The Huge Flaw in Quantum Mechanics Few Physicists Take Seriously
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 січ 2025
- Main episode with Roger Penrose on IAI: • We need to 'gravitise'... and the Institute for Arts and Ideas' primary website is here iai.tv/
Interview with Roger at Oxford: • 20th Century’s Greates...
Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): curtjaimungal....
Listen on Spotify: tinyurl.com/Sp...
Become a UA-cam Member (Early Access Videos):
/ @theoriesofeverything
Support TOE on Patreon: / curtjaimungal
Twitter: / toewithcurt
Discord Invite: / discord
#science #physics #theoreticalphysics #quantumphysics - Наука та технологія
Main episode with Roger Penrose on IAI: ua-cam.com/video/VQM0OtxvZ-Y/v-deo.html
Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): curtjaimungal.substack.com
I always enjoy listening to/watching Roger Penrose. He's dedicated a lifetime to searching for truth. Respect!
are you indian?
do you shit to the rivers?
Our greatest scientist, England, is proud of Sir Roger Penrose.
I remember reading about England in school, it seemed like a great place.
Penrose wasn't even the greatest scientist to attend Cambridge. Newton is still the greatest scientist to ever walk our planet.
The man deserves a Nobel Prize just for his common sense.
That doesn't make any sense.
He already owns 😂❤
He's already got one! Not even for his best work, ironically....
@@Mathematicalgene He owns a place of observational evidence ignorance, where he can talk over everyone with misinformation, while institutions put poor people into echo chambers and psyops hate campaigns. Instead of using information technology to solve problems, they punch down on poor people and cycle more problems, all while stealing intellectual property from those poor people and running covert subliminal hate campaigns. They don't have the sophistication to solve problems, they leverage human rights abuses for control and revenue, cycling sectarian conflict for views and clicks by harvesting personal data to find ways to pit people against each other. They need to solve problems, not create more, they need to shut up and listen to reason instead of pushing disinformation and covert hate campaigns. It's about increasing conscious flourish, not stepping on it and making it impossible for people to grow. They do this to people for years (embed covert hate campaign in content, steal intellectual property and write a paper claiming they made a huge discovery). It's all about putting struggling people in hell simulations, so they can prod them to do something retaliatory and scape goat the victim as a enemy, rather than making the world a better place. They cycle war, death, and destruction for clicks, killing millions of little children. They think social justice is creating hell simulations for poor people, and running slander tactics, and wrecking people's lives.
What do you know about physics to say this?
Really great to listen to Penrose speak candidly about his observations. So grateful for accessibility to this. 👍🏼
Kurt, it’s great to see your respect for Mr. Penrose and his liking for you. You guys obviously like and respect each other. Very cool.
Thank you for bringing us more from Penrose. What a treat.
My wife thought pickled jalapeños were pickles that had been jalapeñoed.
Penrose should get Nobel for this idea. which makes totally sence , gravitational field gets bigger , no more measurement problem ... wow
This idea of the collapse of the wave function always irked me. Schrödingers cat is a paradox of a endlessly expanding super position after all. Happy I'm not crazy after all ;-)
It should because nobody can say what it actually means, what actually happens, but that doesn’t matter because you sound super smart just saying “the wave function will collapse.” Or anything about the wave function. As long as you can sound smart you don’t have to know a goddamn thing. Deepak Chopra made a career out of it and every 21st century “degree” is worthless imo because you don’t actually learn anything of substance, just how to sound smart, the right way to talk, the correct Noble Narrative. Fake it till you make it, it’s just business. And I agree with Eric Weinstein that string theory is a plot of sorts to hold back science, but it’s more due to laziness and stupidity than so much of physics has been classified (I hope). All the low hanging fruit has already been discovered. All the fruit at the top of the tree either costs billions of dollars just to TEST, or yea it’s classified. And it takes a certifiable genius like Penrose doing their life’s great achievement just to reach the fruit that’s still in the middle of the tree. So how can all these people who like physics write theses and contribute anything? That’s what string theory is for, you can reorganize some equations and call it a discovery. Or just pull stuff out of your ass. It’s not a theory either, it’s barely a hypothesis.
