String Theory, Quantum Gravity and Black Holes (Or, Are We Holograms?)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 тра 2024
- Join Brian Greene and Juan Maldacena as they explore a wealth of developments connecting black holes, string theory, quantum gravity, quantum entanglement, wormholes, and the holographic principle.
This program is part of the Big Ideas Series, made possible with support from the John Templeton Foundation.
WSF Landing Page Link: www.worldsciencefestival.com/...
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS on this program through a short survey:
survey.alchemer.com/s3/758752...
00:00 - Introduction
02:40 - Welcome Juan Maldacena
06:40 - How does Einstein want us to think about gravity?
16:00 - Entanglement and quantum mechanics
23:47 - How does string theory fit into quantum mechanics?
30:48 - The mathematics of extra dimensions
38:07 - Predicting what universes are of higher measure
45:07 - The Entropy of black holes
53:36 - Does string theory shed light on foundations of quantum theory?
01:03:06 - What do you think about loop quantum gravity?
01:13:33 - Einstein's and ER = EPR
01:21:40 - Is quantum mechanics where you thought it would be today?
- SUBSCRIBE to our UA-cam Channel and "ring the bell" for all the latest videos from WSF
- VISIT our Website: www.worldsciencefestival.com
- LIKE us on Facebook: / worldsciencefestival
- FOLLOW us on Twitter: / worldscifest
#briangreene #wormholes #stringtheory - Наука та технологія
Just gotta say this: something I really like about Brian Greene is that even though he has opinions on the topic his interview subject is discussing and could easily BE the one being interviewed at any moment, he carefully doesn't interrupted his guests and lets them say what they have to say in their own way. As obvious as it is that doing so is literally the POINT of interviewing guests, almost NO ONE who does it seems to be able to get out of the way. The great Terry Gross of course is the absolute master of interviewing and Brian Greene is just like her in this respect. Thanks Brian.
Hey I’m a 20 year old kid who never had the money for school but I teach my self about these theory’s and I love to watch you alot Mr. Briangreen
Stop fishing for compliments.
Use of "theory's" in this context is wrong. Start with learning the basics of grammer first.
Thanks to joy for correcting my typo.
First of all, how dare you talk #$^! to a young man enjoying physics content. Absolutely pathetic. Get lost. @@reimannx33
2nd, keep it up man. I'm 39 and have been teaching myself physics for over 10 years now. I would suggest that you keep exposing yourself to the highest level content you can sit through, and don't shy away from looking at the math any time it's shown, even if you don't know what it all means at first. I can tell you for a fact that these subjects start to really take shape in your mind over time either way, and it is possible to even get intuitive understandings for aspects of the math over time, with or without the ability to do a calculus problem on paper. But if you ever feel the desire to jump into the math, don't let anything hold you back. Especially grumpy idiots like ^ that guy with a chronic case of backpfeifengesicht, no doubt. (probably also don't start with string theory though, in terms of math, lol)
Oh yea, and something that helped me a LOT. Whenever you hear a statement that creates a question in your mind, or you don't understand something but you are able to formulate that confusion into the form of a question, ---- write it down! ---- You will be shocked at how often and quickly those questions get answered over time, if you have the wherewithal to jot them down or at least ask them out loud when they pop up. Sometimes I can be struggling with a concept or a line that a physicist says that throws me, for an hour, and then within 60 seconds of writing it down, my brain clicks and says "you already know the answer to this one, you just forgot x y z aspect of it" or "don't you remember so and so was explaining this in that video you saw 3 weeks ago, go find it."
It's also educational fun to look back at your own questions from 1 year ago, 2 years ago, and you will realize just how much more interesting they have become over time, as you add to your base level knowledge.
@@pseudocalmYou are a rambling, over the hill, "pseudo-physics" student rolling in past failures, and trying to convince self that denial is the best strategy. Quite the comic.
It’s great when both the interviewers and interviewees know their shit extremely well
Great discussion, Brian, you're an excellent interviewer asking the right questions in the right way that allows us laypeople to enjoy the interaction without dumbing it down too much
Hard to imagine anyone doing a better job of this interview.
