Why Our Dreams of a Final Theory Might Remain Dreams
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 гру 2024
- Check out a number of courses in science, computer science, or mathematics on Brilliant! First 30 days are free and 20% off the annual premium subscription when you use our link ➜ brilliant.org/....
For decades, scientists have been looking for a theory of everything, which can combine Einstein’s theories with the standard model while also explaining all masses and interactions within the standard model. In this video I explain why I have become convinced that such a theory does not exist.
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com...
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.sub...
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfe...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.c...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #physics #philosophy
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1731131722894x387226103235730700
You can now also create your own quizzes on my website!
13/14, but if Ed Witten said it..😂, assumingly he´s one of the guys, who Sabine thinks is more intelligent than herself. I´m not convinced.
Don't worry Sabine. A New Theory of Relativity is on the way. It will be published in 2025 from a Pakistani. So relax and stay tuned.
@Sabine: this problem of ultimate resolution and uncertainty, combined with that I find all the arguments for and against Free Will to be compelling, that I think Free Will is in a superposition itself, we both do and do not have it, depending. Maybe we get to roll the dice? Maybe even to load it, but ultimately it is uncertain.
It's just a hunch, but I also know I'm right. 😂😂😂
1) If the object is a sphere in shape, it is probably a large object in scale, to the point of having a gravity or interactive field
2) I think a point in space is an abscore
"We don't have much left to explain". What???
Not too long ago physicists declared "the end of physics" cuz they thought they had all the answers. We now know how idiotic that idea was. Science can't explain even how a star is formed, or why gravity in star formation violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We don't even know with any reliability how many stars are in our own galaxy, as estimates range from 100 to 400 billion!!
Much left to explain, in ways that we cannot now imagine.
When I went into physics, I recall one student asked our quantum mechanics professor about the possibility of a "Theory of Everything", and his reply was that "if someone ever comes up with such a theory, many physicists will lose their jobs.. so we best hope that such a theory never comes about". 😄
@@m.e.345 I'm always surprised by what people try to disagree with. This is actually a topic that I remember discussing with a group of philosophers about 10 years ago. Unfortunately I can't remember who, otherwise I'd have mentioned it.
@@SabineHossenfelder do you know eric lerner he is right in criticizing bbt theory
THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
For the past century, theoretical physicists have been endeavouring to discover the so-called “Theory of everything”, which will unify seemingly-disparate understandings of life as perceived by the human organism.
For three decades, I have been exploring this matter, and I am pleased to announce that the solution is both elegantly simple, yet extraordinarily profound, and here it is:
S+O = ∞BCP (The Subject and all objective reality is Infinite Being, Consciousness, Peace)
Alternatively, and more parsimoniously, expressed as:
E= A͚͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness)
For a thorough explanation of the above equation, refer to the fifth and sixth chapters of my book, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which are the most authoritative, accurate and profound spiritual precepts so far in human history.
To obtain a free copy, Email me with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field.
🐟
“The gateway to KNOWLEDGE is ignorance”. 🤓
P. S. Obviously, I cannot take credit for the above theory, since the oldest extant spiritual teachings state the same thing, in the Sanskrit language of ancient Bhārata (India):
🕉 सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म 🕉
Chandogya Upanishad 3.14
(‘sarvam khalvidam brahma’ teaches that ‘All this is indeed Brahman’.
“Brahman” is a Sanskrit word referring to the TOTALITY of existence.
There is nothing but Eternal Existence, Consciousness, Bliss!).
Are you Eric Lerner by any chance?@@trungtamienmayquocquang7233
@@SabineHossenfelder maybe it was David Hume circa 1740
Thanks!
This episode reminds me again of what I love about you and why I started paying attention to you in the first place. Please do carry on and know some of us are aligned with your viewpoints.
Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated.
We will always be a Plank-length distance from a Theory of Everything.
I wish it was that close!
That's both brilliant and heartbreaking.
A great pun and a fundamental truth rolled into one! Well done!😁😁😁
@@yeroca then add "at least".
A plank, at least as contrasted to string, is usually stiff, slow to warp, and predictable as regards length. String(s) can be lax and loopy, short and bunched; or stretched, taut, tense, and subject to vibration when touched or plucked.
Good vid! MD age 58, retired. I am using Brilliant to remind my old tired brain of what I used to know, math and physics. Thank you Sabine!
The concept of beauty often revolves around symmetry, as it is perceived as aesthetically pleasing and balanced. However, nature, which is frequently irregular and asymmetrical, can still be incredibly beautiful. This discrepancy highlights that beauty is not solely defined by symmetry; it can also be found in the unique, organic, and sometimes imperfect forms that nature presents.
Einstein noted, "The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are permitted to remain children all our lives."
Beauty depends on ‘fractality’ - a tension between the safety of repeatability and the potential reward of novelty.
Nature is most beautiful. The reason is very simple. It's alive.
🙂
❤ Science meshes with aesthetics as it does with philosophy. One of the key complexities for all three is wonder, which drives curiosity and triggers curiosity in all three and is often confused with beauty.
@@jantjarks7946you think the blobfish is beautiful? 😂
Glad to see people being alive.
🙂
Danke!
I'm so glad someone is willing to write that most physicists like to ignore that we don't really understand quantum mechanics. Because honestly... it was 25 years ago when I did physics at uni and at the time I could grasp the maths, just, and get from one step to the next and I liked certain bits of it, and I certainly never had an issue with it being 'wierd' just because its so different from the macroscopic world we tend to perceive, but I had so many questions that STILL no one ever gives a reasonable explanation to. I mean they do talk a lot and they say many things and the maths always works out, but I can do that, the explanations always stink of someone who is a bit desperate not to get caught out, there are always circular bits, always bits in direct disagreement, bits where things are described as a fundamental rule but then explained as if they are rather just a sort of emergent thing resulting from a bit of averaging out. Just a few times, MAYBE three or four times, a professor (and it was always the rich ones who'd had some patent about blue LEDs, who drove a merc while all the others could afford to shave) would respond with "ah yes, well that's one of those bits where I can give you the hand-wavey explanation that's clearly above everyone's heads enough to make everyone in the room pretend to buy it in order not to look like the one person who didn't get it, but to be honest, I've never like that bit either, seems like there is just something missing and we really don't know what it is, it might just be a bit too hard for human brains in their current form". But since leaving uni and being around all the normal-IQ people (like me), and only coming across really brilliant minds on the TV or youtube, I've found only a lot of cocky confidence and no one quite able to reach the same level of humility when it comes to the fact that there is something a bit fishy about our current theories... They work great for so much that is measurable, clearly there must be so much which is right, or effectively right, but yeah, there's a lot of the really tricky stuff which just seems a bit smushed together.
I'll have the vinaigrette with that, please ... Ooh, maybe a balsamic reduction would be nicer.
I wonder how far we will be able to get by revamping educational models for teaching QED & QCD. For example, abandoning "particle / wave duality" and presenting quanta strictly by their empirical properties, or looking at the universe from the literally timeless perspective of force-propagating quanta (massless bosons).
Richard Feynman also said this.
Shut up and calculate!
(Who coined that saying, anyway?)
Well, Plato's cave checks out.
We search for a TOE because of the past experience: so far, lots and lots of complex "unexplained" phenomena were eventually explained by a coherent theory with relatively simple axioms.
For example, there are about ninety different chemical elements and infinite varieties of molecules, but the explanation of all of them by atomic theory and chemistry is very simple, and does not require even a dozen different building blocks. Essentially, you need protons, neutrons, electrons, electromagnetism and "assume that protons and neutrons are bound into a stable 'nucleus' by some strong, short-range force, details of which do not matter for chemistry's purposes". That's it.
It would be surprising if something can NOT be explained, no matter how hard you try.
Past results are no guarantee of future behavior. Lots and lots of complex "unexplained" phenomena were eventually explained by a coherent theory with relatively simple axioms, as you have pointed out. This could result from one of two scenarios:
1) There is a Theory of Everything, and as technology advances we become able to discover it's equations. In that case, we'll be able to make a number of falsifying predictions which will turn out to confirm the theory, and all will be good;
2) There's no Theory of Everything to be found, and while space is obviously affected by energy and vice-versa, they are dependent on an arbitrary relationship which will always require some experimentally-derived constants to be adjusted. Many things will still be discovered by the scientific method, but we may never know why the fine structure constant _a_ , the speed of light _c_ , Newton's gravitational constant _G_ , or the cosmological constant _Λ_ have the values they do; we'll be able to measure ever greater numbers of decimal places in these constants, but never find a set of equations that predict their value.
While it would be nice if reality were to follow option (1), there's no evidence (that I know of) that disproves option (2), so that one is still a contender. Pretending it isn't is disingenuous and doesn't help science, only giving anti-science types more ammunition.
Even in the orbits situation you could argue that Newtonian Mechanics and Universal Gravitation gave one coherent explanation for them plus a bunch of other, previously unrelated, penhomena. I'd even argue that's more "beautiful" than "it must be circles", if that makes any sense
@@LaMirah Your argument involving constants should only use the dimensionless ones. c and G are just exchange rates between arbitrarily chosen units, we might as well set them to 1.
In any case, a theory with continuous parameters is still a theory. It might even be impossible to measure these parameters beyond a certain finite precision - for example, if doing so requires more energy or computational power than the entire observable universe can afford. But there's a difference between refining a parameter in an equation and looking for a substantially new equation.
What's more concerning is that there might just be an infinite regress of mathematical structures, with complexity increasing as we go towards the more precise and fundamental ones. We're used to the pattern of complex emergent laws reducing to simpler fundamental laws, but in principle this relation could reverse at some point.
@@LaMirah On another note, one of the philosophical insights associated with quantum mechanics is that if something is impossible to measure even in principle then this measurement probably makes no sense mathematically. If that's the case then there might just be no continuous parameters.
