Our apologies for re-uploading - Claudia's interview was cut short by about 20 minutes. The entire conversation is published here; we hope you enjoy it!
This was really great. A simplicity was evoked in genuine love for all that Einstein’s GR has to offer and the offerings that questions of our conventional understanding of GR may bring. The commonality of simplicity between the two may be useful in bringing about a more fundamental understanding.
Reminder - feeling weightless is based on not having an opponent to challenge the feeling against. {Magnetic attraction logics, by the end points to magnet's self feel!}
Question for Ms. de Rham; what implications of your theory have on the question of whether the "big bang" (letting the big bang theory stand as a given for a moment) happened IN the Higgs Field, or whether the Higgs Field came into being CONSEQUENT to the Big Bang? It's really hard to find a physicist who will actually allow someone as inconsequential as me, to ask these kinds of questions of.
I don’t quite see why her theory would change the natural length scale of gravity being that of many orders of mangitude higher than the electroweak unification. We know that isn’t right…
Gravity is much weaker than EM (not sure about electro-weak) because the electrical charge on a piece of paper (or balloon) can overcome the attraction of a whole planet
@@NeilRieck The energy scale associated with the unification of gravity with electromagnetism is significantly higher than that of the unification of electromagnetism and the nuclear forces. Where the Higg’s field comes from a spontaneous symmetry breaking of the electroweak symmetry, it is natural to see that despite gravity being weaker in everyday situations, the energy scales associated are significantly higher.
@@marfmarfalot5193 I didn't realize that a theory existed where gravity was unified with electromagnetism. "I thought" those people who had postulated the existence of a graviton (hence field) were now going back to Einstein's definition of gravity being something that warped space-time
@@NeilRieck right right… well it’s more of a conjecture for now, but that’s not to say it’s worthless because it’s very well backed by physics up to today. Regarding gravity not as a field… well this idea is most favorable… but regardless there will be what is known as a “natural energy scale” of the force. If you haven’t heard of the electroweak unification for example, its the natural scale at which electromagnetism and the nuclear forces unify together… furthermore at even higher energy scale gravity and the electroweak force are THEORIZED to come together, during inflation. Now the Higg’s field, according to the standard model, is what’s left / comes out spontaneously when the electroweak symmetry is broken. It’s not necessarily a goldstone boson… Maybe you’ll have better luck researching this yourself, but do know that the case exist and is very much so real science.
The reverse side is in the negative side of the suns magnetic field and mass brakeing the wave with it weight force the wave also the reflection inside the locked spin not present on the boson
My latest idea about garvity is that makes Quanta smooth. Quanta are in the set Q (infinit 0, 1/2, -1/2, 1/3. -1/3, 2/3, -2/3...). Gravity changes (transforms) this into set R (reel numbers inclusing Pi etc.). This conclusion comes from a long way of thinking about Gravity and the "bending" of ligth. But it began thinking about the perfect (matmatical) circle. How could it move through a 3D space...
Gravity to a brick carrier is a far different thing than what it is to a theoretical physicist. I wonder how much a few years of carrying hod would change the approach of science?
*here's the thing that seems to be lost on physicists of late ... **_math can propose solutions that can NOT exist in reality!_** YET most (string) physicists DON'T seem to realize(?) this ... Infinities within physics equations mean NOT VALID! just like black holes DO NOT create infinite gravity* UNTIL physicists understand that: 1. gravity is NOT a fundamental force! the graviton does NOT exist! a theory of super gravity DOESN'T exist either! (string, mond, etc) 2. There is NO DARK MATTER OR ENERGY! it's NOT needed! 3. TIME & GRAVITY are emergent properties reliant only on the ammont of matter density (higgs coupled) occupying local 3D space! 4. we live in a 3D+T universe. 3 dimensions of space + time! Time is NOT a dimension! 5. the standard model is incomplete & NOT as well understood as once thought! 6. the overall age & structure of space+time (spacetime) isn't as physics posits either! 👉 UNTIL these biased & indoctrinated paradigms are abandoned, physics will remain stagnate!