Thank you for the stream/video Brian. Have a great weekend!
Fun to watch Brian squirm/reach a bit. I like Juan's attitude: He's like, "Whatever."
I love how modest and diplomatic they are when discussing these concepts.
You mean these nonsense and unproven bogus speculations? None of what they are discussing has been proven in a lab. Green is an outspoken atheist, who’s gone on public record stating how he sees no place for God , Christ & the Bible being taught in public classroom. So why should be allow you Brian’s “theories” to be taught as fact? Atheism is being taught as standard religion in the classroom today, where young students are brainwashed into such concepts like “big bang” -A magical explosion which came from nothing, or that all humans are just holographs on a giant TV screen, or how we should spend our time workshopping men like Richard Hawkins, instead of Christ. (Richard Hawkins publicly stated how he wishes for the cross on the Bible to be replaced with a picture of himself… let that sink in for a second…)
I always enjoy listening to your guest. Great video as always!!!!!
I'll watch it again-I feel compelled to try to understand some of this stuff but it makes my head hurt like nothing else I've ever encountered!
Brian Greene is a RockStar!
Thanks Brian for not shying away from the nuance involved with the field 😤😎.
Juan kept it simple, and to the point. I appreciate that 🔥😊.
"Your videos always leave me in awe and eager to learn more about the mysteries of the universe. Thank you for fueling my curiosity.
"
Thank you for this video discussion and your position. We need to continue to push the frontier of knowledge further.
Maldacena is brilliant, and Brian adeptly accesses his wisdom.
do you want to help me find a reason to discredit an idea to unify gravity. I have had no luck finding one yet. so far everything fits.
@@atticuswalker8970Einstein's theory of gravity is just not consistent with quantum mechanics. And can't be made most probably because the underlying principles in both the theories are radically different.
@@Blue-ik8ij but the observations as fact. do support most of the current theory. so people have faith in them. forget to stay objective. refuse to consider my idea that fits everything we can observe.
@@Blue-ik8ij I can tell you how it works and you can reject it on principle. but not with reason or observable fact.
odds are you will just stop trying to use faith to persuade me. or just not respond out of fear of feeling stupid if you are wrong. call me stupid. like Republicans do. when I am just trying to help
I'm not sure how to interpret your question, so I'll just mention some impressions strengthened by the interview.
I've come to regard quantum to cosmic phenomena as ubiquitously emergent experience of boundlessly evolving complexity. In other words, probabilistic quarks underlie everything from energetic potential to materialization hosting wildest imaginings. Both his ADS/CFT equivalence and the holographically entangling ER = EPR realization point to this.
Juan's elucidation of complexifying black holes strikes me as vividly describing ubiquitously emergent quarks, underlying all of perception. Universal emergence is detectable as the forces of nature. Among them gravity, readily observable in macroscopic specificity, attenuates to undetectability at probabilistic quantum scale.
The holographic imagery inspires a lucid vision of the emergence of the evolving complexity of universal experience.
Tom Murphy
Can’t get enough of this episode. Two brilliant minds.
I think it is fair to say that the smaller we go, the more complex the Universe is, and this phenomenon is relative across the board. I would suggest that the puzzle is infinitely long. If String Theory is the only mathematically possible explanation, these idea's should be pushed to exhaustion, or until someone develops a radicaly better theory. As it stands the scientific explanations are incomplete, and unsatisfactory, which leaves more space in the human mind to seek for alternatives.There is a balance and a breaking point but we're not there yet, therefore this cannot be deemed as unproductive time spent. Keep up the good work!
Thank you for this interview. This is probably the most interesting and understandable conversation I've seen on string theory and AdS/CFT for someone without a formal understanding of modern physics.
Trying to learn through this amazing content! This is a hobby for me, I don’t expect to become an expert, but it’s so fascinating. I truly appreciate people like Brian Green that are socializing sciences, and feel grateful to have access to this library of content. I cannot believe how much fascinating it would be for someone that put the effort to learn the mathematics… maybe someday! Thank you
I'm with you! These World Science Festival videos are educational and many are exciting to learn from. You do not have to have the "mathematical formalism" to learn from this particular video. That's the point.
