Lucien Hardy on quantum gravity and (apparent) paradoxes
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 тра 2024
- Lucien Hardy is a theoretical physicist working at the intersection of the two pillars of modern physics - general relativity and quantum mechanics - in the quest for a single unifying theory: quantum gravity. Hardy joins co-hosts Lauren and Colin for a conversation about the puzzles that have driven him throughout his career, including the past 20 as a Perimeter faculty member. Hardy recalls the radio program that first sparked his childhood curiosity about the universe, describes his operational approach to big quantum puzzles, and explains the paradox that bears his name (as well as a second, somewhat-tongue-in-cheek paradox devised by his wife).
Conversations at the Perimeter is co-hosted by Perimeter Teaching Faculty member Lauren Hayward and journalist-turned-science communicator Colin Hunter. In each episode, they chat with a guest scientist about their research, their motivations, the challenges they encounter, and the drive that keeps them searching for answers.
The podcast is produced by the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, a not-for-profit, charitable organization supported by a unique public-private model, including the Governments of Ontario and Canada. Perimeter’s educational outreach initiatives, including Conversations at the Perimeter, are made possible in part by the support of donors like you. Be part of the equation: perimeterinstitute.ca/donate
conversationsattheperimeter.p...
/ perimeter
/ perimeter-institute
/ perimeterinstitute
/ pioutreach - Наука та технологія
Although I’m ill equipped to understand physics, I still manage to take home some grains of insight and I thank all involved in this fascinating interview.
I'm only 30 mins in and this is already one of the best videos I've seen on this channel.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together.
------------------------
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist. The model grew out of that simple idea.
I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.
Wen public lecture 🙏 great to see Lucien again!
You guys do an outstanding job interviewing.
You each question in your own probing ways
@3:00 one problem is too many physicists do not appreciate gravity is all about non-compact global symmetries, which can be gauged but only in the abstract (general covariance), and are not local topology gauging, whereas all the other "quantum" forces are all about *_local_* symmetry transformations ("rotations" between elementary particles in a local topological space, or fibre bundle if you like, but that's just an abstraction of spacetime topology). The lesson is, stop trying to (re)quantize gravity, it is _already_ quantum mechanical, you just have to respect the separation of scales. Global symmetries do not have to be forced to be local (gravitons) and gravitons are not necessary to explain most gravitational effects.
If you need a superposition or entanglement of a gravity field, then gravitons become useful, but apart from the very early universe or maybe inside black holes, there is no need for gravitons and they'd be highly unstable to dispersion into gravity waves, which can classically superpose, but then lose particle-like attributes.
4:55 If you want to fly, the speed above the wing must be faster (than below), therefore less pressure above the wing (than below), therefore the uplift. He basically explained how to "downlift".
Besides that, I only have a minor in Physics and later in the talk he lost me. Such advanced ideas and concepts are only for the frontrunners to think about.
Very interestintg, thanks Lucien!
We are missing a chapter in the Quest for the TOE. Who was it that said paradox's don't exist anywhere but in theory? I'm scared I want to go home.
Daniel Craig is so clever. Very interesting interview.
Fascinating story Lucien
I think... apart from a completely symmetrical wing at zero AoA giving zero lift, the air molecule travels 'faster' over a curved wing, and not under, resulting in a pressure differential, with 'relative' low above to high pressure below. The pressure differential is assured in a symmetrical wing by setting an angle of incidence, or by increasing the AOA to the relative airflow. Hence upside down flying is permitted, but with an increased drag co-efficient. Should we be saying quantum anti-gravity instead of the attracting type ? Lift force cancels (gravity x mass = weight)
IKR, the lift is on the top...
Why can’t I say it is obvious because the air is hitting the underside and pushing it up? Then no problem about flying upside down. No need for Bernoulli
Love it! ❤️
Lucien, Lauren and Colin, the great Albert Einstein passed away without fulfilling his dream of a Theory of Everything in Physics. Lately, there are talks by some prominent scientists and mathematicians whether to abandon Einstein and his two theories of Relativity. In my opinion, we don't need to abandon Einstein and his classical physical theories. He inspired people around the world. He is one of the founders of Quantum Mechanics which is the most precise model of the microscopic world and the macroscopic world- Special Relativity and General Relativity (GR). Although it turned out lately that GR is wrong and could not be unified with Quantum Mechanics, it nonetheless brought forward winning formula, ways and means of tackling difficult problems in science. It is now up to us to continue his quest for a theory of everything in physics.
The key is Quantum Gravitation. We now have an empirical theory of Quantum Gravity- The unitary Trinity God Theory and Equations that are deeply hidden in plain sight and manifested by Quantum Gravitation, Quantum Gravitational Entanglement and Gravitational Quantum Computation.
