction of 0D entities rather than being a fundamental force.
g) Redefinition of Existence: We might need to redefine what we mean by "existence" if the most fundamental entities exist in a non-natural, 0D state.
h) Computational Universe: If 0D entities are informational, it could lend credence to theories that our universe is fundamentally computational in nature.
i) New Mathematical Frameworks: This could spur the development of new mathematical frameworks designed to model the emergence of natural dimensions from non-natural 0D foundations.
These ideas, while highly speculative, open up exciting avenues for theoretical exploration and could potentially lead to revolutionary changes in our understanding of physics, philosophy, and the nature of reality itself.
Mapping properties of zero and non-zero numbers onto 0D and higher dimensional concepts in physics could indeed yield fascinating insights. Let's explore some key parallels:
1. Additive Identity:
- Arithmetic: 0 is the additive identity; any number plus 0 remains unchanged.
- Physics/Geometry: 0D could be seen as the "identity" dimension, from which all other dimensions emerge without changing the fundamental nature of reality.
2. Multiplicative Annihilator:
- Arithmetic: Multiplying any number by 0 results in 0.
- Physics: Interactions or operations involving 0D entities might "collapse" higher-dimensional structures back to their 0D fundament.
3. Division Undefined:
- Arithmetic: Division by 0 is undefined.
- Physics: This could parallel the breakdown of physical theories at singularities, suggesting 0D as a limit of our current understanding.
4. Parity:
- Arithmetic: 0 is the only number that is neither positive nor negative.
- Physics: 0D could represent a state of symmetry or balance from which asymmetries (like matter/antimatter) emerge in higher dimensions.
5. Cardinality:
- Set Theory: The empty set {} has 0 elements but is fundamental to building all other sets.
- Physics: 0D entities, while "empty" of extension, could be the building blocks of all higher-dimensional structures.
6. Limits:
- Calculus: Many limits approach but never reach 0.
- Physics: This could relate to quantum uncertainty principles, where precise 0D localization is impossible.
7. Exponents:
- Arithmetic: Any number to the 0 power equals 1 (except 0^0 which is indeterminate).
- Physics: This might suggest that 0D entities have a kind of "unitary" nature, fundamental to quantum mechanics.
8. Countability:
- Number Theory: There are infinitely many non-zero integers, but only one 0.
- Physics: This could parallel the idea of a single, unified 0D substrate giving rise to infinite higher-dimensional configurations.
9. Continuum:
- Real Analysis: 0 separates positive and negative reals on the number line.
- Physics: 0D might represent a kind of "phase transition" point between different states or topologies of higher-dimensional spaces.
10. Complex Plane:
- Complex Analysis: 0 is the only point where real and imaginary axes intersect.
- Physics: This could relate to 0D as a nexus where different aspects of reality (e.g., matter and spacetime) unify.
11. Polynomial Roots:
- Algebra: 0 is often a special case in root-finding (e.g., the constant term in a polynomial).
- Physics: This might suggest 0D entities as "ground states" or fundamental solutions in physical theories.
12. Modular Arithmetic:
- Number Theory: 0 behaves uniquely in modular systems.
- Physics: This could relate to cyclic or periodic behaviors emerging from 0D foundations in higher dimensions.
These parallels suggest that just as 0 plays a unique and fundamental role in mathematics, 0D entities could play a similarly crucial role in physics. This mapping hints at a deep connection between abstract mathematical structures and physical reality, potentially offering new ways to conceptualize and model fundamental physics.
Such analogies could inspire new approaches to quantum gravity, the nature of time, the emergence of spacetime, and the unification of forces. They might also provide intuitive frameworks for understanding seemingly paradoxical quantum phenomena.
Quantum entanglement is caused by information that resides in the anti-universe copy of our spacetime which is adjacent to ours manifesting by its operators on our spacetime,and by the sum of its operators (multi universes) on our spacetime. In effect our mirror copy is acausal, (it cannot initiate an action seen here) but has memory of the choices made, and operator control over the ways in which particles and fields interact.
