The Digital Quest for Quantum Gravity
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 тра 2024
- Could the key to understanding quantum gravity, one of the most sought-after theories in physics, be much more elementary than many physicists believe? Theoretical physicist Renate Loll has developed an elegant theory called Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT) that has produced surprising findings while simulating quantum gravity inside a computer. Her research may one day lead to new insights into how the fabric of space-time formed.
00:00 Is string theory and loop quantum gravity theory wrong?
01:40 What is quantum gravity and how do you develop a theory of it?
02:05 Causal Dynamical Triangulations theory (CDT)
03:27 Computer-simulated quantum gravity revealed a 4D universe
04:28 The future of quantum gravity research
Read the full article at Quanta Magazine: www.quantamagazine.org/renate...
Learn more about Quantum Field Theory: www.quantamagazine.org/what-i...
Read an explainer of the path integral in Quanta: www.quantamagazine.org/how-ou...
- VISIT our Website: www.quantamagazine.org
- LIKE us on Facebook: / quantanews
- FOLLOW us Twitter: / quantamagazine
Quanta Magazine is an editorially independent publication supported by the Simons Foundation: www.simonsfoundation.org/
#Quantum #Gravity #physics #generalrelativity - Наука та технологія
Read the interview on our website: www.quantamagazine.org/renate-loll-blends-universes-to-unlock-quantum-gravity-20230525
Explore our past reporting on quantum gravity: www.quantamagazine.org/tag/quantum-gravity/
Please don‘t put background music when someone speaks about interesting things. It is not boring, it does not need distraction, it does not need fillers. No interesting or important speech ever anywhere (in parliaments, congresses, meetings, etc) gets background music.
The little wibble at 1:32 as Professor Loll says 'gravitational waves' is rather wonderful editing. Just saying
I love your books, big fan!
I've been watching your videos for a while!
love Quanta videos
This channel is great science journalism! ❤
I'm convinced, that simplexes of CDT represent VSL paths in euclidean space.
I’m in University right now study mathematics and Astrophysics and the combination of special relativity and quantum field theory is so fascinating to me. This video inspired me to keep going and figure out the beauties of our universe. ✨🌌🌟
1:33 subtle but nice!
Sounds great: Good luck!
Simple explanation to the idea of CDT!
Finally a different, fresh, story about quantum gravity. And, second surprise, from a Dutch university. 👌🏼
Sounds like the same old story
I have no understanding of quantum physics; really, no comprehension of science at all. However, I comprehend enough to treasure your intellect and your work, Dr. Renate Loll. Thank you. I've shared with a friend. 💖🤗
don't feel bad. Most of us science nerds dont *actually* know quantum physics on a deep level. Many of us try to understand, but it is a process. You can't build Rome in a day, and you can't understand complex ideas in one video.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics, easy to understand.
The humility expressed here appears over stated.
I don’t know if I’d recommend this video to people that have no comprehension of science. Tons of speculation with little detail.
What a great comment
1:32 whoa!
Wouldn't believe I had been the only one noticing it
@@Malkomitch we're the only ones who can see it :)
omg omg omg
Fantastic
How similar or distinct is this from Wolfram Physics Project / ruliology?
the enthu is contagious
I have a recipe for wild rice and mushroom soup that I call quantum soup in order to get the research grants to study it.
So far it is mmm mmm good.
I'm hoping one day the mushroom soup will be the key to unlocking the secrets of the universe.
Always amazing to see awesome researchers from your own university in these videos! Dr. Loll you rock!
What other types of universal shapes were possible?
Any link to an introductory paper on this theory ?
The approach is called Causal dynamical triangulation.
3:36 this is a mind blowing visual. Wondering why the editor decided to only show it so short??
There are other videos as well look up for CDT theory.
4:27 cracks me up for some reason
Nice theory.
At 3:26 or so, when playing at 1.5 speed, the music briefly sounds a bit like (the start of?) one of the touhou songs
Touhou songs are the true nature of reality and the solution to all quantum related questions.
3:20 the interesting result here is that you gave your computer cool eyes :D
TLDW: She theorize that the shape of universe is not a blob/sphere that simply expands but a unique form that curves at places making a complicated shape
What a great communicator Dr. Loll is
Lol, yeah
These discoveries and findings never cease to amaze me. I wonder about the hidden layers that are yet to be explored beneath these discoveries. What a time we live in!