@kaltkalt2083 obviously you didn't waste your time listening to the interview. Let me guess: GOD. As you seem to be really into unprovable babble like string theory. Maybe true, maybe not. No one can say and nobody cares.
Please see Journal ref. IJ CAA, 2020:2(1): 115-120 which helps resolve this issue and also gives equation (7), G = 6.674273033 x 10-11 in SI units. Gravity is not quantized in observer space but is quantized in a space remote by c^2 and a relativistic factor of 1/137 for each electron.
Happy New Year to all fellow Physicists.
This sounds very smart but I have no fucking idea what this means? Sounds cool though.
You are definitely becoming one of my favorite shows. I didn't even know about him. But right now I'm on one of your older videos the woman who broke gravity. I think you and I are going to become friends after all this. You want to know the answers as much as I do. Isn't it such a rush the pure adrenaline high of figuring out the universe. Keep up the great work.
9:40 there surely has to be a difference between being in free space, and 'free falling' in an orbit around an object in a gravity well; makes one think of what is happening at points of space in 'voids' that are equidistant from all masses; in other words on a gravity hill.
This is awesome thankyou I think when there's too many numbers they turn into letters, there's no more flow only brick walls
Penrose is one of the only people that speaks coherently about these matters. Everyone else is lost in mathematical details until they cannot explain what Wednesday means..
There's another UA-camr named dialect. He has some unique outlooks on gravity too. But the woman who broke gravity I like her way of thinking. I think her and I look at things a lot alike.
Please make one episode with Mr Randell Mills. That one should be interesting. I am now reading a book about him by Mr Brett Holverstott, and I am impressed and eager to hear more about Mills research.
Can you get the guy who wrote the Spectral action paper his name starts with an A and ends with a C I think? His ideas also involve non commutative algebra.
Alain Connes?
Why does something exists rather than nothing? How to define nothing or check for nothingness?
You sound like Parmenides. 🎉
Nothing doesn’t exist, nothing is the stability of interference patterns. The difference between us is stuff because it’s destable but stable within the relative like planet and us. We are relative and align with the destabilizations and reflect the patterns in our minds and can align and share with into difference. We, like everything else, are natural and even the computers are part of nature just farther than the other parts of nature around us. It’s relative and maybe like an animal, can be evolved or expanded into difference like us.
Aside from people dropping large rocks vs small rocks from up high somewhere and seeing which landed on the ground first. The best proof of gravity being a real phenomenon was when the astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer while standing on the surface of the moon. With almost no atmosphere, they both sucked down to the surface together. Everything is seeking rest. Everything is seeking a partner. Nature is the same above as below. Don't forget it.
Put some polonium-210 next to some nitrogen tri-iodide, and as a consequence there will be an explosion after a random interval of time. We can put a double-slit in between the two substances. The received theory of quantum mechanics apparently predicts some sort of hissing noise over an extended interval.
“Why does the light shine only where i am observing??” Said the flashlight…..
My generation (GenX) grew up with this man... Along with MANY others like Steven Hawking... Abdus Salam... Peter Higgs... Tom Kibble (my tutor at Imperial College London)... And many... MANY more... And it's going to be a Real Shame when all these Intellectual Giants move on! Because honestly, I'm not really impressed with the next generation that will replace them!
And with IQs and scientific literacy dropping like stones in the Western World...To the point that even American Presidents no longer need to be smart...
The Future Looks Bleak.. 😳
Hold my beer, I'm a Baby-boomer and I think we lay claim to most of them...
@RecycledBikes-jj Yes... But I still grew up with them as a kid. Not sure what's difficult to understand. I grew up with many people who have inspired me, who were born WAY before I did.
Carl Sagan is another icon but, I was too young to remember him when I was growing up, because he was from the Silent Generation.
