@10:00 the black hole problem is purely mathematical. Two reasons why it _might_ not be a physical problem: (1) All real black holes are rotating incredibly fast, so they are *_all_* Kerr, as such the mathematical singularity is likely not realized physically, and the Penrose theorem is wrong since there are finite affine length null geodesics that do not end on a singularity. (2) Turok and Boyle have this idea that an analytic solution can be found, using extensions of GR to include conformal symmetry (so Einstein-Cartan-Weyl gravity), if they prove to be right then the black hole has a simple conformal (regualr) solution, and again the singularity does not blow-up any actual real physics. Moreover, Kerr is still all mathematical, no one has any clue what truly goes on inside a real Kerr black hole. As Roy Kerr himself said (paraphrased), "It's a hot rapidly rotating mess."
Spin-2 (and all other spins) is nothing but a representation number denoting how a system transforms under the Poincaré group. All spacetime disturbances will be spin-2. They are not necessarily "quantum". They'd be quantum if they can be entangled. But gravity waves are not necessarily entangled, they can be classical waves. Entanglement for gravitons would imply wormholes. Those do not exist macroscopically, if they exist at all it'd be nearer the Planck scale. Lo and behold, the same scale as most fundamental particle theories (Standard Model and Strings alike). Why are gravitons not considered much in SM computations? Because they have bugger all influence. Only under extreme conditions would the graviton interactions become significant, and in those extreme conditions all the other forces have coupling constants that tend to converge, so they all become approximately the same and the particles massless, so the whole issue with gravitons is a bit moot. It is not necessarily wrong to think of gravity waves as gazillions of gravitons, but there is just no need to make that presumption. Gravity is already unified with the other forces if the other forces arise from exchange of local degrees of freedom in the _topology_ of spacetime --- that's why the SM groups are compact groups, they are the forces associated with local gauge symmetry, which implies local topology, they are not associated with the spacetime connection group like GR. In this context gravity was already a quantum theory, it gives the SM as arising from local non-trivial topology, which implies closed timelike curves, whihc implies quantum mechanics statistics for any spacetime cobordism. The trick to unification is to realize gravity is already unified, in the proper spacetime topology context, and the mistake is to try to re-quantize gravity. If you try that you'd expect pathologies like non-renormalizability.
We need to go back to r² and the three-dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. The spherical 4πr² geometry is key to this concept, based on Huygens' Principle from 1670, which states: "Every point on a wave front of light has the potential to create a new spherical light wave." Each point on the curvature of the wave front can be considered a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction exchanging potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter in the form of electrons. This can be based on E=MC² with the squaring of the speed of light representing a geometrical process forming a square of probability Ψ² We experienced this as a continuously emerging probabilistic future 'time' with the spherical 4πr² surface acting as a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆x∆pᵪ≥h/4π encountered in daily life.
@10:00 again.. general relativity is a mathematical model. It does not "say" anything about physical reality... unless it is an exact model. It can _suggest_ a few probably very accurate things about physical reality. But it does not tell us information gets trapped inside BH's. In fact, GR permits wormholes that are stable at the Planck scale, since they'd be "minimal" and so cannot Hawking evaporate. These would provide "quantum mechanical" tunneling of information out of the black hole without causing an AMPS firewall. Susskind seems to think so at least. The BHIP is really about knowing entanglement better, and how to count states without over-counting, and elemental wormholes _are_ the GR analogue for entanglement.
Gravity does not escape a black hole. There is no movement in a static gravitational field. It actually creates the black hole. By the way, electric charge of a black hole is equally detectable as its mass, so you might say that electrostatic force also "escapes" but it would be equally wrong.
Action is dual to reaction -- forces are dual. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), stretch is dual to squeeze, push is dual to pull -- all forces are dual. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic. Generalization (waves, Bosons) is dual to localization (particles, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Communication, languages -- syntax is dual to semantics. All forms of communication are dual as they have form (syntax) and substance (semantics). Photons which are messages are dual. Quantum communication is dual to gravitational communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (form, syntax) are dual to sets (substance, semantics) -- category theory. All numbers fall within the complex plane. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. All numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Yes, I've thought the same thing. If nothing, not even information can escape the gravity of a black hole, then how the heck do stars and other bodies know the black hole is there if nothing can escape? Information about the black hole has to escape in order for anything to orbit it.
