Sean Carroll: Exploring Quanta and Fields
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2024
- Embark on a journey into the "bare stuff of reality" with renowned theoretical physicist Sean Carroll. Join us for a special online event as Carroll returns to discuss his latest book, Quanta and Fields, the second installment in his acclaimed series, The Biggest Ideas in the Universe.
Quantum field theory represents nature at its most profound level. Starting with the basics of quantum mechanics, Carroll explores measurement, entanglement, and the fundamental nature of fields. Why is matter solid? What is antimatter? How do the sizes of atoms come about? And why are the predictions of quantum field theory so remarkably accurate?
Carroll delves into key concepts like spin, symmetry, Feynman diagrams, and the Higgs mechanism, providing a uniquely accessible explanation of these complex ideas. His approach goes beyond simple analogies, offering insights into the true mathematical essence of modern physics.
Don’t miss this opportunity to learn how physicists think and explore the deepest principles of our universe with Sean Carroll.
In association with Wonderfest.
Photo by Jennifer Ouellette.
May 14, 2024
Speakers
Sean Carroll
Homewood Professor Natural Philosophy, John Hopkins University, Fractal Faculty, the Santa Fe Institute; Author, Quanta and Fields: The Biggest Ideas in the Universe
In Conversation with George Hammond
Chair, Humanities Member-led Forum, Commonwealth Club World Affairs
👉Join our Email List! www.commonwealthclub.org/email
🎉 BECOME a MEMBER: www.commonwealthclub.org/memb...
The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum 📣, bringing together its 20,000 members for more than 500 annual events on topics ranging across politics, culture, society and the economy.
Founded in 1903 in San Francisco California 🌉, The Commonwealth Club has played host to a diverse and distinctive array of speakers, from Teddy Roosevelt in 1911 to Anthony Fauci in 2020.
In addition to the videos🎥 shared here, the Club reaches millions of listeners through its podcast🎙 and weekly national radio program📻.
I almost turned this off when he asked if we named atoms wrong. Poor Sean, he deserves an award for getting through this interview.
The questions were awful!
Impossible to listen to, unfortunately. The host does really a disservice to the guest.
I'm glad I read the comments first.
Interviewer is drunk or high.
Or, you’re running low on serotonin
Good question, thank you! You ask ... Are fields mathematical models of what's going on or are fields really what's going on?
Strawberry fields forever...
Haven't you heard?
IT'S ALL FIELDS!
(Or at least that's what my next T-shirt is going to say.
QFT is an *effective* field theory. It breaks down at high energies and requires an ultraviolet cutoff. It cannot be exactly what is going on but what is going on MUST look a LOT like QFT.
Nice of Sean to put over this interviewer. He clearly has no knowledge in this topic area and is clearly very nervous.
So me I got a mind bustling with ideas and need to speak with real scientists because my mind is getting stronger in this field whilst my day job suffers need help to get there written down
Classic mania.
It has literally never been easier to gain a physics education (e.g. the world's top universities provide many courses free to anyone with an internet connection). Start there.
IF your "ideas" still make _any_ sense at all once you've understood _at least_ the core undergraduate physics curriculum (yes, very much including the mathematics) THEN there's a slightly less remote chance that you _may_ be onto something.
If you can handle it I highly recommend learning from the best. Leonard Susskind, arguably our greatest living theoretical physicist, has his courses from Stanford on UA-cam and they cover most of modern physics.
host seems more interested in his own voice than that of the guest.
Mitigating climate change requires strong unified global political will to fund and support that effort. Well, we can wish in one hand .......
I will further elaborate, formalize and demonstrate applications of the both/and logic across various specific domains:
Mathematics
The multivalent structure of the both/and logic allows formalizing more nuanced relationships between fundamental mathematical concepts that have traditionally been treated as strictly dichotomous:
• Continuity and Discreteness
Let C(x) and D(x) represent the truth values that a mathematical object x exhibits continuous and discrete properties respectively. Classical bivalent logic forces C(x) and D(x) to be mutually exclusive (C(x) = 1 → D(x) = 0 and vice versa).