@sdwone Fair enough, my apologies...
@@RecycledBikes-jj No worries! I wouldn't dream of stealing these Intellectual Giants away from Boomers 😁
Since for whatever reason you seem to be very concerned about average IQ, you should know that IQs are either still rising, just less markedly, or may have possibly dropped a bit after the 90s, while still being above where they were when Penrose was born. In fact, that "new generation" you are talking about, is the people who were born in the 80s and 90s, which is before the supposed Flynn effect reversal. Actually, Penrose was born in 1931. Average IQ scores are now supposed to be more than 10 points higher than that time, even including the supposed decline (which was something like 0.2 points in the research that I saw being talked about a lot).
All that is to say, that if you are not impressed with the new generation of physicists, it's certainly not the fault of average IQ scores. It could also be, you know, just your personal, subjective opinion.
Think of it like squeezing out the energy of an atom. By using the pressure of neutrons. I'm in the denser you make an object the more weight that it takes or let it carries. So maybe gravity literally squeezing its own energy out of the atoms. Or the waste product of an atom. But we will find that the dancer that a planet is the weaker the gravity will be. And since the sun is not really dense at all the gravity escaping it escapes a lot quicker. It's squeezing atoms that's causing the gravity I think.
How is it "cheating"? He doesn't justify that. You are making a _probabilistic_ prediction, and it is just the nature of how probability works that there is a categorical distinction between the probabilistic _prediction_ and the outcome that is actually _realized._ If I flip a coin, it has a 50% chance of landing on heads and a 50% chance of landing on tails, but in reality it will only _either_ land on heads _or_ tails. If it lands on, let's say, heads, it is just the nature of how probability theory works that I can do a Bayesian update of the probabilities to 100% for heads and 0% for tails. This isn't "cheating" it's just how probability works. Of course, quantum mechanics, unlike a classical coin, is not deterministic, the outcome of quantum events can be genuinely random, but the reduction of the state vector is just a carry-over from classical probability theory and is not even what makes quantum mechanics unique.
"It's genuinely random." This is the type of nonsense that has taken a stranglehold in physics because the model isn't coherent. The nature of matter and energy is wave behavior. Spherical harmonics explain the supposed discrete nature of the "quantum" world, but it's all just waves moving about in a medium that has been denied for many decades due to preconceived notions of how the medium should behave.
Wave propagation is all that is there. Maxwell understood it. Schrodinger understood it. Penrose at least acknowledges the current philosophical conundrum of quantum theory and its multiple interpretations.
Agree 100%.
It seems that some physicists still have problems with probabilities.
What's the theory I'm coming up with that would mean a black hole would have no density at all. It's kind of like a void in space to keep the perpetual motion machine going. But I almost guarantee you it's from squeezing atomic structure that causes gravity.
Tell your friend I ordered the beauty of falling. Let's see what she thinks. But so far I can agree with most of our theories.
Dr. Roger Penrose has suggested instead of trying to create a particle called the "graviton" to explain gravity, why not try to describe subatomic particles in terms of spatial curvature, as in the twist in a piece of real thread.
What if we add one extra spatial dimension to the "Twistor Theory" of Dr. Roger Penrose? It can be "chiral" by having either Right-hand or Left-hand twist. It can be "Quantized", based on the number of twist cycles.
If Physicists describe electrons as point particles with no volume, where is the mass of the particle?
Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. Can a twisted 3D 4D soliton containing one extra spatial dimension help solve some of the current problems in Particle Physics?
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? Is the best explanation of the current data a form of “Twistor Theory” first proposed by Dr. Roger Penrose during the 1960s? During recent years Dr. Peter Woit has explored Twistor Theory as a possible solution to help explain the current Standard Model.
