very interesting about the original meaning of the word "chaos" 13:25, a gap between something that bounds it. In the Norse Eddas, the word "ginnungagap" means "yawning gap" and captures the concept of the empty space in the Norse cosmos between Muspellsheim in the south and Niflheim in the north
Another banger Robinson and pod🐈. Janus point book sounds like a novel take on the arrow of time. Interesting in terms of time reversal symmetry etc Like his honesty. Love your variety of topics and guests. Robinson and Senior Geeseling (Pod cat) you both rock.
To be fair, not many physicists seem to agree on many things at the moment lol...which I don't think is a bad thing necessarily. And it's amazing what Julian has managed to accomplish as an independent scientist.
Ah, the type of trite comment that is the telltale sign of the UA-cam simpleton who tries to give the false impression that they I've actually understood a video dealing with highly concepts. This type of comment is perhaps more usually expressed with its similar but equally inane cousin remarking that the guest is "such a treasurre"
Fantastic! Being an artist, I can so relate to these minds on the frontiers of theoretical physics. It feels like we use similar brain mechanisms to feel our way toward promising structures, ideas, concepts. One thing I've been wanting to ask you. From the podcasts I follow, it seems that many of the fields I'm drawn to (theoretical physics, philosophy of consciousness, mathematics) are very male-dominated. Would you say this is representative of the fields, especially when it comes to the areas where you work (foundations of mathematics?).
I had a simple question: what's the smallest energy a photon can have? I'm not sure I have the right answer. According to the time energy uncertainty relationship, this should correspond with a time uncertainty of the age of the universe! Well, if this is the case, isn't it also true that: a) According to quantization, energy is transferred in integer multiples of this smallest amount. b) The amount of energy transferred in each particle interaction is gradually decreasing over time. Or, at least the quantization amount is decreasing over time. Shouldn't this imply a universe of generally increasing complexity? If energy is to be conserved, then particles must be spontaneously generated continually to counteract this effect, surely. And, doesn't this imply a natural derivation of the second law of thermodynamics? If the universe really is continually generating particles in a continually expanding space time, I don't see how you could deny this effect, except in highly localized situations. Or, have we run into a paradox, which would seem to imply that the false premise is that the universe doesn't properly have an age, or possibly quantization is based on some other principle.
Trópos in ancient greek meant direction, course, turn. It's true khaos didn't mean disorder, as we think. The ancient greeks had another, own term for disorder.
I’m not sure these discussions are all that informative without interlocutors who can fairly confidently push back on the ideas and constrain the claims of complete revolution and overturning everything we know. I currently still don’t understand how this differs from a double sided past hypothesis, which as far as I remember Carroll covered in “From Eternity to Here”. That doesn’t seem to be in opposition to the past hypothesis at all, its just a possible way to embed it in a slightly larger system that might seem more appealing/less surprising.
Gravity is based on size not mass. Simple Galilean relative motion has the earth approaching- expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration- the released object. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics. Newton and Mach - and all the rest- simple irrelevant.
@@snarzetax What particular star(s) are these and the method of ‘observation’? Not to avoid the question, but our local planets would be more accurately ‘observed’ to test that claim. Size wise the moon is 1/4 the earth’s, but the measured near side surface gravity is 1/6 of earth’s “g”, so the far side surface gravity measurement would be 1/3 earth’s “g” to average 1/4. Unfortunately the Chinese far side measurement is unavailable, at least to my understanding- NASA might know. This is a prediction from Expansion Theory. Any accelerometer- slinky, water balloon or phone app- experiment Proves the earth is expanding: gravity;d=1/2at^2 major part of the Atomic Expansion Equation (in said book). Gravity is based on size and expansion not mass and attraction.
@@davidrandell2224 Let's stick with the planets in our system then. Jupiter is more than ten times the size of Earth with only marginally more than double the gravity(but okay, it's only a "gas giant" so let's try another example). Saturn is more than double the size of Uranus yet has barely more gravity than it does. That only makes sense if Uranus has double the density of Saturn, which it does. Neptune is almost four times the size of the Earth with only a sixth more gravity. Forget the book you claim to be quoting, what you're claiming is simply not what we're observing.
