Thanks for explaining. I haven't had time to watch the first one and when I saw the second I thought there's no way I can possibly keep up with this frequency of upload.
Great! I hope a lot of people tune in. I agree with a lot of the other commenters, that the addition of video would increase your viewership/listenership substantially. The technical barriers to doing video podcasts are fairly low now and there are a ton of potential guests that are already in SoCal area or will be passing through that could meet at your office or at a basic studio to record the episode. Your message and understanding is really valuable, so I’ll be thrilled to see you be as successful in this medium as possible. I have web dev and some audio/video experience, in SoCal, and would happy to assist pro bono.
Although not a physicist, just a lawyer, although not a native English speaker, just a Swiss German, your lectures help me in enlarging my bumble knowledge of, among others, physics in me older years. I am outmost thankful.
sorry to be so off topic but does any of you know of a trick to log back into an Instagram account?? I was dumb lost the account password. I would love any tricks you can give me!
@Ian Moshe Thanks for your reply. I got to the site through google and I'm waiting for the hacking stuff atm. I see it takes a while so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
Sean thank you for making these. These past two podcasts are packed full of value and insight, like an oasis in the barren landscape of word vomit podcasts
Nope... he cannot do that as easily as this format, why?? because he has his mini podcast pack he carries around wherever he goes to talk to interesting people (he mentioned this at his Joe Rogan sitting), I imagine that he would have to carry at least two cases of equipment if he wants to include video, plus SOME people are more self conscious with video than just audio. If the choice is this or nothing, I think most of us would rather have this.
The only podcast ever where Lee Smolin gets named dropped lol love your work Sean, thanks to you and Caltech for all the public engagement like this. Your efforts are greatly appreciated
Excellent once again Sean! These podcasts are just wonderful! The comments show a very nice caliber of listeners who have some level of understanding these complex topics. I am looking forward to many more of these sir! Carlo Rovelli was a wonderful guest as well!
Great interview with Carlo Rovelli! These are exciting times and Carlo is a fantastic 'splainer of all things physics, as is Sean. I highly recommend both Carlo's recent books, as I do Sean's from Eternity to Here.
Professor Carroll, can you please dedicate a portion of your podcast explaining your choice for the many world interpretation of QM for the layman. I get the impression that "many worlds" is simply choosing the lesser of the two evils, where the other one is to conveniently discard the other possibility of the wave function collapse. So is it just a temporary "solution" until a better theory comes along, or do you actually think the many worlds is accurately modeling "reality" as we know it? And while the many worlds is mathematically elegant, intuitively it's hard to swallow. I do agree with Rovelli that it comes with heavy ontology, and it's not the fact of the many worlds itself, it's the implications. Our way of reasoning in everything we do in life, including classical theories, is structured to think along a tempo-spatial *causal* line. I don't want to put a gun to my head because there's high likelihood of me getting killed, plain simple. I don't see how you can justify clearly bad decisions in the many worlds framework. After all, all possibilities will be realized, including me being still alive. Does the notion of cause and effect retire from the conversation? I'm afraid more explaining work needs to be done besides simply saying our intuition didn't evolve to do theoretical physics. How does the many worlds make a difference, if any, in how we interact with the world?
@Oners82 : Spot on explanation of what Sean Carroll is saying and is certainly a very compelling argument IMOP. There is some difficulty, I think, as to whether other worlds have the same ontological status as this one (as David Deutsch seems to suggest - see "Fabric of Reality") or whether at least some of those other worlds will fade out as they become more and more bizarre - compare Feynman's explanation of how a light beam actually goes every which way between two points, but appears to go in a straight line because many paths cancel out (in his book QED).
Great stuff Sean, I'm so happy that a scientist/philosopher of your caliber is producing these high quality pod casts with equally impressive guests...thank you!
I would absolutely love it if you could explain the implications and inner-workings of the double slit quantum eraser experiment. Thank you. Sharing this with the people around me.
For what it's worth I went to one of his talks years ago. I do not have the impression he would discuss physics anywhere near a general audiences level... The math would retain meaning better than any words.