Has the concept of the “Aether” been resurrected from the dead and relabeled as the “Higgs Field”?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
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.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
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 constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. Are these the “Flux Tubes” being described by many Physicists today? 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. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. The term “entanglement” in this case is analogous to three twisted ropes being wrapped around each other in a way which causes all of the ropes to move if someone pulls one of the ropes. Does the phenomenon of “Asymptotic Freedom” provide evidence that this concept is the correct interpretation of the experimental data now available? Can the phenomenon of "Supercoiling" help explain the "Multiple Generations" of particles in the Standard Model? The conversion of twist to writhe cycles is well understood in the structure of DNA molecules. Can the conversion of twist to writhe cycles and vice-versa help explain "neutrino oscillations"? Within this model neutrinos are a small, twisted torus produced when a tube becomes overtwisted and breaks producing the small, closed loop of twisted tube (neutrino), and a twisted tube open on each end, which is shorter than the original. (Beta Decay)
Within this subatomic model gravity is produced by a very small higher dimensional curvature imbalance within atoms, which causes all atoms to be attracted to all other atoms. This extremely weak attraction reveals the very small scale of the curvature imbalance. This produces the curvature of spacetime on a larger scale like the solar system which is required to counterbalance this small imbalance in the individual atoms.
I got about 10% of this.
@@mclaytv That would be a very good start. I have been working on this idea for many years. If you got 10% in less than 2 hours that is remarkable.
@ only got 10% because I’ve spent 10 years to get this far. Lol
What If gravity is a perpetual motion machine. That pulls in different planets to create the friction I guess you would say. And creates pressure on a larger object such as the sun. And each Galaxy would have that same pressure point in the center of the black hole. That's kind of the drain that pulls the energy inside and then redistributes it to the outside of the system. I look at a Galaxy itself like a collapsing neutron star. And I do believe the density of the Galaxy is what helps control gravitational Flo. I think it actually propels the whole system.
See I think a graviton is actually a neutron. And I do believe gravity is a unique Force.
The Universe uses very simple rules, because it doesn't have a brain to work anything out itself. When someone can't explain an idea such as 'Twister Theory' it means that they aren't using the physics of the universe, because the universe is always easily explainable. If you use terms like Angular momentum you are also using mathematical ideas that the universe can't use. The universe can't work out an angle, so instead you have a backdrop of space that already includes the angles, and then make those angles the area of least resistance during the spin of an object. It's always very simple that the universe needs an Abacus located at all points for fillers to move along tunnels towards holes, and that will give you the physics for speed, acceleration, angular momentum, inertia, time, and gravity. The reason that scientists can't understand the universe is because they are using their brain's to skip out the physics.
What is the corks that come off of smashing atoms is what causes gravity.?When it combines with neutrons? Or maybe the neutrons are just a carrier? I'm almost Stephanie comes from squeezing Atoms somehow. But the corks that come off from smashing Adams might be part of gravity. Remember I believe gravity in dark matter are the same thing. And I'm like you I'm just trying to find the particles that it's made of. Because gravity would have had to start with the universe. It definitely had to be a building block.
I think the collapse of the wave function is key. Is it instant? (the experimental answer is no) If not why not? And, in my view, in that time it takes you can mess around with loopholes in causality. I mean, when is a causal event actually defined as happening? Is the event instant? No, no the event is not instant, there's a collapsing superposition and entanglement every time . Then, further, in my view, in that short time there is a handshake (of state entanglement) where each particle in the exchange is able to momentarily bye pass causality, hence "knowledge" through time and space is passed so-to-speak.
Think of viewing a distant galaxy in the retina. Electron in the transmitting galaxy is entangled with a receiving electron in a retina via photon mediation , so a present day electron is entangled with an electron from a billion years ago. Anyway, to me its all logical, but we need that collapse short time to do it - lol.
collapse is simply the actual universe variant choice
my opinion is;
people don't really get the full understanding of heisenberg's uncertainty principle(s);
they give it/them one or two reasons for tolerance;
but then they continue looking for certainty about physics;
This is how I felt about angular momentum.
Wait. The collapse doesn’t follow the Schrödinger quation?