@11:05 that "noise" is not physical. It is noise relative to our measurement precision. Nature does not care about our measurement instrument precision and so has no compulsion to generate gravity noise for us! Unitarity is not an issue, except for an instrumentalist.
In this theory, gravity is resonance emerging from the interactions between light photons ∆E=hf energy of electromagnetic fields and the electron sphere 4πr² encircling the atomic nucleus. The electrons e² of atoms are temporal standing waves in time, and their interaction with spherical light waves generates particle characteristics and resonance, manifesting as photon-electron coupling or a dipole moment. This interaction slightly alters our three-dimensional reality by converting potential photon energy into the kinetic energy of matter Eₖ=½mv², forming a constantly evolving probabilistic ∆x∆pᵪ≥h/4π future.
Gravity and light are the pro primal perfect partners - in the cosmic ballroom: like Fred Ginger creating so many amalgamations in the dance of lovers! He proposes - she disposes! He makes the space and she enters - the COSMIC TANGO!
Gravity can often be quantization since all MASS is quantized by nucleons. But since energy also curves space there can be smaller than unitary contributions to the curve.
Gravity at quantum level is same at macro but effects are less because the mass of particles are less than the mass of the sun? For example. Gravitation is a manifestation of space time curvature Gravitation cannot be unified with electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions; however, they all can interact. The graviton does not exist Space time flows, propagating like a wave. Interacting gravitational fields produce gravitational waves which are ripples in space time Space time flows like an ocean. Gravitation propagates like an ocean and gravitational waves propagates like waves, ripples in space time Space time is comprised of the fabric of space and time
Thre are two string theories: for gravity and for stron force. I don't have enough knowledge but I assume that this is because of similarities of these two fields. In both cases force is attractive. And what is more important both graviton and gluon are also carriers of its fields. I think that because of these features string theory makes sense. Next thing is that we know that gluon have spin 1/2. So possible that graviton could also have spin 1/2 as this is smallest particle with gravitational "charge".
The idea of carriers is a result of gauge theory, however, in the geometric chronon field theory, the carriers are the chronons themselves, i.e. events, and what we call Bosons, are actually null fields which can quantize forces but are not exactly force carriers.
All forces are dual! Action is dual to reaction -- forces are dual. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), stretch is dual to squeeze, push is dual to pull -- all forces are dual. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic. Generalization (waves, Bosons) is dual to localization (particles, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Communication, languages -- syntax is dual to semantics. All forms of communication are dual as they have form (syntax) and substance (semantics). Photons which are messages are dual. Quantum communication is dual to gravitational communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (form, syntax) are dual to sets (substance, semantics) -- category theory. All numbers fall within the complex plane. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. All numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. If forces are dual then energy is dual:- Energy = forces * distance -- simple physics. Synergy is dual to energy. Convergent energy (synergy) is dual to divergent energy. Energy is duality, duality is energy.
Einstein questioned realistically, if the moon really existed when it was not directly observed. Was he not also questioning if gravity and quantum gravity also exist when not directly observed? The quantum gravity field in any spacetime, surrounds a subatomic particle as probabilistic as the wave particle location(gravity and light arrive together LIGO observation). Dimensionally space must be as described in string theory 11D (Juan Maldacena, Sussy et al). What does 11D look like at the Planck scales to the directly observable scale?
Ah, but gravity can be quantized and has been quantized. If you start with Ashtekar variables (connections) rather than the metric, the procedure leads straight to loop quantum gravity. The problem arises at the point of interpretation, including time in the picture, and making verifiable predictions.
@@DrDeuteron if I understand it correctly, Ashtekar variables are connection symbols on the 3D space slice in the canonical 3+1 ADM decomposition of GR spacetime.
Gravity is not quantized because it doesn't even exist. Space-time does exist however and it seems to be quantized as quantum "particles" (standing waves for spin 1/2 particles, regular waves for gauge bosons, which are not truly quantum on themselves but only in their interactions with fermions, IMO).