So glad to have found your podcast (this episode in particular) right after watching the Joe Rogan Experience episode you were on last year. You have sparked my interest in quantum physics! Can't wait for all the new episodes to come; all 4 that I have listened to so far have been great. Thanks!
Fantastic episode and a great start to your series Mr. Carroll. Can' t wait for more episodes! Love your work and love to hear your views and opinions on everything. I hope this really takes off for you sir so we can get more great conversations and topics from you and your guests!!!!
Thanks for hosting this podcast Sean. I've always loved your interviews and talks on other shows. I can't wait to see what other amazing guests you'll have on!
I found out about you through a Joe Rogan podcast and then looked for your podcast. I listened to the first and now listening to this one. I also subscribed and am just fascinated by all this. Keep them coming. These are awesome. Thank you!
Love this content and will definitely be listening to future episodes. Don't mind the no video thing at all, as I'm listening to these while doing other things.
i like how physics is becoming popular and actually changing the common sense about reality we had in last century. i think there is something really new coming from it in arts, literature, and human expression in general. it's good because we are now living in a pretty dull era
So glad you started this podcast! Would be great if you made an episode on Many-worlds interpretation some time. I'd like to know why it's your favourite. What good reasons do you think you have for supporting this theory and not some other?
hey I know some people will be like woah you just posted yesterday but wow I would NOT MIND A PODCAST EVERY DAY like seriously I’d rather listen to SC ask questions every day than basically anything else so LETS GO
Sean: I am a big fan of yours. I admire (and envy) what a great communicator you are. I enjoy this podcast as well. I can see why you have the office of R.F)!
Already, I'm still only half way though the last one. Wait - he is travelling at close to light speeds, it just APPEARS to us that they are coming in fast :)
Very interesting and inspiring discussion. It is nice giving the chance to people working on alternative approaches to quantum qravity to present their theories to the non-specialized public. I suggest inviting someone from the field of condensed matter in future podcasts, to discuss relevant modern topics like, topological matter and phase transitions, many-body phenomena, entanglement and quantum information, etc.
Sean, first, your podcast is great. Thanks for the initiative. We have discovered that you are also a great host, always putting in the right context questions (and answers). Carlo Rovelli: Quantum Gravity is a terrific matter (Carlos´ specialisation) but the discussion I would have loved to listen is about THE ARROW OF TIME. Both of you have strong positions about this subject. What do you think about the PERSPECTIVAL thesis of Carlo? You probably had this discussion in private with him. Please, create a podcast about this matter, in general. Cheers. Antonio
Great podcasts Sean, thank you. You touched on something that is of great interest to me. Super Symmetry. We have had one major energy upgrade at CERN and there have been NO detections of super symmetric particles. Yes, they could exist at higher energies. But what if they don't show up? If super symmetry is dead, would this not mean big problems for the standard model? Thanks...
Gully Foyle ..it would cause a MAJOR reassessment of many theories BASED on supersymmetry, but remember,..as beautiful as supersymmetry is , it is not per se, the standard model but a potential extension of it...sadly too,, because the theory is so elegant..
Amazing! I really loved the quantization of the Gravity part @ 30-35 minutes. However, i was astonished to not find a choice both are wrong and yet both are right @ 1:05. Don't you believe what you say, sir?
Please show you talking with the person you are interviewing. A picture on for and hour does not do justice to a podcast on UA-cam. Love your work! Video is needed!!! Thank you for educating all of us.
Good show Sean... the imagery of interlinked quantum gravity loops is attractive but it lead me to wonder would this net-like structure exist in two demensions,or three ? I get the fact that they themselves, would BE spacetime, but interesting differences are suggested by both models.
Sean, I have a black hole question. How close to the event horizon or the physical black hole do you get before the gravity differences between head and feet begin to cause joint pain? Before the event horizon or after?
Sean, what are some implications of the LHC not finding evidence for SUSY? Do you we simply probe at higher energies? I know you and Carlo touch on this near the end of but wanted to hear your thoughts directly.
