If you want to know how it all works, master special relativity. And I don't mean the tons of math that describes observations of it. SR addresses time, space, mass, and energy. Can't you see how that touches every aspect of our universe? And how it works is EXTREMELY simple. When SR is described, 20 or more earth shaking Nobel prizes will follow in months. Physics will flash ahead with lighting speed.
Physics at our scale are incorrect, so that leads to quantum physics being even more incorrect. Mass is not attracted to mass for a start, mass is repelled by mass. There's no such thing as a pull force, and there is actually only one force. So basically all of physics are delusional to begin with. Peer review means to join the delusional gang. Mass moves towards holes in mass, because it flows with gravity like water moves into a sponge, and can take something with it. The bigger sponge has the most mass, but also the most holes. Observation of the Cavendish experiment does not count as observation at all, it's invisible. Peer review is the Emperor's New Clothes, you see the invisible in the Cavendish experiment, you see mass attracting mass, but the truth is that you see nothing at all. With such bad teachers to follow you will never get anywhere. I ignore everyone... I ignore the crazy gang.
I'll try this again. Try this experiment: Get an in phase light source consisting of the same frequency. Polarize it and focus it on your two precious slits. The accepted pattern will not appear. There will be marks where the humps were. Present science cannot explain this. Get the longest wave length you can. Shorter wavelengths will produce errors. I know why.
The point here is that there is a nobody out there that has an idea. You won't listen to him because all you want is click bait. But this person has suggested an idea. But the organization of philosophers (IAI) has decided he is a waste of time. Even though some of the big brains will not put something in the real world to demonstrate an idea: this person has suggested a real world experiment that might demonstrate something very important. You criticize the system but let your assumptions keep you on a similar path. Was it BCS that told me SR is a dead horse? Com-on man.
I think everyone is thinking about it wrong. I mean take for a example superposition it's not all things at once or so simple. It's how the integrated differences give rise to a difference or become a difference while maintaining itself so both states at the same time but through different methods. Imagine a guy doing the wave, the energy just traveled trough the differences and didn't stay as one thing but moved trough it's integrated differences. What I mean is that the "quantum wave collapse" is the syncing/integration of the differences. Think water and it's differences taking the shape or variable differences but maintaining itself as water or how words embody the difference of other things. Meanings are the same as superposition adnas we integrated more, the uses and differences grow that it can integrate with, like math repping reality and then using an equation to find a prediction and then using us ass connected difference, we can integrate
He becomes sharper with age, where as teenagers are already becoming dumber, day by day. Kids don't even know what a woman is, yet that 92 year old has a sharp recollection of deep topics. It's both fantastic and sad at the same time.
@@ultrametric9317Dirac Medal, Prize of the British Institute of Physics, Albert Einstein Medal-I'm sure they give those away for overrated theories. What's your contribution?
It astounds me that he can attend such events at this age, hopefully the mind can work even under extreme physical limitations as Stephen Hawking demonstrated.
That´s what so great about thinking for a job, only death and dementia can force you to retire. Just look at Hawking, what could he do in the end? Like move his eyelids to communicate with technology in the chair or something and he was still spitting out science papers. What a trooper! Then again, what else was he supposed to do? Its not like he could go surfing...
Penrose is wearing an actual hospital bracelet to this event. At 92, he left some kind of medical situation to attend this just so he could re state his position on qm and relativity. What a mind he still has and apparently will have... to the very end.
No, haha, he's not. Scroll through the video and look at the guest speakers' wrists; they all wear that bracelet. It's probably something IAI requires their guests to wear for admission into their events. Penrose is, of course, remarkable nonetheless.
This is going to sound like shade but I am serious. I love classic physicist hair It's like it mirrors the explosion of ideas inside the mind. Seriously I love this talk and this channel and the fantastic people who do this science and explain it to us.
"String theory is the only game in town so that's the game we play" reminds me of the old joke about looking for your lost key under the street lamp because that's where the light was... Come on Michio, you can do better. LOL
That would be a perfectly sensible thing to do - if that's the only place you can look (at the moment) then why not look there? Just because you know it's not the only place doesn't mean it's not worth looking!
@@adrianwright8685 Because researchers been looking at string theory for a long time and are less convinced that it is right than they were at the start.
Great video. Just a small note: we need questioners like Dr. Hossenfelder. They force us to rethink things (see also Berthold Brecht: Praise of Doubt). I saw the entire talk and can highly recommend it. Respect for the great panels and guests. And all the best for the future of your work.
she's a total waste of space, an embarrassment to herself. There are far better communcators of Theoretical Physics. e.g. Lenny Susskind, Sean Carroll (and NOT that loon Carlo Rovelli with his wishy-washy ramblings) @@Thomas-gk42
The Ekeberg guy annoyed me. Mathematics is just the best language we have for describing physics. It grows and evolves as our understanding evolves. Equations in physics are like definitions in spoked language. Many great theoretical physicists weren't great mathematicians, so clearly math isn't the driving force. It's simply the language that is used to describe or define something in clear detail. The diving force is the question "so how do we describe/define this". The quest to find a mathematical descriptions of various particles, interactions, and phenomena is both what dives the math, and what drives the reevaluation of existing theory. The beauty of math as a language is that it enforces it's own consistency, and has an elegance when fully formed. Inconsistency or verbosity naturally point to areas where work is needed. The Standard Model Lagrangian is a perfect example of an elegant and consistent mathematical definition. The fact that we don't have an equation explaining waveform collapse points to an area our understanding is lacking.
Interesting point Penrose makes. Not match Gravity to QM, but the other way round. We need more research! A unified theory of Physics is a sine qua non condition for science to progress.
It's been experimentally proved that collapse of the wavefunction is an actual thing that happens in nature. So yeah, I don't think that it is possible. Although I'm sure that among theories of "quantum gravity" there is one that explores that hypothesis as well. Too bad those theories are not as popular as God awful String theory.
Toward the end there seems to be disconnect about “emergence”. I agree with Suchitra Sebastian that we cannot predict nontrivial “emergent” effects like superconductivity. But we should not confuse the limitations of our ability to predict with fundamental laws of nature (assuming they exist, as most physicists do). If one cares only about “Shut up and calculate”, then yes there’s a hard line between what we know about (e.g.) copper atoms and how they combine to produce superconductivity. We can compute it after the fact, knowing from experiments that it happens, but we did not predict it. This limitation of our ability to compute/predict must not be allowed to leak into our notions of the laws of nature. Nature has no such limits, and everything about superconductivity is implicit within the properties of individual copper (or other) atoms. This is a metaphysical distinction, but that is what this video is about.
"We can compute it after the fact, knowing from experiments that it happens, but we did not predict it" . if your theory has not changed and you can compute something afterwards then surely it must have been computable beforehand?
Stephen Wolfram, the halting problem, and DFT would like a word with you about the limitations of prediction in general and regarding predicting superconductivity, as far as I'm aware nothing has ever predicted a room temperature superconductor?
Michio Kaku's super symmetry has been shown to not exist. videos of string theory or super symmetry should now be shown with a disclaimer so that folks are not confused by physicists touting theories that have failed, are failing or are not testable.
I always get excited that it could be possible, as I do have a liking for geometry to be the underpinning of physics. However yes, Kaku has no shame expressing as fact that which has proven to be wrong or inherently untestable/unfalsifable. Neither of which should ever be acceptable in what you advocate as a leading theory.
@Michael-kp4bd well said. String theory is beautiful but overly complicated. We have two great theories already that have been tested and shown to be accurate or close. But some of quantum theory has been misinterpreted. Einstein was right when he said there is no spooky action at a distance. It is just happening at a Planck scale that is hard to see and interpret. And we are starting to get evidence of quantum gravity. We have all we need right now on both sides of the equal signs, we just need to interpret it better without adding magic and hocus pocus.
@@paulschuster8118 I thought there was action at a distance, no? See: Storz et al (2023), Loophole-free Bell inequality violation with superconducting circuits.
SUSY has NOT been shown to "not exist" or be wrong. Superpartners have not been discovered yet in our range of low energy limits in collider experimentation (< 1 TeV). The HL-LHC is suppose to produce energy levels of around 13 TeV. It is scheduled for initial operation in early 2029.
Simple solution: we can ask our taxpayers to fund building a collider the size of our Galaxy, or we can just add a few more untestable dimensions or more undetectable particles, OR we can move forward with simpler, testable theories based on what we already know. It's easy to defend string theory when you've become rich and famous from the grant money.
I wondered that too. If one household believes we all live in a simulation and their neighbors’ household doesn’t. Then with school aged young people abstract thoughts are very important. She is keen on that
00:05 Quantum theory is inconsistent with itself. 02:22 The collapse of the wave function is not due to conscious observation but relates to the interaction with gravity. 06:47 Need for a theory to unify quantum field theories and general relativity 09:01 Three different approaches to understanding gravity 13:29 Challenges in understanding gravity and light deflection 15:41 The collision between quantum mechanics and special and general relativity is a major controversy in theoretical physics. 19:57 String theory has no rival 22:00 Loop quantum gravity has limitations with finite results 25:42 Physics seeks ultimate equation and universal truth 27:37 Unifying theory in quantum physics is elusive due to complexity. 31:57 Struggle to understand interactions of multiple particles 34:02 Superconductivity is an emergent phenomenon and cannot be described in terms of individual electrons. Crafted by Merlin AI.
God damn this is the first time i couldn´t follow the babbling of a 90 year old not because he is too senile, but because he is too smart... I can only pray I'm still half as sharp as Roger when I'm in my 40´s.