Also, Quantum Gravity is the key to unification of Gravity ang Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Gravity and the theory, mathematics, laws, reproducible experiments and observations that underpinned it, is crucial for an empirical real true Quantum Theory of Gravity that would finish Einstein's Revolution in physics. Problem is that, since the 17th century up to the present, the Mathematics that we have so far cannot solve the problem of quantum gravitation.
Mathematics is invented and discovered. That's my personal experience. I've invented/discovered a completely new mathematics in the course of my 30-year-long basic research on Quantum Gravity in Singapore. I called it Majulah Matematika in honour of my home country Singapore. I use it to solve one of the most difficult conundrums in physics- the True Nature of Gravity. In addition, I also have invented/discovered the elusive Magnetic Monopole and the Gravitational Computation Language and Codes that program and run the Quantum Gravitation and the Universe itself as the Ultimate Massive Cosmic Computer System covering the entire observable Universe.
Here is one of the many solutions that we can derive from my new mathematics: A Computer Universe that is real. It is run by Quantum Gravitational Computation, Quantum Gravitational Entanglement and Quantum Gravitation covering the entire Universe. An empirical Theory of Quantum Gravity is the key. And it will led us to understanding of how and why Gravity works. It will also at the same time, debunk and invalidate String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, M Theory, Theory of General Relativity and all failed and wrong theories of gravity. But it will proved and validate Einstein's Hidden Variables and EPR's authors Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen correct. The Hidden variables are: Quantum Gravity, Quantum Anti-Gravity, Quantum Neutral Gravity, the macroscopic cosmic scale Gravitational Quantum Entanglement and Gravitational Quantum Computation. All these would complete the Quantum Foundation, Unification of Gravity with Quantum Mechanics and the realization of Theory of Everything in Physics.
I have discovered and cracked the code of the true nature of Gravity in my over 30 years of basic research works in Singapore. This discovery/invention/theory of mine include THE GOD EQUATION - THE TRINITY Equations, Laws and Codes For QUANTUM GRAVITATION , QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL ENTANGLE MENT and GRAVITATIONAL QUANTUM COMPUTATION that pave the way for Theory of Everything in Physics: - THE 3-in-1 HOLY GRAILS of Physics, as follows:
1. Quantum Anti-Gravity/Spin Up Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/0 Rhu Bit or R Bit:
QAG = ∆QGOρ < ∆QGFρ = ↑α
2. Quantum Gravity/Spin Down Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/1 Rhu Bit or R Bit:
QG = ∆QGOρ > ∆QGFρ = ↓α
3. Quantum Neutral Gravity/Superposition Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/01 and/or 10 Rhu Bit or R Bit:
QNG = ∆QGOρ = ∆QGFρ = ↑↓α
We now have a working Quantum Theory of Gravity that is testable and complete with reproducible empirical experiments with the same results if repeated over and over again and again, confirmed by empirical observations in nature with 7-Sigma level results, guided by empirical Laws, Cosmic/Universal Computation and physical/mathematical Trinity God Equations that are predictive, precise and does no collapse even in high energies of Big Bang and singularity of Black Hole.
Quantum Gravity or Quantum Gravitation have three types that are equivalent to and manifested by Quantum Computational Gravitation- the biggest and most powerful Computer Software Program and Hardware in the Universe and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - a Quantum Entanglement at Macroscopic Cosmic Scale namely:
1. Quantum Anti-Gravity = Spin Up Quantum Entanglement State;
2. Quantum Neutral Gravity = Superposition Quantum Entanglement State;
3. Quantum Gravity = Spin Down Quantum Entanglement State.
Quantum Gravitation is governed by and follow the unitary Trinity Laws, Mathematics and Physics of Quantum Gravitation, Gravitational Quantum Computation and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement. We now have a new Laws of Physics and two newly discovered Fundamental Forces of Nature - The Quantum Neutral Gravity and Quantum Anti-Gravity which completed the heart of the Quantum Theory of Gravity published in London. Paris and Zurich last December 2022 as follows:
1. First Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Universal Law of Quantum Gravitation:
“The greater mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects than the Quantum
Gravitational Field causes a downward acceleration of the Quantum Objects in a
Quantum Gravitational Field instantaneously mediated by Graviton.”
- Roel Real Rovira
Equation for Quantum Gravity, and Spin Down Quantum Gravitational Entanglement:
QG = ∆QGOρ > ∆QGFρ = ↓α
Where:
QG is Quantum Gravity in Rovira (value of downward acceleration force due to quantum gravity) in kg.
∆QGOρ is Differential Change in greater mass density of Quantum Gravitating Objects than the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
↓α is the Resultant Downward Acceleration of Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec.