Yep! The Schrödinger equation describes the smooth evolution of the wave function over time before the measurement! The Schrödinger equation is deterministic, meaning it will always evolve according to the equation, UNTIL measurement. Upon measurement, wave collapse occurs, and the wave collapse is entirely random.
The "collapse", the "measurement problem" and the "conscious observer" are imaginary problems introduced by Copenhagen. They don't exist in the many worlds view.
He’d make a great professor, and grandpa. Very coherent and clear presentation not packaged in a bunch incoherent meaningless mumbo jumbo to make himself sound intelligent.
Roger takes general relativity and quantum mechanics too seriously. They are both obviously wrong. We need to go back to the 1800s and to Weber and to rethink gravity as not fundamental, but an effect of electromagnetism.
Looking for an answer is one thing, looking for a particular answer is another.
little aggressive there Rog
In my view the so-called imaginary "i" space is not imaginary, its simply using a different (better) mathematical principle - I mean who says that minus one times minus one is plus one? Its just a convention, there's no "truth" in it. Minus means "take away numbers". So -1 * -1 = +1 (say it in a sentence, its nonsense - a convention) is just a convention (and it messes stuff up in rotation math). "i" is more natural and not imaginary at all, that's why twistor theory and Hilbert spaces work so well. They should rename "i" to something less magical. Its my ten cents. Thx.
Space is a dielectric super fluid.
Gravity causes flows towards maximal density in this dielectric fluid.
Physics! Flows in a dielectric fluid cause charge separation.
Read that again.
Charge is an ARTIFACT of flows in space. An electron is a divergence, an inflow of volume. Positive charge is a convergence of flows, an outflow. And every dragon, energy outflow is surrounded by the divergence, flowing to the convergence.
QM needs a fluid dynamics overhaul
Good luck with that as you work on a device made from quantum theory
I love iai, not it's pricing though.
See I think gravity is neutronic energy. And that's why it's able to travel through anything. There's some other reasons . Like we find them everywhere in the universe. See I actually think the Earth is a collapsing neutron star. And that is how I would describe all planets. And the force of the pressure is actually what helps create the gravity.
Human consciousness doesn't collapse the wave function. How do I know that? When I am dead, the wave function will continue to collapse. Other people will be around, to see that.
"See that" implies their own consciousness will continue with your previous role as collapsor. But, you won't know that. You'll always wonder, "was there ever truly collapse before death?"
I love lamp
Love the man, but this is all starting to sound a little bit woowoo to me.
I wouldn’t take quantum seriously either
Just get Robert Distinti on the show FFS. He had dealt with this and solved it
This video made me realize why so many people hate science.
Science is very hard work, people hate hard work.
@ I agree took me prolly 5 yrs to understand gravity and idk if I could explain it to anyone.
@@RandOm-hr5jnYeap! But to create and / or maintain a Viable Civilization requires Hard Work so... I guess we're Doomed! 🤷♂️
I treasure one of my books on quantum signed by this great scientist. Way, way more erudite than the rock star Richard Feynman........
@1:35 What the heck is going on with your shoes, man?! You are a bright mind and you deserve to enjoy your success but you are not winning any sympathy in the footware department. Way to alienate viewers and interviewees simutaneously.
There is not the slightest problem with the "collapse" of the wave function.
It is simply an update of the observer's knowledge of the system.
No problem with quantum mechanics at all.
@@TheCedricolo in the double slit experiment when you observe the photon go through one slit instead of the other, is that not collapsing the wave function in a tangible way beyond just updating your information? The properties of light measured in this instance is particle like, as opposed to the wavelike nature measured without an observer at the slit. Two fundamentally different behaviours for light are exposed in this experiment. The collapse of the wavefunction is what this is typically attributed to. This is the very real phenomena that I believe Penrose is talking about.
@@hahahasan The wave function of quantum mechanics is a probability density.
It is not a physical object.
So there is no paradox in the double slits experience.