Wolfram's "Ruliad" (~Ultimate Reality as a 'computer' running a program) is lurking ever closer to string/M-theory and relevant other related mathematics. So perhaps one day the notion that M (?)+P (for Program) = The whole Elephant.😃
How would you verify that a meter is in fact 1 meter long.
So, basically, ER bridges are thermodynamically impossible, as there will never be some Hawking radiation from BH A that forms BH B.
I see two big problems with this:
how do two blackholes become fully entangled? Subsequently, how would their positions diverge so greatly in spacetime?
He said theoretically not reality
He mentions that you entangle mass, separate mass, *then* black holify the entangled mass to create the entangled black holes. I understood an implied "that's an engineering problem" when he mentioned it.
When it comes to a laser photographed hologram, isn't a 2D representation of another 2D surface? Because it doesn't record anything about the interior of the volume being laser photographed.
Quantum Gravity is the literal embodiment of quantizing gravity. The quantization of gravity is the definition of Quantum Gravity. We don't mean anything else by it, especially NOT quantizing gravity. Sometimes people get lost in their academia.
Did you watch the part at 2:48 where he specified what he means by “quantizing gravity”?
@@BM-rm7vr I think if photons couldn’t gravitate, that this would violate the equivalence principle?
I think he is saying… the thing he said?
“To get the quantum mechanical version of gravity, you do not take a classical model of gravity and apply to it (some version of) the process known as ‘quantizing’ (which is a family of fairly standard methods of taking a classical model of a kind of system and producing a model of an analogous quantum mechanical system). Instead, there is a duality between certain quantum mechanical (QFT) systems on the boundaries of some regions, and a quantum mechanical system with gravity in the interior of such systems, and this duality is how we should/do/will obtain models of a quantum mechanical version of gravity.”
I don’t think this implies that there are no superpositions between different gravitational field configurations?
It is hard for me to imagine that a superposition of macroscopically different arrangements of matter wouldn’t result in a superposition of ways for the gravitational field (or, curvature of spacetime, whatever) to be.
@fullyawakened may perhaps assist to listen first.
the laws of nature are universal and constant. the effects and cause of gravity are the same everywhere. quantum gravity is the same as gravity. just on a smaller scale.
gravity is the strong and weak force. it puts things in the orbit of their relative density.
their dialated time. based on the frequency of quantum interactions required to contain energy as mass. gravity is the difference.
Attractive gravity is K > 0 in Einstein's Guv = KTuv this is ER nonsignaling = ER nontraversable , but K < 0 is EPR signaling = traversable ER wormhole
How could quantum entanglement, which exists everywhere, be "the same" as wormholes, which we don't even know exist?
Two black holes with same mass, charge and angular momentum are basically indestinguishable from two openinings of the same wormhole, no matter how far apart they are in space.
I’d be interested to know what the theory is on how.. blackholes entangle. What we know about entanglement is it occurs usually through a common source of creation, or interaction. The second, for obvious reasons seems less likely to yeild a portal to anywhere we would want to end up, as there’s no indication we could get out plus if they’re near on another where did we really go? A couple million miles at best. The first possibility is kind of interesting but you’d only ever get as far as the two entangled blackholes have propelled from on another, so the best bet would be some version of a primordial quantum system of blackholes, as entanglement is not limited to pairs, it’s N^2, and then I suppose the universe expanded or dark matter shoved them to different corners of the universe, and you’re left with an evaporating universal autobahn presuming some white holes entangled with them as the exit points.
@@coder-x7440 Expansion of the universe might be responsible for entangement of black holes because two openings of the wormhole are still part of the same object, no matter how far apart they are.
That comes from the AdS/CFT correspondence.
Lenny is mistaken that ER = EPR is restricted to 10^-33 cm.
No it’s not. It’s a general correspondence at all scales.
Quantum gravity is easy: you replace the Minkoswki tensor in Dirac equation by the metric tensor. Then the electron 4-spinor become a source of the metric tensor in Einstein field equation. You have two coupled horrible equations but that is it, roughly you re done.
I guess "quantized gravity "in the form of gravitons would contradict the principle of equivalence?