2. Second Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Universal Law of Quantum Anti-Gravity.
“The lesser mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects than the Quantum Gravitational
Field causes an upward acceleration of the Quantum Objects in a Quantum Gravitational
Field instantaneously mediated by Graviton.”
-Roel Real Rovira
Equation for Quantum Anti-Gravity/Spin Up Quantum Gravitational Entanglement:
QAG = ∆QGOρ < ∆QGFρ = ↑α
Where:
QAG is Quantum Anti-Gravity in Rovira (value of upward acceleration force due to quantum anti-gravity) in kg.
∆QGOρ is Differential Change in lesser mass density of Quantum Anti-Gravitating Objects than the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
↑α is the Resultant Upward Acceleration of Anti-Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec.
3. Third Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Law of Quantum Neutral Gravitation.
“The equal mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects and the Quantum Gravitational
Field causes a zero acceleration or floating or hoovering of the gravitating Quantum Objects
in a Quantum Gravitational Field, instantaneously mediated by Graviton.”
- Roel real Rovira
Equation for Quantum Neutral Gravity and Superposition Quantum Gravitational Entanglement:
QNG = ∆QGOρ = ∆QGFρ = ↑↓α
Where:
QNG is Quantum Neutral Gravity in Rovira (value of zero acceleration force due to quantum neutral gravity) in kg.
∆QGOρ is Differential Change in equal mass density of Quantum Neutral Gravitating Objects to the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3.
↑↓0α is the Resultant zero acceleration or non-acceleration of Neutral Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec.
More detailed information could be found on the published papers 2 years ago in London, Paris, and Zurich, online and at the two scientific journals California-based ACADEMIA and Singapore-based REAL TRUE NATURE. Alternatively, you can google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA to arrive at the published paper on the one and only empirical testable theory of Quantum Gravity to date.
Most recently, additional two well respected scientific journals namely NATURE and the AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY APS Physical Review Journals have officially invited this author to submit manuscripts on his Research on Quantum Gravity for publication for PRX QUANTUM in preparation for a celebration for International Year of Quantum IYQ 2025 to showcase the best papers of the year.
Copyright 2022 ROEL REAL ROVIRA. All Rights Reserved.
How is Time treated in Hardy's proposal? The Time in QM is Newtonian, as we see in the Schrodinger equation. This is a problem since that notion of Time is not possible in GR.
I have been following Klee Irwin and the research of The Quantum Gravity Research Lab and his approach actually makes sense to me... and I am a complete dummy on the subject.
The analogy of the moved wing in a fluid that splits it, to the doublesplit quatum effects on emitted photons, model each a case of entropy and its disturbance into chaos. In those aspects, gravity is not essential.
Gravitational leasing as "propulsion?" for intestellar travel? Repulsion from start point, attraction at end point?
Inverse square rule
My pop Lucien thank you for thy attending unto our OWN! Love you too! Students will say remembering ye once born, to crawling, to walking, and till now thy feet resting upon the NEW very tip of time! Mileage from thy feet is recognize!
17:00 If quantum mechanics itself cannot be a complete description of nature how could basing quantum *gravity* upon it hope to find the right answers?
Is gravity a function of the interaction between the 3rd dimension and another?
Is there surface tension on space like on water? The quantum particles might be unaffected by gravity like water striders on the surface of a pond.
0D is a point ('representative' dot in a theoretical circle)
What is a 1D point?
1D is a straight line consisting of two points. Therefore, a 1D point is a contradiction.
Bernoulli principle in fluid dynamics is the inverse of what Lucian said. The lower energy potential is in the faster less dense air over the top of the wing causing lift. The flow below the wing is slower. Is this how to think differently?
I wrote a similar comment. He just mixed it up. Your last question sounds a bit rude.
1738 Bernoulli's principles, the first plane by Cayle was a glider in 1799. Newton 1642 to 1727 had no planes or principles of flight in Newton's time. After that he lost me with inaccurate developmental history of General Relativity which stemmed from Special Relativity and the incongruence of Maxwell's equations with it. That is why AE was led to considering both Lorentz and Riemann geometry and had the brilliant idea of the equivalence principle. Later developing GR. Quantum Gravity research seems fruitless as no one has explained or understands gets quantum behavioural mechanics anyway. But he said 1 thing correct, and that is We are looking at it all the wrong way.
you should start to think about phenomenological methods for solving such philosophical questions. ...
Back to school. It's the air above a wing that goes faster and at reduced pressure.
Simples
If we can link electromagnetism to gravity, we have Quantum Gravity because the photon of QM is the carrier of EM. Both gravitational fields and EM fields share the Inverse Square Law, that can represent one geometrical process that forms Relativity.