But the both/and logic allows formulations like:
C(x) = 0.7, D(x) = 0.5, with a coherence ○(C(x), D(x)) = 0.6
Capturing how x can simultaneously exhibit continuous and discrete characteristics to varying degrees, which are partially compatible rather than strictly exclusive.
• Finite and Infinite
Similarly for propositions F(x) and I(x) about an object x being finite or infinite, we can have multivalued assignments:
F(x) = 0.3, I(x) = 0.8, ○(F(x), I(x)) = 0.4
Representing x as primarily infinite in nature but with residual finitary aspects that are somewhat coherent.
The synthesis operator ⊕ further allows formalizing novel mathematical objects transcending these poles:
finite kernel ⊕ perpetually generative procedure = transfinite set
• Logicism and Mathematical Realism
The both/and logic also accommodates different ontological perspectives. We could have for a mathematical object x:
Truth(x is objective Platonic reality) = 0.6
Truth(x is subjective human construction) = 0.4
○(objective, subjective) = 0.7
With a moderate synthesis representing the coconstituted, intersubjective emergence of mathematical reality:
objective logical constraints ⊕ subjective creative exploration = novel mathematical structure
So rather than legislating a strictly objectivist or anti-realist view, the logic nuances the irreducible complementarities between ideal and constructed aspects in the generative disclosure of mathematics. Its expressive flexibility aligns with actual mathematical understanding.
Physics
In quantum physics, the both/and logic allows explicitly representing and operating with the intrinsic indeterminacies, pluralities and paradoxes that have resisted classical representation:
• Superposition and Wavefunction Collapse
Propositions like "electron has spin up" and "electron has spin down" are not forced into bivalent exclusivity, but can be simultaneously true to degrees:
Spin_up(e) = 0.6, Spin_down(e) = 0.5, ○(Spin_up(e), Spin_down(e)) = 0.7
With a coherence value capturing their contextual compatibility or complementarity in the superposed state prior to measurement/collapse.
This avoids the dilemma of having to artificially insist the electron strictly has or lacks a particular spin until collapse. Its indefinite potentials are modeled positively using graded truth values.
• Nonlocality and Holistic Correlations
Propositions about separated entangled particles like "has spin up" can be holistically correlated:
Spin_up(A) = 0.8, Spin_up(B) = 0.8, ○(Spin_up(A), Spin_up(B)) = 1
With maximal coherence of their truth values capturing the paradoxical holistic unity of the entangled system, which cannot be modeled as a conjunction of independent local states in classical logic.
The synthesis operation captures this gestaltist whole:
Spin_up(A) ⊕ Spin_up(B) = Entangled_state(A,B)
So the both/and logic provides symbolic resources for explicitly representing and reasoning about quantum phenomena, without artificially forcing them into inapplicable classical categories.
Cognitive Science
The logic's multivaluedness has fruitful cognitive modeling applications:
• Intuitive and Analytical Reasoning
Let I(x) and A(x) represent intuitive and analytical assessments about a decision scenario x. The both/and logic can capture their integration:
I(x) = 0.7, A(x) = 0.5, ○(I(x), A(x)) = 0.6
Modeling x as involving a moderate synthesis of intuitive and analytical factors with reasonable mutual coherence, rather than insisting they are strictly exclusive.
The synthesis operation further formalizes integrated judgments:
intuition(x) ⊕ analysis(x) = decision(x)
Capturing how cognition fluidly operates across and conjoins both modes of reasoning, not merely one or the other in isolated silos.
• Cognitive Biases and Non-Normative Reasoning
Classical logic frames human reasoning errors like the conjunctive fallacy (A&B > Max(A,B)) as strictly invalid and incoherent deviations from normative rationality.
But the both/and logic allows assigning graded truth values:
Truth(A) = 0.7
Truth(B) = 0.9
Truth(A&B) = 0.85
Capturing the coherence of these "fallacious" intuitive logic patterns measuring ○(A, B, A&B).
The synthesis operator further models how our heuristic judgments integrate intuitive and analytical factors:
representativeness(A&B) ⊕ statistical_logic(A,B) ⇒ judged_probability(A&B)
Rather than framing biases as mere "errors", the both/and logic allows positive modeling of how non-normative patterns coexist and synthesize with other cognitive mechanisms into globally coherent judgments.