@@snarzetax Only Mars (?) has had an actual surface measurement taken- @ 12 feet per second squared. At 57% of earth’s size it’s “g” should be @18 feet per second squared. Similar to the moon it’s ‘far’- other- side would be different from where the rover is: close to the moon’s discrepancies. Short aside: a proton is a collection of 1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. “G- Big-“ calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. All atoms and atomic objects are expanding at 1/770,000th their size per second per second constant acceleration. Multiplied by earth’s radius equals 16 feet etc. The masses and densities of the other planets are guesses, until the surface gravity measurement are made, if they can be.
@@snarzetax My last comment/ answer was deleted/ censored. “It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows “, Epictetus. My time is valuable. “He who will not read is no better than he who cannot read “, Mark Twain. Remain in your profound and pathetic ignorance.
Not interested to much in Julian Barbours janis point theory. Not that it does not necessarily hold water. In my opinion Julian Barbours greatest contribution to physics is his rationalization of what is time. As our predominately held current notion of time, being a factitious construct. Julian Barbour conveys Time as being Change. Or by my rationalization time is CHANGES, or Convergences, Exchanges & Relationships occurring between informations. Just my 2 cents worth. 😮 What I apperceive that our scientific world's as of yet have to repletely grasp about time, er Change/s, er Convergences, Exchanges & Relationships occurring between informations is that it makes a world of difference when comparing them as occurring in the natural world as opposed to many cases in our highly technological, factitious world as in many circumstances we now can actually efficaciously manifest alternative pathways not prevalently or predominately apperceived as occurring in the natural world. Sometimes not occurring at all in the natural world. Disparate Combinatorials of Informations, Systems, Kinematic Nodalities, Etc. And as even occurring between Combinatorials of both the Natural & Factitious Worlds.
I legit can’t keep up Robinson! Insane quality and output bro.
Got my Watch Later queue feeling fat
Haha I'm sorry...my recommendation is 3.5x on Spotify, that's how i do it
very interesting about the original meaning of the word "chaos" 13:25, a gap between something that bounds it. In the Norse Eddas, the word "ginnungagap" means "yawning gap" and captures the concept of the empty space in the Norse cosmos between Muspellsheim in the south and Niflheim in the north
Another banger Robinson and pod🐈. Janus point book sounds like a novel take on the arrow of time. Interesting in terms of time reversal symmetry etc Like his honesty. Love your variety of topics and guests. Robinson and Senior Geeseling (Pod cat) you both rock.
Thanks Bernardo!
Wonderful conversation! Chaos has never made me yawn 😉
Suggestion for a potential guest in your pod: Nima Arkani-Hamed.
Added!
He's a gem. Radical proposal and not many physicists seem to agree tho
To be fair, not many physicists seem to agree on many things at the moment lol...which I don't think is a bad thing necessarily. And it's amazing what Julian has managed to accomplish as an independent scientist.
Ah, the type of trite comment that is the telltale sign of the UA-cam simpleton who tries to give the false impression that they I've actually understood a video dealing with highly concepts.
This type of comment is perhaps more usually expressed with its similar but equally inane cousin remarking that the guest is "such a treasurre"
Link to Julian's website doesn't seem to work... would love to read his book on thermodynamics
Thanks for drawing this to my attention! I've corrected it.
Fantastic! Being an artist, I can so relate to these minds on the frontiers of theoretical physics. It feels like we use similar brain mechanisms to feel our way toward promising structures, ideas, concepts.
One thing I've been wanting to ask you. From the podcasts I follow, it seems that many of the fields I'm drawn to (theoretical physics, philosophy of consciousness, mathematics) are very male-dominated. Would you say this is representative of the fields, especially when it comes to the areas where you work (foundations of mathematics?).
yes, it does seem that this is the distribution of majors, etc
youre gonna go far kid xx
Ok by default now you need to get Lee Smolin!
stay tuned
@@robinsonerhardt i hope you know your biggest challenge will be to get Lenny Susskind and Lee Smolin to debate😜
I had a simple question: what's the smallest energy a photon can have? I'm not sure I have the right answer.
According to the time energy uncertainty relationship, this should correspond with a time uncertainty of the age of the universe!
Well, if this is the case, isn't it also true that:
a) According to quantization, energy is transferred in integer multiples of this smallest amount.
b) The amount of energy transferred in each particle interaction is gradually decreasing over time. Or, at least the quantization amount is decreasing over time.