All the SWAGs (scientific wild ass guesses) that I have come up with or have seen, including the space curvature "guess" of this video, place the 1/r^2 as just circumstance. Making it unlikely that electromagnetism and gravity have much in common other than that one bit of math.
The inverse square law is no biggie, anything that propagates outwards will die away at that rate, everything else being equal, because of the way the surface area of a sphere depends on radius.
As to a geometrical basis for EM, which is a perfectly sensible suggestion, Kaluza and Klein had a go at that independently in the 1920s, invoking a fifth dimension. It was an imaginative and brave idea and 'almost' worked as a way of explaining electrical charge geometrically and there has been interest in K-K theories since (which motivated string theories arguably).
@@martinsoos Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared is Einstein's famous equation E=MC², but why and what process links energy, mass and light together in this way? In this theory E=MC² is an approximation of (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ with energy, mass, light and time dilation all part of one process. Energy ∆E slows the rate that time ∆t flows as a process of continuous creation relative to the energy & momentum of each object or life form. Mass will increase relative to this with the inward force of gravity linked to the outward momentum of light. Therefore both gravitational and electromagnetic force are relative to the inverse square law! This dynamic geometry forms Einstein's Equivalence Principle between gravity and acceleration, because energy and momentum have to increase for an object to accelerate the characteristics of three-dimensional space (or spherical geometry) also increases. This forms the time dilation of Relativity and will be felt as inertia in the direction of the acceleration. Gravity and all the different forms of inertial forces are all based on this emergent geometrical process of energy exchange.
@@richardturbine1769 I disagree the Inverse Square Law is the 'biggie' representing the dynamic three dimensional geometry of our Universe. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared is Einstein's famous equation E=MC², but why and what process links energy, mass and light together in this way? In this theory E=MC² is an approximation of (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ with energy, mass, light and time dilation all part of one process. Energy ∆E slows the rate that time ∆t flows as a process of continuous creation relative to the energy & momentum of each object or life form. Mass will increase relative to this with the inward force of gravity linked to the outward momentum of light. Therefore both gravitational and electromagnetic force are relative to the 'inverse square law'! This dynamic geometry forms Einstein's Equivalence Principle between gravity and acceleration, because energy and momentum have to increase for an object to accelerate the characteristics of three-dimensional space (or spherical geometry) also increases. This forms the time dilation of Relativity and will be felt as inertia in the direction of the acceleration. Gravity and all the different forms of inertial forces are all based on this emergent geometrical process of energy exchange.
@@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time E=mc^2 has nothing to do with light specifically. All massless particles travel at C. A better name for this constant is the speed of causality, or the unique invariant speed of the Lorentz transformation group. I recommend you get A LOT more familiar with firmly established physics before attempting to come up with any novel "theories," because until then, anything you speculate is virtually guaranteed to be based on myriad such misconceptions.
What is with that music in the intro? It sounds like the start for a kid's show, not a scientific institute.
I don't quite get it... how can people work on quantum gravity, with any real expectations, while we still don't know what 2/3ds of the mass is in the greater scheme of things. Obviously we missing very fundamental physics, if we can't explain where most of the mass in the universe comes from, and since gravity is connected to mass somehow, it seems like trying to solve quantum gravity before mass, is splashing around in the dark.
What if we find out that gravity is just a small part of an unseen dimension? Maybe our entire universe is totally unknowable because it so multi-dimensional that we (in 4 dimensions) are only aware of a fraction of it.
Hello Professor Hardy. I do so agree with you that there need s to be a fundamental different approach to unifyiing quantum physics with clessical physics. I honestly believe that the reason why here are the problems there are, is because the standard model of the composition of the atom is fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons, amngkst otheres.
a). How is it possible for a single electron as in the case of the hydrogen atom, to form an ' Electron Cloud ', that fills the whole area between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, at every moment in time, when this area is over 100,000, 000 times that of the electron?
b). If the electron does act as desribed in the standard model, by whizzing around the nucleus, changing trajectory many thousands of timmes a second, where does it get its energy from to initiate and maintain its momentum?
c). Following on from b). this momentum and changing trajectory, would require energy to be expended, and thus dissipating heat. Therefore every atom and thus all matter would be emitting heat, which plainly it is not?
d). How is it possible for the electron to have the same charge holdig capacity as the proton, which is around 2,000 times its size. It would be like a tiny watch battery having the same charge holding capacity as a very large tractor battery?
I have been working on a very radical hypothesis for an alternative to the standard model of the composition of the atom, the cornerstone of which, is that the electron as described in the standard model, is not a fundamental solid particle, but is in fact composed of much smaller negativel charged monopole particles called ' Harveytrons '.
These incredibly small particles, fill every available empty space within the atom forming a cloud. this cloud extends to every available empty space throughout the universe.