@@TheCedricolo You're not getting my point. I'm not saying that the wavefunction is a physical object. I'm not sure where you get this idea from. Please let me know so I can try and be clearer next time.
I am saying that what we call "wavefunction collapse" is more than just an update of an observer's knowledge. Case in point, the double slit experiment whereby a wavefunction collapse shifts the behaviour of a photon from a wave to a particle.
@@hahahasan
Ok. So we do not agree.
The "wavefunction collapse" is just an update of an observer's knowledge.
Taking the observer into account is precisely what makes quantum mechanics the first truly scientific physical theory.
Thursday, January 09, 2025 ... What is Time? Time is the Accounting Domains of Reality's fundamental intervals about its weights.
I really dislike how this channel sensationalizes style making the physicist seem like conspiracy theorists.
Science has huge flaws. Listen to Sabine H. for a few minutes....
This channel keeps promoting sensational pseudoscientific theories, mixing religion, consciousness and whatever. But I will watch anything that has an interview with Penrose
Has anyone in here explained this to a 50 yr old 6th grader??? Please and thank u.
Can there be a reality when there is no accountability in the bigge scheme of things. That what you should consider.
No no no, you don't quantize gravity, it's a Planck force differential [gradient] in GR backdrop space (has nothing to do with large scale geodesics, it's about the differential Planck flux capacitance over GR backdrop space, this is the fundamental small scale structure, quantum mechanics is not, quantum mechanics is a larger scale process), sometimes you have to shut up and listen to observation and other voices. The problem is that you don't respect observational evidence, this is how you keep making erroneous assumptions (a gradient of fundamental Planck length differentials is more fundamental than [n * number of Planck units]). Quantum mechanics is a theory of big things, just like geodesics in general relativity, both theories get the fundamentals wrong, and meter space is not where fundamental physics occurs (GR backdrop space is where fundamental energy is conserved [universal computational constant delta time = universal volumetric flux speed] [E = backdrop volume * universal volumetric flux speed / inverse directional momentum bisector reflection density] or (universal flux speed * GR backdrop volume / Planck density)). The bisector reflection of inverse directional momentum on local intersect, explains all that we see (Planck flux speed = universal volumetric flux speed over bisector reflection of inverse directional momentum density) (relative radial Planck flux loop length = Planck flux speed / neighboring Planck flux speed) (Electromagnetic wave = Planck spin reorientation wave travelling through the Planck field) (gravity wave = Planck length contraction pushed forward by a Planck length expansion) (spin coupling = opposite rotational pairing on the perpendicular plain of the spin axis) (flux tube formation = spin directional alignment along the spin axis), (fundamental acceleration = inverse vector times speed imbalance on local intersect (Vector direction * external Planck flux speed / Vector direction * internal Planck flux speed) on the outside of a flux tube, causing length contraction of the flux tube, and acceleration of Planck flux inside the flux tube through the tube, and vice versa, while fundamental jerk is changes in vector * speed imbalance on the outside boundary of those accelerating and deaccelerating volumes, which further modulates delta in accelerating/deaccelerating volumes over time. These are real fundamental physics facts, irrespective of what communities believe. Mass observers lose Planck flux capacitance when travelling down a Planck force differential [gradient] while maintaining the same number of Planck flux loops comprising the mass [you are pushed towards zone of least action = which is inverse intersecting vector * Planck flux speed balance ratios, in GR backdrop space] (which is how the mass observer always detects Planck length to be constant, because the observer shrinks with the Planck length differential while moving through GR backdrop space), while electromagnetic waves will have larger effect on smaller Planck vortices as the spin reorientation wave travels down the Planck force differential gradient, and therefore will have larger effect when interacting on the boundary of oscillating of flux tubes (causing blue shift, and red shift while traveling in the opposite direction of the Planck force differential gradient) as smaller Planck mass is easier for the photon momentum to push spin reorientation. I have a learning disability, there is no reason you guys can't catch on to this.