@@1112viggowhen he starts using neurological phenomena that perfectly fit within the confines of known physics and chemistry, and uses it to support an idea of “conciseness harnessing quantum physics to create retrocausal action” I roll my eyes a bit. Maybe it’s a pet theory, but it shows the classic “when you have a hammer everything is a nail” behavior by a physicist extending into another branch of science without first learning it, which I find sad to see. Penrose is an absolute titan in his field, so it’s not that i even want him to “stay in line” but rather look into the science he is not learned in (neuro) before using it to explain something that it has no actual connection to (or moreover, extensive evidence that proves contrary to what he thinks it means)
@@Michael-kp4bd It is proven that many animals use quantum phenomena either to locate themselves in space and for other things. Penrose has every right to investigate quantum effects in the brain.
If the paradigm of concepts represented in mathematics is failing to enable us to make progress in understanding the world about us, then perhaps a different modeling paradigm would be useful. There are several alternative modeling concepts. Why should we limit ourselves to one the was successful in the past. Why do you think it will continue to be successful? The second point is quite different. If there is one Meta lesson to be learned in physics it is the models exist to be destroyed. The ways to describe planet motions is an excellent example. 1. The earth is the center of the universe. 2.The planets have circular orbits. 3. The planets have elliptical orbits. 4. The planets have motions that cannot be described in any simple way. ergo The General Theory of Relativity. This should immediately bring up the question, what is the model in the future? What is number 5? What makes you think that the idea of concepts represented in mathematics is sufficient? There are other modeling paradigms. I don't see physicists using these alternative modeling methods for the existing data and problems that are unresolved today.
Is it obvious that nature is the one doing the knowing? As with the effect of observation on quantum particles, perhaps it is that there is an Observer who is observing the universe and by observing, affects its behaviour. The Observer knows how it works, so yes, there is a solution.
If you think about it, the amount of mental effort that went into an endeavor should be the best parameter to measure progress if you've been following the most efficient methodology, but I don't think that counts for vanguard endeavors with no established methodology.
6:27 - If electrons can be in many places at once, their gravitational influence would also be spread out in a superposition of all possible influences. However, observing or measuring such effects directly is beyond our current experimental capabilities.
If we could measure the gravity of a single electron what would that give us? If we send photons one at a time thru 2 slits, each photon hits a screen at only one point, however the points are spread out in an interference pattern as if each photon went through both slits, as the wave function stated. But if we put a detector after one slit then we will see that half the photons hit our detector and half the photons go straight through the other slit directly to the screen. We could do the same thing with electrons. We cannot detect an electron's gravity, but we can measure its charge. What experiment are we wanting to do with gravity that we can't do now with charge? Aren't we in the situation as with the photon? If we measure the charge then it stops being quantum. We would be in the same situation with gravity unless gravity is not quantum even though the particle is.
@@Nebukanezzer Actually, the idea comes from quantum mechanics and general relativity's principles. In quantum mechanics, particles like electrons can indeed be in a state of superposition, existing in multiple states or places simultaneously until observed. When we apply this concept to gravity, a force that depends on mass, it's logical to infer that an electron's gravitational influence might also exist in a superposition of all possible states. However, our current technology can't directly observe such quantum gravitational effects. This isn't about belief systems but about theoretical physics and the challenges of unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity. It's a fascinating area of ongoing research, not yet fully understood or observed.
@@EinsteinsHair Your comparison misses a key distinction: the aim isn't to substitute charge measurements but to probe gravity's quantum aspects. Quantum mechanics shows particles like electrons in superposition, influencing their electromagnetic interactions. Yet, we wonder if gravity, inherently linked to mass, behaves similarly at quantum scales. This isn't about detecting an analog to charge in gravity but understanding if gravitational fields can exhibit quantum properties. If we could measure such effects, it could unveil new physics, bridging quantum mechanics and general relativity-a leap beyond what charge measurements offer.
@alanrobison4761 I agree. This fact is carefully avoided by our panelists, for (like the with the big bang) the obvious theological implication here cannot be countenanced, which is that since consciousness (measurement they call it) is required to actuate quantum states, it PRECEDES it.
Penrose, as usual, is right. OBSERVATION ONLY TELLS YOU WHICH UNIVERSE YOU ARE IN (Schrodinger's cat is alive in some and dead in others, NOT both alive and dead in the SAME universe at the same time)
You say that Penrose is right, but your interpretation is very different from his. He believes that the cat shows the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, not the existence of many worlds. I'm also curious about how the cat can be alive in some worlds and dead in others. In what sense is the cat in this world the same as the cat in another world?
The thing I always preclude any assumption is that not everything is provable. The truth doesn't always make itself known. Just because something is not testable, it doesn't mean it can't be a theory or even the correct answer. What if all aspiring Physicists were required to study academic disciplines related to Non-physics for X amount of credits in order to receive their degree? Fresh eyes creates the visionary.
1) There are no particles, neither quantum nor classical. 2) The outcome of a quantum measurement is not predictable because it is not known to either us or nature. You are as wrong as anybody can be.
Where does the idea a of closed system vs an open system fit into quantum mechanics? To my understanding, when the results of particle collisions is observed, we treat the reactants as being a closed system and we passively detect what escapes to various detectors. But doesn’t this perturb the product “system “?
Please schedule a talk between Slavoj Zizek and Sir Roger Penrose!! It would truly be a blessing during these very muddled times. It is crucial for an ontology of our present time/spirit, the connection between quantum physics and philosophical (dialectical) materialism. Please!! And thanks for this video!
When we know we are missing something fundamental, it is probably time to question some of our most basic assumptions. For instance, what if we are wrong about the invariant nature of light? We have defined the speed of light and taken it off the table for questioning. But consider for a moment the phenomena of water waves, which are well known to display the property of dispersion. Well, they also exhibit frequency downshifting over time (i.e., not invariant). What if light waves do something similar? What if they also exhibit some infinitesimal dispersion? What if the speed of propagation of the change of a field is constant at ‘c’ but electromagnetic waves travel at a very slightly less, but variable, speed? The honest consideration of such questions may just lead to the kinds of new models and understanding that the presenters are saying is needed.
In relation to the size of universe, humanity is insignificantly small. Are we really in position to ever understand what is happening around us or are we like bacteria are on an apple? It seams to me that we may have those 4 or 5 puzzles but the missing 1995 are just unobtainable tu us.
Quantum mechanics and special relativity are extremely simple theories, at least mathematically. Finding a way to combine these will of course be a challenge but well within reach this or next century. This is not the say every problem is answerable in any meaningful way but foundations in physics is.
@@PhthaloJohnson Yes, theories and math… What is math, does it exist outside of a human mind, is it all real, how do we know? What does math reveal and what not, is it sometimes misleading? What i want to say is that despite of how far we came there still are X amount of questions and not many reliable answers 😄
Seems to me, and I think this is what Roger is getting at, that superposition can continue only so far, because at some point the different possibilities encompassed there within would start to have different impacts with regard to the interaction of the particles with gravity. And that it is those emerging differences that cause the collapse, so that gravity has something 'concrete' to work on, suggesting that gravity won't put up with quantum uncertainty that impacts it, because it is not equipped to do so. It implies that gravity is involved intimately with the quantum world, putting a constraint on it, keeping it within tolerable bounds. And if the world is 'computed', maybe there is a requirement for the collapse, encoded in the software, to ease the compute burden on gravity.
Stephen Wolfram is scratching at the computation aspect of physics, I'm hoping he gets something interesting on that front in the not too distant future.
@@squoblat We've come a long way since Newtonian billiard balls. As we look closer at nature, it disappears like a Cheshire cat. Hence the cat in the box conundrum of quantum theorists. It comes down to information, and the leap to that no doubt was helped by the change in people's thinking brought about by the post-WW2 computer revolution. But there is a lot that goes unexplained, and our current theories eat away at the digestible bits around the edge of the big picture. It is not getting any easier to go further. It's been a long time since the last major paradigm shift such as string theory. We're overdue for another one. Perhaps Wolfram's work is a pointer thereto. He needs more brains to join in, but most of the theorists seem subsumed into string theory. In the longer term, perhaps after Wolfram's work starts to bear new fruits, we still have the problem of consciousness, about which we are currently clueless as to how to even start investigating how it ties in with Physics.
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration” Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and creates our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it inter
Penrose is a legend. If you havent, go watch What we still dont know. Brilliant 3 part docs from Roger. A bit dated information wise now but excellent docs.
Here’s a fun idea I have: Imagine you are a video character. How would you go about finding out what fundamentally makes up the game you live in? What experiments could you perform to verify how the universe was created? It is it even possible? We can figure out how the game works but not how it was created. We can infer how something is created within the universe the character lives in, there must be an initial mechanism for which the mechanics operate. The software and hardware. What experiments could one run existing within the video game to find the software and hardware the game runs on? Can a 2d being understand the mechanics of the 3d world it exists in? Can one determine the activities outside the cave by only seeing the shadow of the activities projected on the wall of the cave? There is a lack of information, we cannot determine what information is lacked.
I, of course, dont have answers, but to take your example... the way to search for something that would indicate the simulation would be like searching for floating point errors which accumulate in some situations, or the equivalent of a bit flip. I dont think its stupid to spend a minimal amount of time to look for these things in a physical sense, and its conceivable to me that some external informarion could be derived. Lets say that we have a simulation in a computer, and that the characters spend a lot of time monitoring all values they can find, or are allowed to observe. Stupidly, they would be able to observe something like the rate at which bits are flipped from cosmic rays. There would be no context, but it certainly would be external informarion about "something". In the end, I say it is best to stay curious on all physical phenomena, and to sometimes look where we wouldnt expect anything odd. Science is much more built on "Oh, that's really strange", than it is on "Eureka".