Together with a corresponding positively charged monopole particle, they composed all of the nuclei in the universe. The negatively charged monopole ' Harveytrons ', are the ' Dark Matter ', and the missing mass of the universe. Because there is a massive excecess of the negatively charged particles throughout the universe, there exists a negative force of repulsion. This is the ' Dark Energy ', and is what is causing the universe to expand. It is also a constituent of gravity, which I believe is both a force of attraction and repulsion.
To make sense of my hypothesis, it needs to be read in the whole, which I would be happy to make available to you if you were interested. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
Hellow Professor Hardy. Further to my previous comment, I watched your video again and I took note of your points about quantum gravity needing to have two causal factors acting at the same time, and also that the big breakthroughs are normally instigated by young people working in the field.
I am 72 years old, an inventor with patents granted in diverse fields of mechanical engineering and botany, and what you might call a ' Seer ', where often I can see past problems that others can't. I have a background in both mechanical and electrical engineering, and spent 11 years working in the technical side of ' British Telecom ', as a techinical diagnostic engineer.
I believe that my hypothesis can give you the new radical approach that you are looking for in a logical manner. It can answer may of the questions that you are trying to answer, it can unify quantum physics with classical physics, and fit with the proven laws of classical physics.
I believe that the standard model is far too complicated, and as such is leading physicists down the wrong path, looking for particles that do not exist, and trying to make mathematics fit a model that is fundamentally flawed. I hypothesize that the the electron as described in the standard model, cannot be whizzing around the so called void in the atom, for the reasons I cited in my previous comment.
I also hypothesize that the nucleus consists of just two descrete particles, The extremely small negatively charged monopole ' Harveytron ' particle that I have described, and a corresponding possitively charged monopole particle, together forming a cloud throughout the universe. These two particles make up everything that exists in the universe. The interactions between these particles explains quantum gravity and all gravity, which are the same thing. It also explains ' Dark Matter ', ' Dark Energy ', how both electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves are able to travel through space, the missing mass of the universe, why the speed of light is what it is and why this is the maximum speed that anything can travel through space. I do realize that what I am proposing, is very radical, and will be dismissed by many as rubbish, but if looked at carefully, it will be found to have some merrit.
I am Happy to be proved wrong, and can answer any questions. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
Sir I'm afraid that you're just bonkers
@@filippozar8424 Thank you for your interesting reply, this is exactly what I was expecting when I profferd my hypothesis, since it is so radical. However, bear with me for a moment, befor writing off what I say out of hand. If you have a good understanding of physics, not necessarily mathematics, I would be very interested in your answer to the following questions logically..
a). How is it possible for a single electron as in the case of the hydrogen atom, to form an ' Electron Cloud ', that fills the whole area between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, at every moment in time, when this area is over 100,000, 000 times that of the electron?
b). If the electron does act as desribed in the standard model, by whizzing around the nucleus, changing trajectory many thousands of timmes a second, where does it get its energy from to initiate and maintain its momentum?
c). Following on from b). this momentum and changing trajectory, would require energy to be expended, and thus dissipating heat. Therefore every atom and thus all matter would be emitting heat, which plainly it is not?
d). How is it possible for the electron to have the same charge holdig capacity as the proton, which is around 2,000 times its size. It would be like a tiny watch battery having the same charge holding capacity as a very large tractor battery?
e). In the standard model the proton and the neutron are each made up of three quarks, these in turn are composed of neutrinos and an electron, which is a contradiction of the accepted statement that the electron has an equal but opposite chare to the proton. If the proton is made up of three quarks, then there exists three electron in the proton and thre electrons in the neutron, which means that there are six electrons in the nucleus. This proves that the standard model is fundamentally flawed, since, the electron in the space outside the nucleus has a charge value of one, negative, and the proton is one possitive, the presence of these electrons in the nulceus, should make it negative. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
Why
In short: how quantum entanglement which is, practically speaking, an action at a distance, could possibly be commensurate with GR which is a local theory?
GR has wormholes. It has non local solutions to the equations.
I love Perimeter's modern equipment, such as huge microphones on complicated tripods, etc. Their knowledge is amazing. Question: Can any of the smart professors there explain why Einstein says the "size" of an object in space pushes space itself away and created the gravity. But that would mean the mass of two equally sized objects would not change gravity - and that's not the case.
I'm not sure what you mean by "an object in space pushes space itself away." What Einstein's field equations describe is the effect of matter on spacetime coordinates -- their curvature or deviation from a flat spacetime in empty space. The curvature itself manifests as gravity.
"Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move."