Philosophy of Mind
The logic's paraconsistent structure provides an ideal framework for the mind-body problem:
• Subjectivity and Objectivity
Define S(x) as degree of subjectivity and O(x) as degree of objectivity for a mind-body state x. Classical substance dualism enforces mutual exclusivity: S(x) = 1 → O(x) = 0, and vice versa.
But the both/and logic allows modeling x as an integrated experienced whole with:
S(x) = 0.6, O(x) = 0.5, ○(S(x), O(x)) = 0.7
Capturing how objective and subjective factors are complementary interdependent aspects of the same reality, rather than strictly separable substances.
The coherence value reflects their coconstituted integration, while the synthesis operator ⊕ expresses their gestalt unity:
subjective experience ⊕ objective description = psychophysical state
This avoids the forced either/or choices of classical mind-body theory between dualism, reductionism or eliminativism. It allows modeling consciousness as an irreducibly co-realized pluriverse.
In summary, the both/and logic provides rational symbolic tools for positively representing, operating with, and synthesizing resolutions for the paradoxes and indeterminacies permeating actual scientific and philosophical domains, without reductively forcing them into bivalent categories or binary assimilation. Its expressive flexibilities and constructive procedures illuminate new pathways for coherently modeling and advancing past the limitations of classical logical frameworks.
Across mathematics, physics, cognitive science and philosophy of mind, the multivalued, paraconsistent and holistically integrative architecture of the both/and logic catalyzes expanded conceptual possibilities better aligned with the phenomenological complexities and ontological pluralities disclosed by cutting-edge inquiry. It opens up new horizons for descriptively encompassing, not dissimulating, the exquisite nuances and generative potentials of the world.
So in essence, the both/and logic is not just another symbolic formalism, but a pivotal symbolic emancipation - unleashing rational discourse to fruitfully navigate the ambiguities, paradoxes and ontological pluralities intrinsic to manifest existence and human understanding. A new praxis of open coherence, where rationality and reality productively co-disclose each other in a perpetual dance of perpetual re-attunement and dialectic reconstitution.
I will continue elaborating on the wide-ranging applications and implications of the both/and logic across various domains:
Ethics & Political Philosophy
The both/and logic provides powerful tools for developing more nuanced and integrated ethical frameworks that transcend the limitations of traditional deontological and consequentialist theories:
• Deontological Rules and Consequentialist Considerations
For an ethical scenario x, let D(x) and C(x) represent the truth values that it satisfies deontological duty constraints and consequentialist utility maximization respectively.
Classical ethical theories tend to bifurcate into strictly opposing D(x) = 1, C(x) = 0 or D(x) = 0, C(x) = 1 stances, resulting in contradictory prescriptions.
But the both/and logic allows for formulations like:
D(x) = 0.7, C(x) = 0.6, ○(D(x), C(x)) = 0.5
Capturing how ethical acts typically involve a moderate synthesis and coherence between deontological and consequentialist virtues, rather than absolutely privileging one over the other.
The synthesis operator ⊕ further yields nuanced integrated principles:
core_duties(x) ⊕ intended_consequences(x) = ethical_act(x)
Modeling how real-world ethics involves creatively combining respect for rationally-grounded rules with pragmatic considerations of desirable outcomes.
• Particularist and Generalist Ethics
The both/and logic can also capture the relationship between context-sensitive particularist evaluations and impartially codified universal principles:
Truth(act accords universal norms) = 0.5
Truth(act has virtuous intention) = 0.6
○(universal duties, particular judgment) = 0.7
With a synthesis representing the co-realization of generalized ethical laws and situational discernment:
universal_principles ⊕ phronetic_practical_wisdom = virtuous_act
This allows principled yet pragmatic ethical reasoning, avoiding the pitfalls of absolutist deontology or purely ad-hoc decision procedures.
