Quantum Black holes | Gerard 't Hooft
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2023
- Incorporating the gravitational force in theories of the sub-atomic particles is one of the greatest challenges in theoretical physics. Einstein predicted the existence of black holes, even sub-atomic ones. How do these tiny black holes and sub-atomic particles interact? Gerard ’t Hooft shows that the mathematics which describes the hydrogen atom can be applied to a black hole, since this must also be a quantum form of matter. It turns out that space and time take bizarre twists here.
Prof.dr. Gerard ’t Hooft received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1999 for elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interactions. ’t Hooft is affiliated to the Centre for Extreme Matter and Emergent Phenomena (UU).
Moderator: prof.dr.ir. Alexander Brinkman, professor Quantum Transport in Matter (UT).
Studium Generale organizes public lectures on the most recent and exciting developments in science, technology, politics and culture. Scientists and other experts speak passionately about their fields of expertise and the world we live in. There’s always time for interaction, so feel welcome to join!
22-11-2016
Follow us
Website: www.utwente.nl/nl/sg/
Facebook: / utwentesg
Instagram: / sg_utwente
© Studium Generale - University of Twente
I am following Dr. Hooft's theoretical Physicist roadmap to learn more about physics. Thank you Dr. Hooft
The most intense lecture ever!
What a brilliant lecture from this Nobel Price Winner. I enjoyed it although I understand only 1% of it because I’m not educated in physics and mathematics but only very interested in this. But Puck Futin.
How is putin related to this talk though?
A very interesting Video 👍🏻
Such a wild imagination!
Hence his Nobel Prize in physics - kind of like bob dylan not going to receive his Nobel Prize in literature.
Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig would be very surprised to hear, that Gerard 't Hooft has laid the basics of the Standard Model. He as many others has contributed to the eventual conceptualization of the Standard Model and that’s that
Weinberg too!
@@cameron1376 Yep
I love it when physicists draw far reaching conclusions from two theories that are just about as incompatible with each other as it's possible to imagine. I can't remember who it was who said "give me three free parameters and I can make an elephant, give me four and I can wiggling its trunk". This is pretty much how I view the Standard Model.
John Von Neumann. Who also made pretty preposterous assumptions about QM.
Could Prof. ’t Hooft’s (antipodal) region II be interpreted as a
baby universe having the same number of all of the particles going
in from region I, but with reverse CPT? A black hole creating a
baby universe?
it would be a "virtual universe" and then vanish. So no real meaning to it. He emphasizes that this eternal black hole is "fundamentally quantum" - so just in time-frequency and before h-bar goes to zero as classical physics for a universe.
No! No need for crazy stuff there. Particles come out CPT inverted. Electrons come out as anti-electrons(positrons), etc, if i remember correctly.
@@frun 1/2 spin is inherently nonlocal protoconsciousness before any particle is measured and all particles are actually made of photons. Western classical physics has brainwashed everyone. The 1/2 spin is inherently motion as asymmetric time-frequency that is nonlocal. So at time zero before any measurement is made there is already 1/2 spin and that is what creates charge and mass from frequency of photons. thanks
You can think of region II as time reversed universe at best.
't Hooft had a cute idea, but it doesn't fly. Bob falling into a black hole still falls in and notices nothing too unusual going over the horizon if there is no actual firewall. So the interior is real. Physics aught not get all Hegelian or Logical Positivist or whatever and say what cannot be observed is not real. Susskind and Maldacena resolved the apparent BHIL paradox long ago, but ex-string theorists don't want to listen because they want another source of wacky ideas to get grant funds for exploring... is one possible take.
If you know what's going on here then it's very exciting, the tradeoff being the fairly high cost of getting back to unitary status for Schrodinger. Still a bit dicey
1:20:30
@1:05:00 't Hooft sketches the same idea, but done more rigorously by Turok and Boyle to answer why the cosmological constant value is so small. Neil Turok and Latham Boyle have found it *_is_* indeed a bit like an inverse of a large number. Performing a Lorentzian path integral and continuing analytically to complex time the entropy of the universe drops out as S=1/Λ (due to gravity the Hamiltonian contribution is zero, or exp(H=0)=1). Since our universe has a lot of matter and radiation is has sizeable entropy, and the most probable universe out of any ensemble is one with P∝exp(-1/Λ) close to 1, so Λ small.