@@EdruezziHow quaint of you, or is it simply pure narcissism?.
Thank you both!
Thank you both Dr. Green and Dr Valmaldeseana for the wonderful discussion . Being a non physics person I did not understand a lot of things disxussed but certainly stimulated my interest .May be further discussion will help me to understand string theory better .Please keep up the good work!
Dear professor Greene, how does a string maintain the same vibration indefinitely without becoming a different string?
What determine how it will vibrate?
This video is LOVED by Physics students from St. Finian's College Secondary School Mullingar Co. Westmeath Ireland
I have been binge-watching your videos and I have been learning so much. I have a rather trivial question: what does the artwork behind Prof. Greene represent? Thank you for bringing knowledge to the masses.
Fantastic Discussion! Thankyou.
How does the ADS CFT paradigm apply to the similarities displayed between the Two-Slit Experiment and Gravitational Lensing?
The limit of information within a surface is that of an event horizon for a black hole. the holographic principle would rely on there being a limit of mass that can be within a specified volume before it collapses to a black hole. The curvature limit of space aligns with the information basis of QM.
48:03 - This is juicy. It sounds like some of the branes and fields persist in transmitting information fwd / bwk in time, and via entanglement (location).
Hey Brian. If entropy of a black hole is determined by its surface area and not its volume then it sounds to me that space/time is indeed "flat" (2D). Therefore using entanglement (photon spin), there is nothing stopping us from shooting photon through the event horizon and "reading" what is inside when the corresponding photon (our side) changes after some event inside the event horizon.
I liked Brian,s comment that juan Maldacena was diplomatic about loop quantum gravity
Great talk. Thank you
Thank you very much for the great Video
firstly, recent research has shown that Einstein’s theories of relativity hold up when tested against the gravitational pull of the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. this is an exciting development in the field of astrophysics and could lead to new discoveries about the nature of black holes and the universes..
secondly, the time it takes for humans to accept new ideas can vary widely depending on the idea and the context in which it is presented. some ideas are quickly embraced by society, while others as E.V. take generations to gain widespread acceptance. this is often due to factors such as cultural norms, political climate, and the availability of information. however, it’s important to remember that progress is not always linear, and that even ideas that were once considered radical can eventually become mainstream...
thank you for sharing these wonderful conversations, they really area gift
Love Brian greene
I like Brian Greene, I do. However, the best part of this watch was the fact that string theorists are slowly going on the back foot, defensive. 40 years and not a single prediction. All the great leaps forwards had instant or rapid applications. How much longer will this be the focus? I'm not saying bin it. I'm just saying maybe it's time to start at the basics again ❤
Glad to see Holographic Universe Theory getting some side-ways mentions.
Hello everyone, i dont want to show off but , I'm 11 and very interested in learning theories describing our universe so thankyou for this discussion .
HEY Dr. Bryan Green I follow you a lot. Here I have heard you saying as a physics major in your first degree the instructirs did not mention quantum entanglement. How about the EPR was it inclusive in the curriclum back then?
Less interruption would do nicely. This way Dr. Maldacena, would have a better chance to present his thoughts.
That was interesting listening, thanks to both of you. A little frustrating in that when I hear talk about the inside of Black Holes, in the thinking that Gravity is a property of the energy interactions within the Higgs Field, gravity cannot exist inside Black Holes to any depth, and so there is no singularity. Gravity ends at the Higgs Field event horizon of a Black Hole at one end and at the Quark energy event horizon at the other. What it also says is that where energy is applied to a particle to accelerate it to near the speed of light, the Kinetic energy accumulated by the particle is visible as “phantom” matter so where this matter can be “created”, at the LHC for instance, a small LIGO module in close proximity to the Proton Beam should be able to detect an increase in Higgs Field energy as a Gravitaional Variation relative to the background Field Energy. Depending on the arrangement I think that the laser should exhibit a red shift as the protons in the beam approach the speed of light. In the so doing this might also demonstrate that Dark Matter might be explained as Phantom Matter, or variations in the Deep Space Gravitation due to variations in Higgs Field Energy Intensity Gradient.