Furthermore, the logic's graded truth values align with moral particularist views that ethical evaluations are intrinsically q-magnitudes, not binary all-or-nothing:
Truth(act is fully right) = 0.3
Truth(act is partially right) = 0.7
○(fully ethical, partially ethical) = 0.9
With a synthesis capturing the multifaceted context-dependencies of real-world ethical appraisals as a whole:
virtuous_intentions ⊕ unintended_consequences = overall_ethical_status
The both/and logic provides an ideal symbolic architecture for integratingthe various complementary factors, modes of evaluation, and incommensurable considerations underlying coherent ethical deliberation and adjudication.
Social & Political Theory
The logic is equally applicable to theorizing the dynamics of social systems and political institutions:
• Individual Agency and Collective Forces
For a sociohistorical process x, let I(x) and C(x) represent respectively the degree individual agency and larger collective/structural forces are causally operative.
The logic allows nuanced perspective like:
I(x) = 0.6, C(x) = 0.7, ○(I(x), C(x)) = 0.5
Capturing how specific social events involve a moderate but incoherent interpolation between individual and collective determinants, which may be irreducibly coconstituted by a dialectical synthesis:
individual_motives ⊕ collective_historical_forces = social_outcome
This recognizes how agency and structure are interdependent complementary aspects, not binarily separable causes.
• Societal Order and Conflict Dynamics
Similarly, propositions about societal order O(x) and disruptive conflict/contradiction dynamics C(x) need not be strictly bifurcated:
O(x) = 0.4, C(x) = 0.7, ○(O(x), C(x)) = 0.6
This coherence value represents their degree of mutual implication - that societal orders contain contradictions accumulating conditions for future upheavals and restructurings.
The synthesis operation models this:
declining_systemic_order ⊕ accumulating_contradictions = restructured_social_order
Revolutions and social transitions aren't framed as simply conflict absolutely negating and replacing a prior order, but a higher-order co-operative transcendence and reconfiguration of the old combining its constituent determinants.
So the both/and logic allows social theory to move beyond reductive individual/collective and order/conflict binaries, and develop more dialectically adequate representations of the coconstituted, open-ended dynamics of sociohistorical processes.
Mathematics of Dynamics, Complexity & Emergence
The logic's multivalent structure provides powerful symbolic tools for representing and formalizing the ambiguities, singularities and novel qualities characteristic of nonlinear dynamical systems, complexity theory and emergent phenomena:
• Classical Singularities
For a dynamical system x, we could define classical properties like:
Differentiable(x) = degree x's dynamics are differentiable
Deterministic(x) = degree x's dynamics are uniquely determined
But both/and logic allows formulating aspects like nonlinearity, singularities, indeterminism in a positive, cohererent way:
Differentiable(x) = 0.7, Deterministic(x) = 0.5
○(Differentiable(x), Deterministic(x)) = 0.3
Models how many real-world dynamics exhibit partial and incoherent blends of differentiability and indeterminism in their operations - rather than artificial idealization of purely deterministic differential equations.
• Micro/Macro & Quantitative/Qualitative
Systems often involve radically differentiated and seemingly incommensurable micro and macro descriptors, which the logic can integratively relate:
Q_micro(x) = 0.9 (high quantitative precision of micro)
Q_macro(x) = 0.2 (low quantitative precision of macro)
○(Q_micro(x), Q_macro(x)) = 0.6
With a synthesis expressing the macro as a holistic gestalt co-operator with but transcending its micro:
Q_microdescriptors(x) ⊕ Q_macrophenomena(x) = coherent_system(x)
So the logic handles the irreducible complementarities between precise microdescriptions and macroscale patterns involving qualitative change.
• Strongly Emergent Properties
For a complex system exhibiting higher-order systemic regularities:
Truth(epiphenomenal_reductionism) = 0.1
Truth(strongly_emergent_gestalt_wholeness) = 0.8
○(reductionism, emergence) = 0.2
Allowing the logic to formally represent emergence without being forced into particle/field monocultures or dualistic separations between levels. Novel emergent unified gestalts are modeled:
reductive_basal_components ⊕ collective_integration = strongly_emergent_unified_whole
The symbolic tools provide a unified framework for theorizing and studying the ambiguities and genuine novelties intrinsic to nonlinear systems, far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics, complexity science and theories of emergence across multiple levels.