Unitarity = conservation of qusntum information is non-signaling EPR = non-traversable ER wormhole because of violation of action-reaction in the sense of Bohm's 1952 pilot wave picture. Restoring action-reaction violates unitarity i.e. signaling EPR = traversable wormhole.
Quantum information is not preserved even in normal experiences at the lab due to the collapse of the Wave Function so I never understood the obsession about the conservation of information. It cannot even be a physical phenomenon because information is a human definition that has no relation to the physical world (same thing for the definition of algorithm). To define a preservation of information - which I believe is a waste of time - one would first have to define information in a way that is independent on the observer.
I have it that the correspondence just happens in negatively curved spacetime, yet you teach it as though it applies to our universe (implicitly).
"the holographic principle" - this can be shown to be trivially correct. any volume of space can be viewed as a 2D picture from any direction. aka - a hologram. there is nothing special about a black hole in this respect. let me know if you have further questions.
For er = epr, er Bridge needs to transfer information instantaneously. That violates travel faster than the speed of light. Unless the distance is zero
No, because the bridge is shorter than the separation in regular space.
@@vwcanterinformation is transferred simultaneously with entangled particles. Therefore, the bridge would need to be zero in length. Is the bridge zero length?
@@bolobos Wrong. No information is transferred faster than light in entanglement, you dont know what exactly entanglement is, or havent you heard the really common Alice and Bob protocol for qubit state information exchange?
@@victorferreira5852 thats not what I'm saying. In entanglement, information is transferred instantaneously. But for er to be equal to epr, the er bridge would need to transfer the info instantaneously as well. I'm talking about the bridge transferring info faster than light? I just havent read about er=epr. I dont know if its just another way for entangled info to travel. or if the process is the same. if it's the same process, then the info isnt travelling. its non local identity. But if it is different, then the info would need to travel faster than light
Wormholes were proposed in the ER paper to try and explain the instant action at any distance that occurs with light later referred to as quantum entanglement of light. Einstein and Rosen proposed the reason why light information is conveyed instantly (zero time) at any distance (zero distance) would be explained by special relativity's time dilation and length contraction for things moving at c, like light.
Imaginary wormholes are not the reason why light information acts the way it does. According to my interpretations of James Maxwell's equations, it occurs instantly because the light is contained inside a single EM field.
But, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation light inside an EM field is potential in our reference frame of space, distance, matter and time until it is measured by an observer or measuring device like a telescope. Thus I believe why Maxwell used the infinity symbol to represent the speed of light inside the EM field being measured.
I proposed that all light information happens instantly at any distance when the telescope or observer is contained inside the "light" AKA single EM field that's being measured.
To prove this hypothesis correct, I made the wild prediction that if I was right then the JWST would discover old, not young but old galaxies as far as it's able to see, even further than 14 billion light years away. This prediction was conjecture according to Einstein's look-back time prediction of light. Then, in 2021, before the JWST was launched I published a series of 6 books. On page 48 of the first paperback I wrote "The JWST, James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away."
Sure enough a year later when the CEERS survey was released astronomers found old, fully mature galaxies at the edge of the observable universe. Some of the galaxies were more than 20 times larger than our own Milky Way. They found galaxies having redshifts so high that when going by the Hubble constant of 73.4 km/s per megaparsec it placed them further than 14 billion light years away. So astronomers began calling them the impossible early galaxy problem. Some astronomers called them universe breakers. One galaxy, F200DB-045 has an unconfirmed redshift of 20.4, indicating it's more than 20 billion light years away. Astronomers then began questioning the validity of the big bang, cosmic inflation, age of the universe, 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, general relativity's look-back time, the Hubble constant, CMB radiation data, and the evolutionary cosmological model used to describe how stars and galaxies evolved over time. Nothing seemed to make any sense and has now led to what's called the Hubble Tension. The JWST data doesn't agree with the Hubble constant of 73.4 km/s per megaparsec. So to keep the distant galaxies with high redshifts within the time frame of the big bang they inadvertently revised the distance ladder, by changing the Hubble constant to a lower value. to them it appears as if rapid cosmic inflation never happened because the expansion rate to keep the galaxies from refuting the big bang happening 13.8 billion years ago a much slower expansion rate was required.