At 20:50 Juan says: "It might be the world is not quantum mechanical at those (Planck) scales". Doesn't that arose doubt that string theory has wrong (or uncertain) starting point when it tries to quantice the near Planck scale strings using QM?
I saw ER=EPR in a 1994 book by Tim Maudlin, and he said it was already tentatively mentioned a couple of times by some professors in the eighties. But of course there is a difference between an idea and having it worked out
HI @Robinson9714 ! What do think of my idea?
Gravity = The Spaceless and Timeless Vacuum Energy State of Matter!!! :)
1:10:57 - Groovy! ^.^
Sangat menarik kajian seperti ini 👍
Great Discussion ‼️🔥💯
Both Scientist are awesome Thank you
@@brendawilliams8062 I absolutely concur
Thank you
I had a thought. When space of a black hole collapses, what happens to plank constant? How can you squeeze more energy into the same/smaller space? Expel it into parallel complex space?
Get out of here ...
As to string theory, the progression from loop quantum gravity to string theory to general relativity is pretty fantastic.
Thank you Science! 🌈
This conversation was certainly stimulating at a personal level but they seemed oblivious to what is happening elsewhere. Its pretty abstract but at least acknowledged the effects of COVID to these type broadcasts in previous episodes was a factor. Not so much right now with the world turned upside-down concerning the Israel-Hamas turmoil. Must be the "multiverse effect" that Brian Greene and thier hosts have no idea about. What planet do they live on? Would like to go there - things are getting heated up here, right now.
Nice show.
Juan is legendary too
I find the dimensional reduction argument to be interesting.
In computer science, everything can be expressed one dimensionally - as an arbitrarily long string of bits, given an appropriately complex interpretive device.
My thought is if the language we describe the universe in has this property, then perhaps a theory of the universe may also have this property - that dimensionality starts at one, then can be added or removed for interpretive convenience.
Another interesting property of this computer science language, is that everything is based on logical bits. On the expressive side, this is simply the ability to hang two different symbols on a string, and on the interpretive side, this implies logical differentiability between two meanings.
In physics, these differentiable meanings don't show up as simple two state binaries, but as complementary pairs. These kinds of precision/accuracy trade offs, and uncertainties, are the hallmark of scientific (rather than purely logical) reasoning.
I'm not even sure it's possible to have a theory of everything physics, but I think it helps to think about a theory of everything scientific as perhaps the next best thing. We might actually get to the meta theory first.
So, as an axiomatic starting point, one might propose two experimentally differentiable symbols A, B such that when measured dA*dB>=c, where c is some constant.
c represents an admission of some amount of unknowability, however small in comparison to the scales of A and B.
I think this admission of a non zero c in physical logic is essential to engaging in the most precise, comprehensive scientific reasoning.
I suppose the idea I'm playing with is that Heisenberg's insights have deep metaphysical meaning - it gets to the heart of observability, which is critical to experimental verification, and quantitative differentiability, or the ability to be interpreted.
In a way, it describes science as a game of chasing a will o' the wisp of unknowability.
It's the paths described by the chase that are the product of this activity.
Catching a will o' the wisp was never going to happen, that wasn't the point.
We knew it was this kind of game when we started, or else it would have been a solved mathematical problem, instead of a scientific problem.
The discussion here reminds me of Aquinas’ question of “How many angels can sit on the tip of a needle?” 🙂😇 26:39 !! I guess as many as you like! Maybe we are now in the metaphysical??? 😁. Thank you both for this marvellous discussion. I look forward to the black hole description of entropy in the black hole to disentangle the connection between Einstien’s connected geometry dilemma. 1:18:43 ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️. Have a joyous Thanksgiving weekend and festive and inspirational Christmas season. 💥💥💥💥💥👏👏👏👏 1:24:50
Science is defined new mythology. Mathematics formula the mantras.
I would love to hear what Maldacena has to say on these topics
Very good intervew!! Did you like??? Like it
Entanglement is a necessity to monitor and maintain uniformity across the expanding universe, a homeostasis mechanism in a delta universe. A simple, as yet incomprehensible, instantaneous response system without which the universe as we know it would probably not exist???