This Turok & Boyle result is not a causal account, since it's just statistical mechanics on an imaginary ensemble of possible universes, but a clue about what the source of Λ is. Turok describes it in an analogy as "like a chemical potential for spacetime volume." i.e., energy gained/lost by adding/losing one chemcial species, in the case of gravity that'd be the energy gain/lost on adding/losing an element of spacetime volume. Which is really, whe you think about it, the prosaic normal "explanation" for Λ, which is vacuum energy density. The source of vacuum energy density is the Planck scale topology. That's the answer. We do not know what it is because no one has developed a Planck microscope. ((They aught to find the Planck observatory in it's current graveyard orbit, bring it back down to the lab, hold it dead steady and just look down the other end in reverse.))
I would image a black hole that is so incredibly small that it explodes, would probably contain all (or almost all of) the mass in the universe to enable gravity to contact it to such tiny dimensions.
Can someone calculate the mass required?
that of an electron neutrino
Idiot UA-cam executives are destroying content by interjecting ads without concern for disruption. Very sophomoric!!
Anything for money
If i could live for a thousand years i might have been interested.But im just a grain of sand passing through a speck of time.We are in matrix and a hole is it a hole.
You are living but one of your many lives. Dont foregt that. Nothing ends, it may die. But every death is anothers life.
Black hole: Nothing moving at light-speed escapes it.
Gravitational waves: 'Observed' being emitted from black holes, moving at light-speed.
Academia for the last 6 years now: "Doh!"
Vast heel interessant, maar die mafkees is niet te verstaan ende niet te volgen in het Engels 🤖
I just wish he would talk a little less hasty.
if you change the video speed - that might grant your wish
À gifted physicist he may be, but teacher, nope.
Possibility is that we don’t leave in Universe. Matter we see,dust, planets, stars, galaxies,ect is floating in the space between Universes.
When all of this stuff will be digested by Black Holes and Black Holes will evaporate. Space between Universes will go back to perfect O Kelvin.
F e horário normal e horário normal e horário da passagem e o e o valor e horário da passagem da manhã e o e o e o e o e o valor e o e o e e horário da passagem e horário da manhã r viu ela
T amo demais r viu o vídeo maravilhoso d ER r e horário normal hj e o valor e o e e horário da passagem e horário da passagem e horário da passagem e o valor da entrada e o e e o valor e o e e
@1:06:00 right handed neutrino, it's so likely to be dark matter it's not funny. A massive RH neutrino would be about 4.8E8 GeV. Can only be stable if one LH neutrino is massless (so for it the oscillations are "turned off".) A highly predictive theory for dark matter. This one also due to Turok and Boyle. Dark matter could also be a "wormhole gas" (Kirillov & Savelova) but that could also be neutrino-ish. As fermions I figure neutrinos have to have internal wormhole topology anyways.
F xi tô aqui e o e e w se quiser vir me manda o valor e o e o e o e e horário da passagem da passagem e horário normal e horário da passagem e horário normal hj f xi w se quiser ir comigo e o e o valor e
The stars and more interesting then the black hole stars, but what if.......
R E a tarde te ligo e o e e o e o e e o valor e horário da manhã e horário normal e o e o e e o valor e horário normal hj e horário normal hj e horário normal hj f xi tô aqui esperando a gente se encontrar lá fora esperando o ônibus chegar aqui fora te esperando
I have a deep intuition that everything is an optical illusion that arises out of quantum field. I mean everything! that includes me and you too.
You're Not the onky one.With our limitiert Vision all we See is surfe and a litle bit of Thermodynamik interaction (compared to the Energie througput in our environment).
20:34 Root cause analysis.
"The geometry of space in general relativity theory turned out to be another field, therefore the geometry of space in GR is almost the same as the gravitational field.” (Smolin).