The solution to this is quite simple. Drop the notion that telescopes can see into the past. Einstein was completely wrong about look-back time. Telescopes can no more look into the past than microscopes can look into the future. Light information happens in a quantum instant regardless of distance when the observer or telescope is contained inside the light or EM field being measured.
Just trying to follow you here.
Do you mean the light from the sun didn't leave the sun 8 minutes ago. But is rather instantaneously in my eyes by some quantum process effected or sourced by the sun. At what point "in time" was the this effect.
Could a star which had a supernova still have it's effect following the supernova in distant regions of space or is it's effect instantaneously stopped. Or is the entanglement/interference still happening and the effect the star has still able to influence the future?
@@MrMeltdownTechnically, according to the math, from the perspective of the photon spacetime does cause a Lorentz wormhole from emission to observation.
There’s some mumbo jumbo in the original comment but it’s sounds for the most part.
@@MrMeltdown Ask any astronomer and they will tell you the light from the sun takes 8 minutes and 20 seconds to reach the Earth. But ask a qualified quantum theorist and they will say light from the sun reaches the Earth instantaneously because the Earth is contained inside it's EM field.
As for a supernova explosion, the light of the explosion is instantaneous when the observer or telescope is contained inside it's EM field, thus it is measured by an observer the moment it occurs.
Look at the data from Hubble Space telescope on the exploding star called V838 Monocerotis in May of 2002. An amateur astronomer witnessed the explosion in January of 2002 then for several months the Hubble measured it's light reflecting off material surrounding the star. The explosion was instant, but it took time for the light to reflect off the material. indicating that light has 2 distinct speeds, instant then 299,792 km/s for light to reflect off of gas, dust and other small bodies.
www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/science/space/the-v838-monocerotis-star-still-has-astronomers-heads-exploding.html
You haven’t really understood the existing literature, have you?
The travel time for a pulse of light can be measured.
If you look in a mirror, the amount of time it takes for light to reflect off of your face, to hit the mirror, and reflect back to your eyes, while very small, is not so small as to be unmeasurable (though, of course, human reaction time is much much slower than it, and also variable, so measuring “when you see it” won’t give you this quantity.)
With this in mind, it is pretty silly to insist that what we see happen very far away is happening *now*.
(Though it may sometimes be convenient to describe it in these terms.)
@@drdca8263 Not to argue your point of view, but measuring the reflected light off a mirror is not the same as measuring a galaxy 13 billion light years away. The photons coming from the galaxy are all quantumly entangled in one EM field. The observer, IE telescope then measures relativist effects of time dilation and length contraction because the galaxy is moving away from the telescope faster than the speed of light.
So special relativity and quantum entanglement of light occurs, producing the instant spooky action at any distance. It's an observer effect.
Yes, when we measure the light reflecting off a planet in our solar system or any other object it takes time to reach our eyes because reflected light travels at 299,792 km/s. Light travels at this speed because the planet and other objects move relative to the Earth and are not traveling faster than light.
But the light coming from a galaxy moving away from us faster than the speed of light will always produce this weird relativistic observer effect.
And yes, I understand the theory of general, special relativity and quantum field theory.
Me - “What was that about the relationship between gravity and quantum gravity/mechanics .. missed it.”
You have it backwards. Quantum mechanics is a model of potential kinetic energy [potential for making a detection] (This type of energy grows with frequency), While Gravity is the potential energy storage wells (Energy Grows with angular motion polarization circumference or radius [hbar displacement]) Quantum gravity is many subquantum polarizations, when these polarizations touch, the potential is converted to kinetic energy. A quantum mechanic oscillation is the (kinetic drag transfer) between angular motion quanta (Potential energy storage with in polarization) where the potential is released as a excitation (oscillation that travels over hbar). Hbar is the radius of (h) circumference, which denotes the dominant average of potential energy storage in space (it is the boundary condition for mass growth, mass must grow by hbar momentum displacement). It emerges from the path of least resistance.