Can someone explain this to me. I watched a video with Carlo and he talked about black holes and that the star still resides deep inside the black hole. Not the singularity. Actual star. I never heard that before.
You cannot be "a realist about reality" because the whole aim of physics is to establish what physical reality is, so you don't have the ground to be a realist to start with. That's precisely what you are looking for: the ground where you can actually asume a realist position. If that ground does not pertain to the category of the actual, then your realist position can't be what you say it is, Sean. It's not realism but idealism, which is what you are trying to avoid.
Having trouble understanding why the EM field can be measured in an arbitrarily small volume of phase space, but that the gravity field cannot. (Was not previously aware of the "Landau error".) Wouldn't the energy in the EM field have mass and cause a black hole in the gravity-space field? Don't these fields share a phase space? Did I hear these arguments incorrectly?
Amazing Podcast, Sean! I specifically love the intro where you give us some backgrond information on the guest and their area of expertise. Really helps fully digest the whole podcast. Cheers!
Nice podcast and format Sean, love it! I also like Closer to Truth with Robert Lawrence Kuhn. It would be great to turn the table on Robert to explore what he has come to believe from his quest to find truth. Ask him if he really means it when he says he would like to believe in God or whether he is cleverly catering to his religious interviewees so they can feel comfortable letting out their worst babble. Other than that appreciate and expect your podcast will leave out the woo woo artists.
I'd love to see Sean interview people with a different perspective on the physics of gravity and space-time than the ones that already get so much publicity (string theory, for example). Grigory Volovik and Xiao-Gang Wen have amazing results for the emergence of both particles and forces from underlying strongly-correlated degrees of freedom. I think interviewing them would be refreshing for a lot of listeners.
When I move from point A to point B, do I move through space, or does space move through me? Your answer will be leveraged with reconciliation with 'local' causal shared symmetry which necessitates [differential time: t'] for any object that exhibit mass.
Wasn't there an idea floating around that gravity exists across all 10 dimensions, and we experience only that portion of gravity which manages to "leak" into this dimension?
Something I regret, whenever people try to introduce or explain what quantum mechanics is, they seem to always gloss over the quantizing part of it. I'd really like to hear a good description of why exactly energy levels are quantized, and why they are quantized specifically in the way that they are. Does quantization derive from the uncertainty principle in some way, or do we do it just because experiments suggest that that is what we should be doing? Or is there perhaps no consensus on what the origin of quantization is? I feel like understanding what exactly quantization is, at its core, or how it emerges, is somehow key to understanding what exactly QM is, or what it's trying to tell us. I don't understand why this key element is always skipped in talks where it appears the goal is to give an audience a basic intuitive understanding of what QM is supposed to be.
Maarten Billemont Quantisation is very precisely defined in physics. It's covered in detail over several years in a good physics degree course. You can get an intuitive glimpse of it by looking at the set of harmonics you can get from a vibrating guitar string - the energy levels of an atom are quantised in a similar way to the frequencies of a vibrating string, or a drum or a bell. They have very definite sets of values that can be calculated using one or two very basic laws of physics. But to understand the nature of the analogy, I think you'd need to hone your ninja mathematical skills and then take a physics course. Here's a really good one: ua-cam.com/video/lZ3bPUKo5zc/v-deo.html
It's interesting to try to think about cognitive dissonance in relation to new perspectives on gravity from Verlinde (Emergent gravity??) to Rovelli and Smolin (Loop) to MOND, etc., but I am going with Robinson's science fiction book, Mars Trilogy, that merges Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory into one, if Cumberbatch reads the audio version.
Four podcasts are dropping this week, in honor of our launch! After that, one every week or two (depending on how popular it gets).
The more the better! Keep them coming. We need your unique conversation skills, tone, and civility. Thank you!
sean this is going to get massive don't you worry about it. people should be paying to hear the knowledge you have amassed
Thanks for explaining. I haven't had time to watch the first one and when I saw the second I thought there's no way I can possibly keep up with this frequency of upload.