So in summary, the both/and logic equips rational discourse with a vastly expanded descriptive capacity more befitting the complexities, pluralities and generative openendednesses intrinsic to scientific domains from ethics and the social sciences, to dynamical systems, complexity studies and theories of emergent qualities.
Rather than dissimulating or prematurely reducing away these phenomenological nuances through binary idealization, the logic provides positive symbolic tools for representationally accommodating and integratively operating with them - opening up new possibilities for theoretical insight, formal modeling and practical efficacy across innumerable fields.
Its unique symbolic architecture allows rationality to become more accountable to and participatory with the deeper horizons of manifestation previously disavowed by the blinkering effects of classical bivalent logic's pernicious dilemmas, reifications and performative exclusions. Ontological birthright is restored to discourse through this new praxis of open coherence with Being's generative plentitudinous adventing.
if you type more words i still won't read them i think you took a wrong turn somewhere this is not a university or the nobel panel.
@@MeyouNus-lj5de " I will continue elaborating on the wide-ranging applications and implications of the both/and logic across various domains:"
is where you are going wrong.
@@MeyouNus-lj5de Beautiful, wonderful, extensive. You are a dedicated math logician try to sway an audience totally un-learned in your symbols and special words meanings. We are well educated people who but value on common sense relations, not ‘convoluted arcane proofs’. ‘both/and’ does not address: Both are ‘allowed’ BUT are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE (cannot be present … at the same time). [eg Pauli Exclusion Principle - requirement]. OR .. two math states: Commutative (Abelian) versus Non-commutative (anti-Abelian) arithmetics. … Can you (briefly please. Terse and succinct) discuss how … those … fit with your ‘super-positioning’ contention? !!
@@HarryNicNicholas Welcome to the future of internet comments sections - one or more Large Language Models "talking" at each other.
Wonderful stormy night, But i like it , bcoz the universe can do to unite all , light ning dor light and electricity magnet, thunder for sound, night for darkness, water for rain, time, and more, have a good night
From the transcript:
10:09
So but you say that the fields are the fundamental stuff of the universe, not not the particles.
10:19
Now, I know that's difficult to explain, but because
10:25
our fields, I guess there's this big question, our fields, a mathematical map of of what's going on or is it what's going on?
10:34
Is quantum mechanics a mathematical map of what's going on? It gives great, great answers.
10:40
Or is it or is what really is going on. And what we see is a kind of mistake in a way.
10:46
So anyway. As far as we know, it is what is going on. There are controversies here, as you said when we started talking, because
10:54
physicists and philosophers don't agree on what quantum mechanics is actually saying.
11:00
But we think that reality actually is doing these things that the mathematical models tell us.
I have been trying to understand a particular aspect of quantum field theory, and the conversation gets very close to addressing this, but unfortunately there are 2 sources of ambiguity:
(1) the discussion seems to morph between being about quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. "Is quantum mechanics a mathematical map of what's going on? . . . Or is it or is what really is going on."
(2) Sean "it is what is going on", but then "reality actually is doing these things that the mathematical models tell us" - so Sean's answer morphs from "really going on" to "mathematical model" and we do not have an unambiguous answer to this key question.
Carroll's response in your point 2 is entirely internally consistent and unambiguous. Reality doing what the mathematical models tell us _means_ "it is what is going on".
(but crucially BTW, this is _Sean Carroll's_ unambiguous answer to that question - the truth that he'd absolutely admit himself is, we don't _know_ - many would even say we _can't_ know - whether our models _actually_ describe what reality is doing _or_ whether they just give us results that match our measurements)
@@anonymes2884 'Reality doing what the mathematical models tell us means "it is what is going on".' - well, an equation that accurately describes a physical process is not in itself the process, it is just some symbols written on a scratchpad off to the side. My question is whether there are "really" quantum fields filling reality, or if these are just accurate equations written down on a scratchpad off to the side? For example, Newton's equations are not in themselves reality, they are equations that fairly closely describe some aspect of reality.
55:03 "Quantum theory is not the same radical theory as RT." (Einstein).