@@arctic_haze I think he means that gravity is an emergent phenomena of curvature of space time. Gravity is nothing more than spacetime curvature. He did say that spacetime does exists. Therefore he believes in gravity.
@@arctic_haze Of course not. "Gravity" does not exist as a physical force, it is the curvature of space-time, at least that's what our best and only proven theory of gravity (Einstein's General Relativity) states. Quantum Mechanic's fanatics are often determined to "prove Einstein wrong" and force some sort of "particle" (graviton usually) into the issue, but gravitons are not needed for anything (and have many issues). They are also the ones who treat "gravity" as a "force", Newton-style, while at the same time accusing General Relativity of being "classical" (i.e. Newtonian) just because it's not quantized and they have blind faith that it should be. So nope: real physics also says that "gravity does not exist" (as such and probably also as a force, as Newton and Kepler imagined it), it sorta exists but as curvature of space-time, which is not really "gravity" nor a force, it's just geometry and most definitely not flat geometry.
@@jewulo Gravity is a measurable phenomenon so you cannot say "it doesn't even exist". That statement is beyond ridiculous. The question whether it is a force is a different thing. It is not a force in local free-falling frames of reference (which General Relativity treats as inertial ones). But in every other frame of reference (like the Earth surface) it is a thing. You may call it a fictitious force (like the Coriolis and centrifugal forces) but they all are measurable and therefore definitely exist. This is why I prefer the name "inertial forces".
Action is dual to reaction -- forces are dual. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), stretch is dual to squeeze, push is dual to pull -- all forces are dual. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic. Generalization (waves, Bosons) is dual to localization (particles, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Communication, languages -- syntax is dual to semantics. All forms of communication are dual as they have form (syntax) and substance (semantics). Photons which are messages are dual. Quantum communication is dual to gravitational communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (form, syntax) are dual to sets (substance, semantics) -- category theory. All numbers fall within the complex plane. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. All numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
I believe the real reason why gravity can't be quantized is because the action causing gravity doesn't emerge until mass reaches a certain density and takes on a large spherical shape. Atoms don't contain enough mass to produce the action leading to the reaction of gravity. Gravity isn't a force, it's a reaction. So gravity can't be quantized. Atoms are attracted not by gravity but because of static electricity, like rubbing your hair with a balloon. When spherically shaped mass reaches a radius of a few miles, gravity emerges as a reaction. The reason why gravity can't explain the motion of stars and galaxies is because general relativity never addresses the action causing gravity in large mass. Sure, it perfectly explains the motion and trajectory of planets, moons and other small bodies in our solar system but can't explain 95% of the motion and trajectories occurring to large bodies like stars and galaxies. Thus it can't explain gravity at the quantum scale nor can it explain gravity on the large scales of stars and galaxies. In 2004 I postulated this hypothesis, then revised general relativity to include this simple action and the predictions made by relativity changed drastically. I postulated, if I was right then the JWST would find old, fully grown galaxies as far as it's able to see, even further than 13.8 billion light years away. I wrote and published the paperback book titled SECRET UNIVERSE : GRAVITY by RON KEMP almost a year before the first CEERS survey was released. On page 48 I wrote quote "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." Then last year the JWST discovered galaxy F200DB-045. It's a supermassive galaxy, 20 times larger than the Milky Way having a redshift of z=20.4. Using the speed of light at 299,792.458 km/s times 20.4 we get a receding velocity of 6,115,766 km/s. Then when we divide it by the Hubble constant of 73.4 km/s per megaparsec we get a distance of 83,321.064621253405994550408719346 megaparsecs away from us. A megaparsec is 3,260,000 light years. So to determine it's light distance we take 83,321.064621253405994550408719346 megaparsecs and multiply it by 3,260,000 light years and we get a light distance of 271,626,670,665.286 light years away. That's much, much further than the age of the universe if the speed of light is 299,792.458 km/s. The galaxy puts into question, the big bang theory, age of the universe, rapid cosmic inflation, relativity's look-back time, speed of light, 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the evolutionary cosmological model of the universe. The galaxy was referred to as a universe breaker because it broke all the theories and laws of physics. How can the galaxy have such a high redshift and still be seen by the JWST if it's at a light distance further than 271 billion light years away? Impossible early galaxy indeed. The galaxy is larger than our own Milky Way. The galaxy should not exist before the big bang. This is why astronomers like Gupta wish to push the big bang back further in time. The galaxies the JWST found are way too massive and too far away to be explained if the universe is only 13.8 billion years old and light takes time to travel. Yet, i accurately predicted the old, massive galaxies as far as the telescope is able to see, even further than 13.8 billion light years away, the age the universe was supposed to be.