@@AlexanderShamov or set c to zero if our universe is time reversed and we are swimming upstream because of the big bang or gravity or something
So if the Planck length is as small as we can resolve anything, how lumpy does a singularity look when you tile over the space with Planck-sized tiles or curves? Does a singularity mean there is no more "room" for a particle to travel in a certain direction that the space is telling it to move? or in ANY direction, for that matter? Or is the particle "size" bigger than the curvature that directs its motion such that it is like getting food stuck in the drain trap? So essentially there must be a "force" that causes all this "clogged space" at the singularity to decay, as if there really is an aether? So the one "giant" singularity to rule them all, decays in a big bang, and all the other black hole singularities decay throughout the universe in little bangs, pushing space apart according to the cosmological constant?
How's THAT for making up a theory?
ANyway, I think maybe we should have smaller, less ambitious hypotheses and let us study Planck Mechanics, the threshold above which we get normal answers and below which we get statistical answers and see if we can't rid ourselves of spooky instantaneous wave function updates.
Depends very much on the underlying theory, but mostly it's that the notion of geometry doesn't make sense anymore near a singularity. I find it helpful to use the fluid dynamics analogy. Fluid surfaces can have curvature singularities. They aren't really singularities though because the surface is made of molecules. So if you look at very short scales, the very idea of a "surface" doesn't make sense any more, it's just molecules.
So gravitons are the bricks of space-time surface just like molecules are for fluids or actually for everything else?
Remember that a lot of the singularity discussion depends on the reference frame or observer. (Like we'll never see a particle go through the horizon, but the particle itself will just happily cross, not noticing.) If a theory of everthing is really quantum gravity, it shall be able to explain what happens to Planck length and it might be able to do so in a way that we'll then think: "How comes we didn't see this simple solution?"
@@SabineHossenfelder It must be clarified that all this is exclusively about the math - we haven't the slightest clue what real singularities even are - or IF they exist, for that matter.
@@burgerbobbelcher Does that mean that it comes down to semantics after all? Whenever the translation comes a cropper on the rocks of gibberish, everyone blames the linguist.
"I believe that no one who is familiar, either with mathematical advances in other fields, or with the range of special biological conditions to be considered, would ever conceive that everything could be summed up in a single mathematical formula, however complex."
Ronald Fisher
"The world which we perceive is a tiny fraction of the world which we can perceive, which is a tiny fraction of the perceivable world."
Terence McKenna
"When you finally understand the universe, it will not only be stranger than you imagine, it will be stranger than you can imagine."
Arthur C. Clarke
This is where the fun starts! We need to back up and review. Why does the hierarchy problem remain unsolved? What is the reality behind the Strong CP problem? There are plenty more where these came from. We need to work on “something” before we solve “everything.”
Yes, but so many want to be like Einstein by elegantly solving so much with so little.
@ Albert needed his Nobel prize money to divorce his wife and marry his cousin or her daughter… he wasn’t sure. Yeah, he wasn’t working with much there, was he?
@@Dhaffyd You’re absolutely right-there are still significant unresolved issues in physics like the hierarchy problem and the Strong CP problem. These challenges are fundamental and addressing them is crucial before we can hope to develop a comprehensive theory that unifies everything.
I find it fascinating how these ‘somethings’-the specific puzzles we haven’t solved yet-can guide us toward deeper understanding. For instance, the hierarchy problem raises questions about why gravity is so much weaker than the other fundamental forces, prompting us to explore concepts beyond the Standard Model.
Similarly, the Strong CP problem, which deals with why the strong nuclear force doesn’t seem to violate the combined charge-parity (CP) symmetry as we might expect, opens doors to new physics, like the potential existence of axions.
In my own explorations, I’ve been considering ideas like the Harmonious Field Theory (HFT), which looks at how harmony and balanced interactions might play a role at a fundamental level. While HFT is still a work in progress, I believe that tackling these specific problems could benefit from fresh perspectives.
Do you have any thoughts on how we might approach these issues? It’s an exciting time in physics, and collaborative discussions like this can help us inch closer to the answers.
@ HFT is something I am not familiar with and deserves my investigation. I am a retired engineer, so anything I say is suspect, but I am very interested in the 2018 paper by Boyle, Finn and Turok “CPT Symmetric Universe”. This proposes the creation of two universes opposed in time I believe resolves many questions, however, like all this crap, the mathematics is nuts. How is the singularity of the Cosmic Egg different than a black hole singularity? Why did Hawking depend on “imaginary time”? Where are the right handed neutrinos? This paper attempts to address these with a unique solution. Thanks for introducing me to HFT. Enjoy!
It reminds me of that time in Mathematics when Hilbert categorically claimed "Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen", but we never knew and now everybody just agrees tacitly to use ZFC and to not ask too many questions.
ZFC doesn't solve the problems with set theory. It simply relegates them to categories by narrowing the definition of a set. It is also irrelevant to physics because physics isn't about sets. It's about systems and systems are not sets to begin with. That does not make the problem with the system of all systems (aka the universe) go away, either. The universe is simply not a system, even though plenty of naive physicists will tell you that it is. Such naive statements are kind of what separates the boys from the men. ;-)
"working on a theory of everything is a waste of time." In a post-truth world this will get you off even more Christmas card lists.
kim jong un already has it, but its hidden in the north korean internet.
Maybe that's a good thing. Christmas is so stressful.
If you're not on a list, does it exist?
Tsk tsk . Now what would Santa ( the arbiter of naughty and nice truths) say about that?
This comment is not going to age well
When it come to science, I am almost entirely uneducated. But listening to you talk about these things, even if I understand absolutely none of it, is still somehow comforting to me. Very grateful to you and your channel. ♥
0:44 Max looks SO happy in that picture!
He is happy because he thinks he is close to finding the theory of everything.
Smiling on Portraits was invented later... I'm not joking by the way.
Speaking of (anti-)symmetries and measurement, there is this comparison between measurements of the speed of light that are perplexingly constant under varying conditions of measurement, and OTOH quantum measurements that are perplexingly inconstant under constant conditions of measurement.
A Theory of Everything (TOE) would require a complete and consistent set of axioms to describe all physical phenomena. However, Gödel's incompleteness theorems suggest that such a complete and consistent system is impossible. Therefore, a TOE, as traditionally conceived, is likely unattainable due to the inherent limitations of formal systems.
I also thoght exactly this not too long ago! If the universe behaves according to a set of mathematical rules then this applies. But I don't even think the universe behaves according to some math, I believe math is just the best language we have to describe how it works.
Already been shown.
Yes it did. And it was fun to do.
Such are the limitations of mathematical thinking 😂❤
@@williamFlat Thank you for bringing up such a thought-provoking point! Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are indeed profound in the realm of mathematical logic, showing that in any sufficiently powerful formal system, there are truths that cannot be proven within that system. However, it’s important to consider how these theorems apply to physics and the pursuit of a Theory of Everything (TOE).
A TOE aims to provide a unifying framework that describes all fundamental interactions in the universe. While Gödel’s theorems highlight limitations in formal mathematical systems, physical theories are empirical models based on observations and experiments. They aren’t purely axiomatic systems in the same way mathematical ones are. Physics often uses mathematics as a tool, but the theories themselves are validated through experimental evidence rather than solely through logical deduction.
That said, your point raises interesting philosophical questions about the limits of human understanding and whether a complete and consistent set of axioms can ever fully encapsulate physical reality. Perhaps instead of seeking an ultimate, all-encompassing theory in the traditional sense, we might benefit from exploring new frameworks that embrace complexity and the potential for emergent phenomena.
In my own work on the Harmonious Field Theory (HFT), I’m considering how harmony and interconnectedness might play a fundamental role in unifying physical laws. Rather than aiming for a strictly formal set of axioms, HFT looks at how the balanced interactions among forces and particles can give rise to the rich tapestry of phenomena we observe. This approach doesn’t necessarily conflict with Gödel’s insights but instead offers a different perspective on unification-one that accepts and incorporates the inherent complexity of the universe.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts! Engaging in discussions like this helps us delve deeper into the philosophical underpinnings of physics and consider new ways of approaching some of the most profound questions about reality.
Hi Sabine,
I really appreciate your work.
I would love to see a video where you dive deeper into real, practical research opportunities in quantum gravity today. For students who are genuinely passionate about the theoretical aspects, what pathways do you recommend for those pursuing a career in this field, especially for undergraduate and master's students? With so much theoretical work disconnected from experiments, it would be really helpful to hear your insights on where students should focus their energy if they want to contribute to meaningful progress in quantum gravity. Additionally, I would appreciate any other resources or researchers that you think offer grounded perspectives on quantum gravity research.
I'm aware of your book 'Experimental search for Quantum gravity'; and really wanted your guidance regarding all this.
Thank you so much for your valuable work!
I really just edited the book. I am afraid the topic is somewhat too specialized for UA-cam, but if you want to work on something related to quantum gravity, at the moment the smart card is to try and find a connection to quantum computing and/or quantum sensing. This will make it vastly easier to get funding and employment and also allows an easy pivot in case the quantum gravity stuff doesn't pan out/takes too long to come around.
Wow, this could kind of be a brilliant non-answer LOL. Thank you for your work, Sabine. I love this channel and commmunity.
Thank you for your brain. I'm extremely glad that I found your channel. Please keep up your honest, good work.
The theory of everything is considered "useless" because it doesn’t assist with long-term predictions (measurements), which is what most of science and technology focus on. This is due to the principle of computational irreducibility (similar to Gödel's incompleteness and the halting problem). Stephen Wolfram has a compelling analogy using cellular automata: Imagine you’re a scientist living inside Conway’s Game of Life. You understand the basic rule each cell follows, which is equivalent to a theory of everything in that realm, yet you can’t use that rule to make long-term predictions. For long-term predictions, you must resort to abstraction techniques, like coarse-graining, linear regression, neural networks, and so on (I have a detailed video about that in case you are interested).
If living in C’sGoL, I think knowing the rules of C’sGoL would be far from useless.