You should be thinking of the layers BEYOND, as we are talking about the largest scale in the universe, the universe itself. At least that was the goal of everything, modelling the 4-dimensional universe(from which gravity should naturally emerge in correct ratios). For that they needed quantum mechanics - the influence of the smallest on the largest.
Postulate 1. Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. Postulate 2. The gravitational field controls the frequency and speed of light in a vacuum.
Placed in parallel coexistence with Professor Susskind's source of understanding Singularity-point positioning in ER=EPR (Aether flash-fractal galactic/holographic time-timing Vortex), an interpretation of Sublimation-Tunnelling projection-drawing is equivalent to a point source "big bang" (not), line-of-sight discrete-ness of Imagery.., inside-outside reciprocation-recirculation closed-circuit e-Pi-i sync-duration (adiabatic) resonances, mathematically speaking.
Guys am not a physicist but am interested in science! (physics) this very morning as i was looking to this video learned something that.....
"Time is nothing but movement of every individual particle in space at quantum level at perfect interval, and its very difficult to capture time because it is moving continuously without stoping and the one who wants to capture time, his body , equipments and surrounding particles, are arleady in movement , in that case may accelerate to an error, thus in order to affect time one, have to affect the particle at quantum level, forexample spinning the particles at high velocity time would seems to slow example car wheel at high speed seem to sloow down in movement" this idea came as i imagined how the "sand timer" worked on those days..tell me guys what do you think.😅😅😅
it's amazing how a complicated theory as CDT can be explained so easy and so interesting, thank you for your hard work
Any physical force is a hydrodynamic effect, within weightless matter, arising from the interference of physical fields. And it always implies the existence of the distinction of movement, as direction, intensity or meaning. Gravity is a physical force, because it is born from the interference of gravitational fields with opposite directions. The interference that creates the depression in space, in which the bodies slide. Because all bodies slide where the pressure is lower.
I donno how real results are. Does she addresses computational irreducedablity?
Here is someone i wish i could learn more from.
Totally agree. I see these people as the ancients must have seen the Gods. Probing the limits of our knowledge to find the ultimate truth. A mystical experience.
I would love to see a practical prediction ❤
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
@@davidrandell2224 will read of, thanks
CDT predicts fractal dimension of 2 for spacetime.
@@frun I think I misunderstand you, I thought fractals were objects of non integer dimensions
@@erickmarin6147 What's the dimension of the Mandelbrot set?
Very interesting about CDT. I would love to take some courses.
My money is that there isn't a field or a particle associated with gravity. No new addition to the standard model.
Rather, my bet is that "gravity" is merely the result of time gradients. Matter slows down time, and objects move according to the shortest path of time between two points.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
I recently found out about Scale Relativity and Fractal Space time which fundamentally challenges the differentiability (El Naschie also the continuity) of space time. This could be one of these game changers and it's just exciting where the journey is going
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
I respect this idea, however, the paper does not mention the word "entanglement" once, and therefore I suspect it is not evolving in the right direction.
My personal understanding of the connection between quantum gravity and general relativity, is that maybe; spacetime down there is characterized by completely different metrics than the Minkowski and Schwarzschild metrics (and others) that describe general relativity macroscopically.
Meaning that many things that are forbidden in the theory of relativity, could be allowed(?) down there in the quantum level due to the nature of the spacetime down there;
So maybe we can have faster than light particles or even particles that travel backwards in time, things that might explain the weird phenomena observed in the theory of quantum mechanics;
I don't know if this idea is correct, its just my intuition.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
There are faster than light particles, but we don't perceive them.
And wow the detail and the attention. Perfection.
Quantum theory and General Relativity have been perfectly aligned since 1981...
Universe Expansion
As for expansion itself, there is a temperature based 2 directional tensor on every particle we have ever observed from plasma photons, up to any atomic weight we have encountered so far.