I have an enormous respect to Dr Green, though it may be underestimated that there is non-native English-speaking audience. Frequent interruptions and self-reflecting suggestive questions distract me heavily. Being a medical doctor not a physicist these presentations fulfill my curiosity. Would it be possible to let guests present their opinions a little more uninterrupted and free flowing?
you keep talking about shorter distances and LHC but at shorter distances the velocity would be so slow (since time is fixed) you could actually sit there and observe a collision of the short distance results with the particle chamber wall element, no?
I think Robert J. Lang could help with determining shapes. He lives in Altadena CA. He is associated with NASA/JPL in Pasadena CA.
Smh UGH🤯😵💫💥FANTASTIC!!💥💥
Thank you Brain to bring the physics to us!!
Funny how my first science book was The Elegant Universe lol so I actually learned string theory and quantum before newton 😂
Technically, you learned it after him. You might have learned it at an earlier age, but without time travel you did not learn it before him.
Brian and Juan, we now have a working Quantum Theory of Gravity that is testable and complete with reproducible empirical experiments with the same results if repeated over and over again and again, confirmed by empirical observations in nature with 7-Sigma level results, guided by empirical laws and physical/mathematical equations that are predictive and precise. FYI: Quantum Gravity or Quantum Gravitation have three types that are equivalent to and manifested by Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - a Quantum Entanglement at Macroscopic Cosmic Scale namely: 1. Quantum Anti-Gravity = Spin Up Quantum Entanglement State; 2. Quantum Neutral Gravity = Superposition Quantum Entanglement State; and 3. Quantum Gravity = Spin Down Quantum Entanglement State. More detailed information could be found on the published papers 2 years ago in London, Paris, and Zurich, online and at the two scientific Journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE or alternatively, you can google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA
My word what a bunch of aholes in the comments section. Why cant people be respectful to each other? Just because you hide behind a fake name doesnt give you any right to be so rude to each other. Ill just watch this excellent program and ignore the aholes from now on. I encourage others to do the same.
Well said. But that's the price of anonymity.
I find virtual particles appearing and affecting the electron magnetic moment amazing, I find reality being based in 10 dimensions less shocking. I find the analogy you gave in a different talk that the size of a string compared to an atom is similar to a size of a tree compared to the size of the universe … omg …
about the area beeing proportional to entropy: it's a bit confusing. Is it always the minimal area (sphere)? how about a space having spikes? then you could have infinite area and infitie entropy.
What if the higher dimensions are bigger then our 3 dimensions and we live in the projection or shadow of these higher dimensions. As in the way we can see the 3d shadow or a hypercube in these 3 dimensions.
I want that painting in the background. Anyone know the name of it?
awesome!
Sounded with Mr. Green was picking Mr. Maldacena brain on subjects of Mr. Green concern...
Juan accent sounded familiar 🇦🇷👏🏻
I was hoping for a more ambitious exploration of ER = EPR. ADS to CFT is frickin brilliant. I know Juan is on to something good but he might be feel the a bit nervous revealing a fairly radical idea. All I can say is, "Go for it!" and don't stop, keep following through with the idea and explore it all the way through. Haters are gonna hate.
The difficulty of combining QM and Gravity is that they combine in the First Cause Causal choice matrix. Energy/mass in spacetime is shape not force. Your problem is the shape of mass/energy in space time is dependent on future choices made. The problem your having understanding the concepts of Relativity and QM and so chasing a sensible matrix of QM with Gravity is your not understanding the only force being applied is in the First Cause Causal choice matrix and QM and Relativity are shape matrix not force matrix.
You might find matrix formulations to more accurately represent the shapes, but you can't get there abandoning Orientation around First cause causal choice which includes you as a conscious actor as genesis of force.
The mathematical unification of QM and Relativity is in the testing of Choice as a force of creation. We get this simply by noting the matrix describing first cause choice can be Relative or Newtonian if choice isn't a force of creation. The matrix of physics must be a probability density if choice is a cause. This is tested on both sides with overwhelming evidence.
QM is a matrix that shows all information at origin, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Origin. Whatever formula's you use this is your limit. Non local/ Local description of action is just poor phrasing.