Now, sure, you couldn’t use it to predict the exact behavior of a randomly selected large system from its initial state faster than it would take for the system to simply evolve. But that doesn’t make knowing it useless. If you know the actual rules, you aren’t restricted to merely calculating how the system behaves on some particular state. You can do actual math (not just computations) about the system, and demonstrate conditions under which different phenomena occur, and then we could e.g. look at bounds for how much a bounded amount of deviations from those conditions, change the phenomena that would follow from them, etc. etc.
Really, why would one think that knowing the actual rules would be useless?
Whatever useful things we can say about things in C’sGoL, will follow from the actual rules of C’sGoL .
(I suppose if the entire C’sGoL universe is acting as a simulator for some other rule set (using like, repeating structures implemented in C’sGoL that together implement some other cellular automaton,
then, it might not be particularly useful to know that specifically C’sGoL is at the bottom, because, living in the universe that the C’sGoL is simulating, the thing that would be relevant to oneself would be the rules of that universe. If one knew the rules of C’sGoL *and* the repeating structure that makes up the simulation, then one could derive the rules that actually matter to one’s world.
Or, even if one just knew the general size of the repeating structure, one could at least narrow down the possible rules to a finite list.
But I guess technically without some additional information it isn’t all that useful.
But, in any world where by experiment it would be possible to actually discover that the world is an instance of C’sGoL, it would be useful to know it to be so.)
Well, some cellular automata are turing complete, meaning that you can build a computer inside it, use the rule as the input and make long term predictions 😁
@@ivantereshchenko3785 You can't make precise long-term predictions with any rule, even Turing-complete ones. All you can do is make fuzzy (probabilistic) long-term predictions. An exception to this is if there is a locally repetitive pattern in a system, in which case long-term predictions may be possible using closed-form solutions.
Conway's Game of Life is Turing-complete. You can literally calculate anything that can be calculated, given sufficient space and time.
This is a fantastic comment!!!❤ thank you so ❤much 😊
My theory starts with a singularity where everything is connected into a single mass that initially divides into two, like in cell division, but with smaller masses with each division, united by proto-gravity. (Gravity and light were indistinguishable in the beginning.) If in choosing between the two, one of the theories contains a “unwanted message,” that “everything is connected,” then the former theory would be preferred (with blinders on), thereby conceivably allowing a misinformed majority to be manipulated for power and selfish gain by a elite minority.
Thank you, Sabine, for mentioning the brilliant physicist Matvey Bronstein. He was arrested in Kyiv and killed by the Chekists in Leningrad in 1938. If you know who George Gamow and Lev Landau were, then the third in this company of bosom friends was Matvey. The Chekist Putin began his career in the KGB with the task of harming Lidiya Chukovskaya, a Leningrad dissident and Matvey's wife.
Kiev*
@@rosameltrozo5889 that's certainly what the Russians call it
The Ukrainian spelling of the capital city is Київ, which is romanized as Kyiv and pronounced as [ˈkɪjiu̯]...
Bronstein was killed because of his western links. The purge of 1938 was primarily against Trotskyists who were believed (correctly) to be conspiring with the Nazis and the United States to overthrow Stalin. Putin was not even born until 1952 and was not an active field agent until 1985 - stationed in East Germany as a translator. I don't see how you can sensibly blame Putin for anything that happened to Matvey or Chukovskaya when he was in neither the right time period or geographical location. But perhaps this is essential for your 'theory of everything'?
@@kubhlaikhan2015 He never blamed Putin for anything related to Bronstein himself. Regarding Chukovskaya, she lived until 1996. Stating that Putin was neither in the right time period or geographical location is a fault of your standard model too
Lovely video Sabine!
I don't get why some physicists think the next theory will be the last one on the basis of length scales. The LHC can so far probe down to about 10^{-20} metres. We might be able to improve that by a few orders of magnitude with larger and/or cleverer experiments, and principled extrapolations, but it is still a huge gulf to the Planck length of 10^{-35} metres. It is like saying "great, we can now see bacteria and viruses in our microscopes (c. 10^{-5}m, so the next theory will discover the fundamental particles of the standard model (10^{-20}m)". There is so much space for new physics in 15 orders of magnitude!
I, for one, love listening to your talks.. and I also think you are onto something, in your reference to the "beauty" of the craziness symmetry. I really love a good laugh thrown in, thanks. 😅
Thanks for another excellent video, Sabine! You keep stressing in your videos how the central problem physicists should focus on is the measurement problem. Can you dedicate a video to some of the serious attempts to tackle this problem? I have brought up in past comments my personal favourite, the "bare theory" by David Z Albert and Jeffrey A Barrett, which purports to solve it, but really any discussion on the serious attempts out there would be great. So far, you've only looked at the "many worlds" hypothesis, which you concluded was pseudoscience, but that's far from the only attempt, and far from the best of them. Would love a serious discussion on this important topic!
Sabine is my greatest inspiration , she's one of the physicists that inspire me to pursue science ❤
Great video and great points!
The 3 interactions, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear interactions, how do they play out in different gravitational fields? Are they also slower when close to a massive object?
There's always beauty in symmetry, even that which arises from mutual disdain.
That pun is one of her best !
I have said how Assymetry is Logical. ... Assymetry.
Only an intelligence makes Functions with clear purpose, rules & ... design.
Brilliantly dissected, explained!!
Indeed, "time" waister. dr. James Tour as a similar position regarding biology "origins of life".
Some, called "wise-men", do simply refer to it in a much less ambitious manner saying "... the Alpha and Omega of a NEVER ENDING story..." where we Never "know" the "beginning" and therefore are automatically EXCLUDED from "knowing" an "end" because such type of "seemingly logic reasonings" maybe always remain merely "seemingly... " (= blurred), i.e. Limited Conceptualiised. ( reminder, to conceptualise falsehoods doesn't work, WHY?? They get easily debunked by bright eyed physicists,like Sabine). The Truth is therefore the ONLY EXISTING "thing". Hurrah! Hurra! Hurrah!!
Bravo!! Encore Sabine!!
The universe is one unified system and it's working in some particular way. Discovering that way would be what we call theory of everything. So, it's a totally valid endeavor to pursue.
Agreed.
I think what she's saying is that, when you go about trying to formulate your TOE, you look at the puzzle pieces you have and then try to reason out what the other pieces might be. But the problem is, one of the pieces (quantum mechanics), we don't even really fully understand yet. So we need to better understand that before we go about treating it like one of our known pieces in the larger puzzle.
*Is* the universe one unified system? I don't see that much evidence.
Unless our universe is part of a multiverse system, then we won't reach that point until we understand the unknown multiverses.
@@peterhumphreys9201 I don't understand what you mean. The universe is a system of processes, that interact and interdepend on each-other, to produce the structure we observe (and the ones we can't yet observe).
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomenon, it will make more progress than it made in all the previous centuries of its existence." - Nikola Tesla. One way to start this study is by going "within". Personal Experiment to go within: Sing *HU* daily to safely alter personal frequency/awareness. Search how to sing *HU* . Perhaps give particles a rest and look into "wholeicles"? 😀
If there was a unifying theory, why would that be the end? Why wouldn't a GUT open up a new area of physics? This is what has happended in the past. I don't think this can be answered without knowing what the everything idea is.
A TOE would explain why no other explanation is needed, or perhaps even possible.
We are still, actually, exploring the possibilities from EM and QM. Even that will probably continue way beyond a TOE.
You are correct, The GUT is a beginning of the new and correct Physics based on logic, facts and the Law of Physics! For your curiosity, try to find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" - It is exactly this!
I always love your humor. You know exactly where to place the punchline. Bravo!
Hey, and she can sing and dance too!
Her music videos are remarkable, aren´t they?
She's insanely punny at times too.
Thanks Sabine. I enjoy your professional perspectives :)
>
0:33 Like analog the more you zoom in the higher the precision, but also more blurry (noise).
0:37 Plank length. (Then gets blurry?)
1:27 Uncertainty principle.
1:40 Locations become uncertain.
1:52 Limit to resolution.
3:20 The universe limits how much we can zoom in (plank length limit).
3:43 Singularities go to infinity and the math breaks down.
5:34 Is this another island of stability thing?
8:15 The measurement problem before TOE.
>
Disclaimer: I am not an indentured physicist or Mathematician. These are just my educated thoughts.
.
I most often can't help but feel like we keep asking: *"Where is the Zero O'clock "Corner" of the circle?"*
We zoom in, and zoom in and all that we appear to find is a flat line instead of a corner (But even the line isn't perfectly flat and never will be.).
Interestingly if we keep zooming out we do find a pseudo point, or if we reduce the radius of the circle to it's smallest size it looks like a point, but either way you will always go toward zero (infinitesimally close) but never find it.
.
One of the reasons that I like quartz motion analog clocks is that you can never truly resolve the position of the second hand to any digital value. You always approach infinity, but never truly resolve it. Even with this mathematical problem, the analog clock motion works perfectly fine.
So to ask: "What is the exact digital time on an analog clock?" has no answer, or more correctly it is the wrong question. It will always approach infinity and will always have some measure of uncertainty about the exact position of the hand.
We could stop the clock to try and measure it, but then it is no longer an analog device and would be considered broken, it no longer has velocity. It's no longer a clock so to speak.
>
It does not matter which direction you look or how closely we zoom in or out we still encounter this infinity problem in nature. Oddly enough infinities appear to work fine in nature like analog mechanical motion or fluid motion. Even static circles are an expression of infinities. Try to resolve PI to a discrete value and you find that you can't.
.
I don't have solutions and I am not really looking for one at the moment. I am more interested in what the underlying problem is. You cant formulate a sound solution from a poor (incomplete) description of the problem or a poor (incomplete) question.
>
Why does our concept of discrete values (digit based math) fail us with nature at the plank Length?
Why does nature seam to become uncertain when we stop the clock?
If it is in motion we cant tell digitally where the hand is, if it is stopped we can't tell it's velocity and it stops behaving naturally.