In "GR was QG" there is no problem with empty (~ geometric, mathematical) space-time, since the real variable gravitational field of any physical object is identified with the phase space.
When the gravitational field is space-time in the Planck system: F(G)/F(e)=Gm(pl)^2/e^2=1/α, that is, gravity~strong interaction*.
This assumption follows from the Schwarzschild solution: the gravitational radius (or Schwarzschild radius) is a characteristic radius defined for any physical body with mass: r(G)=2GM/c^2
Consequently: 2E(0)/r(G)=F(pl)=c^4/G=ε(pl)/r(pl): with indicating the mutual quantization of the mass (energy) and space-time: m(0)//m(pl)=r(G)/2r(pl)=n,where n-total number of quanta of the system; the tension vector flux: n=[(1/4π)(Gћc)^-½]gS ( const for all orbits of the system: n=0,1,2,3....).
Moreover, the parameter r(0)=r(G)-r(pl)=(2n-1)r(pl), defining the interval of the formation of the system, at n=0, when r=r(G)=0 (for example, the state of the "universe" before the Big Bang) turns out to be a quite definite quantity: r(0)=-r(pl).
In the area [(-rpl) - 0 - (+rpl)] there is an implementation of external forces, "distance": (-rpl)+(+rpl)=0 (≠2rpl).
On the Kruskal diagram of the hyperbole r=0 corresponds to the true Schwarzschild feature, the features V and VI are not even covered by the global (R, T)- space-time and correspond to the "absolute" vacuum; then the singular areas above and below the hyperbolas r=0 can be formally treated as the energy source (external forces).
That is, the frightening "true singularity" is actually a superconducting heterotrophic "window" between the proto-universe (the source) and physical bodies**.
P.P.S.
As a fundamental theory, GR has the ability with just one parameter: r(G)/r=k to predict, explain new physical effects, and amend already known ones.
Photon frequency shift in gravitational field Δw/w(0)=k; the angle of deflection of a photon from a rectilinear propagation path =2k, the Newtonian orbit of the planet shifts forward in its plane: during one revolution, a certain point of the orbit is shifted by an angle =3πk, for a circular orbit (eccentricity е=0); in the case of an elliptical orbit - for example, for perihelion displacement, the last expression must be divided by (1-e^2).
-------------------
*) - GR/QG predicts a new physical effect: w/w(pl)=k; expression for gravitational radiation from a test body.
This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present.
**) - From this, generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^½ (w)=-[h/4πm(pl)]w.
Final formula:ф(G)=-[w/w(pl)]c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, r(n')=nλ/π=(n+n')2r(pl)l , the corresponding orbital radius, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (space-time); - obviously, the quanta of the field are themselves quantized: λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl) = 2πc/w, where n'/n - system gravity unpacking ratio, n'- the orbit number (n'=0,1,2,3…).
Obviously, on the horizon [r=r(rG), n'=0] the "door" is closed, however, the quanta [λ=λ(pl)] can go out singly and form the first and all subsequent half-orbits (n'=1,2, 3 ...) during the time t(0)=r/c=2nт, where т=1/w, т=((1+n'/n)т(pl), spending part of their energy on it each time. And it is this mechanism that provides the step-by-step formation of a variable gravitational field: variably accelerated expansion of spacetime as a phase space: |a|=g=πc^2/L, where L is the length of the phase trajectory (of course, the quanta coming through the "window" are also rhythmically restored).
The phase velocity of evolution v'/π= r(pl)w/π; m(0)=(c/2G)rv', where v'=v^2/c.
The angular momentum: L(p)=|pr|=n^2ћ [const for all orbits of the system; at n=1: L(p)=ћ] and moment of power: M(F)=dL(p)/dt(0)=nћw/2=-E(G)=E*, where t(0)=r/c, E*- energy of self-action.
According to GR / QG, gravitational field [E(G)=-E*] is characterized by a spontaneous flow: J*=(v'/π )(1/4π) g^2/G, where v'/π- phase velocity of field evolution.