If you consider a deeper weight particle lives at an interference point and is constantly being fed expressed heat from it's immediately (doubled depth and distance) deeper particle, or from ambient temperature at its' depth in the weight space. The deepest particle interferes a new weight and goes the summed interfered temperature C^3 or degree Celsius deeper in its' weight space, the internal "Cavendish" tensors from the particle depth SR monodimensional BB space, pulls the particle back "up" the temperature scale. The particle will shed two "half temperature" photons back up the atomic pipe causing interference in the half distance position of the atomic pipe and the same thing happens at that temperature scale, all the way back to the aperture of the atom and being expressed as a zero degree Celsius photon particle (No velocity at all).
If you consider the temperature over distance equation, and add in the redshift of the exhibited photons you realise that the redshift of a "stable" atom by definition on the C^3 scale has to achieve a temperature of zero degrees Celsius as it finds its' position in the "visible space".
So instead of the stacked atom we observe, we actually have a redshifted temperature pipet from the Big Bang , too our visible space, which is expressing a Big Bang instantaneous explosive energy at Zero Degrees Celsius and Zero Velocity!
This is our visible aperture of space, and it (the Universe) simply started growing when the expression of the BB in its' GR'd observable frame of reference (i.e. expanding at C) , a C velocity time dilated by its' temperature and redshifted by the decreasing to zero degrees aperture space allowing zero degree Celsius photons to "simply appear" in our space, expanding our Universe one photon at a time multiplied the the "Skin Depth Aperture" of our observed universe.
Atomic particle formation, is the other side of the BB energy cycle through our space, which means the atoms are slowly in comparison "swallowing" photons that are too hot for the zero degree space and their journey back to the Big Bang has started.
When you consider the amount of matter that we observed versus the amount of empty space, it's easy to see why we are still expanding, and likely will continue to do so forever.
I have read Stephen Hawkings' paper "Properties of an Expanding Universe" and everything he postulates and describes fits in to the above theory.
(C) M.B.Eringa; S Hawking; G Dalton; 1989;
Woah
what if you ngon'ed your dynamical causal?
Great video
The background music is a little distracting. Could you tone it down a little.
Are there any parallels to Wolfram's model?
Yeh! they're both wrong!
@@Gringohuevon lol! so what do you think is less wrong?
Certainly, there are.
So quanta particles can't be attracted by a black hole ?
So how can you say you can't understand fit gravitation in quanta ?
✌️
I like these overviews, but I wish there were more videos which introduced non-specialists to the mathematics. We usually get broad descriptions for a general audience, or inscrutable details for experts. Teach us something new!
For example, how would the causal approach be applied to familiar phenomena? Is it possible to rephrase a familiar Newtonian equation like action/reaction or objects in motion?
no.
@@hansolo9892 Causal dynamical triangulation ain't like dustin' crops, boy....
@@WilliamDye-willdye dude, I meant to answer your last question. It is not possible to rephrase into Newtonian inertial models. The experimental results will be way off your theory. What good is a theory if it ain't producing any good results in practice? Newton's laws of motion were empirical in nature. Quantum particles have a whole bizarre type of statistics they follow.
What a video
Didnt really understand much but it seemed interesting nonetheless. Would love a deeper video on this research!
I'm sure there is a more in depth video on this topic on the Internet, but probably not published by a magazine. I'd search further in the searchbar.
@@nate.2435 Look up for CDT theory.
Spoiler: none of those mysteries are even close to being solved
How to cure laziness and start accomplishing things fast?
Without assuming superposition, this is what may be happening: one microscopic mesh coarse-grained gives a macroscopic one. In qft language the latter correspond to effective field.
When Renata says @4:25 "it is not a given at all" I think she is a bit loose with her language. Anything that comes out of a model is a given, by definition. What is not "a given" is that the model is correct, and that remains unclear for CDT. "Looks like a 4D object" is all in the model. The fact the physicist programming the model has no clear *_a priori_* idea what their model will predict or generate is par for the course. It's not a revelation a non-linear model can surprise the modeller. This is also the whole story of current ANN's. The Ai are not conscious, not matter how badly the nerds want to project their mentality onto the Ai.
Mea Culpa: I am well aware I am "doing a Mann-Gell" of sorts, but so what?, it's fun. You don't have to reply.