P.S. So cleverly arranged:
0.by solving the Schrodinger equation for a free particle, it is possible to obtain a complete state function, which is a plane monochromatic wave and coincides with the de Broglie wave*.
1.This coincidence, of course, is not accidental, since the de Broglie hypothesis was used from the very beginning in the development of quantum mechanics, which received reliable experimental confirmation.
2.But the normalization condition is not fulfilled for the wave function: physically, this is due to the fact that absolutely free particles do not exist in nature, however, mathematically it is easier to apply this function in quantum theory.Why?
3.It should always be remembered that the wave function is a mathematical object and "it" cannot be found even experimentally by direct measurement (arbitrariness in the phase multiplier does not lead to the observed effects, since in this theory it is convenient to talk about the position of a microparticle only in space).
4.Thus, all the successes of quantum theory lie in the manipulation of facts and interpretation:
5.the de Broglie wave "suddenly" coincides with the fundamentally unobservable "?", and gives real answers to experimental questions thanks to de Broglie,
6.and applause to Born or Everett (... and others). Bravo!
--------------
*) - The de Broglie hypothesis says nothing about the nature of "waves of matter"; de Broglie waves cannot be considered as waves in some material medium. Their physical meaning has yet to be clarified. And physicists expressed the incomprehensible in an even more vague way: waves of probability or their branching.
{However, it seems that de Broglie waves are inertia waves, and the methodical development of this interpretation naturally leads to the identification and understanding of the phenomenon of gravity/inertial induction, and thus the creation of QG.}
One millionth of a second is too fast for us remember or experience, so it’s fair to say that in that short span of time we have no sense of being or our sense of being doesn’t exist. The span of time we can remember or be aware of is joined together by spans of time that are too fast for us to be able to take any notice of, so how is it possible to have a sense of being at all.
Let’s imagine an atom moves an extremely short distance. The span of time it takes for this atom to move this extremely short distance is too short of a time interval for us to be aware of anything, so where were we, or where was our sense of being.
To us, the universe, a hurricane, or an infinitely long line of dominos that are falling down does not have a sense of being according to us. Say one day feels like one second to us, but one second just feels like one second to the person standing next to us, then according to the person standing next to us our sense of being does not exist.
So what if we as conscious beings are both ourselves, as well as the universe. We can be ourselves where one second feels like one second, and at the same time we can be the universe, which solves the problem as not consciously existing at extremely short time spans.
At extremely short time spans that are too fast for us to be aware of anything, we can’t say that we are different individuals because we don’t exist. Every one could be the universe.
Imagine two zero dimensional points. These two zero dimensional points are like two universes that are infinitely large, but in the opposite way, being infinitely small, not in any particular space, or are not separated by any space but both separated by time. Nonetheless, even though these two zero dimensional points are separated by time, they both still exist simultaneously.
Let’s say one second was like one second to one of these zero dimensional points, but one second was like one day to the other one. That would make perfect sense as to why the two points are separated from each other by time but still both exist simultaneously. So everyone could be their individual selves, and at the same time every one could make the universe. All numbers are the same because all a number really is is just the digit one that is a certain way up the number line, but the boundaries in between numbers really are different to the digit ones each side of them. So one of these two zero dimensional points that is experiencing time different from the other could be a boundary in between numbers, and the other could be a digit one. Our sense of being may not be zero dimensional but four dimensional. We need to be focusing on a colour to have a sense of being, even if we are just imagining it, which involves time going by. If one hundred years went on while we had no sense of being, it would be like a flash to us.
Let’s say we were each individual zero dimensional points all mixed together to make one single zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second. At the same time, in a span of time that is too short for us to be aware of or exist, we could all make the universe or another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second. You see, we are saying the universe doesn’t have a sense of being, and in an extremely short span of time we are saying our sense of being doesn’t exist, so in that short span of time we could all make the universe or we could all make another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second.
If one second feels like one second to zero dimensional point A, but one week feels like one second to zero dimensional point B, we would see zero dimensional point A as being us. In a super symmetrical way, what if there were other beings that thought the zero dimensional point B was them.