Entropy (here: a measure of diversity/variety, not ugliness/disorder) of the system: S=πε(pl)r(t)=(n+n')k, where k is the Boltzmann constant. Obviously, on the horizon entropy=min and with fundamental irreversibility, information is preserved (+ evolves, accumulates).
Accordingly, m=m(pl)/(1+n'/n), where m=ħw/c^2, is the quantum of the full mass: M=n'm [
And?
@@niblick616
"The geometry of space in general relativity theory turned out to be another field, therefore the geometry of space in GR is almost the same as the gravitational field.” (Smolin).
In "GR was QG" there is no problem with empty space, since the real variable gravitational field of any physical object is identified with the phase space.
Consider a special case: the Universe.
Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space (according to general estimates, this acceleration is: a=πcH)*.
Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, and we can now talk about the fact that it is possible to generate a gravitational field in a non-inertial frame of reference (|a|=g).That is, finally achieve global (instead of local in GR) compliance with the equivalence principle. Then the energy density of the relic radiation, that is, the evolving primary gravitational-inertial field (= space-time): J= g^2/8πG=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4~1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (about 500 quanta/cm^3).
P.S.You can also use the Unruh formula, but with the addition of the coefficient q, which determines the number of phase transitions of the evolving system for the case of variable acceleration: q=√n'=λrelic /√8λpl , , where n'=L/8πr(pl) is the number of semi-orbits; L=c/H, is the length of the phase trajectory.
Thus, T*(relic)=[q]ħa/2πkc (=0.4K), which is in order of magnitude consistent with the real: T(relic)/T*(relic)=2,7/0,4=6,7.
{However, there is no need to have a factor of 1/2π in the Unruh formula in this case.}
-------------------
*) - w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H,
|a|=r(pl)w(relic)^2 =g=πcH,
intra-metagalactic gravitational potential:
|ф0|=(c^2)/2(√8n')=πGmpl/λ(relic).
m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H;
{
w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H.
From Kepler's third law follows: M/t=v^3/G, where M/t=I(G)=[gram•sec^-1] is the gravitational current. In the case of the Universe, I(G)=MH=c^3/8πG (~ the "dark energy" constant).
n' =4,28*10^61;
w(pl)=(√8n')w(relic)=8πn'H; where H=c/L.
H=1,72*10^-20(sec^-1).
By the way, it turns out that the universe is 1.6 trillion years old!
The area of the "crystal sphere": S(universe)~n' λ(relic)^2~n'S(relic).
r=2.7*10^29cm, L=2πr.
The phase velocity of the evolution of the Universe: v'=πcr/L=c/2, where c=√2(v): the "second cosmological velocity" in relation to the proto-universe.
{In general, the masses of galaxies should be estimated as follows: M=(c/2G)rv', since the evolution of the system makes an additional contribution to the overall picture, and thereby clarify the problem of "dark matter".}
Addition
In an arbitrary non-inertial reference frame, the equation of the total mechanical energy of a particle system is: ∆E=A(internal)+A(external)+A*, where A (internal) is the work of internal dissipative forces, А(external) is the work of external non-conservative forces, А* is the work of inertia forces. In order to preserve the mechanical energy of the system in a non-inertial frame of reference, it is necessary that ∆E =0, however, in an arbitrary non-inertial frame of reference, it is impossible to create a condition for fulfilling this requirement; that is, ∆E does not =0 in any way (by the way, in system C, the condition for fulfilling the laws of conservation of momentum and angular momentum does not depend on whether this system is an inertial or non-inertial frame of reference).
@@niblick616 In fact, the observer's self-esteem in QM is underestimated to the level of the infamous ostrich.
The observer is always involved in an unavoidable measurement process.
It seems that there have never been any problems with QM already within the framework of GR (for example, in the case of the Schrodinger/Carroll cat).