Do we just have to accept that position will always be infinitely close, but always uncertain?
(That implies that all we really have in any certainty in nature is motion without ever truly knowing where something is. Although, like the clock we can approximate position and even use statistical prediction about an approximate position in the future, even if never 100% digitally precise.)
.
Hard problem to describe, Hard questions to find/compose.
Hi, I am Shon Mardani and this is my Unifying Theory of Everything:
[GOD] Created NOTHING, a Void and Empty Point in Space.
NOTHING Attracts Surrounding Space, this attraction or Pull is the Only Law of Nature and it gives NOTHING its Property to be a Particle which I call the GRAVITATIONAL PARTICLE (GP).
When [neighboring] Space moves into the GP, it Creates its own GP at that Vacated Space which Attracts its own neighboring Space. The high speed of the moving GPs will result in duplicating and creating new GPs which propagate and grow like a Crystal. This growth is in 3 Axes (x, y, z) and 2 Directions (- , +) on each Axis, therefore the numbers 2, 3 and their sum 5 are the Magic Numbers of Nature.
The Propagation or Growth of the GPs Create Closed Cyclic Patterns/Paths/Traces as Locked Loops. These Cycles Create the Atoms/Matter/Existence starting with Hydrogen. Hydrogen Atoms Collect to Form Nitrogen and Oxygen Atoms of the Atmosphere at the ratio of 4 Nitrogen to 1 Oxygen which I call ATMOSPHERIC UNIT (AU), then Gravity rearranges the GPs within the AUs and the Carbon Atoms are made.
Atoms Connect with each other by Overlapping/Shared GPs (single, double bonds ...) to Create Molecules.
Gravitational Particles move/travel within the Atoms and between the Atoms (intra and inter atomic) which I call it GRAVITY CURRENT and it moves in a Circular Path toward its Center of Gravity. On the Earth the Gravity Current is perpendicular to its surface and is moving toward the Center of the Gravity of the Earth and its Connected Atmosphere. The Gravity Current on the Earth's Surface is felt as a Push from above and Pull from below [Earth's Center of Gravity], it feels like being under a shower from a firehose.
Atoms/Matters because of their GP Loops are the Physical Resistance for the Gravitational Current. Resistance to GP Current by Atoms manifest itself and are measured as Weight/Mass, Electricity, Magnetism, Heat/Temperature, Light/Color and all other Physical Properties of the Atoms and they continually convert to each other. GP Current moves from one Atom to its neighboring and connected Atom, this means Conductivity is required for Gravity Current, all its Manifestations and the fundamental Existence of the Atoms.
Gravity Current and all its Manifestations are Measurable which means we can Count the Quantity of its Constituent Units like GPs and the Cycles and Loops of the Atoms which make the Gravity Quantum.
Since the Atoms are the collection of GPs locked in the Loops/Cycles, the Quantity of the GPs in an Atom determines its Shape (Atomic Numbers), and the 3D Positions of the GPs determines the Orientation of the Atoms or their TIME. Gravity Current continually rearranging the GPs in the AU Atoms and changes the Atom's Orientation and results in Embedding or Coding the Time in the Atom, like Stamping the Current Time in Atoms.
The Interactions between the Fundamental Organic Atoms (Hydrogen, Noirogen, Oxygen and Carbon) with Different Embedded Times (timestamps) Creates LIFE. Breathing, Drinking and Eating the Organic Atoms and Molecules with Newer Embedded Times provides Energy to Sustains the Life and the Energy to Move, it also provide Energy to Synthesize Heavier Organic Atoms like Na, Mg, P, S, K and Ca by Living Organisms.
To understand the concept of GP, imagine there is a room full of Marble balls with no friction between them, now remove/make disappear One marble from the middle of the room. The empty space created by removed marble attracts the neighboring marbles to fill in the empty space, however only one of the 6 possible adjacent marble can move in and fill the empty space, the one on the left, right, front, back, above or below. One of the marbles moves into the empty space and by that creates its own empty space and attracts its own neighboring marbles.
The Path/Traces of the Moving/Propagating/Growing Empty Spaces (GPs). We do not need the existence of any matter in the space to move into the GP, it is not the Matter which Moves, it is a GP which is Created in that Space and moves to the other GP. It is like the positive side of a battery which does not exist without the negative side of the same battery, so if you create the negative side, the positive side is created and will consume the negative side unless it is connected to the other batteries.
I have developed this Theory of Everything by studying the latest knowledge in physics, chemistry and biology especially the Periodic Table in the last many years and have done my best to validate it and find any conflict with observed and experimented fact. I appreciate your feedback for me to validate and correct any errors there may be before I get into details, thank you.
I got into physics when I was in middle school from Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe." The romantic and grandiose theme of a final unified theory was attractive, and it got me hooked. So, in the educational world, I think it has its uses.
But in terms of actual research, I also think it's revealed itself to be a dead end. Moreover, in my opinion, we will not even make any progress towards such theory unless we make it a priority to solve the measurement problem first (or at least along the way).
The devil is in the details. The measurement problem arises with waves specifically. At least the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does. A wave is treated like an infinite entity, stretching infinitely in multiple directions, that, to be localised into being a particle, must be an addition of many waves together, that will constructively or destructively interfere. You could say our issue is therefore this fundamentality of waves, and a solution could be to try to find another, particle-based way of explaining waves. We would then no longer require constructive and destructive interference to create the wave.
Waves could be made from particles being arranged into zones of absence and presence, by some mechanism we must theorize. This would mean we must postulate the existence of some particle, that is being arranged into waves, similarly to an air, or water particle. For a photon for example (which is a small wave), some particle, and many of its peers get arranged into a wave by this unknown mechanism. The wave then is interpreted as a single particle of light. And its particle properties come from planck's constant, which is the manner in which a wave gets created. In discrete multiples of this constant chunk. We could even say: this chunk IS the particle, being arranged. All that's left is to find the mechanism that arranges particles into waves. What could be doing that?
@@KieranLeCam You are getting it backward. Treating the observation as an infinite stack of waves of probabilities in a bayesian shape distribution does leads to the Uncertianity Principle. However: This is a mathematical formulation that arise as the need to understand the observation of the measured physical principles of the particle, in other words, it is just a mathematical tool.
The Measurement Problem is an inherent information blurriness which leads to resolution or detail lose. Or could also be said from our relative point of view, particles behave in a truly fully random fashion in a range of probabilities when they are observed. Exactly the one of a bayesian wave.
So, in order to solve the problem, we need to figure out what is an observation, what triggers it, how it works, how it alters entangled particles and other many questions, specially stopping using decoherence as an excuse to lead to clssical mechanics and instead start to study how particles actually works in the larger scheme outside the laboratory, which can hint us what counts as an observer etc.
@@MsNyara Ah I apologize, I was a bit too subtle in my introduction. I start speaking of the measurement problem, and then skip straight onto the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I'm starting with the idea of waves. Then pointing out the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is flawed because we must insist on a combination of **infinite** wavelengths to constructively and deconstructively interfere, to create a local particle, a local standing wave, which is a clue our mathematics are insisting on waves too much without leaving room for waves to be created by something other than waves. For example, a 3 dimensional particle, under the right conditions, could create waves, if we so desired to theorize its existence.
Then I jump straight into the measurement problem without saying I am, and dealing with the idea of how all particles, that we emphasise as waves too much - as our math seems to show with the HUP - are described with their wave-function, but could theoretically be described by a particle we theorize as a 3d, non wave entity, that gets coerced, Newtonianly, with f = ma, to oscillate backwards forwards, upwards, downwards, and side to side, to equal a particular wavelength. And theoretically all we need is a force, perhaps some other particle, let's say with attractive abilities, that interacts frequently enough with our h-bar particle, to arrange it into these oscillating wave patterns. We would be missing two things in our current theories so far: 1) assuming particles are still 3d Newtonian entities, or that our h-bar particle is a 3d Newtonian entity at the very least, and 2) this attractive particle, omnipresent throughout the universe.
Not assuming 1) and 2) are what we may need to solve the problem, will lead us to think in current terms, that the measurement problem is about the strict interpretation of finding out what causes the collapse of the wave function. But theorizing 1) and 2) is like dismissing the "measurement problem" as a feature of an incomplete theory. This is an acceptable way to solve problems: by framing it as a misinterpretation of an incomplete theory. I think we are missing information essentially. I think the standard model is missing two particles. But I didn't want to outright mention why. I just wanted to focus on the mathematical possibility those 2 particles interacting could bring a new way of thinking about every problem we have with waves.
Waves and their math seem to force us into so many "non classical" ways of thinking. And instead of putting the "weirdness" into question, and find a classical solution, we decided to accept the unintuitiveness, and roll with it, and that could easily have been a mistake. I think it was a mistake. From my perspective, we've locked ourselves out of understanding by **choosing** to not understand. That's what accepting unintuitiveness is, and it leads to brilliant people saying things like "That's **just** quantum mechanics!", almost proud of not wishing to understand, almost so enthralled by the weirdness, they do not wish for it to be resolved in a simple way, which, historically, is how we solved every problem in physics. With a glaringly obvious simple solution. By **not** accepting the premise of the problem. But by insisting on certain key immutable features, drawn from a deeper logic, a logic of philosophy, the evidential logic that birthed mathematics in the first place, like: cause and effect, determinism, identity, sequentiality. We abandoned millenia of old wisdom, distrusting our elders and ancestors, to revolutionize logic, only to end up at a dead end. Newton trusted the wisdom of old. Einstein too. Max Planck. Maxwell. All simple solutions. G, E= mc², h, and the E and B fields. Where is our old wisdom? Where has the simplicity gone (to not be confused with elegance which is subjective)? Where has logic? Until it returns, I do not think physics will advance.
Ironically, it's as simple as that. The phenomenal collective brainpower of scientists is going to total waste without the proper direction to punch in, and the proper logical tools.