👍
I got a degree in theoretic physics there:-)
I am lost, I didn't understand a thing lol, maybe I'll learn about this stuff in the future.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
I just got that they came up with a model that unfolds like you would expect. But really that is true for all models assuming unlimited parameter space. Unfortunately it didn't cover why the model is useful and how it really makes sense.
It's clear all rules and laws physics and is a mere model of reality. The question is are predictions derived from these models useful to us
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
I don't know if I got it right, but I think that the difference is that they managed to come up with a model with very few assumptions, unlike string theory for example. So they seem to have an "Occam's razor valid" model, which is a great step forward as it doesn't rely on non-existent data.
That's why she said her research is moving towards describing the early universe, if the model can describe relativistic cosmological observations (from a "simple" quantum gravity model), then she could claim to have bridged the gap between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Which could be validated with further predictions and observations.
But for now, it's just a promising mathematical model.
Having unlimited parameter space we can have any theory fit the data.
QG is struggling to make a testable prediction lol
@@davidrandell2224I guarantee that book is filled with speculation
please tone down background music ... we are not here to be droned by muzak
Skin Theory - The Higgs temperature mechanism
General Relativity: TDR = (Temp/5)^2 seconds (+1c^3 == +1ºC)
Temperature is an aperture to BB weight/temperature, the larger the aperture the higher the temperature, so ...
Pi*12Planck^2 == +1c^3 == +1ºC
But, The ligo experiment demands the aperture stay the same and the underlying energy density doubles so ...
Energy Density = Particle Count / (4/3*Pi*12Planck^3)
A Ligo style interfered Higgs Reaction would be described as ...
ED = 2*(Particle Count) / (4/3*Pi*12Planck^3)
So we get +1ED == +1c^3 == +1ºC
So aperture temperature and size are directly proportional to the "Photonium" particle count per cubic.
Halve the ED and the photon rises towards our visible space (Entropic Expansion).
Double the ED and the photon drops away from our visible space towards the BB hyper space (Entropic Collapse).
Energy Density is directly proportional to the Skin compression if the particle is stable.
M.B.Eringa, S Hawking 1971~Jul 2022
PS: There is an implication that the interface angle between our visible space and the BB space is always 90º regardless of Visible space orientation / polarity.
PS: The exhibited temperature is 1/2 single laser temp for twice as long, because the stable particle skin doubles, halving the the input temps back to a single laser temp (Stable) and the distance into the BB temperature space halves the temperature again, the twice as long is to satisfy energy conservation rules.
References: Garret; Stephen Hawking; DrDon;
Lol
People say English is hard to learn but the good thing about English to say even if you don't speak it properly yet you can still communicate what you want to say. Words are so specific.
memo: quantum gravity models under researchers' hands in a computer simulation produced a 4d shape of the universe, which is quite unexpected! I'd expect nothing come out of it. Perhaps the shape encapsulates some hidden properties, we'll find out
The properties are fully defined and known. Hence the computer models.
Quantum Gravity = The Spaceless and Timeless Vacuum Energy State of Matter!!! :)
Skin Theory - The Higgs velocity mechanism
General Relativity: TDR = (Temp/5)^2 seconds (+1c^3 == +1ºC)
Lorentz Gamma: TDR = V/c (Result in Degrees Celsius)
Higgs Velocity TDR = ((v/c)+5)^2
...
So for the Muon G2 result we have ...
+3x10^8m/s == +1c^3 == +1ºC
Which implies Zero Degree Celsius space has a stationary in situ energy potential = At least the Speed of light (i.e. A distance to the the zero line of the BB space).
1c from our 3d space potential.
1c from the Velocity addition over c of the collision (**Into the BB weight space??).
1c from the depth into the BB weight space temperature aperture. (Causes a dowel like flow of space towards the Big Bang aperture binding the two space connection open)
This implies the exhibited temperature should be half input temperature because of BB space redshift (**a c^3 additive superimposed distance??).
M.B.Eringa, DrDon 1998~Jul 2022
PS: There is an implication that the interface angle between our visible space and the BB space is always 90º regardless of Visible space vector direction!.
References: DrDon; Garret; Stephen Hawking;
PPS: Garret and myself have long been discussing the top of the C^3 weight space scale.