A live cat breathes and, accordingly, emits gravitational waves according to the formula GR with intensity: I(G)=(2G/45c^5)(M^2)(l^4)(w^6), where M is the mass of the cat, l is its characteristic size, w is its frequency breathing.The frequency of gravitational radiation should be on the order of w~ 2π/т where т is the characteristic time of accelerated mass movement (pulsation, rotation, collision, non-spherical explosion).It is clear that the dead cat is not breathing and I(G) =0*. In principle, all this lends itself to a certain (improbability) constant measurement without opening the "black box", since gravity is not shielded [w=w(m)]. Moreover, the behavior of the radiation source is also controlled, since it emits only in an excited state. **
Of course, Carroll's sleeping cat breathes, but differently (can be measured) than the waking one.***
Sweet dreams to you QM, on the interpretation of the Born wave function.
P.S. Why didn't Einstein use this argument? He wasn't sure about the reality of gravitational waves and assumed only the presence of hidden parameters…
---------------------
*) - By the way, a "smile" without a cat can be detected according to Einstein's equations. Raising one of the indices, substituting I=k and summing, we find: R=-(8πG/c^4)T, where T=T(n) is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor (~ "gravitational memory.").
**) - If the cat is replaced with a detector, then with each absorption its state will change (which makes measurement possible). It is clear that this will also cause additional radiation of gravitational waves, since the included detector is already a source.
***) - The formula can be given in the following form for a photon: I(G)={[w/w(pl)]^2}ħw^2.
Of course, this approach is also applicable to the case of entangled particles.
"When physicists offer metaphysical explanations for physical phenomena, I start swearing." (Raymond Tallis).
Frame of reference in GR: "In the general case of an arbitrary variable gravitational field, the metric of space is not only non-euclidean but also changed with time. This means that the relationships between different geometric distances change over time. As a result, the relative position of the "test particles" introduced into the field in any coordinate system can not remain unchanged." ( Landau-Lifshitz, II).
It turns out that since the Big Bang, all the particles in the universe speak, hear and listen to each other in the language of gravity (= irreducible spontaneous measurement).
Addition
The main misconception in the interpretations of quantum mechanics is that the equally probable nature of phenomena implies their equivalence.* Moreover, not only at 50/50, but also at 99/1. However, equality and equivalence are completely different things, even if they are causally related; for example, all inertial reference systems are equal in SR or QM, but far from equivalent. Obviously, if a dead or a living cat, the spin of entangled photons up or down, pairs of socks or letters marked + or - in different parts of the world are equal, then they are not physically equivalent; and also, branched universes. When an tails falls out after a coin toss, then they talk about the collapse of the wave function, when tails and heads are just equal, but not the same even not only for numismatists.That is, these are physical parameters of different physical phenomena, and their representation by a single wave function according to Born is ridiculous.
For example, when energy E=mc^2, then mass m=E/c^2, since they are parameters of the same physical entity, and therefore equivalent.
For comparison: in GR, in a gravitational field or in an equally accelerated frame of reference, all events are not only equal, but equivalent, so Einstein criticized QM for not being as radical as RT.**
Moreover, RT is even more radical: "Two world points located at zero distance from each other do not necessarily coincide." (Pauli, RT, paragraph 7, Four-dimensional world). That is, even with a repeated loss of heads (or tails), both of these phenomena are not equivalent. Moral: a particle cannot even be in one state at the same time. Finally, we can say that the concept of "frame of reference" was self-sufficient, and the introduction to physics of the concept of "state" was an unsuccessful attempt to describe reality. "A good joke should not be repeated twice."(Einstein).***
---------------------
*) - In logic, this is the basic law: the law of identity.
**) - For fans of the multiverse: the equivalent Universe can only be the accelerating Universe itself.
***) - It seems that the uncertainty principle is the result of a misunderstanding of probability/equivalence.
In the Heisenberg inequalities, the mathematical apparatus was formed before the interpretation of their physical essence. It is funny that these inequalities indicate that there are no exact values of coordinates and momentum vector in the states of microobjects at the same time; and thus exclude the equivalence of these parameters.
If in RT the choice of a reference frame is essentially an experiment (mental or real) that produces a certain splitting of space into spatial and temporal "projections", then in QM there are "two types" of observations: using measuring instruments to measure coordinates and to measure the momentum of microparticles. There is no such separation in the observation process in QG, because instead of "rulers and clocks" in RT or "multi-functional" devices in QM, only a quantum counter (detector) is required, which catches gravity quanta (if the self-action) of physical bodies; without affecting them ("touch" or "illumination"). That is, an observer with a conventional detector is a "quantum reference system".