Some ideas for the "video characters" you describe: - Going to the limits of the ruleset they are existing in, e.g. getting closer to fundamental (atomar) functional elements, the spacial and temporal resolution, finding unintuitive behaviour and systems, apparent sources of "randomness". - Analyzing their own epistemologic scope and limitations, giving hints about the character and capabilities of the larger context they are embedded in. - Comparing their computer simulations with the actual world they live in. To the "real shadows" they see in their (allegory of the) cave, compare "simulated shadows" - "shadows of shadows" so to speak. - Examine the path of discovery itself, e.g. how it could or couldn't be predicted, in how far it is guided by teleological elements versus a posteriori knowledge i.e. experience. And for something different, if they have access to it, for recreational purposes, there's still metaphysics ;)
I'm not sure a video game is the best example for this. Real life phenomena, in stark contrast to video game objects, have the capacity to interact with everything. In video games, all interactions must be added by hand. In real life though, Magnetism, gravity, matter and EM waves all interact with other. Even if just very slightly in some cases, they do interact with each other. This means that they must share a very fundamental property that allows for this type of communication. There is a slight parallel to your video game example though. Whereas a video game character might only see the final product of the calculations, we as "higher beings" in this case know that everything processed and shown is actually purely electrical in nature. In that way, we "unified" (but also grossly oversimplified) all the computer-related phenomena. However, in the case of the video game character, I think it would be difficult for him to find out about this, since there are probably very few hints sprinkled about in the world that offer opportunities to learn about the fundamental mechanics. Reality is much more in-depth and also (at least seemingly) much more complete in that regard.
@@fexus9730 Since ancient times up to this day, most thinkers share the intuition that the number of interaction categories in the (inanimate) physical world might be limited; some go a bit farther, also saying that the observable interactions might only be a subset of all interactions in our universe. On the other hand, simulated worlds don't have such limitations: their size, scope, variety of interactions can always be e.g. procedurally or stochastically expanded, they can be made virtually endless, only limited by available memory for certain interaction categories. The contrast between the former intuition and the latter fact is remarkable.
@@Thomas-gk42 Who, back in the day, whould have imagined that e.g. the yet unconfirmed theory of the atom, named and thought as the smallest functional element there can be, or Newton's precise and beautiful equations aren't the end of the story?
@@DarkSkay Mainstream QM has given up to find a solution that describes the process of measurement. So hidden variables are ruled out til they stumble over it, like Sabine expressed it on another statement.
I'm not a physicist, but I'd place my bet on Sir Roger's conformal cyclic cosmology being right. I don't believe string theory is true. Not cause I know the science, I don't, but I know people, and the main proponents and communicators of string theory seem dishonest.
Whatever the meaning assigned to the term _complete,_ the following requirement for a complete theory seems to be a necessary one: every element of the physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory. ~EPR What we see depends on light entering the eye. Furthermore we do not even perceive what enters the eye. The things transmitted are waves or - as Newton thought - minute particles, and the things seen are colors. Locke met this difficulty by a theory of primary and secondary qualities. Namely, there are some attributes of the matter which we do perceive. These are the primary qualities, and there are other things which we perceive, such as colors, which are not attributes of matter, but are perceived by us as if they were such attributes. These are the secondary qualities of matter. Why should we perceive secondary qualities? It seems an unfortunate arrangement that we should perceive a lot of things that are not there. Yet this is what the theory of secondary qualities in fact comes to. There is now reigning in philosophy and in science an apathetic acquiescence in the conclusion that no coherent account can be given of nature as it is disclosed to us in sense-awareness, without dragging in its relation to mind. ~Whitehead
wrong, it's OUR BRAIN which does all the work, we - our consciousness - is not situated in brain im not english speaker so idk how to say кора головного мозга to you yet we do not have full control of our thoughts, if we had no schizophrenia at all as an illness. sabine knows better dear little dude
String theory is not the only game in town and it really ought to get its act together before coming back with that. The supersymmetric particles did not appear. That's some nice math you have there, but you need to predict what exists.
I find it amusing reading all these self-appointed experts on the Internet claim that string theory has failed as if they knew what they were talking about.
i find it amusing reading all these self-appointed experts on the internet claim that string theory hasn't failed as if they knew what they were talking about!@@ludviglidstrom6924
How so? Whats wrong with letting each theory continue to evolve intil one comes out on top. ST is currently in the lead and has been for sometime, but doesnt mean it is the correct theory only that is has come the closest to moddeling what we know on paper. Dont call any theory absurd or a dead end, every neuron fired on on a theory adds to our understanding specifically if it leads to a completely determined dead end.
@@westondavis1682 Edward Witten inherited the mantle of stifling physics(for some clandestine reason) from his father and we've been stuck in the hamster wheel of ST ever since. Sean Carroll is covering up for this as well.
A.G.I sora like simulating physics can be used to simulate topological configurations of metamaterials that keep quantum coherence aside environmental interference.
Amazing collection of scientific problems. I think about the emergence problem relationship with the quantum gravity problems. Perhaps IA can help us to find if there are some way to simulate or predict what possible propertires could emerge from situations with few constituents. I meanf: for Sir Roger Penrose the problem is in inconsistence of quantum mechanics, for Sabine Hossenfelder and other (I think) the problem it is in gravity understanding. But, if gravity is an emergence property of quantum systems how can we develop a theory that tell us how "one become another" as in supedrconductivity phenomena? Scientists have observed superconductity and developed a theory to explain it. Can we, with AI maybe, ind a pattern of thinking or a new mathematical construct that help us to understand thay "backwards way"? Or it is different for each phenomena? I guess that understand emergence better will help us to find both inconsistence in quantum theory and lead us to some quantum gravity theory. Thinking in emergence, perhaps it will not bring us to a unified theory, but just to an exaplanation of gravity as an emergence consequence of some aspects of quantum theory...maybe the opposite cab be truth kkk. I just want to thank you for the video with breathteaking problems to think.
@@johnrowell3583 he says the same things every time. He holds the same story, the same jokes, same history, same conclusions : "Welllll if you can solve it you will be the next Einstein." And the same outlandish predictions. The man is a grafter, a ringer.
Special and general theories of relativity do not take into account “extra” dimensions. Both work with the known 4 dimensions of space and time, and I'm sure mathematicians would have already exhausted this theory but maybe quantum physics could be of a 5th dimension that's why it's difficult to bridge, could be a silly question as I almost know zero about physics .Also maybe there might be a completely different language of mathematics for a 5th dimension not yet discovered, and quantum entanglement, I quote " two particles communicating with each other, faster than the speed of light, without information" maybe the information is beyond the mathematics that is available at the moment, maybe there's a lot of information being transferred, but not of the physical mathematics used.Beautiful and interesting video, I try to make sense with the little knowledge I have, day by day I learn more.💙💫🙏
This is actually a really old idea. Bernhard Reimann first proposed that space on a microscopic space may not have the same properties as the macroscopic, including possibly extra dimensions. Einstein followed in his footsteps formalizing time as a dimension. Very soon after Einstein published general relativity was an attempt made to unify gravity with electromagnetism, called Kaluza Klein theory, which added a compactified 5th dimension to spacetime. Kaluza sent his calculations to Einstein in 1919, so this is before Quantum theory had been formalized. String Theory works with the same idea but with several more extra dimensions, compactified in structures called calabi-yau manifolds. So theoretically formulating theories with extra dimensions isn't an issue, rather it's making testable predictions from those theories that's the problem.
@@randomchannel-px6ho An old idea that never got anywhere, does not mean it doesn't have anywhere to go. How many people tried and failed to achieve flight with the same idea before it was accomplished, thank you for the information. PS fun coinstadance fact for you, K being the 11th letter of alphabet and the mathematician's of the KK theory investigating the 5d, their initials spells 11.11 some will recognise that number and some wont 💙💫🙏
The following ideas agree with you. 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. 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. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. 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 did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. “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 some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? 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 Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (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 Charge" 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 Gluons. 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 production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. 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, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. 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. 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 producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton 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.
For physics to move forward consider these challenges Summary Here are the key components of all my physics posts. Photons are eternal and outside of time and distance. The singularity of photons began the Big Bang. Photons created mass through pair conversion of electron positron pairs in the Big Bang. These electrons and positrons made the elementary particles which in turn made the atoms. Neutrons and hydrogen atoms may be the same thing in different form. The proton neutron bond in the nucleus, kept neutrons from decay and was key to building all elements. Neutrons may be unstable protons. Protons, for the most part could only be created in the immediate era after the Big Bang. The key to atoms stability may be the deuterium nucleus or deuteron that help binds one proton to one neutron. The missing anti matter is in protons and neutrons. Photons, electrons, and positrons, are all different versions of the same thing. Virtual particles may be a key part of quantum leaps. The mass of the universe comes from photons converting to electron positron pairs in pair conversion. The energy of the universe comes from electrons and positrons annihilating and converting to photons. The universe is 5% charged matter and 95% neutral force. Dark matter is not gravity from invisible baryons pulling, but antigravity pushing from empty space. Dark matter and Dark Energy are both anti gravity pushing from empty space. The cosmological redshift supports this. The force from the Big Bang singularity was photons / dark energy / dark matter /anti gravity . They are the same. The force caused by acceleration is anti gravity, not gravity. Time has speed limits up to the speed of light. 95% of the universe seems to be without charge, detectable matter, or gravity: dark energy plus dark matter. The universe is open ended and will continue to expand.
What is most amazing here is the discrepancy between the quality of the video and the quality of comments from random "physicists" in the comment section. Please disable comments. You will do the world a favor.