Based on the Higgs velocity mechanism, I am thinking that the scale above the zero line on the atomic scale (i.e. our 3d space side) should be in 1c increments until the zero line and then swap to 1c,1c^2 and 1c^3 increments below the zero line. (i.e. +1c==+1ºC for speeds up to the speed of light)
The tricky thing is, the zero line is the top of the c scale, and our 3d spaces' zero line is its' weight temperature back from that zero line, so the scale should actually look like the below for a plutonium proton...
+ 0c
+ 1c
...
+ 20,000c
+ 0c^3
+ 1c^3
....
+ 20,000c^3
The magnetic aperture starts at the BB space but the spacial flow "dowel" needs to go the same c distance back into our space, although it likely will collapse into a 3 dimensional sphere afterwards, the magnitude still needs to be represented on the diagram using the c scale.
To my mind, it looks like a formula for computer graphics
This is one approach I've been thinking for a long time.
Some interesting ideas that could lead to new insights for the future of Q.Gravity : simulation of gravity phenomena instead of direct results, background independence, information fields: spacetime and also matter as the product of information fields, notions of singularity and time in this picture
... and many more puzzling features that need to be studied, adjusted, and combined for a legit theory of quantum gravity.
QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc. So,no.
Quantum Gravity should be the correct explanation for gravity while Einsteins theory would be the limit of Quantum Gravity. Arithmetic vs Calculus
The Big Bang
If we assume all natural matter is grown using photon interference this means all atoms/photons and indeed the big bang itself has to be exactly the same volume, otherwise the temperature would not double and unnatural atomic structures would grow.
So the big bang stats as I know them ...
Diameter: One Photon (12 Planck).
Using Energy over Volume until 10^18°K this is about 8.94713*10^-7Meters if the photon is 3°K .
Using Inverse square until 10^18°K it would be 1.74*10^-9Meters if the photon is 3°K .
Lightest/Lowest visible temperature: 10^18°C (This is the first Harmonic. i.e. electron weight BB temperature or Photonium temperature)
Heaviest/Highest harmonic temperature: 10^144°C (This is the fourth harmonic based on atomic structure i.e. deepest neutron BB temperature)
Time for the Big Bang to stabilize(Half its' temperature): (10^144/5)^2 =1.2710033300287246752586491776608e+279 years
Hyper-dimensional Distance of deepest weight: 10^144*C^3 (**Velocity Higgs Mechanism contradicts this!!)
Actual atomic distance of deepest weight: 40C^3
Giving us a maximum temperature based BB G Constant of 40/10^144=4E-143 (No Cavendish Modification)
And a first harmonic G constant of 40/10^18=4E-17 (No Cavendish Modification)
If the BB is spinning, then frame grabbing of the entire atomic structure will exhibit the universal chirality that is observed.
It also means the entanglement exhibited by electrons is likely directly linked to the space that is feeding the particle and is related to time-dilation, so the theory is incomplete, the spin angle/state of 720° will likely reset after the electrons time dilation "expires" for any given spin angle, for an electron this would be 1 second.
If all particles are the same size, this means any differences between Fermions and Bosons has to be temperature which is directly proportional to weight, remember all these particles exist in a hyper-dimensional space and we "see" the hole doing "down" to them.
We also have a new number to find :-) ...
Considering what we now know about the GR Zero°C space that the atomic hyper-window lives on, there must be a GR/Volume temperature that we have until now not known existed this will be either a Photonium particle count by volume or a simple temperature per volume, and is directly related to the number of planks between our current visible Universe and the BB (The Plancks between us have recently doubled, which implies this temperature has also doubled). I postulate this is the spacial compression tensor holding the hyper-window aperture "Open" B-), it also relates to entropic expansion and collapse algorithms.
I.E. ºC/(M^3)=Observed 0ºC; /* M will likely be proportional to the number of Plancks between us and the BB. */
I love such videos❤
I wrote a science fiction novel in 2016 in which the basic premise was that the two main characters use a theory of quantum gravity to produce a virtual reality that's as convincing as reality. Really interesting stuff. The quantum gravity theory they use in the novel is one of my own devising, though I think it's closer to Felix Finster's idea of causal fermion systems than any other idea. The idea was that spacetime is formed of a background of tunneling electrons that constantly exchange bosons with other fermions. So, for instance, the cosmological constant would be the result of photons being emitted by this background of tunneling particles. No one agrees with me though.