Well, the gravitational constant was discovered by means of lead balls, not planets, so gravity does exist on a smaller scale. Atoms, no, very likely not.
@@jaycorrales5329godam academia and universities and the elite hindering our progress and chosing where to allocate resources and keeping knowledge secret. Eric Weinstein talks about this and how Gislaine Maxwell's dad was involved in that, he supposedly colluded with a Martin as in Lockheed Martin and monopolized textbooks and turned universities into a ponzi scheme. Plus we're becoming gay as a society so we can't make the ethically questionable experiments and bombs that we did before. All this calls for a science revolution, we need to move beyond stupid einstein and stupid strings and creating imaginary dimensions.
I've always had a feeling that gravity and time don't exist, one as you said is a consequence of other actions and time is just a tool we use to keep track of things, it's just a journal.
@@ethanellis465 When you are asked to eplain a horse and your answer that a horse doesn't have horns, you are right but you haven't explained a horse. Newton and Einstein explained gravity, which doesn't explain gravity.
Seems the concept of gravity as not actually fundamental but emergent (from entropy?) and thus impossible to quantize, is getting some traction.
@10:00 the black hole problem is purely mathematical. Two reasons why it _might_ not be a physical problem: (1) All real black holes are rotating incredibly fast, so they are *_all_* Kerr, as such the mathematical singularity is likely not realized physically, and the Penrose theorem is wrong since there are finite affine length null geodesics that do not end on a singularity.
(2) Turok and Boyle have this idea that an analytic solution can be found, using extensions of GR to include conformal symmetry (so Einstein-Cartan-Weyl gravity), if they prove to be right then the black hole has a simple conformal (regualr) solution, and again the singularity does not blow-up any actual real physics.
Moreover, Kerr is still all mathematical, no one has any clue what truly goes on inside a real Kerr black hole. As Roy Kerr himself said (paraphrased), "It's a hot rapidly rotating mess."
Kerr to Schwarzschild to white transition during the thermal death
Spin-2 (and all other spins) is nothing but a representation number denoting how a system transforms under the Poincaré group. All spacetime disturbances will be spin-2. They are not necessarily "quantum". They'd be quantum if they can be entangled. But gravity waves are not necessarily entangled, they can be classical waves. Entanglement for gravitons would imply wormholes. Those do not exist macroscopically, if they exist at all it'd be nearer the Planck scale. Lo and behold, the same scale as most fundamental particle theories (Standard Model and Strings alike). Why are gravitons not considered much in SM computations? Because they have bugger all influence. Only under extreme conditions would the graviton interactions become significant, and in those extreme conditions all the other forces have coupling constants that tend to converge, so they all become approximately the same and the particles massless, so the whole issue with gravitons is a bit moot.
It is not necessarily wrong to think of gravity waves as gazillions of gravitons, but there is just no need to make that presumption. Gravity is already unified with the other forces if the other forces arise from exchange of local degrees of freedom in the _topology_ of spacetime --- that's why the SM groups are compact groups, they are the forces associated with local gauge symmetry, which implies local topology, they are not associated with the spacetime connection group like GR. In this context gravity was already a quantum theory, it gives the SM as arising from local non-trivial topology, which implies closed timelike curves, whihc implies quantum mechanics statistics for any spacetime cobordism. The trick to unification is to realize gravity is already unified, in the proper spacetime topology context, and the mistake is to try to re-quantize gravity. If you try that you'd expect pathologies like non-renormalizability.
We need to go back to r² and the three-dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. The spherical 4πr² geometry is key to this concept, based on Huygens' Principle from 1670, which states: "Every point on a wave front of light has the potential to create a new spherical light wave." Each point on the curvature of the wave front can be considered a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction exchanging potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter in the form of electrons.