📝 Summary of Key Points: 📌 The video discusses the challenges in reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity, highlighting the limitations of current theories like string theory and loop quantum gravity. 🧐 There is a debate within theoretical physics regarding the clash between quantum mechanics and special/general relativity, with experiments showing anomalies that challenge established theories. 💡 Additional Insights and Observations: 💬 Quotable Moments: "The future is open, but the past is not fixed at the quantum level." 📊 Data and Statistics: Loop quantum gravity faces challenges in incorporating the standard model and controlling divergences, unlike string theory. 🌐 References and Sources: The discussion touches on emergent phenomena like superconductivity, emphasizing the limitations of reductionist approaches. 📣 Concluding Remarks: The video sheds light on the complexities of theoretical physics, showcasing the ongoing quest for a unifying theory while grappling with emergent phenomena and the limitations of current models. The debate between different theories underscores the need for continued exploration and creativity in the field. Generated using TalkBud
This sounds like a highschooler who was only half paying attention and didn't understand the material, so he just pulled out sentences from the video that sounded smart. Generative AI sucks ass.
It is my understanding that we oscillate between objective and subjective realities consistently and rapidly throughout the day but we visualize or perceive it as one. We can change that state by meditating. Does that mean our consciousness is quantum in that it can be in a superposition state where its in two realities at once? Forgive me if this doesnt make sense. I'm new at these big ideas.
That is part of our “Simul Justus Realism” hypothesis by framing FSC as the hidden variable as well, in the sense, Universe in quantum sense, is both locally (EPR) & non-locally real(ER bridge or Wormhole), while it is simultaneously locally real(GR) in classical sense as well. In other words, it toggles between both formalisms at Planck's time intervals by naturally collapsing the WF before re-emitting it in 2 ways using the probability of FSC. I had explained this in detail in my comment above! Check it out.....
@@micro-organism-pv5gd Thank you for this. Much of current understandings of consciousness is derived from Itzhak Bentov. I haven't yet read his book entirely but will do that next. I will look into Thomas Cleary's work directly after.
@@charlesprabakar This is a lot of help. I lack formal education after grade school so much of this I don't currently understand (like epr, fsc and Plank's) but will look closer into it and your detailed descriptions in your other comments here. It seems this provides me and us with a great technical perspective. As I've said in the other comment here, much of my understanding of consciousness is derived from Itzhak Bentov's teachings.
This is a rough conflation of words that do not mean the same thing. As humans we leverage language in incredibly imaginative and artistic ways, attempting to make connections between what may not seem be related in any physical sense. Sometimes this does inspire what eventually leads to discovery of legitimate scientific principles; other times we are merely creating analogies that do not apply to the physical realm any more than a pretty cool work of fiction that can inspire minds or make us feel a certain way - still inherently unscientific in nature (i.e. supported by no evidence nor supplying predictive power, as scientific theories require) In other words, no this has nothing to do with “quantum” whatsoever, but you are using some of the language of quantum physics imprecisely/incorrectly to provoke thoughtful discussion. It is not science, it is human creativity in an imaginative, exploratory nature.
Can someone please explain how is string theory the ultimate winner when it requires more dimensions than we can actually account for? I understand it works mathematically but how do you test & prove these unknown dimensions? Am I missing something?
Why is the expansion of the universe not being calculated down to a quantum level. We have the inverse law to describe the Newtonian Force of gravity, and the relative theory to expand on space/time, can we not extrapolate the expansion using the expansion of Space/time on a quantum level using the inverse law divided by c?
I think there is evidence that the expansion isn't constant or contiguous. It is definitely thought to be increasing (using Type-1a novae as 'standard candles') but recent & upcoming understanding of supernovae from JWST and others may change our understanding again!
I don’t know about complicated maths and physics. My curiosity came from golden ratio because I work with visual art. I know people think Terrence Howard is crazy and maybe there are many people out there like him. I watched Terrence explaining his idea in JRE’s podcast. One thing that got me is he said that our world is three dimensional and there is no straight line.. Now I am thinking, is it because it’s easier to measure something from 2D perspective first? But how about money? I’m really confused.
It's also a reflection of what's wrong with our civilizations, everyone is right,they have it all figured out,if it doesn't fit into Thier theory or narrative, then it cannot be possible because their theories or narratives have no room for anything else,they have all the answers. We saw this before,it's now called The Dark Age. Physics ,as you point out , has hit a stone wall erected by physicist.❤
As to quantum gravity I default to Carlo Rovelli and Loop Quantum Gravity. In my opinion that work and Brian Green's Elegant Universe are two of the best works in recent History.
It does have rules though which can be described to an insane degree of precision and consistency by math. A lot of people, such as Roger Penrose, take that to indicate that math is somehow a fundamental phenomenon, and more than just a tool to predict things. It’s definitely an active area of debate though
I’m so glad to hear I’m not the only one who thinks quantum computers are BS. I’ve been wrong before and will be again, but I have yet to hear how Q Bits can store, manipulate and/or return data.
Theoretically, it is entirely sound - I’d advise simply reading up on the questions you asked. The primary issue is scalability (and, well no more properly maintaining stability with scale) to the point where answers can be output by the computer without noise rendering the output meaningless
@@Michael-kp4bd A small amount of noise is not useful, but a lot of noise is data? I'll take a wait and see approach. I'm probably wrong, but I don't see it.
I suspect that physics should be approached the way anthropology used to approach subjects: i.e. just observe and based on the observation of a subject's behaviour, describe the behaviour, and from that then make "laws" of function. I.e. not bring your own perspectives or assumptions into the matter, as it leads to problems as described.
I would say holographic duality best explains this. There’s a world of quantum interactions without gravity and this quantum world contains a full description of things like general relativity. So the classical world emerges from these quantum interactions. So the classical universe is a holographic projection of information in 1 less dimension without gravity.
No, nothing is “going between” two particles at infinite velocity. I believe this is a misunderstanding of entanglement. It’s not that anything is travelling, it’s that there is a correlation. That correlation doesn’t violate special relativity because it’s created locally.
What is your take on all things quantum? Let us know in the comments below!
To watch more big names talk physics, visit iai.tv/?UA-cam&+comment&
If you want to know how it all works, master special relativity. And I don't mean the tons of math that describes observations of it. SR addresses time, space, mass, and energy. Can't you see how that touches every aspect of our universe? And how it works is EXTREMELY simple. When SR is described, 20 or more earth shaking Nobel prizes will follow in months. Physics will flash ahead with lighting speed.
Physics at our scale are incorrect, so that leads to quantum physics being even more incorrect. Mass is not attracted to mass for a start, mass is repelled by mass. There's no such thing as a pull force, and there is actually only one force. So basically all of physics are delusional to begin with. Peer review means to join the delusional gang. Mass moves towards holes in mass, because it flows with gravity like water moves into a sponge, and can take something with it. The bigger sponge has the most mass, but also the most holes. Observation of the Cavendish experiment does not count as observation at all, it's invisible. Peer review is the Emperor's New Clothes, you see the invisible in the Cavendish experiment, you see mass attracting mass, but the truth is that you see nothing at all. With such bad teachers to follow you will never get anywhere. I ignore everyone... I ignore the crazy gang.
I'll try this again. Try this experiment: Get an in phase light source consisting of the same frequency. Polarize it and focus it on your two precious slits. The accepted pattern will not appear. There will be marks where the humps were. Present science cannot explain this. Get the longest wave length you can. Shorter wavelengths will produce errors. I know why.
The point here is that there is a nobody out there that has an idea. You won't listen to him because all you want is click bait. But this person has suggested an idea. But the organization of philosophers (IAI) has decided he is a waste of time. Even though some of the big brains will not put something in the real world to demonstrate an idea: this person has suggested a real world experiment that might demonstrate something very important. You criticize the system but let your assumptions keep you on a similar path. Was it BCS that told me SR is a dead horse? Com-on man.
I think everyone is thinking about it wrong. I mean take for a example superposition it's not all things at once or so simple. It's how the integrated differences give rise to a difference or become a difference while maintaining itself so both states at the same time but through different methods. Imagine a guy doing the wave, the energy just traveled trough the differences and didn't stay as one thing but moved trough it's integrated differences.
What I mean is that the "quantum wave collapse" is the syncing/integration of the differences. Think water and it's differences taking the shape or variable differences but maintaining itself as water or how words embody the difference of other things. Meanings are the same as superposition adnas we integrated more, the uses and differences grow that it can integrate with, like math repping reality and then using an equation to find a prediction and then using us ass connected difference, we can integrate
Roger is 92, it’s staggering how quick and capable his mind still is.
He becomes sharper with age, where as teenagers are already becoming dumber, day by day.
Kids don't even know what a woman is, yet that 92 year old has a sharp recollection of deep topics.
It's both fantastic and sad at the same time.
@@OriginalPuro what the hell?
Yup, still inventing bullshit like explaining quantum measurement as a gravitational effect. He was always vastly overrated.
@@ultrametric9317Dirac Medal, Prize of the British Institute of Physics, Albert Einstein Medal-I'm sure they give those away for overrated theories. What's your contribution?
That's because he is continually using it, unlike most people.
Roger Penrose is my role model, but I am always amazed at his ability to work at this age
At any age, he is still the leading theorist in physics.
Sign of a truly great mind.
It astounds me that he can attend such events at this age, hopefully the mind can work even under extreme physical limitations as Stephen Hawking demonstrated.
I never heard that before.
That´s what so great about thinking for a job, only death and dementia can force you to retire. Just look at Hawking, what could he do in the end? Like move his eyelids to communicate with technology in the chair or something and he was still spitting out science papers. What a trooper! Then again, what else was he supposed to do? Its not like he could go surfing...
I’m a simple man . I see sir Roger Penrose and I click the like button
thats quantum reaction.
My microtubules misfired
pretty safe approach.
Yes: he does rely entirely on the support of simpletons who mistake his motor mouthing for erudition
@@johnlawrence2757 Where as you are doing what exactly?
A greater question than anything in quantum physics is why Kaku is included in this group of people😅
Likely because His name is better known, many people wouldn't know of the rest of this august crew. PR, essentially.
He jumped the string theory shark. 🤣
At least it's not the Weinstein brothers.