You understand QM and Relativity - You don't like that it doesn't mathematically combine so say you don't understand what's causing it.
Professor Greene compose music, by stretching my intuitive creativity past the speed of light inside 2 black holes at the same time insanity is locked down in a different universe than where our stars is observed.
Hello everyone. I am a Hp guy from nowhere. First of all thank you to Brian to be an ambassador for the scientific fiend to the latest opinions of the world concerning all matters of the latest theories of the being of everything. Without him we would feel much poorer for the communication of the latest theories of the reality. Although my opinion is that we are overcomplicating the description of the nature of the universe. Obviously Einstein made his mistakes, but his general theory of relativity stands by the method of proof. All these theories remain theories and dreams to me. I understand dreaming is necessary to eventually prove anything new, but this seems like a stretch. String theory does not seem like the answer since the nature has always been proven to be simpler to what we believe it is since Copernicus. Do we have the courage to consider sharper, new creative, simpler new theorems nowadays? I do not think so. Let's at leats consider new solutions to be proven by young, new generation ideas to be proven according to the mathematical method. We have new great technological instruments that can be exploited. Thank you for your consideration & good day to everyone.
"Nature has always been proven to be simpler to what we believe it is" - uhhhhh... quantum superposition/fluctuations, wave-particle duality, dark energy, chaos theory, epigenetics, consciousness... what comparable theories are these concepts "simpler than"?
thank goodness for Brian trying to get blood out of a stone here
A man and his twin brother say goodbye. The brother goes away to a distant star at a high percentage of the speed of light. The brother then returns. The story was always that the brother who ventured away and came back would age more slowly. However given that everything is relative, how does the universe choose? From each brother’s perspective the other seems to fly away at great speed and then return. Should they both not age at the same rate .?
The classical geometry of black holes and subsequent detection of gravitational waves from black hole collisions were not thought to be an out growth of general relativity thinking.
No idea what they are talking about but I like it. Show the maths ❤🙃
I am fully aware , my friend brian, trying to test me to show to ur friend,
Is there one who is doing phd or have done quantum gravity or classical gravity black hole
2 universes connected by entanglement from 2 back holes. But how can those 2 black holes be connected?
Juan Maldacena lives somewhere on the boundary of the Universe. My head is spinning.
Modest guy.
Who’s leading the field of theoretical physics.
Well, in that "holographic" idea, the surface of your hypothetical iso-hypersphere (you hypothesize it being /on/ the edge of the universe, or, at least, very far) is defined as an isosurface, equidistant from your center by the application of the laws /formulas, to be more precise/ of relativistic gravity, so, of course, being an isosurface (hyper or not) it "negates" the gravity, drops it, it's "gravity neutral", because you define it that way, so if you project on it what's inside of it, it will be "gravity-less" by your definition. If you use /formulas of/ relativistic gravity as a projection function on an isosurface, then you /by definition/ end up with a projection of everything but the gravity (and I have a feeling you may not even need to put it as far away as the edge of the universe /which probably does not exist/).
And please don't get me wrong, as IMHO String Theory is an amazing theory.
P.S. Actually, if you take my words the other way - if/as you define a zero-gravity isosurface, then, if I am correct, it should prove that your projection on it with relativistic math used as a projection function will eliminate gravity, keeping everything else /in tact/.
Actually, if you take my words the other way - if you define a zero-gravity isosurface, then, if I am correct, it proves that your projection on it with relativistic math used as a projection function will eliminate gravity, keeping everything else /in tact/.
Crack Juan!
Hi my friend brian
Question: what evidence we have for everything breaking down into 1-dimensional strings? and what evidence do we have for extra dimensions?
if we have none, then what validity does string theories have?
A short summary:
"Please, please, say that string theory is fantastic, I am getting older and long for my youth."
it is insane to think *anyone* could get that impression from this.. also, string theory *is* fantastic...
@@Intact-gf5zz Someone could get that impression. That impression does not make me love these men less. More the opposite.
Maybe the other dimension that we need in quantum phisics îs the consciousness that îs aware of matter and subatomic particles,our own consciousness.