Hello from Kazakhstan. Thank you for the video. There is a hypothesis - a single picture of the universe: When moving and fluctuating in vacuum, the electromagnetic field in the nodes - Forms quanta of gravity - Which control the speed of light. This can be observed with the help of a mobile, new Michelson-Morley hybrid- experiment, if it is in motion relative to the DGF - the dominant gravitational field, for example, in 🚆, as in Einstein's mental experience…
A Theorist wants only one theory to project onto assembled measurement facts.
The Observer's POV is WYSIWYG self-defining QM-TIME Completeness.
Graduates are required to "make the connection" in comprehensible terminology (PhD), and apply techniques developed for the purpose.
You like abbreviations eh?
A paradox can never exist!. It is simply a bad formulated question that leads to an impossible situation. Once you correct that question, there is not paradox
The causal structure is affected by matter _and energy_. Theoretically you could create a black hole using a large number of powerful lasers.
We need to abandon the notion of a particle, a spherical ball of matter which is only a human construct, not real. The particle is messing us up because a human cannot see both sides of a sphere at the same time. When a second observer is tasked to witness the otter side of the particle and send a message to the first observer we have a time problem. So we cannot know what both sides are doing at the same time. Conclusion, abandon the idea of a particle and use vortices. Winding and unwinding vortices in time based on heat(thermodynamics). It’s called spyroe theory. The basic claim is humans are destined to perceive through a specific shape, as a collective we construct reality. The shape of a spyroe is the most basic shape in nature, created by collective consciousness.
Mass units are photons of wavelength 2π Planck length trapped over own gravity.
The math is self evident.
The charge pairs which "cancel out" in quark math create this photon. With maybe a ubiquitous neutrino to give it a nudge.
Neutrinos should maybe be renamed the AharonovBohm particles as they are all spin/phase.
Maybe relativity is just an emergent property from the underlying quantum reality? Pour salt in one spot and you end up with a cone of salt, but the equation of a cone has nothing to do with the equations governing the interactions between the grains of salt.
I think it's likely that quantum theory is more "fundamental" than GR. I know that quantum theory is correct, I don't know about spacetime though.
Likewise unto my Feet controlling the elements! Knows WHO? Likewise murmuring among themselves concerning their AIMS! Why? Students will say if the True Owner will visit! Will keep aims belongs nor aims not recognize! My Heirs and our Beautiful share thy I AM unto all the "WHO AM I"?
I came up with a principle of equivalence too - quantum particle=quasiparticle.
You're right. You're not thinking about quantum gravity in the right way. You have to think about the mechanism that makes quantum mechanics work, the mechanism that makes relativity work, and then the mechanism that can do both of the previous two mechanisms.
Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared is Einstein's famous equation E=MC², but why and what process links energy, mass and light together in this way? In this theory E=MC² is an approximation of (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ with energy, mass, light and time dilation all part of one process. Energy ∆E slows the rate that time ∆t flows as a process of continuous creation relative to the energy & momentum of each object or life form. Mass will increase relative to this with the inward force of gravity linked to the outward momentum of light. Therefore both gravitational and electromagnetic force are relative to the inverse square law! This dynamic geometry forms Einstein's Equivalence Principle between gravity and acceleration, because energy and momentum have to increase for an object to accelerate the characteristics of three-dimensional space (or spherical geometry) also increases. This forms the time dilation of Relativity and will be felt as inertia in the direction of the acceleration. Gravity and all the different forms of inertial forces are all based on this emergent geometrical process of energy exchange.
Students will say, gave them something to talk about! To whom Students? Unto all the scientists, technologies, mathematicians, nor men molding iron nor elements!
How do you sit like that at an interview? Lol
I (a layman) think it is clear when you analyze the problem that general relativity has to be explained by quantum mechanical foundations. So QM would be fundamental, as it is intrinsically outside of space and time (and doesn't play by its rules) if you think like Spinoza in attributes and modes; it is beyond matter and extension (in Spinoza's words), as it actually is the wave function that somehow explains extension (or something like that, feel like I should have stopped at attributes and modes); therefore it is likely space and time is built up by qm (if you feel one is explained by the other), as for as far as we know a third physical mechanism is not known to us as a third optional explanation
You're wrong about Bernoulli. The air travels FASTER (because it has to cover a greater distance in the same time) over a wing not slower. Conservation of momentum makes the static pressure lower whilst the velocity increases. Hence higher static pressure below the wing. Are you really a physicist?
8⁸9⁹⁸
The comments section is where all the crackpots gather.
I always scope the science vid comments... its all knowitalls, dipshits, and whackos. so lame yet captivating. I find myself hate reading...
And then this piece of math showed up: ua-cam.com/video/epSev7ovVew/v-deo.html
The axioms of physics are observations.
I'm trying to think this through, but I must admit, I don't understand what that could mean?
Why is it that I cannot stand someone who, without reason, favors 'many world interpretation'?