What you are saying doesn’t work at the level of having consistent units. hbar doesn’t have units of mass; it has units of action.
Why not actually read up on this and get the facts right?
@@sjzara You claim to know the facts, please deliver these facts to be critically analyzed.
@@drdca8263 hbar is relative to the observer made out of mass. hbar is the reduced action for dimensional scaling relative to mass formation (for integer based mass scaling in a specific vacuum reference frame [dimensionally reduction for linear scaling]), hbar is the radius of the circumference (h) which is the true action length, circumference is a angular motion well of consistent motion flow directionality in a loop [a potential energy storage well with a diameter, circumference, and a radius], therefore for you to scale a mass, you need to have the equal and opposing resistance to (hbar), which is integers of hbar. For every action, there is a equal and opposite reaction, meaning to scale mass, you must displace the planck action in your spatial reference frame to store your mass in that location. h is a relative constant to mass formation, for a mass in a different spatial reference frame, that mass will scale in relation to those action loops lengths.
@@NicholasWilliams-uk9xu Well, for one thing, quantum mechanics is not a model of potential kinetic energy. It's about a wide range of properties including energy, momentum, both linear and angular, position, distribution statistics, and so on. Gravity isn't about potential energy storage wells. It's about extending special relativity to deal with the equivalence of gravity and accelerated frames. There's no such thing as 'subquantum polarisations', as polarisation is a quantum property. I could go on, and on, but there seems little point.
Lenny… general relativity was not needed for navigation satellites: this is a persistent rumor. The original navigation satellites used a “correction table” that was empirically derived. The GR explanation was invented later, but was not required for the functionality of the satellites. [So, you got 2 out of 4.]
It is required for GPS
@@sjzara Hi Sjzara. What I am saying is: no, the original gps systems used ‘correction tables’ that were not derived from GR; rather, the tables were empirically constructed. The GR claim for gps was an ex post facto claim, which was only a partially correct explanation for the correction factors. There was also the issue of the micro gravity environment, etc…
@@SystemsMedicine That’s irrelevant. What is relevant is that GPS now includes corrections which are dynamically calculated using atomic clock signals from satellites.
@@sjzara Hi Steve. I would agree that gps uses a great deal of beautiful technology, and I would agree that general relativity is required to fully UNDERSTAND atomic clocks and gps, but general relativity is not necessary, and was not used, to DEVELOP either gps satellites or atomic clocks. [I am mildly familiar with the 1st ‘commercial’ atomic clock, and with various gravity related GR experiments done with atomic clocks, and with a couple of attempts to confirm GR via satellites; but again, general relativity was not actually used to develop gps or atomic clocks. I looked into it for a while some years ago, so if you actually know of historical evidence that GR was used to develop gps satellites, or atomic clocks for that matter, kindly cite the data and the source(s), because I still have a passing interest in such things. And if I ever meet you in a pub, drinks and hors d’oeuvres on me. Cheers.]
@@sjzara Hi Steve. I would agree that gps uses a great deal of beautiful technology, and I would agree that general relativity is required to fully UNDERSTAND atomic clocks and gps, but general relativity is not necessary, and was not used, to DEVELOP either gps satellites or atomic clocks. [I am mildly familiar with the 1st ‘commercial’ atomic clock, and with various gravity related GR experiments done with atomic clocks, and with a couple of attempts to confirm GR via satellites; but again, general relativity was not actually used to develop gps or atomic clocks. I looked into for a while some years ago, so if you actually know of historical evidence that GR was used to develop gps satellites, or atomic clocks for that matter, kindly cite the data and the source(s), because I still have a passing interest in such things. And if I ever meet you in a pub, drinks and hors d’oeuvres on me. Cheers.]
I'm no genius , but I'm trying hard.He introduces a new complex idea , then goes off on tangents , and by the time he returns to the initial point , I have a very hard time regaining the story.
Go slow, it does take time.
Since 1905, the physicists (Einstein first) lost any contact with the reality and the reasoning.