But I suppose that's just my opinion. Take it as you will!
I am not a physicist/mathematician. I very much admire Sabine Hossenfelder’s insistence that physics must describe the world it inhabits, not some ideal world (like Stephen Weinberg’s, in search of a single equation and no undetermined constants). But at a philosophical level, we must consider why anything exists, and it is very obvious that an intrinsically complex universe is improbable. What “must” exist should be the conclusion of a simple ontological argument (not necessarily in the theological sense - heaven forbid!🤣) The standard model, plus the Pauli exclusion principle, plus the big bang, plus emergence, plus entanglement, plus renormalization, plus wave function collapse, plus… is too damned complicated. Such a universe cannot be the answer to “What must exist?” or “Why should something exist rather than nothing?” So… a theory of everything will not be a mathematical/physical theory. It will be an underlying philosophical theory, which, nevertheless, will have very little to say about physics. The philosophy may settle an argument, but it will never deduce a physical constant, nor will it lead to the invention of a transistor, or hologram, or nuclear reactor. Physics is largely immune to philosophical underpinning.
I met someone who developed a theory of nothing.
Nietzsche?
@DS91284 good point, maybe
Nothing isn't real because it doesn't exist, but there's also no such thing as nothing, virtual particles and fuzz at the quantum bottom it's all always something so nothing does not exist, which is how "nothing" actually is, so it does exist because it doesn't. There is no such thing as nothing.
Maybe a Buddhist scientist or an intense meditator - it is certainly found in Yoga practice and the Sufis.
Fare thee well - in life's journey
@carlbrenninkmeijer8925 Why did my tautology of nothing get autodeleted by YT or sniped by Sabina? Mm very peculiar
And beautiful the symmetry between you and other physicists is! This is one of your best jokes ever - just lovely to the singularity. Also interesting video as always, it gave me a new perspective.
As a wise man once said: "plant a tree, have a child, write a book and create your own theory of everything".
Well, I have accomplished all of this already... 😂😂😂
I guess I need to plant a tree and write a book.
I don't know much about physics but one theory that keeps spewing papers are proton decay and GUT's about unifiying the strong force with the electroweak despite experiments constantly disproving them, do you have any opinion on the subject? I mean if they can't bring together those two interactions then how can they dream about adding gravity to the party?
As an engineer I could not care less about how many theories are out there which
cannot be combined.
😂 I'm getting there...
I hope you're not building anything important.
@@Milan_Openfeint Engineers use what's proven to work over time. Theory is less important than real results.
@@MrBottlecapBill So what will you do if you have 2 theories that tell you to build something in different ways? Normally you go to the more general theory that takes into account more effects. If you don't want to learn that theory, there is a good chance that what you build won't work.
@SabineHossenfelder Let's get down to fundamentals.
The core of quantum theory rests on two principles: superposition (linearity) and unitarity (conservation of information). The rest of quantum theory is empirically constructed- pieced together to match observations. Shocking i know - but unavoidably true. So if you are looking for errors - and we all should be... this is where you should be looking.
There’s a reward for those who care to look: you can audit these empirical parts of quantum theory with its foundational, rigorous aspects, creating a generic error correction tool for quantum theory. With this tool, it's clear that while measurements at smaller scales get fuzzier, the underlying quanta that form spacetime persist as discrete, physical entities, unaffected by our detection limits. In other words, conservation of information allows you to explore the universe in detail, beyond the confines of measurement. Observations can only take you so far; at some point, you need to apply fundamental reasoning to see the universe clearly. Conservation of information is the simple yet powerful tool that makes this possible.
Watch for The Scalar Project - coming soon
The Planck length is one of several physical manifestations of the smallest increment which can be represented in the floating point values used by the simulation in which we exist. Quantum mechanics is a knock-on effect of rounding errors and/or dithering.
Thank you so much Sabine. As an amateur researcher I have a theory.
Physics seeks a unified field. But what if the secret to the Theory of Everything isn’t just unification, but harmony? My idea is called the Harmonious Field Theory (HFT): where balance and interconnectedness redefine our understanding of reality.
😊
What is this even supposed to mean?
Can you elaborate further, if you don't mind (about what your theory entails)
Absolutely, I’d be happy to elaborate!
Harmonious Field Theory (HFT) is a concept I’ve been developing that suggests the fundamental workings of the universe are governed not just by unification, but by harmony. Instead of trying to merge all fundamental forces into a single entity, HFT proposes that these forces-gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force-maintain their unique properties while interacting synergistically to create the coherence we observe in the cosmos.
Key Points of HFT:
• Harmony Over Unification: The idea is that the universe operates through a dynamic balance and interconnectedness of forces, rather than a single unified force. This harmony leads to emergent properties and phenomena that might not be explained by unification alone.
• The Harmony Function (𝓗): Introduces a mathematical function that quantifies the degree of harmonious interaction among particles and fields. This function modifies existing equations in physics to account for synergistic effects.
• Modified Equations: For example, in HFT, Einstein’s Field Equations are extended to include a Harmony Tensor, which accounts for the effects of harmonious interactions on spacetime curvature. This could potentially address anomalies attributed to dark matter and dark energy without introducing unknown substances.
• Quantum Mechanics: At the quantum level, HFT suggests that incorporating harmony into the Schrödinger equation could explain sustained quantum coherence and entanglement, possibly shedding light on phenomena in quantum biology and quantum computing.
• Interdisciplinary Connections: The theory draws inspiration from concepts of harmony in music and philosophy, suggesting that balance and interconnectedness are fundamental principles across all natural systems.
Why Harmony Matters:
By focusing on harmony, we might find new ways to explain unresolved phenomena in physics, such as the cosmological constant problem or the nature of consciousness. It encourages us to look at the relationships and interactions between components, rather than just the components themselves.
I’m still developing the mathematical formulations and exploring the implications of this idea, but I believe it offers a fresh perspective on the fundamental nature of reality.
I’d love to hear your thoughts or answer any questions you might have!
To incorporate this concept mathematically, HFT introduces the Harmony Function (\mathcal{H}), which modifies established equations to account for synergistic interactions.
1. Modification of Einstein’s Field Equations
Standard Einstein Field Equations:
G_{\mu
u} + \Lambda g_{\mu
u} = \kappa T_{\mu
u}
• G_{\mu
u} : Einstein tensor representing spacetime curvature.
• \Lambda : Cosmological constant.
• g_{\mu
u} : Metric tensor.
• T_{\mu
u} : Stress-energy tensor.
• \( \kappa = \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4} \): Einstein’s gravitational constant.
HFT Modification:
G_{\mu
u} + \Lambda g_{\mu
u} + \mathcal{H}{\mu
u} = \kappa T{\mu
u}
• \mathcal{H}_{\mu
u} : Harmony Tensor accounting for harmonious interactions.
Defining the Harmony Tensor:
\[ \mathcal{H}{\mu
u} = \alpha \left(
abla\mu \mathcal{H}
abla_
u \mathcal{H} - \dfrac{1}{2} g_{\mu
u}
abla^\lambda \mathcal{H}
abla_\lambda \mathcal{H}
ight) \]
• \alpha : Coupling constant representing the strength of harmonious interactions.
• \mathcal{H} : Harmony Function, a scalar field representing the degree of harmony.
•
abla_\mu : Covariant derivative with respect to coordinate coordinate x^\mu .
How It Works:
• The Harmony Tensor adds an extra term to Einstein’s equations, modifying the curvature of spacetime to include the effects of harmony.
• This modification can potentially explain cosmic phenomena like dark energy and dark matter by attributing them to harmonious interactions rather than unknown substances.
2. Extension of the Standard Model Lagrangian
Standard Model Lagrangian ( \mathcal{L}_{\text{SM}} ):
\mathcal{L}{\text{SM}} = \mathcal{L}{\text{gauge}} + \mathcal{L}{\text{fermion}} + \mathcal{L}{\text{Higgs}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{Yukawa}}
HFT Modification:
\mathcal{L}{\prime} = \mathcal{L}{\text{SM}} + \mathcal{L}{\mathcal{H}}
• Harmony Term ( \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{H}} ):
\mathcal{L}{\mathcal{H}} = \lambda \, \mathcal{H}(\phi, A\mu, \psi) \, \bar{\psi}i \gamma^\mu D\mu \psi_i
• \lambda : Coupling constant.
• \phi : Scalar fields (e.g., Higgs field).
• A_\mu : Gauge fields.
• \psi_i : Fermion (matter) fields.
• \bar{\psi}_i : Dirac adjoint of the fermion field.
• \gamma^\mu : Gamma matrices from Dirac equation.
• D_\mu : Gauge-covariant derivative.
How It Works:
• The Harmony Term  introduces new interactions in the Standard Model that account for harmony between particles.
• This could lead to slight modifications in particle behaviour, potentially observable in precision measurements (e.g., anomalies in particle decays or magnetic moments).
3. Incorporation of the Harmony Potential into Quantum Mechanics
Standard Schrödinger Equation:
\[ i\hbar \dfrac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} = \left( -\dfrac{\hbar^2}{2m}
abla^2 + V
ight) \Psi \]
HFT Modification:
\[ i\hbar \dfrac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} = \left( -\dfrac{\hbar^2}{2m}
abla^2 + V + V_{\mathcal{H}}
ight) \Psi \]
• Harmony Potential ( V_{\mathcal{H}} ):
V_{\mathcal{H}} = \mu \, |\Psi|^2
• \mu : Coupling constant representing the strength of the harmonious interaction.
• |\Psi|^2 : Probability density of the quantum state.
How It Works:
• The Harmony Potential adds a nonlinear term to the Schrödinger equation, leading to the Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation (NLSE).
• This nonlinearity introduces self-interaction of the wavefunction, which can result in phenomena like solitons (stable wave packets) and enhanced quantum coherence.
• It offers potential explanations for sustained quantum coherence observed in biological systems and could impact quantum computing by reducing decoherence.