@@vanikaghajanyan7760
1/ I notice that you have not provided a single calculated result for any of your silly equations. That is obviously because you cannot even define what the variables are or what their values might be. That failure by you clearly indicates that they are all bogus and have no rational solutions that mean anything in the real world.
2/ You claim the following "...I(G)=(2G/45c^5)(M^2)(l^4)(w^6), where M is the mass of the cat, l is its characteristic size, w is its frequency breathing.The(sic) frequency of gravitational radiation should be on the order of w~ 2π/т where т is the characteristic time of accelerated mass movement (pulsation, rotation, collision, non-spherical explosion). ..."
The mass of the cat in which units? You obviously forgot to say.
What exactly do you mean by "...I is its characteristic size..."? What is the word 'characteristic' besides a proof that you know absolutely nothing about equations or physics. You don't say because it is meaningless gibberish with nothing to support it.
What do you mean by I(G)? You don't say because it is, similarly, meaningless gibberish where you apparently multiply two fundamentally undefined variables together for some unknown reason. How did you derive the equation? You didn't say because it is literally, meaningless gibberish, which you obviously just plucked from your butt.
3/ Gravitational waves from a fraction of a cat-sized object! Do tell us all exactly what size that 'wave' is supposed to be using your gibberish 'formula'? You forgot to say.
Black holes are finite systems. Finite stuff goes in and finite life span. The virtual infinites come from the time distortion factor like you said. Shwartzschild for time slicing and particle type mapping. Kerr for G-flows and hyper surfaces. The universe another cutoff point for black holes. R=0 could be a virtual particle. Though CERN has a prime candidate in the particle zoo. Specific particles can live in specific energy density regimes. BEC particle perception and superfluidity. C*periodicy. C*D complete. The universe decayed out to photons and the size then. When time losses meaning. Double the decayed universes size, and put one next to the other almost touching. Then rewind to current time frame and you get a big distance for a probabilistic universe. The universe is a finite system with solution sets. Quantum tunneling to a lower energy state. Predicting where hawking particles show up. Gravitational waves and particle production from quantum foam. Boundary layers that are also censorship layers. The last stable orbit of a electron in a specific energy density regime. Neutron star calculations and degeneracy. Energy conserved. Wormholes have problems with Paulie discrete energy levels. No fermions. Glad to see someone explain things most miss or start running off into some deep end. lol The black hole to another universe would show black holes shrinking or growing at random. Black holes are finite systems. Can you calculate the distance between two boltzmann time bombs? C* P-adicity Good luck in wonderland. Thank you for sharing.
That's exactly what a Boltzmann brain would say.
Lot of jargon, nothing special !
@saadsharjeel947 Predictability and probability. Particle production from quantum foam and gravitational waves in a energy density regime. Though it does seem like cults in science have happened. Sad to see. But humans are conflict after all, and highly delusional creatures as religions show.
That’s the theory.
makes me laugh that a lecture on physics can't find someone who knows how to use a tape recorder properly
Your comment proves Gerard 't Hooft should send you his Nobel Prize in Physics!
why would he do that? I don't think he was in charge of the tape recorder@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885
What he said on singularity is not convincing, to say the least.
and what do you think of what Penrose says on singularity? Cyclic Cosmic Cosmology - actually it's similar to Gerard 't Hooft's eternal black hole model! they had a bit of a spat in a livestream but that's just because their math is different. Same concepts though.
And I thought I was a terrible presenter
V se o valor da entrada e horário da passagem da passagem e o e o e e horário da passagem da manhã e o
R E r a tarde te falo se der tempo atrás de manhã r viu se ela for w r era ri demais mas o povo r a tarde te falo se ela quiser ir comigo e y se ela for lá te dou o restante da passagem da manhã e horário da
anyone want to try find a flaw in my idea to unify gravity. it should be easy. but its not.
to find the time mass is dialated to. devide c by the density. find the percentage its light speed is at. tthats its gravity. gold is 20c air is 1.3c . the difference is their time.
friction in time causes heat. oxidation. rot. mass making changes to bridge the devided time.