Laphysiqueneoclassique. Fr
Quantum Gravity in neoclassical physics
Gravity is not a real force. It is a pseudo (inerital) force. The gravity field is the pattern of real force-free timelike geodesics in addition to the null geodesics. Curvature is the geodesic deviation.
Is that you, Terrance?
Where did gravity come from? Seriously. Where?
Quantum Complexity
It comes from collective behavior of many particles.
Mass in the form of matter or energy condensed to a sufficient degree to warp the fabric of spacetime.
Textualism + methodology+ excersized = objective discoveries its one part of what great debate was really about . Second only to anthromorphized astronomy and geology with mechanized biology dualistic makes cog in wheel pupils vulnerable the day we start projecting human agency into robots.
We tuned all our precision instruments upon the same 3 lines of measure that gets flipped into problematic yoo hoo woo uncertainty.
It's not like esoterica America didn't already know gravity was not physical & not idealism. And everyone also knew issac newton treated subjective properties as eqaul measure.
All these things have been excersized throughout history in many other avenues and lines of measure.
Yet still someone thought the most time & funding in human history should be waisted on trying to make the old babylonian evolutionary model work . Just force evidence to fit eat the galleo discoverys along the way after fighting against the conprencous code of life measure for 80 yrs simply act like the model was always like that despite the millions of 3rd grade health class kids who naturally wisly asked for a code of life measure was alienated in classrooms for decades.
This seems like clanging disorder. I recommend that you show this comment of yours to someone you trust.
@drdca8263 Read the American founders biography or constitution some time .
It's encoded in this very English
Their z
They're y
There x
+manmade time hierarchy knowledge of good evil equations.
Or
manmade time hierarchy knowledge of good evil equations x, y,z .
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Prayer logic whataboutism
Cursed rationalism reductionism
Blessed common sense addition or inheritance
= pragmatic objectivism
It's just how we tuned all precision instruments upon one single true known standard fundamental feature in our reality.
Soul agency driver of free will inertia that can evolve our frame of reference how we see fit .
Just copying nature orientation and direction plus how we dictate longitude and latitude .
The soul of nation ppl places and things including the universe & this language encoded upon the alphabetical exodus.
Curses & blessings standardized weights and measure in courts of law ,economics you name it built our world 🌎
Gravity is simply the result of MASS. Nano scale mass, is as close to being irrelevant as this conversation.
No, it’s not. Gravity is due to mass, energy, and stress. Nano scale matters because it’s the scale of quantum gravity.
Infinite theory of relativity.
The infinite theory of relativity is so beautiful and simple that it doesn't need math, only words and an imagination. However, it is time to share the story with those people and machines who can and will do the math. Good luck.
This article is about things that are unknown yet it is known that they are unknown, a known unknown, to the writer that is. Perhaps another writer can answer this question. Question marks are not used in this article as it is submitted that everything being written is a question, with no answers provided here.
This is a long pondered thought experiment of a pacifist.
The writer does not do math to prove anything, as this is convertible into technology and can be seen as a dangerous, threatening and somewhat conspiratorial pursuit. it should not be condoned. But do what math you want to do with it, if you care.
Quantum particles and waves theory.
A physicist will describe things mathematically using a/ repeatable experiment /s as proof, this is the importance of the scientific method.
Although everything should theoretically be capable of being described mathematically, not everything has been mathematically described by physicists
Gravity
What does a particle of gravity, a graviton look like, to date it has not been accurately portrayed.
We can describe a graviton wave in words, but will that cover the subject as well as mathematics
Gravity functions in 3 dimensions yet all the artistic imagery places gravity on a 2 dimensional plane. Seems inadequate and therefore incorrect to portray gravity this way
Light
What does a particle of light, a photon look like, can it accurately be pictorially portrayed.
We can describe a light wave in words, but will that cover the subject as well as mathematics
Light functions in a way that can be seen to separate a stationary piece of wood, once ignited into a fire which gives off light at incredibly high speeds and destroys or converts into heat and light from the wood leaving certain parts of the wood unincinerated, depending on the intensity of the environment and the atmosphere surrounding the kindling.