@@Inquisite1031 prove me wrong! Where is your graviton? you CAN'T quantize an emergent force that DOES NOT EXIST! Dunning & Krueger are laughing ... at YOU!
Gravity is not math. Math is a language of description. All physics does is reifying mathematical concepts. You will not understand gravity that way because you are describing the effects of gravity, not explaining the cause. One more physicist regurgitating the same crap regurgitated before by other regurgitators. There is no space-time, and especially no curvature of space-time. Space-time is a mathematical construct, and has no material properties. Space-time is a metric; in physics, a metric is a numerical value derived from measurements, a number, a quantity, to be used in math equations to make accurate predictions. Space-time is a number, a quantity used in the field equations of general relativity, not a material which can bend, curve or warp. Those are figures of speech that refer to the illustrations mapping the gravitational field and its effect on how objects move in that field. No one thinks that the curved lines of isobars drawn on a weather map, or the longitudes and latitudes drawn on a globe map represent anything that is physically real, but when it comes to the space-time metric, the concept has been so thoroughly reified in our imaginations that it almost feels like an attack on our reality narrative to be reminded that it’s only a metric. We even have that absurd phrase, the “fabric of space-time” only because those illustrations are drawn with grid lines that resemble an open weave fabric.
Our apologies for re-uploading - Claudia's interview was cut short by about 20 minutes. The entire conversation is published here; we hope you enjoy it!
Claudia has a poetic, philosophic and aphoristic streak that is very appealing.
Such a great interview, Claudia is a star and I’m loving her career arc already. Great questions and interviewer also. Top Notch thanks!!! ✨🌞🦋
This was really great. A simplicity was evoked in genuine love for all that Einstein’s GR has to offer and the offerings that questions of our conventional understanding of GR may bring.
The commonality of simplicity between the two may be useful in bringing about a more fundamental understanding.
Black holes are fascinating objects. Time and space switch roles in the interior of a black hole.
You just summed up gravity, it also happens outside of black holes... Its just gravity
very inspiring
Nice!!
What of gravity is a dequantizing "force"?
Than it pulls AND pushes at the same time.
It is like smoothing everything in spacetime.
Working perpendicular to the center of (any) mass.
Could it be easier to understand gravity be considered an alignment force/field everything accepts to participate with? {Time shared off course!}
Reminder - feeling weightless is based on not having an opponent to challenge the feeling against. {Magnetic attraction logics, by the end points to magnet's self feel!}
Such an extraordinary lady....
Question for Ms. de Rham; what implications of your theory have on the question of whether the "big bang" (letting the big bang theory stand as a given for a moment) happened IN the Higgs Field, or whether the Higgs Field came into being CONSEQUENT to the Big Bang? It's really hard to find a physicist who will actually allow someone as inconsequential as me, to ask these kinds of questions of.
I don’t quite see why her theory would change the natural length scale of gravity being that of many orders of mangitude higher than the electroweak unification. We know that isn’t right…
Gravity is much weaker than EM (not sure about electro-weak) because the electrical charge on a piece of paper (or balloon) can overcome the attraction of a whole planet
@@NeilRieck The energy scale associated with the unification of gravity with electromagnetism is significantly higher than that of the unification of electromagnetism and the nuclear forces. Where the Higg’s field comes from a spontaneous symmetry breaking of the electroweak symmetry, it is natural to see that despite gravity being weaker in everyday situations, the energy scales associated are significantly higher.