Im an apeman and dont understand your theory but still appreciate your idea👍
@@PonyFoot123 I wouldn't worry too much, thanks for taking the time to try and understand it. Basically, I make the case that gravitational fields are formed of clouds of electrons. I hope I can state is clearly enough one day for everyone to be able to understand it, even ape men. Thanks for reading.
All fun, but your idea should produce something. You can test the consequences of it if you translate into mathematics. No idea how these ideas would result in spacetime, let alone the cosmological constant.
@@Jipzorowns I don't know, I'm not sure it needs to be 'translated into maths to make predictions'. I predict a composite graviton and therefore it's testable by the same logic that string theory is. If string theory's non-composite graviton were to be discovered, my model would be shown to be incorrect. As simply as I can put it, the background, or spacetime, is just formed of tunneling electrons; these emit photons and hence we'd expect to see a small, positive cosmological constant.
In an infinite universe time does not exist. It’s a measurement of a rotating mass in space. This is why space-time is all messed up.
October it is then. Time to flip some tables, q is a great space to play in. It's interesting that in English it always is followed by a U
Just like there's 1m ways to skin a Cat. So to is there 1m ways to describe the same thing using different terms.
This approach sounds very similar to the Wolfram Physics Project.
How? Isn't that a graph based theory?
Exactly what I thought
@@W1ngSMC spacetime is a graph, or at least can be described as such. The fact that we typically use square grids just means it isn’t fully connected as a triangular mesh would be.
@@W1ngSMC Yep. "CDT is a modification of quantum Regge calculus where spacetime is discretized by approximating it with a piecewise linear manifold in a process called triangulation". It runs operations on adjacent simplices, which is equivalent to a (maybe somewhat restricted) graph replacement system. It doesn't do the implicit time variable graph isomorphism stuff though.
Please don't tell me that space time is a triangle tessellation, I am freaking out about the Simulation Hypothesis enough as it is.
Any curved spacetime can be made by gluing flat chunks together. But overall it is an approximation and doesn't exist in reality. Universe is a fractal and have the ability to self-simulate itself.
Am I the only one who does not get her sentences at all?
I mean okay the topic might be very theoretical, but even the sentences that are made have no connection and it kinda makes it hard to comprehend what she tries to say.
I am just curious if it is about me or her way of speaking that i did not get her proposal at all.
I once attended a lecture by Renate Loll and I think it’s an interesting take on quantum gravity. Read the interview as linked in the description. It will clarify her theory a little better. I think the way the video has been edited doesn’t make it easy to follow the layout of her theory. With the article you’ll also better understand the role of geometry, the (disappearing) triangles and their role, as well as the dimensional aspects.
@@jeroenvandorp thanks for feedback. I will have a look at it
Pretty sure she just rediscovered Wolfram’s hypergraphs haha.
1) I’m pretty sure that causal dynamical triangulation predated the Wolfram physics project.
2) I’m also pretty sure that the quantum mechanical nature of these models is significantly clearer and less debatable than the quantum mechanical nature of the Wolfram physics models.
I’m not saying the two aren’t connected. But I don’t think it is at all correct to say that they rediscovered things which the Wolfram physics project had already discovered.
Also, there are serious researchers that doubt that the Wolfram physics models can even capture quantum mechanical behaviors?
My understanding is that the idea is that the quantum mechanical aspect comes in when the graph rewriting doesn’t quite have the property of, uh, the causal invariance thing , I forget the exact name. Ah! Confluence! Right.
But like,
idk, just because you have different world histories, and you like, count the different paths,
well, you need to be able to have it model bell tests and whatnot? Idk, I’m a bit skeptical.
That being said, it does sound like it may be a great help as far as simulations of general relativity go!
And I don’t rule out that it may work to describe QM stuff as well, idk.
@@drdca8263 Wolfram is a raging egomaniac who thinks his automata leaves like structures are real leaves.
@@asdf-mg7tu Do you interpret my comment as praise for him, that you feel compelled to sing his faults in response?
I wouldn’t have referred to his name if he hadn’t named it after himself. I certainly didn’t make the comment to praise him.