Maybe learn to spell divide before you try to solve gravity
@@evcoproductions why. bad spelling dosent make an idea bad. rejecting a good idea for bad spelling . is a bad idea.
@@evcoproductions all observable fact supports the idea. Unless you can find one that doesn't.
@@evcoproductions take your time. no rush.
@@evcoproductions any luck or did you give up already.
Maybe the other dimension that we need in quantum phisics îs the consciousness that îs aware of matter and subatomic particles,our own consciousness
Maybe. But probably not. Unless you have a formula to explain?
@@rmyikzelf5604 You have the experiment with the cat,gas,( Schrödinger's cat)You have the cat,the environment,the observer,but people don't see that the observer îs also observed ,so there îs the experience in wich the observer ,the environment and the cat interacts but also the awareness of the hole experience,the consciousness behind IT,not the personal one,the human consciousness but the impersonal,unchanging consciousness,awareness,that spirituality and the science of spiritual enlightment speaks of,we take ourselves to be matter,made of subatomic particles but îs that true?maybe only reality îs made of matter not out essence of we are,the substratum of reality,God If You may.
Roger Penrose calls it "protoconsicousness" - the term used by Berard 'd Espagnat - yes the information is frequency-time nonlocality as protoconsciousness that is nonlocal.
Frankly, I'd rather be a student at the university of Thirte, or even better, Fourte.
Camera work is terrible.
C o e o e e e errado r rê ela e horário normal hj f xi w r era w e o r t a tarde te ligo e te amo e o valor e o e e horário normal e o valor e o e e
Absolutely disgusting the look of boredom on the faces of the students who, no doubt, were made to attend the lecture. Oblivious to how rare an opportunity they have been given to listen first hand to such a brilliant mind. I have no hope for the youth of today.
To be fair , not all of them
I noticed that too
Learning really is a shopping experience!! I completely agree. They should cash in their education fees since obviously the Mall has more to teach. The Customer is Always correct!!
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 the should be working in a mall with that attitude
why, i hope professor would agree with me, if some teacher told them they have to go to listen to some old guy talking about some abstraction like black wholes, when they could entangle in some bar with some buddies... many years latter they will appreciate that, but on the other hand as professor said i have to be critical about myself, so maybe am wrong? P.S Excellent lecture, and great idea with "throw me box"
Dr. 't Hooft is a brilliant physicist but a terrible lecturer...
Why not do away with all these fantastical speculations about extra universes, wormholes, exploding black holes, infinities and singularities, and just say that c goes to zero at the event horizon.
Gerard 't Hooft is one of the rare physicists who admits QM isn't a theory but a set of rules, so we don't even know the boundary conditions of a quantum system employing the Schrodinger's equation to study unitary evolution. Tis makes it easy for Anglo Saxons to bag most of the Nobel Prizes, giving a few to the Jews.
I'm with 't Hooft. QM has the same status as probability theory - it deals with ensembles. Deterministic system underlies both theories.
@@frun No it doesn't - quantum physics does not just deal with probability. That was Einstein's projection as an error. See my quantum physics professor Herbert J. Bernstein on the nonlocality of one single photon. No probabilities of ensembles needed for quantum physics. "Does a Single Lone Particle Have a Wavefunction ψ? YES. An Experimental Test of Einstein’s “Unfinished Revolution” I propose a simple experiment providing evidence that each individual particle is described by a wavefunction of its own. This is contrary to the interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) apparently favored by Einstein toward the end of his career, at the time his famous autobiographical notes were written. His so-called statistical interpretation holds that individual particles do not have their own wavefunctions; rather, the quantum wavefunction ψ is supposed to ONLY apply to a very multiple, large ensemble of identically prepared particles. For a single particle it fails Einstein criteria of reality and completeness. The experiment proposed here requires heralded single photon counting. In essence we simply prepare many many down-converted signal particles-each heralded by its own accompanying idler that triggers the whole apparatus; prepare the signal photons in different states, assuring that no wavefunction is represented more than once in the entire set of measurement instances. Then take the full set of individual particle counts and show they agree with the implications of standard QM. The exposition makes several connections to Mike Horne’s interests, collaborations and work. The specific property used herein is polarization. For linear polarizations we recover the cosine-squared Law of Malus by preparing individual photons in all possible orientations, then measuring their passage through a fixed orientation analyzer.