Great! I hope a lot of people tune in. I agree with a lot of the other commenters, that the addition of video would increase your viewership/listenership substantially. The technical barriers to doing video podcasts are fairly low now and there are a ton of potential guests that are already in SoCal area or will be passing through that could meet at your office or at a basic studio to record the episode. Your message and understanding is really valuable, so I’ll be thrilled to see you be as successful in this medium as possible. I have web dev and some audio/video experience, in SoCal, and would happy to assist pro bono.
Fantastic, and BTW I loved this one!
Although not a physicist, just a lawyer, although not a native English speaker, just a Swiss German, your lectures help me in enlarging my bumble knowledge of, among others, physics in me older years. I am outmost thankful.
There is no debate, this podcast is awesome
Okay
Prove it!
sorry to be so off topic but does any of you know of a trick to log back into an Instagram account??
I was dumb lost the account password. I would love any tricks you can give me!
@Shepard Zane instablaster ;)
@Ian Moshe Thanks for your reply. I got to the site through google and I'm waiting for the hacking stuff atm.
I see it takes a while so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
Please, more episodes with Dr. Rovelli going deeper into Loop Quantum Gravity. This was a really good one!
Sean thank you for making these. These past two podcasts are packed full of value and insight, like an oasis in the barren landscape of word vomit podcasts
That you keep the discussion at a high level and make us do serious work to follow/understand is so refreshing and very much appreciated.
Please do record videos as well!
yes,a Joe Rogan format type would be awesome.Monologues or dialogues would enrich every viewer.
How would that improve it?
@@alangarland8571 I can watch it instead of just listening?
yes!
Nope... he cannot do that as easily as this format, why?? because he has his mini podcast pack he carries around wherever he goes to talk to interesting people (he mentioned this at his Joe Rogan sitting), I imagine that he would have to carry at least two cases of equipment if he wants to include video, plus SOME people are more self conscious with video than just audio.
If the choice is this or nothing, I think most of us would rather have this.
The only podcast ever where Lee Smolin gets named dropped lol love your work Sean, thanks to you and Caltech for all the public engagement like this. Your efforts are greatly appreciated
Excellent once again Sean! These podcasts are just wonderful! The comments show a very nice caliber of listeners who have some level of understanding these complex topics. I am looking forward to many more of these sir! Carlo Rovelli was a wonderful guest as well!
Great interview with Carlo Rovelli! These are exciting times and Carlo is a fantastic 'splainer of all things physics, as is Sean. I highly recommend both Carlo's recent books, as I do Sean's from Eternity to Here.
Very glad you've decided to do this Sean! It's really solid. Well done man! Broadcasting far and wide...
Professor Carroll, can you please dedicate a portion of your podcast explaining your choice for the many world interpretation of QM for the layman. I get the impression that "many worlds" is simply choosing the lesser of the two evils, where the other one is to conveniently discard the other possibility of the wave function collapse. So is it just a temporary "solution" until a better theory comes along, or do you actually think the many worlds is accurately modeling "reality" as we know it? And while the many worlds is mathematically elegant, intuitively it's hard to swallow. I do agree with Rovelli that it comes with heavy ontology, and it's not the fact of the many worlds itself, it's the implications. Our way of reasoning in everything we do in life, including classical theories, is structured to think along a tempo-spatial *causal* line. I don't want to put a gun to my head because there's high likelihood of me getting killed, plain simple. I don't see how you can justify clearly bad decisions in the many worlds framework. After all, all possibilities will be realized, including me being still alive. Does the notion of cause and effect retire from the conversation? I'm afraid more explaining work needs to be done besides simply saying our intuition didn't evolve to do theoretical physics. How does the many worlds make a difference, if any, in how we interact with the world?
@Oners82 You're not Professor Carroll.
@Oners82 : Spot on explanation of what Sean Carroll is saying and is certainly a very compelling argument IMOP. There is some difficulty, I think, as to whether other worlds have the same ontological status as this one (as David Deutsch seems to suggest - see "Fabric of Reality") or whether at least some of those other worlds will fade out as they become more and more bizarre - compare Feynman's explanation of how a light beam actually goes every which way between two points, but appears to go in a straight line because many paths cancel out (in his book QED).