This can be based on E=MC² with the squaring of the speed of light representing a geometrical process forming a square of probability Ψ²
We experienced this as a continuously emerging probabilistic future 'time' with the spherical 4πr² surface acting as a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆x∆pᵪ≥h/4π encountered in daily life.
@10:00 again.. general relativity is a mathematical model. It does not "say" anything about physical reality... unless it is an exact model. It can _suggest_ a few probably very accurate things about physical reality. But it does not tell us information gets trapped inside BH's. In fact, GR permits wormholes that are stable at the Planck scale, since they'd be "minimal" and so cannot Hawking evaporate. These would provide "quantum mechanical" tunneling of information out of the black hole without causing an AMPS firewall. Susskind seems to think so at least. The BHIP is really about knowing entanglement better, and how to count states without over-counting, and elemental wormholes _are_ the GR analogue for entanglement.
Nothing can escape a Black Hole -- except gravity.
Which makes me wonder what gravity is.
Gravity does not escape a black hole. There is no movement in a static gravitational field. It actually creates the black hole. By the way, electric charge of a black hole is equally detectable as its mass, so you might say that electrostatic force also "escapes" but it would be equally wrong.
What about Hawking radiations ?
@@En_theo It does not escape from below the event horizon. Rather pairs of photons are created, one above and one below the horizon.
Action is dual to reaction -- forces are dual.
Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), stretch is dual to squeeze, push is dual to pull -- all forces are dual.
Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic.
Generalization (waves, Bosons) is dual to localization (particles, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Communication, languages -- syntax is dual to semantics.
All forms of communication are dual as they have form (syntax) and substance (semantics).
Photons which are messages are dual.
Quantum communication is dual to gravitational communication.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (form, syntax) are dual to sets (substance, semantics) -- category theory.
All numbers fall within the complex plane.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
All numbers are dual.
The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Yes, I've thought the same thing. If nothing, not even information can escape the gravity of a black hole, then how the heck do stars and other bodies know the black hole is there if nothing can escape? Information about the black hole has to escape in order for anything to orbit it.
@11:05 that "noise" is not physical. It is noise relative to our measurement precision. Nature does not care about our measurement instrument precision and so has no compulsion to generate gravity noise for us! Unitarity is not an issue, except for an instrumentalist.
In this theory, gravity is resonance emerging from the interactions between light photons ∆E=hf energy of electromagnetic fields and the electron sphere 4πr² encircling the atomic nucleus. The electrons e² of atoms are temporal standing waves in time, and their interaction with spherical light waves generates particle characteristics and resonance, manifesting as photon-electron coupling or a dipole moment. This interaction slightly alters our three-dimensional reality by converting potential photon energy into the kinetic energy of matter Eₖ=½mv², forming a constantly evolving probabilistic ∆x∆pᵪ≥h/4π future.
Gravity and light are the pro primal perfect partners - in the cosmic ballroom: like Fred Ginger creating so many amalgamations in the dance of lovers! He proposes - she disposes! He makes the space and she enters - the COSMIC TANGO!
Gravity can often be quantization since all MASS is quantized by nucleons.
But since energy also curves space there can be smaller than unitary contributions to the curve.
Gravity is the blackboard for light to draw on .
Gravity at quantum level is same at macro but effects are less because the mass of particles are less than the mass of the sun? For example. Gravitation is a manifestation of space time curvature
Gravitation cannot be unified with electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions; however, they all can interact.
The graviton does not exist
Space time flows, propagating like a wave. Interacting gravitational fields produce gravitational waves which are ripples in space time
Space time flows like an ocean. Gravitation propagates like an ocean and gravitational waves propagates like waves, ripples in space time
Space time is comprised of the fabric of space and time
Ferent Quantum Gravity
The gravitational field can fluctuate as well as time
Thre are two string theories: for gravity and for stron force. I don't have enough knowledge but I assume that this is because of similarities of these two fields. In both cases force is attractive. And what is more important both graviton and gluon are also carriers of its fields. I think that because of these features string theory makes sense. Next thing is that we know that gluon have spin 1/2. So possible that graviton could also have spin 1/2 as this is smallest particle with gravitational "charge".