@@akagordon
That is harsh, but really funny because it would be a train wreck if Eric was involved, definitely not useful in this type of venue.
Bro, Kaku has written very good books on Quantum Field Theory which is the most relevant quantum theory to date
Beautiful Roger Penrose.
Penrose is wearing an actual hospital bracelet to this event.
At 92, he left some kind of medical situation to attend this just so he could re state his position on qm and relativity.
What a mind he still has and apparently will have... to the very end.
god dam!!!!
No, haha, he's not. Scroll through the video and look at the guest speakers' wrists; they all wear that bracelet. It's probably something IAI requires their guests to wear for admission into their events. Penrose is, of course, remarkable nonetheless.
I hope he lives long enough to catch the longevity train
Michio Kaku is the Depak Chopra of physics.
😂😂
He's a pretty cool dude 😎
yeah he is talking a lot of nonsense and making statements which are either untrue or not proven
@@BrandonCrowl heard of the B&W fallacy?
Funny how Michio Kaku says that every other theory of everything failed, acting like string theory succeeded.
This is going to sound like shade but I am serious. I love classic physicist hair
It's like it mirrors the explosion of ideas inside the mind.
Seriously I love this talk and this channel and the fantastic people who do this science and explain it to us.
It's like their intelligence has escaped containment and electrified their hair.
"String theory is the only game in town so that's the game we play" reminds me of the old joke about looking for your lost key under the street lamp because that's where the light was... Come on Michio, you can do better. LOL
That would be a perfectly sensible thing to do - if that's the only place you can look (at the moment) then why not look there? Just because you know it's not the only place doesn't mean it's not worth looking!
@@adrianwright8685 Because researchers been looking at string theory for a long time and are less convinced that it is right than they were at the start.
What a horribly non scientific "argument"
Haha we have a Chinese idiom for just that 刻舟求剑 look it up with chatgpt, it's a great story
This documentary is a whistle blower, will you watch it? 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🙏
Roger's intelligence is otherworldly......what a gift to humanity......
yes ... he is a last of the super genius of this era
Great video.
Just a small note: we need questioners like Dr. Hossenfelder. They force us to rethink things (see also Berthold Brecht: Praise of Doubt). I saw the entire talk and can highly recommend it.
Respect for the great panels and guests. And all the best for the future of your work.
Yes, absolutely right. Everyone should read her books.
she's a total waste of space, an embarrassment to herself. There are far better communcators of Theoretical Physics. e.g. Lenny Susskind, Sean Carroll (and NOT that loon Carlo Rovelli with his wishy-washy ramblings) @@Thomas-gk42
The Ekeberg guy annoyed me. Mathematics is just the best language we have for describing physics. It grows and evolves as our understanding evolves. Equations in physics are like definitions in spoked language. Many great theoretical physicists weren't great mathematicians, so clearly math isn't the driving force. It's simply the language that is used to describe or define something in clear detail. The diving force is the question "so how do we describe/define this". The quest to find a mathematical descriptions of various particles, interactions, and phenomena is both what dives the math, and what drives the reevaluation of existing theory. The beauty of math as a language is that it enforces it's own consistency, and has an elegance when fully formed. Inconsistency or verbosity naturally point to areas where work is needed. The Standard Model Lagrangian is a perfect example of an elegant and consistent mathematical definition. The fact that we don't have an equation explaining waveform collapse points to an area our understanding is lacking.
Roger Penrose is easily one of my favorite mathematicians.
who is your 3rd favourite?
He shines a flashlight and there’s a stop sign. Some people like traffic tickets
Roger. Penrose. Is 92 years old
A lot older then biden 🥲
So, vote for Biden.
Hats off to whomever put this together.
Lectures like this redeem the internet somewhat! So refreshing compared with all the distorted and biased reporting on world events.
Sir Penrose is still an incredibly sharp mind 👍 respect
thats what thinking about complex problems everysingle day does to do. Alzheimer has no time to catch up
Interesting point Penrose makes. Not match Gravity to QM, but the other way round. We need more research! A unified theory of Physics is a sine qua non condition for science to progress.
It's been experimentally proved that collapse of the wavefunction is an actual thing that happens in nature. So yeah, I don't think that it is possible. Although I'm sure that among theories of "quantum gravity" there is one that explores that hypothesis as well. Too bad those theories are not as popular as God awful String theory.
Toward the end there seems to be disconnect about “emergence”. I agree with Suchitra Sebastian that we cannot predict nontrivial “emergent” effects like superconductivity. But we should not confuse the limitations of our ability to predict with fundamental laws of nature (assuming they exist, as most physicists do). If one cares only about “Shut up and calculate”, then yes there’s a hard line between what we know about (e.g.) copper atoms and how they combine to produce superconductivity. We can compute it after the fact, knowing from experiments that it happens, but we did not predict it. This limitation of our ability to compute/predict must not be allowed to leak into our notions of the laws of nature. Nature has no such limits, and everything about superconductivity is implicit within the properties of individual copper (or other) atoms. This is a metaphysical distinction, but that is what this video is about.
As Sabine expressed it: "But nature knows how it works."
"We can compute it after the fact, knowing from experiments that it happens, but we did not predict it"
. if your theory has not changed and you can compute something afterwards then surely it must have been computable beforehand?
Stephen Wolfram, the halting problem, and DFT would like a word with you about the limitations of prediction in general and regarding predicting superconductivity, as far as I'm aware nothing has ever predicted a room temperature superconductor?
No not true
Michio Kaku's super symmetry has been shown to not exist. videos of string theory or super symmetry should now be shown with a disclaimer so that folks are not confused by physicists touting theories that have failed, are failing or are not testable.
I always get excited that it could be possible, as I do have a liking for geometry to be the underpinning of physics. However yes, Kaku has no shame expressing as fact that which has proven to be wrong or inherently untestable/unfalsifable. Neither of which should ever be acceptable in what you advocate as a leading theory.
@Michael-kp4bd well said. String theory is beautiful but overly complicated. We have two great theories already that have been tested and shown to be accurate or close. But some of quantum theory has been misinterpreted. Einstein was right when he said there is no spooky action at a distance. It is just happening at a Planck scale that is hard to see and interpret. And we are starting to get evidence of quantum gravity. We have all we need right now on both sides of the equal signs, we just need to interpret it better without adding magic and hocus pocus.
@@paulschuster8118 I thought there was action at a distance, no? See: Storz et al (2023), Loophole-free Bell inequality violation with superconducting circuits.
SUSY has NOT been shown to "not exist" or be wrong. Superpartners have not been discovered yet in our range of low energy limits in collider experimentation (< 1 TeV). The HL-LHC is suppose to produce energy levels of around 13 TeV. It is scheduled for initial operation in early 2029.
Simple solution: we can ask our taxpayers to fund building a collider the size of our Galaxy, or we can just add a few more untestable dimensions or more undetectable particles, OR we can move forward with simpler, testable theories based on what we already know. It's easy to defend string theory when you've become rich and famous from the grant money.
Sir Roger is a Legend
I have so many questions. One of those questions is: what happened to Sabines H.s music videos???? I really liked those
I wondered that too. If one household believes we all live in a simulation and their neighbors’ household doesn’t. Then with school aged young people abstract thoughts are very important. She is keen on that
thank you for having sabine here really great to hear her discussing stuff with some others
00:05 Quantum theory is inconsistent with itself.
02:22 The collapse of the wave function is not due to conscious observation but relates to the interaction with gravity.
06:47 Need for a theory to unify quantum field theories and general relativity
09:01 Three different approaches to understanding gravity
13:29 Challenges in understanding gravity and light deflection
15:41 The collision between quantum mechanics and special and general relativity is a major controversy in theoretical physics.
19:57 String theory has no rival
22:00 Loop quantum gravity has limitations with finite results
25:42 Physics seeks ultimate equation and universal truth
27:37 Unifying theory in quantum physics is elusive due to complexity.
31:57 Struggle to understand interactions of multiple particles
34:02 Superconductivity is an emergent phenomenon and cannot be described in terms of individual electrons.
Crafted by Merlin AI.
Figure it out then freely give it to Merlin AI
God damn this is the first time i couldn´t follow the babbling of a 90 year old not because he is too senile, but because he is too smart... I can only pray I'm still half as sharp as Roger when I'm in my 40´s.
Well said. Yet malicious haters still snipe.
@@fred_2021 Oh come on now, who could possibly hate a kind old genius like Penrose? Its not like he is Biden.
@@1112viggowhen he starts using neurological phenomena that perfectly fit within the confines of known physics and chemistry, and uses it to support an idea of “conciseness harnessing quantum physics to create retrocausal action” I roll my eyes a bit. Maybe it’s a pet theory, but it shows the classic “when you have a hammer everything is a nail” behavior by a physicist extending into another branch of science without first learning it, which I find sad to see. Penrose is an absolute titan in his field, so it’s not that i even want him to “stay in line” but rather look into the science he is not learned in (neuro) before using it to explain something that it has no actual connection to (or moreover, extensive evidence that proves contrary to what he thinks it means)
@@Michael-kp4bd It is proven that many animals use quantum phenomena either to locate themselves in space and for other things. Penrose has every right to investigate quantum effects in the brain.
If the paradigm of concepts represented in mathematics is failing to enable us to make progress in understanding the world about us, then perhaps a different modeling paradigm would be useful. There are several alternative modeling concepts. Why should we limit ourselves to one the was successful in the past. Why do you think it will continue to be successful? The second point is quite different. If there is one Meta lesson to be learned in physics it is the models exist to be destroyed. The ways to describe planet motions is an excellent example. 1. The earth is the center of the universe. 2.The planets have circular orbits. 3. The planets have elliptical orbits. 4. The planets have motions that cannot be described in any simple way. ergo The General Theory of Relativity. This should immediately bring up the question, what is the model in the future? What is number 5? What makes you think that the idea of concepts represented in mathematics is sufficient? There are other modeling paradigms. I don't see physicists using these alternative modeling methods for the existing data and problems that are unresolved today.