Came here from your conversation on Joe Rogan. Loving the podcast - right up the alley with what I'm interested in! Keep up the good work!
Great stuff Sean, I'm so happy that a scientist/philosopher of your caliber is producing these high quality pod casts with equally impressive guests...thank you!
I would absolutely love it if you could explain the implications and inner-workings of the double slit quantum eraser experiment. Thank you. Sharing this with the people around me.
Ed Witten as a guest would be rare and unique.
I watch many of this type of videos, but I have never seen him as a guest. Does he do videos, or have I just missed him?
For what it's worth I went to one of his talks years ago. I do not have the impression he would discuss physics anywhere near a general audiences level... The math would retain meaning better than any words.
So glad to have found your podcast (this episode in particular) right after watching the Joe Rogan Experience episode you were on last year. You have sparked my interest in quantum physics! Can't wait for all the new episodes to come; all 4 that I have listened to so far have been great.
Thanks!
Fantastic episode and a great start to your series Mr. Carroll. Can' t wait for more episodes! Love your work and love to hear your views and opinions on everything. I hope this really takes off for you sir so we can get more great conversations and topics from you and your guests!!!!
Thanks for hosting this podcast Sean. I've always loved your interviews and talks on other shows. I can't wait to see what other amazing guests you'll have on!
I found out about you through a Joe Rogan podcast and then looked for your podcast. I listened to the first and now listening to this one. I also subscribed and am just fascinated by all this. Keep them coming. These are awesome. Thank you!
Fascinating conversation... full of clarity.
This podcast is essential. Please keep this going.
Sean you are so intelligent and well spoken! I luxuriate in listening to your thoughts and high language!
I am loving this podcast! Thank you for it.
Great podcast, so glad you have decided to do this. I would love to hear you speak with Brian Cox.
Very Happy you are starting this podcast! Thanks Sean!
You definitely need to go full video. It will take your podcasts to the next level. Loved it btw
So refreshing to hear a pod like this! Keep it going!
Love this content and will definitely be listening to future episodes. Don't mind the no video thing at all, as I'm listening to these while doing other things.
Sean, thank yooooou for starting your own podcast! I already have the feeling it's is going to be in my top five.
Excellent. Format is perfect. I listen at work, so I have no need for video.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Great stuff in these podcasts. Can't wait to listen to you and your next guest.
I've been waiting so long for Sean Carroll to do a podcast! UA-cam has delivered the goods.
i like how physics is becoming popular and actually changing the common sense about reality we had in last century. i think there is something really new coming from it in arts, literature, and human expression in general. it's good because we are now living in a pretty dull era
So glad you started this podcast! Would be great if you made an episode on Many-worlds interpretation some time. I'd like to know why it's your favourite. What good reasons do you think you have for supporting this theory and not some other?
hey I know some people will be like woah you just posted yesterday but wow I would NOT MIND A PODCAST EVERY DAY like seriously I’d rather listen to SC ask questions every day than basically anything else so LETS GO
Continue these!! Been lookin for a good mind warping, head scratching, podcast with people who ACTUALLY know what they’re talking about. Keep it up 👍🏽
Such an interesting conversation, wish it was longer!
This podcast is fantastic! Makes me want to pick up my old books and calculate the universe :)
Wonderful lecturer. A rock star!
Sean:
I am a big fan of yours. I admire (and envy) what a great communicator you are. I enjoy this podcast as well. I can see why you have the office of R.F)!
Loving these mindscape casts, keep em comming !
Awesome, didn't want it to end.
Love you Sean. So happy you started a podcast! Subscribed!
Great talk on the most recent thoughts about the subject.
Already, I'm still only half way though the last one.
Wait - he is travelling at close to light speeds, it just APPEARS to us that they are coming in fast :)
Hell yes Sean! You’re killing it buddy. Love these talks
Very interesting and inspiring discussion. It is nice giving the chance to people working on alternative approaches to quantum qravity to present their theories to the non-specialized public. I suggest inviting someone from the field of condensed matter in future podcasts, to discuss relevant modern topics like, topological matter and phase transitions, many-body phenomena, entanglement and quantum information, etc.