4. The Harmony Function ( \mathcal{H} )
Possible Forms of \mathcal{H} :
1. Scalar Field Dependent:
\mathcal{H} = \phi^\dagger \phi
• \phi : Complex scalar field (e.g., Higgs field).
2. Gauge Field Invariants:
\mathcal{H} = F_{\mu
u} F^{\mu
u}
• F_{\mu
u} : Electromagnetic or other gauge field tensor.
3. Fermion Bilinears:
\mathcal{H} = \bar{\psi} \psi
• \psi : Spinor (fermion) field.
Constraints on \mathcal{H} :
• Must be real-valued to ensure observables are real.
• Should be differentiable for mathematical consistency.
• Must maintain Lorentz invariance to be consistent with relativity.
• Constructed from gauge-invariant quantities to ensure the physical laws remain consistent under gauge transformations.
5. How HFT Works Alongside Other Equations
• Compatibility: HFT modifies existing fundamental equations by adding terms that represent harmonious interactions without altering the core structure of the original equations.
• Generalisation: In the limit where the harmony coupling constants ( \alpha, \lambda, \mu ) approach zero, the Harmony Function and its effects vanish. The equations reduce to their standard forms in general relativity, the Standard Model, and quantum mechanics.
• Physical Implications:
• Cosmology: Explains cosmic acceleration and galactic rotation curves without invoking dark energy or dark matter by attributing these effects to harmony in spacetime.
• Particle Physics: Predicts slight deviations in particle properties and interactions, which could be tested through high-precision experiments.
• Quantum Mechanics: Provides a framework for understanding phenomena like quantum coherence and entanglement through self-interaction terms introduced by the Harmony Potential.
6. Summary of HFT’s Role in Physics
• Enhancement, Not Replacement: HFT doesn’t discard existing theories but builds upon them by introducing harmony as a fundamental principle.
• Unified Framework Through Harmony: By incorporating the Harmony Function into fundamental equations, HFT aims to offer a cohesive explanation for various physical phenomena across different scales.
• Testable Predictions: The modifications suggest specific experimental outcomes, such as anomalies in gravitational lensing or particle decay rates, which can be investigated to validate or falsify the theory.
In Essence:
The Harmonious Field Theory introduces the Harmony Function ( \mathcal{H} ) ) into key physical equations, modifying them to account for the synergistic and balanced interactions among fundamental forces and particles. By doing so, it works alongside existing equations, enhancing them to include the concept of harmony without undermining the established frameworks of physics.
This approach provides new avenues to explore and potentially resolve some of the unexplained phenomena in modern physics while maintaining consistency with known laws in the appropriate limits.
Feel free to ask if you have any further questions or need clarification on specific aspects of the theory!.
As someone who had his last physics classes in school, your videos feel like watching the Simpsons as a child. You know that a lot of things go over your head, but it is still awesome and you love every episode 😅
Actually, Sabine the dream for a final theory doesn't come at from Planck resolution issue. It comes from an epistemic consideration: simplicity. The ine that explains the many. Doesn't seem we explained anything if we just accept the many as brute facts, we just described things without explaining them.
Leaving aside the questionable use of that consideration, that in itself wouldn't explain why the next theory would be he final one.
You can't develop an explanation if you don't first have an understanding. We have no idea whether or not the cosmos is capable of being described by a TOE or even if it can be explained at all in human terms.
@SabineHossenfelder you are right.
I think your video is 99.9% on point.
My small disagreement was on what is it, psychologically and sociologically, that motivates the quest for TOE really. You yourself made a similar point regarding the explanation of a pre-big bang state of affairs . You said science can't say anything about it because it would be more complicated than the big bang. Which means in your view the scientific method is committed to Simplicity.
I like your statement - "we just described things without explaining them". The problem of modern science is that they do not know even a single fundamental element as - Space, Time, Gravity, Energy, Electromagnetism, Physical Attraction. Without understanding the fundamental elements construction of TOE is impossible! Despite this TOE exist! In the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" all these fundamental elements are explained!
It's worth looking into Claudia deRahm's Massive Gravity theory, and also the work of Ivette Fuentes and Roger Penrose. Specifically, Fuentes and Penrose look at gravity's contribution to the measurement problem.
A theory of everything assumes there is only one way to construct the Universe. One law with no variable parameters, or maybe just a single one. I do not think we can assume that. There may be as many free parameters as in the Standard Model or more. Why not?
Perhaps I´m still wrong about that, I always thought it means, that the universe is reducable on one single/last origin? One universe, one source, one formula/equation, one God...
@@Thomas-gk42 Mono-theorism? :D
@Thomas-gk42 This is a good way of thinking about it. We do not know if the Universe had a Creator but let us assume it had. Did he have any choices? A universal law with no free parameters would give Them no choice. So it would be hard to say that the Universe is beautifully created. The Law itself would be the only masterpiece. Now, let's assume there was no creator. It is now even more difficult to understand why such a perfect law exists at all. But if there is not a single universal law, but a set of them with multiple free parameters, everything becomes simpler. The Creator adjusted the parameters or random chance chose them. Both versions work, even as they are mot as beautiful as a Single Law "to rule them all".
@@arctic_haze Yes, my point of view. A creator without a choice wouldn´t be real a creator though, except you think about him/her like Frank Tipler does. Anyhow, beauty is a property that we humans give nature and math, I´m with Sabine in this case.
The question of the number of parameters makes less sense the more you think about it. Eg you can replace parameters with solutions of equations and then the question comes down to how difficult it is to define the equations. You could also ask whether multiplying something with "1" or "0" should count as a parameter. By that count, even the standard model has infinitely many parameters (because of all the terms that the lagrangian does not have). Eventually I think the only criterion that makes sense is algorithmic complexity. We don't use that in physics because for human use it's more relevant that it's mathematics we are familiar with. AI might change all that. Interesting times!
Is not the blurriness at the planck scale created from and at the point where two equal opposing forces meet? Can not the curvature of the spacetime fabric be such a force?
The answer to life, the universe and everything is: 42
And don't forget to bring a towel
So say you - and that man - with them animals - on has to see (It is a fine joke note)
Methinks - change = the dynamic of existence - the number enshrined as answer - is sure to feel the caress of movement
And only - the unchangeable Absolute - remains - that is - in Itself - Centre of Existence.
Fare thee well - on life's journey
Is that 42 or hex 42?
@@peterhumphreys9201 This is a comic maths joke - that reveals something - one does not even know - where to look for and then to adapt - to questions profound.
No, it's 69
Hi Sabine, what are your thoughts on Juan Martin Maldacena's work?
Following you from Cuba.
I think there is a misunderstanding about how fast fundamental science moves. While technology can advance rather quickly, fundamental science takes much longer. Take Aristotle, who is considered the first scientist and postulated that the Earth was at the center of the universe. This theory did not change until Nicolaus Copernicus placed the Sun at the center of the solar system. Nearly 2,000 years passed between Aristotle and Copernicus.
So why does it take so long? First, a lot has to do with the lack of data. We make conclusions based on data, and the correct data can take hundreds of years to collect. Once you have the data, you need to match the right person with the data to make an interpretation. This match of data and the person to interpret it is a game of chance. Even if the data reaches the "right" people, their interpretation can still be wrong. These wrong interpretations can lead to many false paths, all of which need to be eliminated by the collection of even more data and more people to interpret it. You can see how this process can take a long time to sort out.
At present, we are at a point where we are collecting a lot of data and eliminating incorrect interpretations. Eventually, the right set of data and the right person to interpret it will meet each other by pure chance. This process can take hundreds of more years. I'm sure this is very frustrating for today's scientists.
i understand little of what i watch here, but it still fascinates me and I enjoy watching. Thank you. Infinity wins every time !!!!
If nature is a whole, then there should be a united single theory, describing nature as a whole. Asserting that a theory of everything is not possible "in principle", means to assert that nature is not a whole.
Not necessarily, our theories are not nature. It is also possible that there are things we cannot observe even in principle, like what goes on inside a black hole.
The universe is like Reese's Peanut Butter Cups: chocolate in the peanut butter, peanut butter in the chocolate.
But nature isn't whole. It's gets blurry smaller than the plank length. Even if it was whole, why should there be a single theory that explains it? Was there a sign we've all missed that stipulated these rules? 🤔
@@BillBrasky5351 Even if there were a theory to explain all of it, the only think I can think of that can do that is reality itself at every moment in timespace. Whatever is executing each step of our reality is the thing we would probably call the theory of everything, and I bet even that has unknown-by-definition variables.
In terms of our own abilities, maybe the best we can do is develop of theory of why there can never be a theory of everything.
Or the other possibility, that we are not able to recognize and translate, and emperically proof it it. Take your pick. How ever, your statement about nature is true it can not be devided against it self.
This was very helpful ❤ I know a lot more about what the laypeople in science think about a “theory of everything” and most importantly why! I do not mean to offend, I am forced to use the same words as the other humans. But I am beginning to understand that not everyone thinks the same behind those same words or ideas. So when I say “laypeople” of science I mean just that they are variable isolationists, and you cannot ever actually make a theory of everything out of that because it involves MEANING: the invisible between words and humans and shapes and symbols. Even watching a tv screen means you are the primary vector for the connection between the pixels. So I do not mean to offend. Lord knows we need science more than anything. And highly organized pixels. 😂❤ Otherwise I couldn’t watch SpongeBob and stranger things and Monty Python and stuff. 😢Thank you Sabina, your views are extremely important and valuable to me I love your videos. Thank you 🙏🏻 ❤
I recently saw someone complaining about Sabine because "science deniers feel validated" by her criticism of academia.
Wich got me thinking: Guilt by association is not a scientific method. Observing a subjects reactions to stimuli is.
I'm a science denier in the "science as an authority" sense.
The “science deniers feel validated” “argument” is just concern-trolling sophistry.