Weird reference to Jews?
If you are concerned about the Jews you should focus on why everyone hates Jews and why they are expelled wherever they go. Hint, Marx was one of the rare Jews who truthfully spelled it out. in an article that investigated how money increases.@@rmyikzelf5604
What are the boundary conditions of GE?
What are the particles, both of spacetime and force carriers?
Yikes. Whoever is in charge of your video/audio recording and uploading needs a good talking to. 480p and scratchy, peaking audio that's like nails on a chalkboard.. This is something you'd expect from an amateur uploader 20 years ago.
Too complex to be correct, nature will always be simple.
Why? You forgot to say.
@@niblick616 Just by correlation. When all confirmed theories of natural philosophy are shown to be mathematically simple, to have an overly complex theory suggests to me it’s probably incorrect.
As soon as you start needing to add correction factors into equations to make them fit with observation, you can be sure they are incorrect in some aspect. That is why this dark energy hypothesis is clearly (to me) a nonsense, if you can’t explain an observation with existing theories then adding an unknown to explain it is daft, clearly the existing theories must be erroneous.
@@yp77738yp77739
1/ What you are doing is using the fallacy of appealing to your own incredulity and also appealing to a demonstrable lie.
2/How do you know that all confirmed theories of natural philosophy are shown to be simple? You obviously don't. Do you actually think that General Relativity or the Standard Model are mathematically simple? You are just having a laugh and showing that you know virtually nothing about the mathematics behind either theories.
@@niblick616 I’m not a mathematician, I fiddle with genes and hence I admit mechanics is not my strength, however my progeny are.
I do know that as a principle, throughout all sciences, when you need to apply a factor to a constant to match a measured value with a predicted value, for example take the Lorentz factor. It is indicative (but not conclusive) that the theory is likely incorrect.
@@yp77738yp77739 Unfortunately your progeny seem to have misadvised you and you seem to want to double down on your fallacious argument from incredulity.
You seem to be confusing the idea of adding epicycles with arbitrarily changing ‘constants. There is no necessary connection between the two ideas.
You mix up the terms you use. You then try to apply your confusion to all sciences for no particular or rational reasons.
I would suggest that you define what concerns you have, choose the correct term and specify exactly where you think it applies, with examples so that we can discuss them all in detail and see if they stand up to scrutiny.
HE CAN'T GIVE A PHYSICAL EXPLANATION OF QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS, BUT HE STILL GOT A NOBEL PRIZE.
HE IS PART OF A GENERATION THAT SAID "SHUT UP AND CALCULATE". THINKING WASN'T A QUALITY OF THEM.
And you seem to be unable to understand the concept of the Caps-lock key.
Also, please provide that explanation.
@@rmyikzelf5604 WELL, YOU PROBABLY NEVER HAD A GRANDFATHER OR -MOTHER WITH A BAD EYESIGHT. NO PROBLEM. LIFE WILL LEARN YOU ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF AT THIS MOMENT. SECONDLY, I DIDN'T WIN A NOBEL PRIZE, YOU KNOW. MR 'T HOOFT DID. WHY DIDN'T YOU ASK HIM FOR AN EXPLANATION? P.S. WHY DO YOU HIDE YOURSELF BEHIND SUCH A STRANGE NAME?
try reading Gerard 't Hooft's paper, "Light is Heavy" - then you'll realize he is in line with the de Broglie-Bohm model of reality. thanks
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 IF I CAN FIND IT, I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK OF IT.
Dude shows us 2 formula and a hyperbola and says he knows about black holes. Yo! C’mon man - wack!
Blablablabla
You are a nothing.