The idea of carriers is a result of gauge theory, however, in the geometric chronon field theory, the carriers are the chronons themselves, i.e. events, and what we call Bosons, are actually null fields which can quantize forces but are not exactly force carriers.
All forces are dual!
Action is dual to reaction -- forces are dual.
Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), stretch is dual to squeeze, push is dual to pull -- all forces are dual.
Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic.
Generalization (waves, Bosons) is dual to localization (particles, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Communication, languages -- syntax is dual to semantics.
All forms of communication are dual as they have form (syntax) and substance (semantics).
Photons which are messages are dual.
Quantum communication is dual to gravitational communication.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (form, syntax) are dual to sets (substance, semantics) -- category theory.
All numbers fall within the complex plane.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
All numbers are dual.
The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
If forces are dual then energy is dual:-
Energy = forces * distance -- simple physics.
Synergy is dual to energy.
Convergent energy (synergy) is dual to divergent energy.
Energy is duality, duality is energy.
Einstein questioned realistically, if the moon really existed when it was not directly observed. Was he not also questioning if gravity and quantum gravity also exist when not directly observed? The quantum gravity field in any spacetime, surrounds a subatomic particle as probabilistic as the wave particle location(gravity and light arrive together LIGO observation). Dimensionally space must be as described in string theory 11D (Juan Maldacena, Sussy et al). What does 11D look like at the Planck scales to the directly observable scale?
Well, renormalizing is kind of useful? It is kind of also a desperate solution to fix math by discarding parts of it. It is a complex topic.
Ah, but gravity can be quantized and has been quantized. If you start with Ashtekar variables (connections) rather than the metric, the procedure leads straight to loop quantum gravity. The problem arises at the point of interpretation, including time in the picture, and making verifiable predictions.
Can you explain what an ashtekar variable is?
@@DrDeuteron if I understand it correctly, Ashtekar variables are connection symbols on the 3D space slice in the canonical 3+1 ADM decomposition of GR spacetime.
@@zdzislawmeglicki2262 Took GR from Kip, and I vaguely remember him talking about foliated space slices, but yeah MTW is a big book for 1 year.
Gravity is not quantized because it doesn't even exist. Space-time does exist however and it seems to be quantized as quantum "particles" (standing waves for spin 1/2 particles, regular waves for gauge bosons, which are not truly quantum on themselves but only in their interactions with fermions, IMO).
Are you a flat earther? They are the only people I have heard of who say gravity does not exist.
@@arctic_haze I think he means that gravity is an emergent phenomena of curvature of space time. Gravity is nothing more than spacetime curvature. He did say that spacetime does exists. Therefore he believes in gravity.
@@arctic_haze Of course not. "Gravity" does not exist as a physical force, it is the curvature of space-time, at least that's what our best and only proven theory of gravity (Einstein's General Relativity) states.
Quantum Mechanic's fanatics are often determined to "prove Einstein wrong" and force some sort of "particle" (graviton usually) into the issue, but gravitons are not needed for anything (and have many issues). They are also the ones who treat "gravity" as a "force", Newton-style, while at the same time accusing General Relativity of being "classical" (i.e. Newtonian) just because it's not quantized and they have blind faith that it should be.
So nope: real physics also says that "gravity does not exist" (as such and probably also as a force, as Newton and Kepler imagined it), it sorta exists but as curvature of space-time, which is not really "gravity" nor a force, it's just geometry and most definitely not flat geometry.
@@jewulo Gravity is a measurable phenomenon so you cannot say "it doesn't even exist". That statement is beyond ridiculous. The question whether it is a force is a different thing. It is not a force in local free-falling frames of reference (which General Relativity treats as inertial ones). But in every other frame of reference (like the Earth surface) it is a thing. You may call it a fictitious force (like the Coriolis and centrifugal forces) but they all are measurable and therefore definitely exist. This is why I prefer the name "inertial forces".
Action is dual to reaction -- forces are dual.
Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), stretch is dual to squeeze, push is dual to pull -- all forces are dual.
Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic.
Generalization (waves, Bosons) is dual to localization (particles, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Communication, languages -- syntax is dual to semantics.
All forms of communication are dual as they have form (syntax) and substance (semantics).
Photons which are messages are dual.