Whatever praise of the project I included in my comment, was primarily included due to the criticism that I made of the project in the same comment, out of a desire to be fair, and not give the impression that I believed the project to be entirely without merit.
I think the idea that those models describe quantum mechanics, to be fairly unlikely, but I there are a few things I’ve heard which (combined with the fact that I don’t understand their work well) lead me to not quite rule it out, such as some category theory construction comparing something to the category of Hilbert spaces somehow (??).
Hypergraphs is an older idea, but rather different. CDT is the independent theory.
Quantum gravity manifests as probability clouds which can be seen through the axis of evil Quadrupole multipole in the CMB which has the 3d electron shapes which is our local gravity causing particle cloud, similarly a hybridized electron orbital shape is seen in the Octopole and also is local, the flyby anomaly acceleration curves have the 1s radial probability distribution curve shapes due to planets having 1s electron orbital shaped probability clouds, these probability clouds can also be seen as Dark Matter via lensing in galaxy clusters that have lobe shapes or 2s electron orbital shapes. These may be negatively charged, and a positively charged probability cloud will also reside in the center of stars, planets, galaxies or galaxy clusters. Ordinary matter will accelerate towards lower potentials due to electrostatic forces due to the presence of the exponentially larger probability clouds they are in. The probability clouds themselves will accelerate towards lower potentials of even larger probability clouds they are in as well due to electrostatic forces and carry ordinary matter along with them. I have been trying to get so many scientists to listen to me, but it is a losing battle. We seem as if we want to be stuck in not knowing. I have been rejected by three journals already. There is no better theory yet, and no one is willing to even look at what I am proposing.
Well. Good luck with all that.
It's a little disturbing to see that illustration looks exactly like the inside of a Tokamak... Mini-verse anybody?
Gravity is a simple side effect of galactic mechanics. Try not to get caught up in all the weirdness and complexity of reality while you search for the fundamental truth.
Quantum WHAT?!
Very pop-sciencey yet leaves me with absolutely no new understanding of anything but at least there was lots of good b-roll of people writing equations on chalkboards and a xylophone backing track
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
U kno, instead of quantum gravity, why don't anyone go for a general relativity theory of quantum fields? A better way to put it might be "a space-time theory of quantum fields".
The former approach has went nowhere for the last 50 (or 100?) years. Isn't this time people try the opposite way? Why such a hangover with quantum gravity despite it failing for generations.
3:21 The Universe is made of croissants, got it.
“Quantum Gravity is the answer” - people who have invested way too much time and grant money on quantum gravity
damn that's crazy
Is what I would probably say if I understood what she said
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
Open Source Swagger Jackers
These sorts of things are always entertaining. What part of "gravity is not a force" seems to confuse scientists? ;)
Spacetime is a field of potential energy from which all other fields derive their energy. Or, in other words, the total energy at every point is a constant. That's really all you need to explain everything. Well, that and waves, of course. There are no infinities. There are no singularities. There are no contradictions.
Publish it then!
It's not so much about having an intuitive grasp of how the universe works, but to have a rigorous and reliable model that can be used to develop further research and applications.
If you can't translate your understanding of the universe into mathematical formulas (or other equally useful expressions), then that knowledge is useless.
@@nachoijp No knowledge is useless.
What is there to publish? It's just a broader application of KE + PE = C. Proper time adds a huge wrinkle because of its imaginary nature causing Euclidean space to become hyperbolic spacetime, but that's already well understood.
If the theory breaks down at any point, it is incomplete. GR breaks down in 2 critical places, it is incomplete. There is obviously a next step, I think if we hadn't spent so much time focused on where GR does work and so little on where it doesn't; we would've covered those next steps.
Will string theory win?
i find this approach incredibly dull and naive, but exploring all the options is important
It looks like 3D rendering
Hello from Kazakhstan. The Dark Universe requires a lot of money from the budget: an experiment that sheds new light on the Universe will help save costs. We can create an educational and practical device and practically master Einstein’s theories of relativity or obtain, for example, new physics: Postulate 1. Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. Postulate 2. The gravitational field controls the frequency and speed of light in a vacuum.