"But nature knows how it works, so there's got to be a solution to this."
So obvious but still important to say it out loud. 👏
Nature knows..yeah consciousness does underlie everything. You call it "nature."
This resonates so well with Roger's ideas in Orch OR.
Is it obvious that nature is the one doing the knowing?
As with the effect of observation on quantum particles, perhaps it is that there is an Observer who is observing the universe and by observing, affects its behaviour. The Observer knows how it works, so yes, there is a solution.
Nature...she means God
@@madeyedexter No need to stray into fictions. Let's stick to the facts.
If you think about it, the amount of mental effort that went into an endeavor should be the best parameter to measure progress if you've been following the most efficient methodology, but I don't think that counts for vanguard endeavors with no established methodology.
Priya is on to something. We need to look seriously at something other than a Platonic/particle view of reality....
I really like Sir Roger Penrose
6:27 - If electrons can be in many places at once, their gravitational influence would also be spread out in a superposition of all possible influences. However, observing or measuring such effects directly is beyond our current experimental capabilities.
Who told you that's how it works? God? Buddha? Brahma?
If we could measure the gravity of a single electron what would that give us? If we send photons one at a time thru 2 slits, each photon hits a screen at only one point, however the points are spread out in an interference pattern as if each photon went through both slits, as the wave function stated. But if we put a detector after one slit then we will see that half the photons hit our detector and half the photons go straight through the other slit directly to the screen.
We could do the same thing with electrons. We cannot detect an electron's gravity, but we can measure its charge. What experiment are we wanting to do with gravity that we can't do now with charge? Aren't we in the situation as with the photon? If we measure the charge then it stops being quantum.
We would be in the same situation with gravity unless gravity is not quantum even though the particle is.
@@Nebukanezzer Actually, the idea comes from quantum mechanics and general relativity's principles. In quantum mechanics, particles like electrons can indeed be in a state of superposition, existing in multiple states or places simultaneously until observed. When we apply this concept to gravity, a force that depends on mass, it's logical to infer that an electron's gravitational influence might also exist in a superposition of all possible states. However, our current technology can't directly observe such quantum gravitational effects. This isn't about belief systems but about theoretical physics and the challenges of unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity. It's a fascinating area of ongoing research, not yet fully understood or observed.
@@EinsteinsHair Your comparison misses a key distinction: the aim isn't to substitute charge measurements but to probe gravity's quantum aspects. Quantum mechanics shows particles like electrons in superposition, influencing their electromagnetic interactions. Yet, we wonder if gravity, inherently linked to mass, behaves similarly at quantum scales. This isn't about detecting an analog to charge in gravity but understanding if gravitational fields can exhibit quantum properties. If we could measure such effects, it could unveil new physics, bridging quantum mechanics and general relativity-a leap beyond what charge measurements offer.
@alanrobison4761 I agree. This fact is carefully avoided by our panelists, for (like the with the big bang) the obvious theological implication here cannot be countenanced, which is that since consciousness (measurement they call it) is required to actuate quantum states, it PRECEDES it.
Love Roger Pensrose, he must be protected! Let's put him in a box and all agree not to measure him.
Penrose, as usual, is right. OBSERVATION ONLY TELLS YOU WHICH UNIVERSE YOU ARE IN (Schrodinger's cat is alive in some and dead in others, NOT both alive and dead in the SAME universe at the same time)
You say that Penrose is right, but your interpretation is very different from his. He believes that the cat shows the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, not the existence of many worlds.
I'm also curious about how the cat can be alive in some worlds and dead in others. In what sense is the cat in this world the same as the cat in another world?
@ some are almost identical except for life status. Some are not even cats
There is no cat.
@ .. and in an infinite number of universes, the cat claws you and won't get into the box
The thing I always preclude any assumption is that not everything is provable. The truth doesn't always make itself known. Just because something is not testable, it doesn't mean it can't be a theory or even the correct answer. What if all aspiring Physicists were required to study academic disciplines related to Non-physics for X amount of credits in order to receive their degree? Fresh eyes creates the visionary.
I LOVE Joscha Bach's comments on quantum mechanics and quantum computers lol ! he is so always on the mark . Smartest person i know of
I agree with Roger Penrose: the quantum particles know very well what they are doing, regardless of anyone looking or not.
1) There are no particles, neither quantum nor classical. 2) The outcome of a quantum measurement is not predictable because it is not known to either us or nature. You are as wrong as anybody can be.
Where does the idea a of closed system vs an open system fit into quantum mechanics?
To my understanding, when the results of particle collisions is observed, we treat the reactants as being a closed system and we passively detect what escapes to various detectors. But doesn’t this perturb the product “system “?
Nonhermitian qm is used for open systems.
What a pleasure to listen to Sir Penrose. I used to like Sabine a lot but she's making videos on problems outside of her domain of research...
Please schedule a talk between Slavoj Zizek and Sir Roger Penrose!! It would truly be a blessing during these very muddled times. It is crucial for an ontology of our present time/spirit, the connection between quantum physics and philosophical (dialectical) materialism. Please!! And thanks for this video!
You can say anything with that music played at the beginning and sound like a genius.
When we know we are missing something fundamental, it is probably time to question some of our most basic assumptions. For instance, what if we are wrong about the invariant nature of light? We have defined the speed of light and taken it off the table for questioning. But consider for a moment the phenomena of water waves, which are well known to display the property of dispersion. Well, they also exhibit frequency downshifting over time (i.e., not invariant). What if light waves do something similar? What if they also exhibit some infinitesimal dispersion? What if the speed of propagation of the change of a field is constant at ‘c’ but electromagnetic waves travel at a very slightly less, but variable, speed? The honest consideration of such questions may just lead to the kinds of new models and understanding that the presenters are saying is needed.
Sometimes I feel like the "QUANTUM REALM" probably isn't a STABLE PLACE TO PARK❤
In relation to the size of universe, humanity is insignificantly small. Are we really in position to ever understand what is happening around us or are we like bacteria are on an apple? It seams to me that we may have those 4 or 5 puzzles but the missing 1995 are just unobtainable tu us.
Quantum mechanics and special relativity are extremely simple theories, at least mathematically. Finding a way to combine these will of course be a challenge but well within reach this or next century.
This is not the say every problem is answerable in any meaningful way but foundations in physics is.
@@PhthaloJohnson Yes, theories and math… What is math, does it exist outside of a human mind, is it all real, how do we know? What does math reveal and what not, is it sometimes misleading? What i want to say is that despite of how far we came there still are X amount of questions and not many reliable answers 😄
The hair styles are awesome 💯
Seems to me, and I think this is what Roger is getting at, that superposition can continue only so far, because at some point the different possibilities encompassed there within would start to have different impacts with regard to the interaction of the particles with gravity.
And that it is those emerging differences that cause the collapse, so that gravity has something 'concrete' to work on, suggesting that gravity won't put up with quantum uncertainty that impacts it, because it is not equipped to do so.
It implies that gravity is involved intimately with the quantum world, putting a constraint on it, keeping it within tolerable bounds. And if the world is 'computed', maybe there is a requirement for the collapse, encoded in the software, to ease the compute burden on gravity.
Stephen Wolfram is scratching at the computation aspect of physics, I'm hoping he gets something interesting on that front in the not too distant future.
@@squoblat We've come a long way since Newtonian billiard balls. As we look closer at nature, it disappears like a Cheshire cat. Hence the cat in the box conundrum of quantum theorists. It comes down to information, and the leap to that no doubt was helped by the change in people's thinking brought about by the post-WW2 computer revolution. But there is a lot that goes unexplained, and our current theories eat away at the digestible bits around the edge of the big picture. It is not getting any easier to go further. It's been a long time since the last major paradigm shift such as string theory. We're overdue for another one. Perhaps Wolfram's work is a pointer thereto. He needs more brains to join in, but most of the theorists seem subsumed into string theory. In the longer term, perhaps after Wolfram's work starts to bear new fruits, we still have the problem of consciousness, about which we are currently clueless as to how to even start investigating how it ties in with Physics.
I've only just begun applying Quantum principles to a pair of dice. I think that's where Quantum Gravity lives.
STRING THEORY IS A DEAD END!!!
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave!
Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe,
think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration”
Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles,
and creates our experience-able Universe.
Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness".
Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment.
Our job is to make it inter
Penrose is a legend. If you havent, go watch What we still dont know. Brilliant 3 part docs from Roger. A bit dated information wise now but excellent docs.
Here’s a fun idea I have:
Imagine you are a video character.
How would you go about finding out what fundamentally makes up the game you live in?
What experiments could you perform to verify how the universe was created? It is it even possible?
We can figure out how the game works but not how it was created.
We can infer how something is created within the universe the character lives in, there must be an initial mechanism for which the mechanics operate.
The software and hardware.
What experiments could one run existing within the video game to find the software and hardware the game runs on?
Can a 2d being understand the mechanics of the 3d world it exists in?
Can one determine the activities outside the cave by only seeing the shadow of the activities projected on the wall of the cave?
There is a lack of information, we cannot determine what information is lacked.
I, of course, dont have answers, but to take your example... the way to search for something that would indicate the simulation would be like searching for floating point errors which accumulate in some situations, or the equivalent of a bit flip. I dont think its stupid to spend a minimal amount of time to look for these things in a physical sense, and its conceivable to me that some external informarion could be derived. Lets say that we have a simulation in a computer, and that the characters spend a lot of time monitoring all values they can find, or are allowed to observe. Stupidly, they would be able to observe something like the rate at which bits are flipped from cosmic rays. There would be no context, but it certainly would be external informarion about "something".