Here a reason. Mwi, is really each humans perspective. humans live in their own world. No one can see what a human sees. No one can perceive the same. There are billions of versions of Sonar.
Um um um. Too many ums.
Theory of Everything solution:
[Short answer] swap from Newton to Leibniz as our fundamental blueprint of the universe.
[Long answer] I contend Gottfried Leibniz was correct about the fundamentals of our contingent universe and he just lacked 2022 verbiage and Hamilton's 4D quaternion algebra.
More importantly is that humanity chose Isaac Newton's "real" universe, calculus, gravity, etc. This was a big mistake. We need to correct this problem.
Finishing what Leibniz started (with the intention of destroying what Newton started):
[Math; Geometry 0D point]
A point is a 0-dimensional mathematical object which can be specified in -dimensional space using an n-tuple ( , , ..., ) consisting of. coordinates. In dimensions greater than or equal to two, points are sometimes considered synonymous with vectors and so points in n-dimensional space are sometimes called n-vectors.
1D = line, straight; two points; composite substance; matter
《0D (point) is exact location only; zero size; not a 'thing', not a 'part'; Monad》
"He is the invisible Spirit, of whom it is not right to think of him as a god, or something similar. For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one lords it over him. For he does not exist in something inferior to him, since everything exists in him. For it is he who establishes himself. He is eternal, since he does not need anything. For he is total perfection. A being can have a relationship with a God but not the Monad as that would be a contradiction."
- The Apocryphon of John, 180 AD.
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the monad as an elementary particle.
[Quantum]
Quark is a type of elementary particle and a fundamental 'constituent' of matter. Quarks combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei.
What is another word for quark?
fundamental particle, elementary particle.
Do quarks take up space?
Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension; being dimensionless, it does not take up space.
How fast do quarks move?
the speed of light
[In mathematics, a tuple is a finite ordered list (sequence) of elements. An n-tuple is a sequence (or ordered list) of n elements, where n is a non-negative integer. There is only one 0-tuple, referred to as the empty tuple. An n-tuple is defined inductively using the construction of an ordered pair]
1st four dimensions are 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D ✅.
1st four dimensions are not 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D 🚫.
Human consciousness, mathematically, is identical to 4D quaternion algebra with w, x, y, z being "real/necessary" (0D, 1D, 2D, 3D) and i, j, k being "imaginary/contingent" (1D xi, 2D yj, 3D zk).
1D-9D 'contingent' universe has "conscious lifeforms" (1D xi, 2D yj, 3D zk)..."turning" 'time'.
[In mathematics, a versor is a quaternion of norm one (a unit quaternion). The word is derived from Latin versare = "to turn" with the suffix -or forming a noun from the verb (i.e. versor = "the turner"). It was introduced by William Rowan Hamilton in the context of his quaternion theory.]
[Math; 4D quaternion algebra]
A quaternion is a 4-tuple, which is a more concise representation than a rotation matrix. Its geo- metric meaning is also more obvious as the rotation axis and angle can be trivially recovered.
How do you make a quaternion?
You can create an N-by-1 quaternion array by specifying an N-by-3 array of Euler angles in radians or degrees. Use the euler syntax to create a scalar quaternion using a 1-by-3 vector of Euler angles in radians.
"Turn" to what, you might ask. 5D is the center of 1D-9D. The breadth (space-time). All 'things' and 'parts' are drawn to the center, the whole. (The Dawn -Book of Cain on the creation of the contingent universe)
[Contingent Universe]:
3 sets of 3 dimensions:
(1D-3D/4D-6D/7D-9D)
The illusory middle set (4D, 5D, 6D) is temporal. Id imagine we create this middle temporal set similar to a dimensional Venn Diagram with polarized lenses that we "turn" by being conscious.
Which requires energy. 3D height symmetry/entanglement with 9D absorption is why we are "consumers", we must consume/absorb calories, and sleep, to continue "to turn" 'time' (be alive).
1D-3D spatial set/7D-9D spectral set overlap creating the temporal illusion of 4D-6D set.
According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn't correspond to physical reality. Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton's picture of a universally ticking clock.
Does time exist without space?
Time 'is' as space 'is' - part of a reference frame in which in ordered sequence you can touch, throw and eat apples.
Time cannot exist without space and the existence of time does require energy.
Time, then, has three levels, according to Leibniz:
(i) the atemporality or eternality of God;
(ii) the continuous immanent becoming-itself of the monad as entelechy;
(iii) time as the external framework of a chronology of “nows”
The difference between (ii) and (iii) is made clear by the account of the internal principle of change.
The real difference between the necessary being of God and the contingent, created finitude of a human being is the difference between (i) and (ii).]