I am working on an idea that proposes a conceptual model in which mass and energy are viewed as emergent properties of the fabric of spacetime. Mass is reimagined as a stable "knot" or “clump” in the fabric of spacetime itself, rather than an isolated particle or object, and energy is seen as the result of the unwinding or reallocation of the fabric of spacetime. We are exploring how this framework naturally leads to a deeper understanding of the famous equation E = mc², where the release of energy corresponds to the reconfiguration of spacetime's structure at the rate of c². By considering energy as a manifestation of the tension within the fabric of spacetime, this model offers an intuitive explanation for the behavior of mass, gravity, and energy release, and proposes a unified view that bridges general relativity and quantum mechanics.
To my understanding this was also the way Einstein went in the last decades of his life. BTW: Stephen Wolfram's hypergraph theory also follows this path. While it seems far-fetched to think the universe is a graph, it might be not a bad idea to build an intuition with graphs rather than manifolds with unknown topology and even dimension. Oh, you probably know that already but soliton solutions to some nonlinear form of Einstein's field equations might be something to look at.
Good luck! Another way to think about mass is resistance to change. Consider F=ma. The higher the m, the higher the F for the same a. The more convoluted or tangled a knot or a clump might be the harder it would be to "change".
Totally agreed. I think for anyone truly understands the matter, it is quite obvious that solving the measurement problem is the very first step towards a legit theory of quantum gravity. This is what makes quantum mechanics random. This randomness gives rise to “true irreversibility”, and irreversibility is what time is all about. How can we have a complete theory of “spacetime” without understanding the nature of time?
Well that did the job of getting my thought processing going, with my morning coffee plus the bonus of some humor while getting dressed.
Great start to the day.
I think that it is like the Gödel's incompleteness theorems, we will always have something that we cannot explain
There is always more Truth.
I combine that with the realisation that all rationalisation will devolve to axioms, infinite reccurance, or circular reasoning
Indeed, why does anything exist in the first place? What was before? Anything that exists is made up of something, but what's the "something"? And what's the "something" made of especially if there's a smallest unit of space?
It is not Gödel but a lot of foundational problem in math comes from that they try to define stuff recursively . The declaration should have all information about its implications (or definition) in it . A theory of everything has the same problem its all in there . The error I see with it is certain processes or function don't carry those information . So in theory you can start with a simple idea/theory but in the process it becomes more and can not explain everything this way.
What should be proved that is not proved
I'm glad you got your pep back! I was worried drama was getting you down
Every video of you on quantum physics is an eye opener for me....
i considered theoritical physicists are epitome of human excellence and single minded sages meditating for human advancement (rishis)....now i feel that they are geniuses but humans.
The Planck length does not specify the resolution limit of space itself. It's "just" the lower limit how small an object with the property of mass/energy could be before it becomes a black hole; this happens due to to some inevitable effects of how we understand physics right now.
Is this surprising given Gödels incompleteness theorems? Actually the argument you gave about needing to assume the resolution limit sounds a lot like the second incompleteness theorem. That is, a complete and reasonably expressive theory can not prove its own consistency. I think we can not find a theory of everything but are instead doomed to always expand our understanding a little bit more, never reaching the limit. I find this very comforting because it means that science can never die.
That has already been done by David Wolpert.
I think you are confusing reality with a theory of reality here. An alleged indeterminacy in spacetime might be measurable somehow so it would be a feature of reality and not of our theory of it. Furthermore, for all we know, the universe is not a formal system, so Gödel's theorems do not apply to it.
Sabine, You need to check out the Chaos Theory of Everything, starting with this article : "How Chaos Theory Brings Order to the Evolution of Intelligence", which i think proves. that the evolution of intelligence is inevitable.
I've never understood why physicists take the Planck length so literally. It's the unit of length which can be derived from dimensional analysis of the gravitational constant G, the reduced Planck constant hbar, and the speed of light c. Assuming no other dimensionless factors, you get 10^(-35) m. But why should the assumption of "no other dimensionless factors" be valid?
Factors of 1/(2*Pi) pop up everywhere in theoretical physics, sometimes one for each spacetime dimension. If we really have 11 spacetime dimensions (as in M-theory), we're talking about a potential dimensionless factor of 10^-10. Then all of a sudden the "smallest length scale" drops from 10^(-35)m to 10^(-45) m.
Not only the dimensional argument. It is the length, such that if you try to put enough energy to measure it, you create a black hole.
The wiki article says that at the Planck length, wavelength and Schwarzschild radius are the same. Any distance below that is meaningless because there is nothing it could interact with that isn't a black hole.
I heard this and that about this theory. Some time ago I'd say peoples are almost there - today I say: we're completly lost, whole physics beyond highschool is a nightmare and cr...p. Nobody understands a thing. The more they develop the further we drift into Space... with or without spacesuit. You're absolutely right there Lady Sabine!
I have a bunch of crackpot theories of my own
They don't work either.
Cheers
Cheers😉
I have only one theory and it Works! It is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" (Despite what Sabine and Academia claim, TOE Exists!)
Beauty is found in patterns. Discovering patterns is how hypotheses are developed. This is why beautiful theories are appealing.
Beauty involves harmony of disparate elements always toward something higher. Like the superorganism formed by ants is beautiful, a body formed by cells. Life. It’s in the fundamental symbolic qualities of that. See Romers “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” for example. You wouldn’t think the eye was a symbolic structure because it’s so important functionally, but apparently it is-the sun, Earth, and a Black Hole. Literally everything we
Know from science fits perfectly with that symbolism. And Romer says EVERYTHING is like that. 😮❤ That’s beautiful 😍
I have no schooling on the topic and kind of felt like some theories were just making up things to explain away problems, so I avoided going too deep into anything from anyone else. I always figured everything existed in a gas like liquid where dark mater and dark energy were just low and high pressure zones of this liquid. Light speed is the maximum speed at which the liquid can move out of the way before slowing down that which moves through it. Spin creates low pressures where the absorption of energy into matter creates gravity. Light heat electricity plasma are all different versions of this fluid at different speeds and densities. The physical properties of matter are determined by the speed and densities of particals and how they affect the ambient liquid adjacent to them. The particals them selves is the liquid caught in a loop balancing pressures. Time and the perception of time are different and seem to confuse people due to the density of the ambient energy having an effect on the perception of time. All in all, everything is just pressures of this liquid finding balance. It can't get much simpler than that. I would love to do this for a living, but life sometimes has different plans. Love your videos. They are amazing, and your common sense and humor in it is appreciated. Lol I wish you all the success. Thank you.
Hey, I'm a physics student and find these ideas very interesting and close to my own. Would you care to elaborate? Feel free to comment here or dm me. I'm particularly interested in you conception of spin within this framework
I don't know if math would support your theory but I do like its simplicity.
Go and find the evidence for this! Theories get ruled out or proven right, by evidence! Good luck!
@@KieranLeCam I completely agree and I would be more than excited to fully prove or disprove out the theory but time is limited with a family to support. On top of that if I write a paper on the topic with no actual credentials and evidence to support it I fear it would fall on deaf ears. Probable for good reason to filter out many duplicate bad ideas. I just hope having an open conversation sparks ideas in those that may be in that field and may help them create their own theory. Also the evidence is hidden in the common things we see every day. By the laws of nature all things must obey the same laws no matter how big or small. People just get lost in the complexity as size changes. We are masters at our level of perception but as we go beyond what we can easily interact with things get fuzzy quick, so we make better tools. But, at what scale do those tools start to fail because they are trying to measure the things they them selves interfere with or are so large that size of the receiver become impossible to create. At those points common sense mixed with pattern recognition is the final bit of information we will fall upon and that info will always be under speculation due to lack of rock solid evidence. Short of some great ground breaking discovery that has actual changes on the world I feel we are nearing a stalemate for evidence. I greatly respect all those in pursuit of such a thing though because it will not be an easy path to walk.
@@Rayndoun @Rayndoun you're right! But I think the issue in physics right now is a mixture of a few things. First, understanding how to deterministically resolve the measurement problem (something many physicists just accept as part of the math as though it was not a problem). Second, resolving deterministically, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, due to wave mechanics, and the necessity of creating an increasing amount of interfering waves to create a localised standing wave that describes a particle. Explaining Dark Matter. And explaining Dark Energy.
I personally emphasise determinism, because as much as physicists accept math as math, and determinism as the old "classical" way, it can make no sense to have algebra, a tool we already know is a tool of abstraction, that we created with deterministic math (1 + 1 = 2 means 1 and 1, then 2, which is a causal property within the math) and by being determined humans, could return an idea that things aren't determined fundamentally, yet appear determined for us. I insist on the logic of determinism in order to build any kind of system or world in the first place. In fact, you cannot observe the consequences of non determinism... without a determined world built on causal rules! Very suspicious!
Physicists have on average, let go of determinism, due to a few key experiments that suggest a disconnect between objects, such as Bell's Theorem. But I think the picture is incomplete and so they have to conclude non deterministically. Re-introducing determinism as a prerequisite, forces us to create more fundamental objects than the ones we know of, and to think of fundamental particles as 3 dimensional objects again, which is a long lost custom, and I think physicists are uncomfortable with imagining more fundamental objects we have no evidence of yet. But I digress.
There are sub mysteries that tie in as well: 3 generations of Matter, the "axis of evil", the uniformity of the distribution of Matter throughout the universe, duality of light. Your theory needs to explain ALL these things, or a substantial portion to be considered as viable. The only way to do that is evidence. You have to distinguish your theory as the best by doing what none other could before. So as much as you're struggling, if it matters to you to get your theory out, you have to go through that step. The reason I'm encouraging you, is you might be wrong, but the only way to get to the correct theory, is to realize you're wrong about some other theory first. If you never search, you'll never know. And I think it's sad to just languish in darkness.