In the end, I say it is best to stay curious on all physical phenomena, and to sometimes look where we wouldnt expect anything odd. Science is much more built on "Oh, that's really strange", than it is on "Eureka".
Some ideas for the "video characters" you describe:
- Going to the limits of the ruleset they are existing in, e.g. getting closer to fundamental (atomar) functional elements, the spacial and temporal resolution, finding unintuitive behaviour and systems, apparent sources of "randomness".
- Analyzing their own epistemologic scope and limitations, giving hints about the character and capabilities of the larger context they are embedded in.
- Comparing their computer simulations with the actual world they live in. To the "real shadows" they see in their (allegory of the) cave, compare "simulated shadows" - "shadows of shadows" so to speak.
- Examine the path of discovery itself, e.g. how it could or couldn't be predicted, in how far it is guided by teleological elements versus a posteriori knowledge i.e. experience.
And for something different, if they have access to it, for recreational purposes, there's still metaphysics ;)
I'm not sure a video game is the best example for this.
Real life phenomena, in stark contrast to video game objects, have the capacity to interact with everything. In video games, all interactions must be added by hand. In real life though, Magnetism, gravity, matter and EM waves all interact with other. Even if just very slightly in some cases, they do interact with each other. This means that they must share a very fundamental property that allows for this type of communication.
There is a slight parallel to your video game example though.
Whereas a video game character might only see the final product of the calculations,
we as "higher beings" in this case know that everything processed and shown is actually purely electrical in nature. In that way, we "unified" (but also grossly oversimplified) all the computer-related phenomena. However, in the case of the video game character, I think it would be difficult for him to find out about this, since there are probably very few hints sprinkled about in the world that offer opportunities to learn about the fundamental mechanics. Reality is much more in-depth and also (at least seemingly) much more complete in that regard.
@@fexus9730 Since ancient times up to this day, most thinkers share the intuition that the number of interaction categories in the (inanimate) physical world might be limited; some go a bit farther, also saying that the observable interactions might only be a subset of all interactions in our universe. On the other hand, simulated worlds don't have such limitations: their size, scope, variety of interactions can always be e.g. procedurally or stochastically expanded, they can be made virtually endless, only limited by available memory for certain interaction categories.
The contrast between the former intuition and the latter fact is remarkable.
"There are no hidden variables" - there's something special about this sentence.
...and it´s perhaps wrong.
@@Thomas-gk42 Who, back in the day, whould have imagined that e.g. the yet unconfirmed theory of the atom, named and thought as the smallest functional element there can be, or Newton's precise and beautiful equations aren't the end of the story?
@@DarkSkay Mainstream QM has given up to find a solution that describes the process of measurement. So hidden variables are ruled out til they stumble over it, like Sabine expressed it on another statement.
I'm not a physicist, but I'd place my bet on Sir Roger's conformal cyclic cosmology being right. I don't believe string theory is true. Not cause I know the science, I don't, but I know people, and the main proponents and communicators of string theory seem dishonest.
This is a very good compilation!
Whatever the meaning assigned to the term _complete,_ the following requirement for a complete theory seems to be a necessary one: every element of the physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory.
~EPR
What we see depends on light entering the eye. Furthermore we do not even perceive what enters the eye. The things transmitted are waves or - as Newton thought - minute particles, and the things seen are colors. Locke met this difficulty by a theory of primary and secondary qualities. Namely, there are some attributes of the matter which we do perceive. These are the primary qualities, and there are other things which we perceive, such as colors, which are not attributes of matter, but are perceived by us as if they were such attributes. These are the secondary qualities of matter.
Why should we perceive secondary qualities? It seems an unfortunate arrangement that we should perceive a lot of things that are not there. Yet this is what the theory of secondary qualities in fact comes to. There is now reigning in philosophy and in science an apathetic acquiescence in the conclusion that no coherent account can be given of nature as it is disclosed to us in sense-awareness, without dragging in its relation to mind.
~Whitehead
We can visualize to dream certain creative thoughts and open up the world my sweet heart Dr. Hossenfelder.
wrong, it's OUR BRAIN which does all the work, we - our consciousness - is not situated in brain im not english speaker so idk how to say кора головного мозга to you yet we do not have full control of our thoughts, if we had no schizophrenia at all as an illness. sabine knows better dear little dude
@@bangtanssera Very corrupt with Russians and point taken.
@@bangtansseralet him stay in his mind and believe he's having an objective sense of reality, he 's not ready..
String theory is not the only game in town and it really ought to get its act together before coming back with that. The supersymmetric particles did not appear. That's some nice math you have there, but you need to predict what exists.
I find it amusing reading all these self-appointed experts on the Internet claim that string theory has failed as if they knew what they were talking about.
i find it amusing reading all these self-appointed experts on the internet claim that string theory hasn't failed as if they knew what they were talking about!@@ludviglidstrom6924
Supersymmetry works in a parallel universe ;-)
Michio Kaku and Eric Weinstein need to debate. Would blow up the internet.
Michio Kaku is out of control
How so? Whats wrong with letting each theory continue to evolve intil one comes out on top. ST is currently in the lead and has been for sometime, but doesnt mean it is the correct theory only that is has come the closest to moddeling what we know on paper. Dont call any theory absurd or a dead end, every neuron fired on on a theory adds to our understanding specifically if it leads to a completely determined dead end.
@@westondavis1682 Edward Witten inherited the mantle of stifling physics(for some clandestine reason) from his father and we've been stuck in the hamster wheel of ST ever since. Sean Carroll is covering up for this as well.
In the intro, the hair was getting more and more legendary with each presenter until Joscha quietly brought it down to earth.
Sabine´s clear mind and pointed thinking is always an enlightment. She´s an enrichment for humanity. Everone should read her books.
Everyone*
A.G.I sora like simulating physics can be used to simulate topological configurations of metamaterials that keep quantum coherence aside environmental interference.
Can be at two places in the same time is a misinterpretion of quantum mechanics & wave/particle duality
But an electron diffracts itself in the double slit experiment.
It does? I thought it was a part of a larger wave
It it as of yet an indeterminate phenomenon, so stating that it is or is not “what’s physically happening” is a step too far
Amazing collection of scientific problems. I think about the emergence problem relationship with the quantum gravity problems. Perhaps IA can help us to find if there are some way to simulate or predict what possible propertires could emerge from situations with few constituents. I meanf: for Sir Roger Penrose the problem is in inconsistence of quantum mechanics, for Sabine Hossenfelder and other (I think) the problem it is in gravity understanding. But, if gravity is an emergence property of quantum systems how can we develop a theory that tell us how "one become another" as in supedrconductivity phenomena? Scientists have observed superconductity and developed a theory to explain it. Can we, with AI maybe, ind a pattern of thinking or a new mathematical construct that help us to understand thay "backwards way"? Or it is different for each phenomena? I guess that understand emergence better will help us to find both inconsistence in quantum theory and lead us to some quantum gravity theory. Thinking in emergence, perhaps it will not bring us to a unified theory, but just to an exaplanation of gravity as an emergence consequence of some aspects of quantum theory...maybe the opposite cab be truth kkk. I just want to thank you for the video with breathteaking problems to think.
Who else disappointed this wasn't just Penrose vs Sabine?
They are good friends though.
since when? @@Thomas-gk42
Sabina mam is more clear on topic rather than assumptions
I don't believe anything Michio Kaku says
He claims to be a String Theorist but I think the last time he actually published a paper in String Theory was about 1978.
He talks so simple. I always skip where he starts speaking.
U don't believe in aliens?
@@johnrowell3583 he says the same things every time. He holds the same story, the same jokes, same history, same conclusions : "Welllll if you can solve it you will be the next Einstein." And the same outlandish predictions.
The man is a grafter, a ringer.
There is a God. When Roger dies he will meet Him and be completely astonished that He exists.
Special and general theories of relativity do not take into account “extra” dimensions. Both work with the known 4 dimensions of space and time, and I'm sure mathematicians would have already exhausted this theory but maybe quantum physics could be of a 5th dimension that's why it's difficult to bridge, could be a silly question as I almost know zero about physics .Also maybe there might be a completely different language of mathematics for a 5th dimension not yet discovered, and quantum entanglement, I quote " two particles communicating with each other, faster than the speed of light, without information" maybe the information is beyond the mathematics that is available at the moment, maybe there's a lot of information being transferred, but not of the physical mathematics used.Beautiful and interesting video, I try to make sense with the little knowledge I have, day by day I learn more.💙💫🙏
This is actually a really old idea. Bernhard Reimann first proposed that space on a microscopic space may not have the same properties as the macroscopic, including possibly extra dimensions. Einstein followed in his footsteps formalizing time as a dimension. Very soon after Einstein published general relativity was an attempt made to unify gravity with electromagnetism, called Kaluza Klein theory, which added a compactified 5th dimension to spacetime. Kaluza sent his calculations to Einstein in 1919, so this is before Quantum theory had been formalized.
String Theory works with the same idea but with several more extra dimensions, compactified in structures called calabi-yau manifolds.
So theoretically formulating theories with extra dimensions isn't an issue, rather it's making testable predictions from those theories that's the problem.
@@randomchannel-px6ho An old idea that never got anywhere, does not mean it doesn't have anywhere to go. How many people tried and failed to achieve flight with the same idea before it was accomplished, thank you for the information. PS fun coinstadance fact for you, K being the 11th letter of alphabet and the mathematician's of the KK theory investigating the 5d, their initials spells 11.11 some will recognise that number and some wont 💙💫🙏
The following ideas agree with you.
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. 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. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
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 did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
“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 some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? 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 Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (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 Charge" 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 Gluons. 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 production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. 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, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
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.
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 producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton 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.