1D, 2D, 3D = spatial composite (line, width, height)
4D, 5D, 6D = temporal illusory (length, breadth, depth)
7D, 8D, 9D = spectra energies (continuous, emission, absorption)
Symmetry/entanglement:
1D, 4D, 7D line, length, continuous
2D, 5D, 8D width, breadth, emission
3D, 6D, 9D height, depth, absorption
Conclusion: Humanity needs to immediately swap from "Newton" to "Leibniz".
Our calculus is incorrect (Leibniz > Newton):
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
Our Universal Constants have convoluted answers. Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason fixes this in a day.
(FUNDAMENTALS > specifics)
Lucien Hardy, I enjoyed part of your talk. it is sad to mix quantum with probability. GR with gravity. we told Newton about NAZ for his force of attraction, but we didn't tell him how and where it is generated. he thought he could work it out, but ended dabbling in alchemy. he was a mean man. My grandfather refused to tell einstein, but gave him some clue which Einstein failed to use. so he concocted GR from other people's work. GR as gravity is like trump bleach as vaccine for covid-19. since I resigned I have given all the bits needed to work out gravity in my comments. but so far no one have had the intelligent to put the bits together to understand gravity. you are correct it need new approach, but new approach should use very old idea which is how gravity work.
Wow. Still have no idea what this guy does every da even though he explains it. Someone PAYS him to do this ? 9 -5, x5 days a week? I'm fascinated by physics and cosmology ( no idea why)
I'm glad I dont have to say all this to explain my job ....
I stack shelves in a supermarket 🤣
Boring…should have just let him write out his GR models on the BB and explain how it connects to a theory of QG. Instead we get fluff about people and places and vagaries. Too many commercials for a educational video.
4:33 "...Newton's idea...the same force that causes airplane to fly. " If the emergence of technologies appear in different orders, Newton could have beaten Einstein to general relativity. ;-)
No he couldn't.
This equivalence principle was staring at him right in the face and he missed it 😂.
Einstein got it. Einstein was smarter than even the great Isaac Newton.
Because she sits that way. She is not in her house. what disrespect.
That woman is extremely unprofessional sitting in the chair like that.
There's no theory of q gravity because
1. We've got as yet no idea how Newt gravity works. This should include full explanation of equiv principle. No need for quantum here.
2. Next we should clear up the conundrum of q mechanics.
3. Finally, join both theories easy and sweet.
#1 and #2 are going to be solved in a couple years. Then, physicists will enjoy filling the gaps of #3 for the next 10-20 ys.
What's the conundrum of quantum mechanics?
@@das_it_mane It is a special mechanism that explains NON-LOCALITY, and still respects Relativity. Entangled photons communicate at supra-luminal speed but remain hidden from us. Explaining how and why is the sol to the conundrum
And yes, it is fully deterministic, but you cannot exploit this, since it is hidden... It explains thus the apparent probabilistic behavior.
And yes, all those are wrong who claimed Einst was wrong.
Possibly, my comments to this video, may hold some of the keys to unlock some of the points you raize. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
@@tonymarshharveytron1970 Nice insights, but I can"t see its impact on gravity. Electrodynamics involves heavily the concept of spin, which is missing in gravity. My guess is that gravity must we worked out from a change in framewrork that involves purely mechanical arguments, with neutral, non-spinning particles containig mass and accounting for space deformation.
Unfortunately, a myriad of models have been proposed on these lines but none worked out, so physicists gave up on simple mechanical models to explain gravity.
I still think it must be tried harder and on these simple basic premises.
The interviewers are terrible
Can this guy say more than 3 words without stopping? Arghhh, this is so frustrating to listen to.
Was he actually trapped and had to live in Canada for the last 20 years? Or when you take a job at that Canadian shit hole can you live in America? I'm asking for a Canadian friend.
quite a charming lad you are
Better to get out of Trudeau’s Canada while you can ! !
Come on girl. Sit in the chair like a normal person. Bit disrespectful in my opinion. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but you’re not at an ashram meeting the Mahareeshi Mahesh Yogi in 1969.
Interesting interview but the interviewers need to shape up. The chap unshaved, picking his shoe and touching his face. And the lady not sitting in her chair properly.
Hello. Thank you for the video. Here is a question for you as people of science. Science lacks gravitational experiments, but why are physicists afraid of new experiments with gravity? Budget and simple experiment.
"Take the gravitational field on the surface of the earth and change it - the speed of light in a vacuum" in optical gyroscopes, on a special platform - gyroscopes move in a circle without angular velocity.
PАТЕNТ KZ-33869
we're not afraid of new experiments with gravity. There are many groups working on them. It is difficult to construct an experiment that satisfactorily tests the interface of quantum mechanics and gravity. Perhaps in the next 10-20 years, we'll have one (or more).