Quantum communication is dual to gravitational communication.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (form, syntax) are dual to sets (substance, semantics) -- category theory.
All numbers fall within the complex plane.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
All numbers are dual.
The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
I believe the real reason why gravity can't be quantized is because the action causing gravity doesn't emerge until mass reaches a certain density and takes on a large spherical shape. Atoms don't contain enough mass to produce the action leading to the reaction of gravity. Gravity isn't a force, it's a reaction. So gravity can't be quantized.
Atoms are attracted not by gravity but because of static electricity, like rubbing your hair with a balloon. When spherically shaped mass reaches a radius of a few miles, gravity emerges as a reaction.
The reason why gravity can't explain the motion of stars and galaxies is because general relativity never addresses the action causing gravity in large mass. Sure, it perfectly explains the motion and trajectory of planets, moons and other small bodies in our solar system but can't explain 95% of the motion and trajectories occurring to large bodies like stars and galaxies. Thus it can't explain gravity at the quantum scale nor can it explain gravity on the large scales of stars and galaxies.
In 2004 I postulated this hypothesis, then revised general relativity to include this simple action and the predictions made by relativity changed drastically. I postulated, if I was right then the JWST would find old, fully grown galaxies as far as it's able to see, even further than 13.8 billion light years away.
I wrote and published the paperback book titled SECRET UNIVERSE : GRAVITY by RON KEMP almost a year before the first CEERS survey was released. On page 48 I wrote quote "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."
Then last year the JWST discovered galaxy F200DB-045. It's a supermassive galaxy, 20 times larger than the Milky Way having a redshift of z=20.4. Using the speed of light at 299,792.458 km/s times 20.4 we get a receding velocity of 6,115,766 km/s. Then when we divide it by the Hubble constant of 73.4 km/s per megaparsec we get a distance of 83,321.064621253405994550408719346 megaparsecs away from us. A megaparsec is 3,260,000 light years. So to determine it's light distance we take 83,321.064621253405994550408719346 megaparsecs and multiply it by 3,260,000 light years and we get a light distance of 271,626,670,665.286 light years away. That's much, much further than the age of the universe if the speed of light is 299,792.458 km/s.
The galaxy puts into question, the big bang theory, age of the universe, rapid cosmic inflation, relativity's look-back time, speed of light, 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the evolutionary cosmological model of the universe. The galaxy was referred to as a universe breaker because it broke all the theories and laws of physics. How can the galaxy have such a high redshift and still be seen by the JWST if it's at a light distance further than 271 billion light years away? Impossible early galaxy indeed. The galaxy is larger than our own Milky Way. The galaxy should not exist before the big bang.
This is why astronomers like Gupta wish to push the big bang back further in time. The galaxies the JWST found are way too massive and too far away to be explained if the universe is only 13.8 billion years old and light takes time to travel. Yet, i accurately predicted the old, massive galaxies as far as the telescope is able to see, even further than 13.8 billion light years away, the age the universe was supposed to be.
What about the cavendish experiment.
Well, the gravitational constant was discovered by means of lead balls, not planets, so gravity does exist on a smaller scale. Atoms, no, very likely not.
@@user-wn7wi8bl6fYah I commented the same thing.
@@jaycorrales5329godam academia and universities and the elite hindering our progress and chosing where to allocate resources and keeping knowledge secret. Eric Weinstein talks about this and how Gislaine Maxwell's dad was involved in that, he supposedly colluded with a Martin as in Lockheed Martin and monopolized textbooks and turned universities into a ponzi scheme. Plus we're becoming gay as a society so we can't make the ethically questionable experiments and bombs that we did before.
All this calls for a science revolution, we need to move beyond stupid einstein and stupid strings and creating imaginary dimensions.
I've always had a feeling that gravity and time don't exist, one as you said is a consequence of other actions and time is just a tool we use to keep track of things, it's just a journal.
That we don't know what gravity is doesn't need any explanation.
Explain
Phhhh, you’re falling, no matter.
This is exactly why we need an explanation.
? Ur down
@@ethanellis465 When you are asked to eplain a horse and your answer that a horse doesn't have horns, you are right but you haven't explained a horse. Newton and Einstein explained gravity, which doesn't explain gravity.