Shouldn't this imply a universe of generally increasing complexity? If energy is to be conserved, then particles must be spontaneously generated continually to counteract this effect, surely.
And, doesn't this imply a natural derivation of the second law of thermodynamics? If the universe really is continually generating particles in a continually expanding space time, I don't see how you could deny this effect, except in highly localized situations.
Or, have we run into a paradox, which would seem to imply that the false premise is that the universe doesn't properly have an age, or possibly quantization is based on some other principle.
Cool
Trópos in ancient greek meant direction, course, turn.
It's true khaos didn't mean disorder, as we think. The ancient greeks had another, own term for disorder.
Is this Relationalism?
I’m not sure these discussions are all that informative without interlocutors who can fairly confidently push back on the ideas and constrain the claims of complete revolution and overturning everything we know. I currently still don’t understand how this differs from a double sided past hypothesis, which as far as I remember Carroll covered in “From Eternity to Here”. That doesn’t seem to be in opposition to the past hypothesis at all, its just a possible way to embed it in a slightly larger system that might seem more appealing/less surprising.
Gravity is based on size not mass. Simple Galilean relative motion has the earth approaching- expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration- the released object. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics. Newton and Mach - and all the rest- simple irrelevant.
If gravity is based on size, why do we observe stars which are smaller than ours having more gravity than ours?
@@snarzetax What particular star(s) are these and the method of ‘observation’? Not to avoid the question, but our local planets would be more accurately ‘observed’ to test that claim. Size wise the moon is 1/4 the earth’s, but the measured near side surface gravity is 1/6 of earth’s “g”, so the far side surface gravity measurement would be 1/3 earth’s “g” to average 1/4. Unfortunately the Chinese far side measurement is unavailable, at least to my understanding- NASA might know. This is a prediction from Expansion Theory. Any accelerometer- slinky, water balloon or phone app- experiment Proves the earth is expanding: gravity;d=1/2at^2 major part of the Atomic Expansion Equation (in said book). Gravity is based on size and expansion not mass and attraction.
@@davidrandell2224 Let's stick with the planets in our system then.
Jupiter is more than ten times the size of Earth with only marginally more than double the gravity(but okay, it's only a "gas giant" so let's try another example).
Saturn is more than double the size of Uranus yet has barely more gravity than it does. That only makes sense if Uranus has double the density of Saturn, which it does.
Neptune is almost four times the size of the Earth with only a sixth more gravity.
Forget the book you claim to be quoting, what you're claiming is simply not what we're observing.
@@snarzetax Only Mars (?) has had an actual surface measurement taken- @ 12 feet per second squared. At 57% of earth’s size it’s “g” should be @18 feet per second squared. Similar to the moon it’s ‘far’- other- side would be different from where the rover is: close to the moon’s discrepancies. Short aside: a proton is a collection of 1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. “G- Big-“ calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. All atoms and atomic objects are expanding at 1/770,000th their size per second per second constant acceleration. Multiplied by earth’s radius equals 16 feet etc. The masses and densities of the other planets are guesses, until the surface gravity measurement are made, if they can be.
@@snarzetax My last comment/ answer was deleted/ censored. “It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows “, Epictetus. My time is valuable. “He who will not read is no better than he who cannot read “, Mark Twain. Remain in your profound and pathetic ignorance.
Onions
Not interested to much in Julian Barbours janis point theory. Not that it does not necessarily hold water. In my opinion Julian Barbours greatest contribution to physics is his rationalization of what is time. As our predominately held current notion of time, being a factitious construct. Julian Barbour conveys Time as being Change. Or by my rationalization time is CHANGES, or Convergences, Exchanges & Relationships occurring between informations. Just my 2 cents worth. 😮 What I apperceive that our scientific world's as of yet have to repletely grasp about time, er Change/s, er Convergences, Exchanges & Relationships occurring between informations is that it makes a world of difference when comparing them as occurring in the natural world as opposed to many cases in our highly technological, factitious world as in many circumstances we now can actually efficaciously manifest alternative pathways not prevalently or predominately apperceived as occurring in the natural world. Sometimes not occurring at all in the natural world. Disparate Combinatorials of Informations, Systems, Kinematic Nodalities, Etc. And as even occurring between Combinatorials of both the Natural & Factitious Worlds.