This is determined experimentally using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope (based on Michelson's experiment 1881-2015). Using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope, the straight-line speed of vehicles can be measured. There is a company in China that makes (fiber optic angular velocity meter) they will be able to create a hybrid device. Please, can you come to an agreement with them? I guarantee payment at cost on my part.
I am not a Physicist but I have an idea that the friction we suffer, which makes our time curve, would be responsible for the forrmation of dark matter or dark energy that goes to the black hole increasing the negativity of it, acting parallelly (like entanglement). The mass of a celestial body, if considered a lot of matter together, result of some friction (contact), would make difference on how much negativity (attractiveness) a celestial body has, being able to be felt in the vicinities of this celestial body which, the biggest the greater the negativity (many call it gravity). P.S.: I also consider the fabric of space-time to be true.
I have no clue what you are saying, but I will say that the words "I am not a Physicist" should indicate to both you and I that perhaps you don't know the intricacies of these topics enough to actually pose any coherent ideas about them. As these advanced physics topics are often presented for the public, I think they seem a lot fuzzier than they are. They are very grounded and mathematical, it's not just a "well maybe friction of space time *insert more jumbo jumbo*".
@@WaveSleeper I think we both know that this is crackpot stuff rather than anything to be taken seriously lmao
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
@@davidrandell2224 Did a little bit of research and I think this book is just another crank. He has some interesting ideas, but as far as I can tell, the evidence and the mathematical rigor is not there. Its just another person raving about what could be rather than doing legitimate physics.
@@thats_inaccurate A proton is a collection of 1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. “G” calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. The CAUSES of gravity. Simple Galilean relative motion has the earth approaching- expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration the released object; d=1/2at^2 the major part of the gravity equation. Light is a cluster of expanding electrons. A prism is a mass/ size spectrometer with the red bending the least. All Standard Theory/Model was replaced with Expansion Theory. 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: gravity. 451 pages of simple common sense physics. Galileo’s d=1/2at^2, Kepler’s 3 ‘laws’, Geometric Orbit Equation, Newton’s Orbit Equation, Satellite Orbit Equation all force free, mass free and inverse square law free. So much for Newtonian ‘physics ‘. Light is a cluster of expanding electrons. Indeed all EMR also. The expanding electrons/ atoms do it all. Try again.
I am Brazilam
hello
Triangles explore curved space in an effective way is something i WILL remember
She’s onto to something, to be sure.
But anytime these yahoos go on to synthesize new words, I think they’ve run out of steam from thinking too much like a free radical.
This was a trailer for CDT. Quanta needs to do a better job editing their videos to make it compressible rather than just exciting and seemingly doing the opposite by pumping it full of loosely connected clips and upbeat music.
After watching this video I had no idea what CDT was and had to google it for a basic explanation.
Quanta isn't for understanding from scratch. Its scientific journalism intended to convey what is happening on the bleeding edge of science to the masses. That goal can only be accomplished if they communicate the scope of the discovery and not everything underlying it. You were interested to learn about CDT, so you did online. Quanta is not an educational platform
Very similar shapes have appeared to me while exploring possible alternatives to the 'dark stuff' fiasco.
To simply give the error a name; 'dark matter', and then naming the remaining error 'dark energy', well, it's embarrassing.
Brace yourself for 'dark antimatter'.
GRAVITATIONAL QUANTUM waves, it is possible to measure and detect. For this you need; DGP - dominating gravitational field and movements relative to it + device weight (не работает прибор при невесомости). Если, найти инженера, который сможет, изменить схему подключения из 2х змеевиков оптического волокна в FOG и им реализуем, инерциальный мысленный опыт Эйнштейна. Для этого FOG должен имеет вес при движении в 🚆, где проведём опыт Майкельсона Морли, примерно; применив в опыте, по 3000 м, оптоволокна намотанного в (не круглый змеевик где примерно длина к ширине 3d/d у катушек) и две катушки расположены как + под «90°», типа из одного монолита с габаритами в 15 см и весом в 0,8 кг, что позволяет принять дополнительно защиту от шумов. Через полученные результаты опыта, по новому, свежим ЧИСТЫМ взглядом через, ГРАВИТАЦИОННЫЕ КВАНТ-волны возникающие в узлах эл магнитной волны, рассмотрим; Космологию, Астрофизику, Вселенную, .