Sean, first, your podcast is great. Thanks for the initiative. We have discovered that you are also a great host, always putting in the right context questions (and answers). Carlo Rovelli: Quantum Gravity is a terrific matter (Carlos´ specialisation) but the discussion I would have loved to listen is about THE ARROW OF TIME. Both of you have strong positions about this subject. What do you think about the PERSPECTIVAL thesis of Carlo? You probably had this discussion in private with him. Please, create a podcast about this matter, in general. Cheers. Antonio
Please do not stop podcasting
Great podcasts Sean, thank you. You touched on something that is of great interest to me. Super Symmetry. We have had one major energy upgrade at CERN and there have been NO detections of super symmetric particles. Yes, they could exist at higher energies. But what if they don't show up? If super symmetry is dead, would this not mean big problems for the standard model? Thanks...
Gully Foyle ..it would cause a MAJOR reassessment of many theories BASED on supersymmetry, but remember,..as beautiful as supersymmetry is , it is not per se, the standard model but a potential extension of it...sadly too,, because the theory is so elegant..
Gracias por este podcast. Ojalá tuviera subs en Español para alcanzar a más personas
1:08:20 - It’s coming. Publishing now and full formalization by the end of this upcoming Academic year. Eyes on Berkeley, imo.
What is coming? A load of bullshit? :-)
@@schmetterling4477 Field Theory Unified. ^.^ - ua-cam.com/video/71jKhTAPdgc/v-deo.html -
I’m personally very happy that you read your own audiobooks.
Thanks for the great podcast Sean Carroll 🙂🙂
Excellent discussion.
Amazing! I really loved the quantization of the Gravity part @ 30-35 minutes.
However, i was astonished to not find a choice both are wrong and yet both are right @ 1:05. Don't you believe what you say, sir?
Nice podcast!
Thank you!
Please show you talking with the person you are interviewing. A picture on for and hour does not do justice to a podcast on UA-cam. Love your work! Video is needed!!! Thank you for educating all of us.
This is amazing! Good job!
Just finished listening to the 1st one.
Good show Sean... the imagery of interlinked quantum gravity loops is attractive but it lead me to wonder would this net-like structure exist in two demensions,or three ? I get the fact that they themselves, would BE spacetime, but interesting differences are suggested by both models.
Sean, I have a black hole question. How close to the event horizon or the physical black hole do you get before the gravity differences between head and feet begin to cause joint pain?
Before the event horizon or after?
Sean, what are some implications of the LHC not finding evidence for SUSY? Do you we simply probe at higher energies?
I know you and Carlo touch on this near the end of but wanted to hear your thoughts directly.
I like that you are not afraid to disagree.
Very good podcast. Rovelli emphasized correctly that it is a big deal that evidence for supersymmetry haven't shown up yet in the CERN experiments
More of these please!
Thanks Sean. Do you think the speed of light has ever varied over time?
Can someone explain this to me. I watched a video with Carlo and he talked about black holes and that the star still resides deep inside the black hole. Not the singularity. Actual star. I never heard that before.
Great podcast. Thank you so much.
Excellent stuff.
I have gardening to do today. This will make it far more enjoyable :)
You have a great voice, Sean!
Maybe it's just me, but when I think of the Speed of Light in terms of Speed of Time, things tend to make more sense.
Can you talk with Nima Arkani-Hamed? I'm really intrigued by the amplituhedron and EFThedron.
Im already excited. Quantum was my favourite module. Can you do something on QED? That would be cool.
Great Choice !
You cannot be "a realist about reality" because the whole aim of physics is to establish what physical reality is, so you don't have the ground to be a realist to start with. That's precisely what you are looking for: the ground where you can actually asume a realist position. If that ground does not pertain to the category of the actual, then your realist position can't be what you say it is, Sean. It's not realism but idealism, which is what you are trying to avoid.