@@offtheradarsomewhere. all ideas are wrong
@@SpotterVideo the less ingredients to a meal the better it tastes💙💫🙏
For physics to move forward consider these challenges
Summary
Here are the key components of all my physics posts.
Photons are eternal and outside of time and distance.
The singularity of photons began the Big Bang.
Photons created mass through pair conversion of electron positron pairs in the Big Bang.
These electrons and positrons made the elementary particles which in turn made the atoms.
Neutrons and hydrogen atoms may be the same thing in different form.
The proton neutron bond in the nucleus, kept neutrons from decay and was key to building all elements.
Neutrons may be unstable protons.
Protons, for the most part could only be created in the immediate era after the Big Bang.
The key to atoms stability may be the deuterium nucleus or deuteron that help binds one proton to one neutron.
The missing anti matter is in protons and neutrons.
Photons, electrons, and positrons, are all different versions of the same thing.
Virtual particles may be a key part of quantum leaps.
The mass of the universe comes from photons converting to electron positron pairs in pair conversion. The energy of the universe comes from electrons and positrons annihilating and converting to photons.
The universe is 5% charged matter and 95% neutral force.
Dark matter is not gravity from invisible baryons pulling, but antigravity pushing from empty space.
Dark matter and Dark Energy are both anti gravity pushing from empty space.
The cosmological redshift supports this.
The force from the Big Bang singularity was photons / dark energy / dark matter /anti gravity . They are the same.
The force caused by acceleration is anti gravity, not gravity.
Time has speed limits up to the speed of light.
95% of the universe seems to be without charge, detectable matter, or gravity: dark energy plus dark matter.
The universe is open ended and will continue to expand.
Debating Kaku be like: "multiverse! strings good other theory bad. infinitely many goats in a parallel universe"
What is most amazing here is the discrepancy between the quality of the video and the quality of comments from random "physicists" in the comment section.
Please disable comments. You will do the world a favor.
📝 Summary of Key Points:
📌 The video discusses the challenges in reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity, highlighting the limitations of current theories like string theory and loop quantum gravity.
🧐 There is a debate within theoretical physics regarding the clash between quantum mechanics and special/general relativity, with experiments showing anomalies that challenge established theories.
💡 Additional Insights and Observations:
💬 Quotable Moments: "The future is open, but the past is not fixed at the quantum level."
📊 Data and Statistics: Loop quantum gravity faces challenges in incorporating the standard model and controlling divergences, unlike string theory.
🌐 References and Sources: The discussion touches on emergent phenomena like superconductivity, emphasizing the limitations of reductionist approaches.
📣 Concluding Remarks:
The video sheds light on the complexities of theoretical physics, showcasing the ongoing quest for a unifying theory while grappling with emergent phenomena and the limitations of current models. The debate between different theories underscores the need for continued exploration and creativity in the field.
Generated using TalkBud
Let’s. Go.. very nice comment. A plus sir or miss.
chatGPT - style of summary
This sounds like a highschooler who was only half paying attention and didn't understand the material, so he just pulled out sentences from the video that sounded smart. Generative AI sucks ass.
I'm already so over these LLM summations popping up on every youtube video.
Dreams and delusions is a great title for putting Sabine and Penrose together.
Top YTuber pits her wits against Top physicist and Nobel laureate 😂
It is my understanding that we oscillate between objective and subjective realities consistently and rapidly throughout the day but we visualize or perceive it as one.
We can change that state by meditating.
Does that mean our consciousness is quantum in that it can be in a superposition state where its in two realities at once?
Forgive me if this doesnt make sense. I'm new at these big ideas.
Also, I'm interested in how consciousness projects itself. Can we apply physics like scalar waves to this?
That is part of our “Simul Justus Realism” hypothesis by framing FSC as the hidden variable as well, in the sense, Universe in quantum sense, is both locally (EPR) & non-locally real(ER bridge or Wormhole), while it is simultaneously locally real(GR) in classical sense as well. In other words, it toggles between both formalisms at Planck's time intervals by naturally collapsing the WF before re-emitting it in 2 ways using the probability of FSC. I had explained this in detail in my comment above! Check it out.....
@@micro-organism-pv5gd Thank you for this. Much of current understandings of consciousness is derived from Itzhak Bentov. I haven't yet read his book entirely but will do that next. I will look into Thomas Cleary's work directly after.
@@charlesprabakar This is a lot of help. I lack formal education after grade school so much of this I don't currently understand (like epr, fsc and Plank's) but will look closer into it and your detailed descriptions in your other comments here.
It seems this provides me and us with a great technical perspective. As I've said in the other comment here, much of my understanding of consciousness is derived from Itzhak Bentov's teachings.
This is a rough conflation of words that do not mean the same thing. As humans we leverage language in incredibly imaginative and artistic ways, attempting to make connections between what may not seem be related in any physical sense. Sometimes this does inspire what eventually leads to discovery of legitimate scientific principles; other times we are merely creating analogies that do not apply to the physical realm any more than a pretty cool work of fiction that can inspire minds or make us feel a certain way - still inherently unscientific in nature (i.e. supported by no evidence nor supplying predictive power, as scientific theories require)
In other words, no this has nothing to do with “quantum” whatsoever, but you are using some of the language of quantum physics imprecisely/incorrectly to provoke thoughtful discussion. It is not science, it is human creativity in an imaginative, exploratory nature.
I want to grow old just as gracefully as Roger Penrose.
"Our existence transcends the passage of time." -- Sabine Hossenfelder
Shouldn’t Kaku be sweeping a CUNY dorm room somewhere?
Underrated comment
Can someone please explain how is string theory the ultimate winner when it requires more dimensions than we can actually account for? I understand it works mathematically but how do you test & prove these unknown dimensions? Am I missing something?
Why is the expansion of the universe not being calculated down to a quantum level. We have the inverse law to describe the Newtonian Force of gravity, and the relative theory to expand on space/time, can we not extrapolate the expansion using the expansion of Space/time on a quantum level using the inverse law divided by c?
I think there is evidence that the expansion isn't constant or contiguous. It is definitely thought to be increasing (using Type-1a novae as 'standard candles') but recent & upcoming understanding of supernovae from JWST and others may change our understanding again!
String theory is a loser.
MTS 9/10 great intro by Sir RP, Sabine addresses the problem the other way around from Einsteinian problematic perspective
They both are great.
I don’t know about complicated maths and physics. My curiosity came from golden ratio because I work with visual art.
I know people think Terrence Howard is crazy and maybe there are many people out there like him. I watched Terrence explaining his idea in JRE’s podcast. One thing that got me is he said that our world is three dimensional and there is no straight line.. Now I am thinking, is it because it’s easier to measure something from 2D perspective first? But how about money? I’m really confused.
Why are you confused? You simply didn't study the subject. There is nothing to be confused about. Just don't think about it. ;-)
“String theory has no ….Rivals…I mean predictions”
Where is full version
How can we say things like, "We know there are no hidden variables?" THAT, right there, is the problem with 21st century physics.
It's also a reflection of what's wrong with our civilizations, everyone is right,they have it all figured out,if it doesn't fit into Thier theory or narrative, then it cannot be possible because their theories or narratives have no room for anything else,they have all the answers. We saw this before,it's now called The Dark Age. Physics ,as you point out , has hit a stone wall erected by physicist.❤
We can say that because some of us have actually been paying attention in high school and undergrad physic. Not you, of course. ;-)
As to quantum gravity I default to Carlo Rovelli and Loop Quantum Gravity. In my opinion that work and Brian Green's Elegant Universe are two of the best works in recent History.
The basic problem is that reality doesn't emerge from math. They're modeling a mostly "black box" equivalent of a Turing test for reality.
It does have rules though which can be described to an insane degree of precision and consistency by math. A lot of people, such as Roger Penrose, take that to indicate that math is somehow a fundamental phenomenon, and more than just a tool to predict things. It’s definitely an active area of debate though
penrose. this man is 93 years old. just unbelievable.
Yes, age will do that to you. ;-)
I’m so glad to hear I’m not the only one who thinks quantum computers are BS. I’ve been wrong before and will be again, but I have yet to hear how Q Bits can store, manipulate and/or return data.
Theoretically, it is entirely sound - I’d advise simply reading up on the questions you asked. The primary issue is scalability (and, well no more properly maintaining stability with scale) to the point where answers can be output by the computer without noise rendering the output meaningless
@@Michael-kp4bd A small amount of noise is not useful, but a lot of noise is data? I'll take a wait and see approach. I'm probably wrong, but I don't see it.
spot on! you must be one of the few scientifically literate people on this channel! pleasure to meet you Michael!@@Michael-kp4bd
David Deutsch explains quantum computing very clearly
I love Scientist...I really do.
Roger Penrose ❤
So what's the result of getting all this right? What can you do when the problem solved?
I suspect that physics should be approached the way anthropology used to approach subjects: i.e. just observe and based on the observation of a subject's behaviour, describe the behaviour, and from that then make "laws" of function.
I.e. not bring your own perspectives or assumptions into the matter, as it leads to problems as described.
I would say holographic duality best explains this. There’s a world of quantum interactions without gravity and this quantum world contains a full description of things like general relativity. So the classical world emerges from these quantum interactions. So the classical universe is a holographic projection of information in 1 less dimension without gravity.
To Eric Verlinde: A theory that works in another universe is unlikely to be helpful for a universe in which we live, i think
I agree with the idea that gravity has no quantum particle and emerges from de interaction of electromagnetic forces with space and time.
They do work together. Matter down to the smallest component contains space which create a resonance between space and matter that is called gravity.
love penrose because he sees things in 4 dimension....not like most physicists whom they are thinking in linear mode...❤
No, nothing is “going between” two particles at infinite velocity. I believe this is a misunderstanding of entanglement. It’s not that anything is travelling, it’s that there is a correlation. That correlation doesn’t violate special relativity because it’s created locally.