If 20 people were all individual zero dimensional points that were mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point, the 20 would all agree on what number they are looking at because the 20 zero dimensional points would make one single zero dimensional point. But if 5 of the 20 disagreed with what colour the numbers and background were, the distance away the numbers are, and how far they are spread apart, would that 5 of the 20 form a seperate zero dimensional point or individual zero dimensional points, as well as the one they are part of.
Imagine if how many, what colour, how far away, how far apart, all mixed to form a sense of how fast time is moving. Then if every one was part of one zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, then no one could form separate zero dimensional points because they disagreed with what colour the numbers are or how far away or apart they are.
If every one was part of zero dimensional point A where one second feels like one second, every one could be part of zero dimensional point B at the same time, where one week feels like one second, because no body’s sense of being exists at extremely short time intervals. To us, a hurricane or the weather doesn’t have a sense of being. Our sense of being can’t be joined together by extremely short time spans that we can’t take any notice of, so everyone can be the one universe at the same time.
If there were two things separated by time but both exist simultaneously, where one second feels like one second to one, but one second feels like one hour to the other, that would make sense as to why the two things are separated from each other by time but both still exist simultaneously.
Imagine mixing a handful or infinite amount of pinballs the same size together and you still end up with one pinball the same size. Zero dimensional points are the intersections of two one dimensional lines crossing paths. You can’t see them because they are zero dimensional, but are used for locating areas on a map. Like the pinballs, you could keep mixing an infinite number of zero dimensional points together forever and still end up with one zero dimensional point.
Let’s say there is one zero dimensional point composed of twenty individual zero dimensional points mixed together. Imagine an individual zero dimensional point mixing with the one composed of 20, it would be still the same as two individual points mixing together. As this individual point mixes with the point composed of 20, as it mixes in it will make the point composed of 20 half as different as it was, then the individual point will become meaningless, because it is now part of one zero dimensional point that was composed of 20. You can’t say there is a certain number of zero dimensional points mixed with each other because there is no order in one zero dimensional point.
This individual zero dimensional point that has mixed in with the zero dimensional point composed of 20 individual zero dimensional points, has made the point composed of 20 points half as different as it was then the individual point has become meaningless because it is part of the 20 individual points to make one single point. Could this be a result of a point being part of two systems. It could be one point that is in its original spot, and at the same time be a point that has come from its original spot. Don’t think about the individual point mixing in making the point of 20 half as different following the individual point becoming meaningless as it is mixed in. Think of it as the individual point becomes meaningless as it is mixed in to the point of 20 after making it half as different, it is as if there has being nothing to make the point of 20 half as different. This gives you the impression this one zero dimensional point could be two points in one, one that is in its original spot, and one that has come from its original spot. Don’t think of two zero dimensional in one as being two zero dimensional points mixed together, think of it as one single object as being part of two systems.
Say there are two cars that are exactly the same, parked next to each other. One of the cars has just come from Texas, and the other one has just come from California. If the cars turn into each other could they both be based on a lie, saying they have come from somewhere they haven’t. It may not be a lie, because the car that came from California could be two cars in one. It could be the car as we see as having just come from California, and at the same time it could be the car that has just come from Texas. This could be the same for the car as we see as having just come from Texas. So this way, as the two cars turn into each other, they would not both be based on a lie.
Picture a blue square on the left and a red square on the right. Now we look at them from the other side and see a red square on the original left and blue square on the original right. Could the reason we are now seeing the squares as their neighbourd square’s colour be because we are now seeing the spaces the squares are filling up as being the squares. Each square could be one in two squares. The spaces the squares are filling up could be a system where there has already been a square that has come from its original spot. The squares we are focused on think they are the squares filling up the spaces, and the spaces think they are the squares filling up the spaces.
The two square could be two zero dimensional points, not in any particular space or not separated from each other by any space by, but both be separated from each other by time.
When an individual point mixes with a point of 20 and makes the point of 20
half as different following by the individual point becoming meaningless itself, could this indicate that a square and empty space are meeting up.