Sean, I love your fresh podcast. It would be awesome if you had Nima Arkani-Hamed on. Would love to hear you two exchange ideas.
Having trouble understanding why the EM field can be measured in an arbitrarily small volume of phase space, but that the gravity field cannot. (Was not previously aware of the "Landau error".) Wouldn't the energy in the EM field have mass and cause a black hole in the gravity-space field? Don't these fields share a phase space? Did I hear these arguments incorrectly?
Amazing Podcast, Sean! I specifically love the intro where you give us some backgrond information on the guest and their area of expertise. Really helps fully digest the whole podcast. Cheers!
Sean, you rock bro. Me, You, and Hugh. That's the name of my unwritten script. It'll be terrible. You'll love it.
Nice podcast and format Sean, love it! I also like Closer to Truth with Robert Lawrence Kuhn. It would be great to turn the table on Robert to explore what he has come to believe from his quest to find truth. Ask him if he really means it when he says he would like to believe in God or whether he is cleverly catering to his religious interviewees so they can feel comfortable letting out their worst babble. Other than that appreciate and expect your podcast will leave out the woo woo artists.
You're a clown. Get a life.
Love the podcast so far! See it you can get David Deutsch!
Hey Sean, please do an episode on quantum Darwinism.
"Benedict Cumberbunch" haha
You're awesome. I love your work. You should totally interview fellow Everettian and philosophy of physics, David Wallace!
I’m so happy!
Very nice. Thanks a lot!
Great podcasts, please level out the audio though, little sharp on headphones.
"I see our direct experience of reality is tremendously overrated frankly" hilarious :)
I'd love to see Sean interview people with a different perspective on the physics of gravity and space-time than the ones that already get so much publicity (string theory, for example). Grigory Volovik and Xiao-Gang Wen have amazing results for the emergence of both particles and forces from underlying strongly-correlated degrees of freedom. I think interviewing them would be refreshing for a lot of listeners.
When I move from point A to point B, do I move through space, or does space move through me? Your answer will be leveraged with reconciliation with 'local' causal shared symmetry which necessitates [differential time: t'] for any object that exhibit mass.
Wasn't there an idea floating around that gravity exists across all 10 dimensions, and we experience only that portion of gravity which manages to "leak" into this dimension?
This was written at the outset of this podcast, so if it is discussed by these gents do not treat me mean.
Something I regret, whenever people try to introduce or explain what quantum mechanics is, they seem to always gloss over the quantizing part of it. I'd really like to hear a good description of why exactly energy levels are quantized, and why they are quantized specifically in the way that they are. Does quantization derive from the uncertainty principle in some way, or do we do it just because experiments suggest that that is what we should be doing? Or is there perhaps no consensus on what the origin of quantization is?
I feel like understanding what exactly quantization is, at its core, or how it emerges, is somehow key to understanding what exactly QM is, or what it's trying to tell us. I don't understand why this key element is always skipped in talks where it appears the goal is to give an audience a basic intuitive understanding of what QM is supposed to be.
Maarten Billemont
Quantisation is very precisely defined in physics. It's covered in detail over several years in a good physics degree course. You can get an intuitive glimpse of it by looking at the set of harmonics you can get from a vibrating guitar string - the energy levels of an atom are quantised in a similar way to the frequencies of a vibrating string, or a drum or a bell. They have very definite sets of values that can be calculated using one or two very basic laws of physics. But to understand the nature of the analogy, I think you'd need to hone your ninja mathematical skills and then take a physics course.
Here's a really good one:
ua-cam.com/video/lZ3bPUKo5zc/v-deo.html
It's interesting to try to think about cognitive dissonance in relation to new perspectives on gravity from Verlinde (Emergent gravity??) to Rovelli and Smolin (Loop) to MOND, etc., but I am going with Robinson's science fiction book, Mars Trilogy, that merges Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory into one, if Cumberbatch reads the audio version.
thank you
this would be an ideal vehicle for moving naturalism forward ... you can use that if you like
love Sean !
Please be closer to the mic when y'all talk real quiet. It's hard to hear sometimes what you are saying.