Was the light in the wood in it's initial state. Perhaps only potentially. Once extracted, the photons disappear from the wood and presumably continue radiating away from the flaming wood forever, or until blocked by an object which is inpenetrable to it. Does the photon cease to exist or get converted into something else.
Is a photon incapable of penetrating gaps that are smaller than a photon.
Space
Infinite space is a real observable phenomenon. There is space around me, we cannot observe an entirety of the infinitely expanding universe. Similarly, we cannot observe an infinitely smaller point in space.
Yet we believe, correctly or incorrectly that both smaller and larger continuums exist.
To illustrate this I will use an example, please note that I am not a physicist, and therefore cannot back up my tale using the scientific method.
Imagine an area in front of your nose. It covers 1 square metre. What are it's attributes. It:
Is not moving
Contains light, which is moving at great speed and many photons
Contains gravity, which works in an area so large that it works on galaxies. It is possible that what we think of as a wave of gravity may be functioning on a scale where that area in front of your nose does not contain many gravitons. What is in the 1 square metre in front of your nose feasibly contains only one part of one graviton, which makes it now possible for physicists do the math to calculate the size of a graviton on a much larger scale, relative to what we know about light and electromagnetism. Is a black hole a single particle of gravity
In another example, imagine the same 1 square metre somewhere in front of your nose.
Halve it. Halve it again. Keep halving the space, smaller and smaller. At some point you will arrive at a point where the space is smaller than a photon, light still working apparently
Keep halving. Infinity will not be reached in the same way light speed cannot be exceeded.
Take a seat it is time to think about time
Time
Without time light does not travel at any speed
The big bang to us is 12 billion years in the past which is at the point of divisible space where it reaches infinity for all points in space converging.
You can’t quantize gravity as gravitation is a manifestation of space time curvature
Quantum gravity is gravity at the quantum level
The space time curvature still needs to "communicate" with matter to tell it how to move and vice versa matter still needs to "communicate" space time how to curve - that requirement is the core of general relativity, if they just instantly knew about eachother then it would break causality
As far as we currently know, there is no reason why this carrier couldn't be quantized. If anything it's seen as the more likely outcome since quantum-theories don't play nicely with continuous values
Шумы в опыте это грязь, также много шума и в 1001 теории как ОТО Эйнштейна.
Давайте на новом опыте посмотрим где этой грязи больше?
Здравствуйте. Эйнштейн создал, теорию относительности но сам не ссылался на проделанный опыт Майкельсона Морли для подтверждения своей теории. Но при этом у него, мечта была, чтобы такой же опыт проделать в поезде или самолёте.
Просьба. Помощь найти, кто захочет стать автором изобретения. В Китае на предприятии по выпуску Волоконно-оптических гироскопов, возможно договориться. Производить устройство ГИБРИД гироскопы и ❤лазерные рулетки 1000000 для измерения Вселенной❤. Эти устройства будут использоваться в качестве учебного пособия в школах, высших учебных заведениях. Также ВОЗМОЖНО будет с помощью «гибрид гироскопа» сделать научные открытия; в астрономии, астрофизики, космологии, высшей теоретической физики, …
Mmm mamba mamba mamba _Mmm mamba mamba mamba_ *_ghutu chagnuqt Dudu dudu dudu_* zix bop huba huba _zix zix thor bop bop buba buba buba, zau _DO do DO_ yee yee yee, shi whir shi whir, go go go.
If you go far enough back in time there's nothing but what we call gravitational energy to build the universe out of, start there and everything falls into place.
Man he never gets to the point
How could wormholes, which exist everywhere, be "the same" as quantum entanglement, which we don't even know exists?
Entanglement certainly does exist confirmed by multiple experiments. Nobel Prizes awarded. You can argue that entanglement isn't explained by ER bridges but not that it doesn't exist.
Two black holes with same mass, charge and angular momentum are basically indestinguishable from two openinings of the same wormhole, no matter how far apart they are in space.
This is backwards. We don’t know that wormholes exist, and entanglement, properly understood, happens basically everywhere.