You spoke of a "fluid" for example. In physics this word has a rigorous definition. A material that flows in response to a force. You spoke of "getting out the way" of particles moving, and the fluid "slowing down" particles. This is good, you're thinking physically. Things slow down because of friction. There will be an exchange of energy between the fluid and the particle. And the fluid will be made of something. On Earth fluids are made of molecules, and any friction would cause reactions. So, what is your fluid made of? Also, where are the reactions of particles going through this fluid? You talk about spin as well, which is a rigorously defined concept. It is a very specific quantum mechanical effect. I highly recommend watching videos from 3 Blue 1 Brown, Minute Physics, Veritasium, Arvin Ash, Science Asylum, Anton Petrov, and for more in depth analyses PBS Space-Time, and reading as much science related posts, including papers when you're ready, and learning to be comfortable with as much math as possible, in order to get a more intuitive educated understanding of all these terms. I'm still learning the math of how physicists even came up with spin in the first place, and there are so many conditions to satisfy. For instance, I just learned that it is in part because of Special Relativity that we conclude fermions and bosons, must have half integer, and integer spins respectively. If you learn and keep going, I see no reason why you couldn't one day be a physicist for a living. But you have to apply yourself. And yes, it will involve eventually going to university to learn all the mathematical tools you just can't easily find in videos, or online.
Find all the evidence, and your theory, whatever it will then be (it's always unlikely our first idea is the solution...), will be correct! Go for it! As the Japanese say: がんばって! "Ganbatte!" Or: Do your best!
Ultimately, any explanation of the universe or our own individual existence must resolve to answering a singular question which cannot be answered, "What is the plausibility of an event that occurred only once?"
I've discovered the fundamental model underlying every Sabine video:
(1) Optimistic idea, theory or proposition
(2) Sabine: "Nope"
Seeing progress being made on understanding complexity and entropy made me worry someone would get to a TOE before me. So i sat down for the last year and did it. Your channel and others were key in that motivation. Thank you.
From cosmic structures to quantum chemistry in 1 damn equation set and theory framework ❤️.
Don’t say I never offered to share here first 😊
The Limits of HUman Mind..Not Spiritual
It plays a significant role in the problem. We tent to impose that limitation over our solutions from what I can see.
ı think what meant by spacetime uncertainty is not the fact of position of space time to be uncertain but rather curve of space time to be uncertain but it gets interesting when imagining things in big scale imagine that there is billion of atoms that are close to each other in equal distance and they can be in every direction of position the next moment because they are more probable to unify with each other so their space time curve increases and as this curve increases this curve becomes more likely to grow and it becomes stabilized which is true in macro world.
The answer is 42
Or 137. The fine structure constant turns up everywhere, it must tell us something....
You missed 0
The question ??
@@Pyroso16 Like this answer - very much - not too clear about its effect.
ZERO is everywhere.
Fare thee well - on life's journey
@@theostapelhe was referring to 420, which signifies Marijuana celebration day, he is just kidding
If there really is a limit to how small distances can be, then reality would have to be laid out on a grid.
The problem is then that there would need to be an absolute frame of reference.
In reality it does all come down to measurement.. in that the way we measure things is nothing but a convention. It's like calculus... Calculus is a mathematical hack for dealing with singularities, but the need for the hack exists simply because of the way we measure things. That is, singularities are a product of the way of measuring things... they only exist as mathematical constructs. If you don't measure, then there is no singularity.
considering the story of Bronstein being executed in a leningrad prison, it's amazing to me that there are scientists in universities today who call themselves socialists and even communists.
My favorite communists are the ones who claim that "real communism has never really been tried" but then they absolutely refuse to criticize any communist leader, whether it's stalin, castro, mao or even kim jong un.
There are plenty of bad things done by capitalist countries. Do you know that when USA and UK invaded USSR in 1928 they built a concentration camp? How about horrible tortures done by UK occupational force at the time of Mau Mau rebellion in 1952(do not recommend reading about it). And of course UK built a concentration camp - it's traditional for them.
Hi yanwain. Communism is a swindle. It makes "The People" feel they're in control while at the same time disempowering them and giving real power to a few who can't be tossed out. This is why they're mostly called "Peoples Republic of --(fill in the blank). Cheers, P.R.
Awesome video! Could you please talk a bit more about the measurement problem in future videos? I am very interested to learn more!
I recommend you her recent video about the quantum zeno-effect, if you didn´t watch it.
She’s talked about it a lot in past videos. I think there’s a playlist - the quantum mechanics one maybe?
What we really need is a bigger particle collider 😅
Exactly!
No! Not bigger Particle Collider! We need a person with Bigger Brain! - I think that there is one, because TOE exist despite Sa......e and Academia denying it. - Just find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Dr. Hossenfelder, in your presentation today at 4:20 you have a page of formulae beginning with "Definition of Action" with perhaps 9 formulae. The image drops below the timeline for the Yourube video so that timeline "mars" the image. Would you please re-present this page, with the entire graphic above that UA-cam timeline. And, unless I missed it, would you please do a series of videos on each of these formulae, explaining them, why they are presented in the ordre than you present them, and the problems that occur between each "step". Thank you.
It will just be 42 anyways
8:00 what do you think needs to be done re the measurement problem? Personally I was more worried about it a few years ago, but decoherence seems like a good working explanation for making quantum tech, and objective collapse is actively being tested for in experiments.
I appreciate Godel's input to this issue.
Simply put, because humans are made up of the universe, and our theories are thus the universe attempting to describe itself, we can never reach a "proper theory of everything" because our descriptions arent the thing being described. The information content of the universe always exceeds that of a portion of the universe. This is more a resolution argument than a volume argument.
I view Godel's Incompleteness Theorem as the math equivalent to Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle. Because our descriptions obey different rules than the thing being described, the only thing constraining those descriptions to reality is the process of science, which is finite, and infinite information gain (certainty gain) is needed to reach a "proper ToE". We only get asymptotically closer to a ToE as science progresses.
Where can I sign up for the newsletter?
The "law of diminishing returns" applies to resource depletion. "Low hanging fruit" is easily harvested, but as time goes by more and more effort must be applied toward achieving the desired harvest. This is most profoundly applicable to world petroleum production, where the value of everything is linked to its availability. Depletion is most evidenced by inflation. "You can take that to the bank!"
You mentioned Matvey Bronstein. Here is something interesting I recently discovered about the Bronstein cube, which displays the fundamental constants c, G and ħ at opposing corners. If you change c to 1/c², then multiply the constants together, you arrive at the following invariants: Għ for non-relativistic quantum gravity, ħ/c² for quantum theory and G/c² for General Relativity. In geometrized Planck units, Għ = L⁵/T³ (“quintic torsion”), ħ/c² = MT (mass-action), GR = L/M (Cosmological linear density) and Għ/c² = L³/T (Renormalization Group flow). RNG flow represents the way the space of all physical systems maps into itself under coarse-graining. Essentially, the Bronstein cube self describes itself.
Għ appears in the Bekenstein formula for the holographic light-front entropy: S = A/(4Għ). Therefore, we can consider negentropy to be 1/S = Għ /(¼A) cm³/s³ [d³(s³)/dt³]. If quintic torsion and acceleration are constant over a period of time, 1/S ≈ cubic velocity c³ [d(s³)/dt]. When we assign the corresponding numerical values to the constants and divide holographic light-front negentropy by RNG flow, then c³/(Għ/c²) = (2.69440×10^31 cm³/s) / (7.83142×10^−56 cm³/s) = 3.44050×10^86 cm³/s. This is equivalent to the measured value for the comoving volume of universe Vc(t0) = ~3.566×10^86 cm³.
Therefore, we can consider that the values of the constants are derived from the universe as a self referential system in a constant unit of time that is the present. Re-evaluating the Bronstein cube offers the possibility of realizing Matvey Bronstein’s dream of unifying GR, QM and Newtonian gravity “into one single whole”. 2:59
In a rational system of units c=h=G=1, which means that 1/c=1/h=1=G=1. Dude, only little children and madmen are finding it interesting to turn a unit cube round and round all day long. ;-)
I love the way you make me think!!! Sabine for president!
I was delighted when you started talking about Albert Einshtein. Now you are telling us about Mux Plunck... ❤
Best when you talk about physics! ❤
As P.W. Anderson already said: A Theory of Everything will be a theory of almost nothing.
A Theory of Everything is a pipe dream as any theory always have a limited complexity range of applicability, in other words: complexity is a boundary for the predictive/explanatory power of any theory.
Reality hierarchical structure is an objective fact that physicists dreaming about a theory of everything keep ignoring.
Hegel was right: quantity leads to quality change sooner or later.
I very much enjoyed your book, Lost in Math. Its quite insightful, and offers a different perspective from that of the typical researcher.
Sabine, I know you've received quite a bit of grief lately over your commentary, but you can only be you. And that, my dear lady who is a hundred billion times smarter than I am, is the final theory of everything. Everything that matters anyway. In short, you are appreciated for both who you are and your talent at explaining complex scientific matters simply for those of us who struggle to balance our bank accounts.
Indeed! Nice comment.
Why is it that really smart physics nerds, who otherwise seem to be introverted and not super socially skilled, have the absolute wittiest humour of all?
Some of the sarcastic witty comments Sabina rolls off is totally making my day.😂👍❤
To Sabine:
Just a regular normal subscriber here. I have seen that recently you have put yourself out there about your sadness and disgust with your professional field and your place in it. Today a YT vid unrelated to what I was searching popped up on my screen . It's called Goobie and Doobie. A 40 year-old married man with degrees from MIT and Duke Med School who is unhappy and disgusted with the limitations and frustrations of the life of a neurosurgeon just talks into the camera about his life from beautiful natural settings. He caught and held my attention for two 45-min vids. I found his vids to be introspective and enlightening and I was not alone. One had 13M views. Anyway, I thought I'd pass it on to you and any of your subscribers who might find it interesting.
--Cheers
PS: "Goobie" is his pseudonym. "Doobie" is his dog (not sure if he's undercover with a pseudonym as well).
Often people mean intuition when they mean beauty. As modern philosophers know, intuition is good evidence and highly predictive