If 20 people were 20 individual zero dimensional points mixed together to make one single zero dimensional point, then every one would agree on what number they are looking at because every one would make one. But if one of the 20 disagreed with the rest on what colour the numbers are, would they form another zero dimensional point. If how many, what colour, and distance apart or away, all combined to form a sense of how fast time is moving, then every one could form a point where one second feels like one second, and not form a seperate point because they disagree with something. That way we can keep just two zero dimensional points existing.
Noise maker
sorry, but these are some of the most naïve, rambling questions I've ever heard. Why are we still talking about Democritus?
It is kinda crazy but I recall one speech guidance from Toastmasters. “Tell them what you’re gonna tell them, then tell them what you’re gonna tell them, then tell them what you told them.” People are like christmas lights blinking in and out of existence, so you always have a group that never knew stuff, then the older who forgot, what they knew.
As a former humanities major, I might have had the same struggle asking relevant, coherent questions. After listening for a bit, I really looked forward to the clarity of Carroll's answers. It is to his credit that he is so respectful of the questioner
@@johnmorris4646 Carroll truly is outstanding in making thins make sense. He makes his lectures a joyto hear!
Sadly, not everyone can be as learned and concise as you.
Where is the scientific interest and curiosity for new experiences? BIG ERROR in measuring the Universe, black holes, dark energy,... Let me judge all this by the result of a direct experiment, gentlemen of physics
Let's do the Michelson-Morley experiment on a school bus and determine the speed in a straight line - this is exactly the experiment Einstein dreamed of. Perhaps we will see the postulates: “Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and Dominant gravitational fields control the speed of light in a vacuum.”
There is a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core”, where - the light in each arm passes along 16,000 meters, without exceeding the parameters of 0.4/0.4/0.4 meters and mass - 4 kg.
what the holy crap are you mumbling about?
@@HarryNicNicholas Hello. A new experience for people to see everything with their own eyes.
Done and dusted.
@@frojojo5717 To do this you need to assemble a HYBRID gyroscope. As an educational and practical device
Hypothetical physicist. Theories require testing.
simultaneously. One week goes around in a circle. Imagine if the 7 days were each frozen infinitely large 3 dimensional spaces. The circular week would be composed of time, but not the 7 days. If Friday is switching spaces with the 6 other days infinitely fast non stop, Friday would be taking the 6 o days spaces up all at once, so Friday would go from being a frozen 3 dimensional space to becoming 4 dimensional because it would now be composed of time. As Friday is constantly spaces with the 6 other days infinitely fast non stop, the 6 other days would have to all fit inside the space Friday is leaving behind all making one 3 dimensional day. Imagine if Friday and the 6 other days remain in their own spaces not switching. If Friday is separated from the 6 other days by time, but the 6 other days are not separated from each other by time, then the 6 other days would make one 4 dimensional entity. So now the same thing is happening with all 7 frozen days remaining in their spaces. Imagine 2 zero dimensional points. These 2 zero dimensional points are the only known red colour and only known blue colour to exist. Imagine if both these 2 zero dimensional points are each composed of 20 individual zero dimensional points. If these 2 points split apart into 40 individual points, you might think red and blue don’t exist any more, but if the all the dispersed points formed a system like the week with frozen days, red and blue could still exist. Imagine two groups of people, group A and group B. These two groups are separated by the shortest span of time possible, therefore there is no time In between these two groups. If one person from leaves group A and enters group B, then someone from group B would leave group B and enter group A at the exact same time, because time can’t move on until this happens.
Imagine a circle composed of 20 frozen 3 dimensional days. Each frozen day was either red or blue. So it goes red red blue blue blue red red blue blue and so on. Let’s imagine each frozen days as being red or blue, or being like groups A or group B. If one day switched with the day next to it that is a different colour, all the other days would each switch with the different coloured day next to them at the exact same time, because the span of time each day around the circle is separated by wouldn’t compose of any shorter span of time.
With seven days of the week being frozen infinitely large 3 dimensional spaces, Friday can’t be separated from Monday by time, it would have to be separated from Monday by time and space, because Saturday and Sunday would block it from getting to Monday.
I turned off at "worry about climate change". I just watched a lecture before this one, saying the solution was to develop new technologies, and not to brainwash people into worrying.
the answer is both.
Much reason for worry.