@@marfmarfalot5193 I didn't realize that a theory existed where gravity was unified with electromagnetism. "I thought" those people who had postulated the existence of a graviton (hence field) were now going back to Einstein's definition of gravity being something that warped space-time
@@NeilRieck right right… well it’s more of a conjecture for now, but that’s not to say it’s worthless because it’s very well backed by physics up to today. Regarding gravity not as a field… well this idea is most favorable… but regardless there will be what is known as a “natural energy scale” of the force. If you haven’t heard of the electroweak unification for example, its the natural scale at which electromagnetism and the nuclear forces unify together… furthermore at even higher energy scale gravity and the electroweak force are THEORIZED to come together, during inflation. Now the Higg’s field, according to the standard model, is what’s left / comes out spontaneously when the electroweak symmetry is broken. It’s not necessarily a goldstone boson… Maybe you’ll have better luck researching this yourself, but do know that the case exist and is very much so real science.
Yes it's a result of the vacuum energy between a true and false vacuum and quantum fluctuations
The reverse side is in the negative side of the suns magnetic field and mass brakeing the wave with it weight force the wave also the reflection inside the locked spin not present on the boson
Asking if correct
Disappointed to get the interview but not the actual talk.
The talk is also available on their channel
Graviton seems to be quite the right thing second tho
My latest idea about garvity is that makes Quanta smooth.
Quanta are in the set Q (infinit 0, 1/2, -1/2, 1/3. -1/3, 2/3, -2/3...).
Gravity changes (transforms) this into set R (reel numbers inclusing Pi etc.).
This conclusion comes from a long way of thinking about Gravity and the "bending" of ligth.
But it began thinking about the perfect (matmatical) circle. How could it move through a 3D space...
What I am saying is her graviton is my dark matter the physical force of what I described as dark energy
Gravity to a brick carrier is a far different thing than what it is to a theoretical physicist. I wonder how much a few years of carrying hod would change the approach of science?
The anchor starts the interview by letting us know she is not a specialist. An understatement.
What was the point of such an ignorant comment?
Feel better now?
I did breathing too calm my down when i was in at work
*here's the thing that seems to be lost on physicists of late ... **_math can propose solutions that can NOT exist in reality!_** YET most (string) physicists DON'T seem to realize(?) this ... Infinities within physics equations mean NOT VALID! just like black holes DO NOT create infinite gravity*
UNTIL physicists understand that:
1. gravity is NOT a fundamental force! the graviton does NOT exist! a theory of super gravity DOESN'T exist either! (string, mond, etc)
2. There is NO DARK MATTER OR ENERGY! it's NOT needed!
3. TIME & GRAVITY are emergent properties reliant only on the ammont of matter density (higgs coupled) occupying local 3D space!
4. we live in a 3D+T universe. 3 dimensions of space + time! Time is NOT a dimension!
5. the standard model is incomplete & NOT as well understood as once thought!
6. the overall age & structure of space+time (spacetime) isn't as physics posits either!
👉 UNTIL these biased & indoctrinated paradigms are abandoned, physics will remain stagnate!
if this comment is not the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect idk what is lmao
@@Inquisite1031 prove me wrong! Where is your graviton? you CAN'T quantize an emergent force that DOES NOT EXIST! Dunning & Krueger are laughing ... at YOU!
Gravity is not math. Math is a language of description. All physics does is reifying mathematical concepts. You will not understand gravity that way because you are describing the effects of gravity, not explaining the cause. One more physicist regurgitating the same crap regurgitated before by other regurgitators. There is no space-time, and especially no curvature of space-time. Space-time is a mathematical construct, and has no material properties. Space-time is a metric; in physics, a metric is a numerical value derived from measurements, a number, a quantity, to be used in math equations to make accurate predictions. Space-time is a number, a quantity used in the field equations of general relativity, not a material which can bend, curve or warp. Those are figures of speech that refer to the illustrations mapping the gravitational field and its effect on how objects move in that field. No one thinks that the curved lines of isobars drawn on a weather map, or the longitudes and latitudes drawn on a globe map represent anything that is physically real, but when it comes to the space-time metric, the concept has been so thoroughly reified in our imaginations that it almost feels like an attack on our reality narrative to be reminded that it’s only a metric. We even have that absurd phrase, the “fabric of space-time” only because those illustrations are drawn with grid lines that resemble an open weave fabric.
valley girl physics. congrats everybody.