HOW CLOSE ARE WOLFRAM AND MALDESCENA
Don't your equations point towards hollow interiors for block holes when it comes to spacetime? The overall schematic picture is space-time gets thinner and thinner as you approach a black hole event horizon, and the entropy depends ONLY on the quantity of the surface for that particular reason. So, the event horizon is equivalent to a geometry defined as a 'surface tension of spacetime blocks'. Then what is gravity? It is an emergent phenomenon of a density gradient change of spacetime building blocks. If all these 'ifs' hold true, then there is no such a thing as 'crossing an event horizon into the interior'. A thing falls into a black hole just to be retained as information at the surface, or if a part of it is to make it through instantaneously on the other side of the EH sphere.
nice
Roger is out there in a good way
สร้างสิ่อที่สร้างระบบสร้างสรรค์จรรโลงใจและโลกที่ได้☮️ลงเอยด้วยนี่เองคือหลักการที่เราหรือใครทั่วโลกได้ใช้สมองใช้หัวคิดให้เต็มที่เต็มเปี่ยมด้วยความที่เป็นผู้นำที่มีประสิทธิภาพมีประโยชน์มีประสบการณ์ที่แท้จริงอย่างได้บทสรุปที่เป็นไปในทางที่ดีทางเดียวกันจนติดเป็นนิสัยที่ดีและเป็นติดอยู่ในใต้สำนึกที่ดีที่สะสมมาตลอดเวลาและจะสืบไปด้วยความดีเอยขอให้มีสุขสมหวังได้ดั่งใจตลอดไปได้ดีได้☮️ด้วยกันคนทั่วโลกเลยนั่นแหละทำไมเราถึงเลือกคิดตามรับชมรับฟังรายการเช่นนี้ว่าด้วยมีความเข้าใจในการใช้ความเป็นมนุษย์ชาติที่พร้อมและสมบูรณ์แบบทุกประการ ทุกประการครับ ใชีขีสิตได้ด้วยดีอย่างครบครันทุกประการ😊😊🎉
how about your own character for power is what quantum is no being manipulated ...jose vasquez.
you burned me. thank u
why the "fabric" of Spacetime cant be that missing part of that "Quantum Gravity"? What of the "fabric" of Spacetime is made up, that it can be streched, what material? Cant that "material" be quantised all of sudden?
Well this is it now
Cities to visit
Los Angeles
San Francisco
San Diego
I did some String theory then dropped out, I wasn't sure it would answer anything in my lifetime.
The fundamental flaw is that they use one dimensional strings.
If you switch it up so the open and closed strings have a simple cylindrical thickness that is constant with a surface that is very slightly textured such that the bumps and troughs on opposite sides of the cylinder cancel each other out but the location of these bumps and troughs along a length or around a hoop is free to encode information by being an irregular textural perturbation. As a _Theory of Everything_ this provides a unification of _Quantum Field Theory_ and _General Relativity_ without recourse to _Calabi-Yau_ manifolds and getting bogged down in the Swampland of 10⁵⁰⁰ possible solutions, as it is based on a universe with one fewer dimension, thereby limiting the number of solutions, and then one is designated a non-relativisitic quantised time dimension which can be thought of as a tick of a simulation which happens regardless of singularity conditions within the pair of four dimensional universes it governs: one west coast convention [+ - - -] the other east coast convention [- + + +] being the universe we are familiar with. Both have increasing entropy but originate from opposing ends. This T-symmetry, joins S-symmetry and P-symmetry and C-symmetry for a fully symmetric cosmological starting point.
The math for this is trivial and can be summarised as follows:
Z⁶⁷¹⁰⁸⁸⁶⁴·⁶⁷¹⁰⁸⁸⁶⁴ U(67108864, 67108864) structure group of Weyl spinors†
⇡↓ π₂
Y²⁷·²⁷ the 54-dimensional Ehresmannian manifold "behind the scenes"
i⇡↓ π₁
X¹·³ our 4-dimensional psuedo-Riemannian spacetime, East Coast [- + + +]
⇡
T the 1-dimension of non-relativistic quantised virtual simulation clock time
⇣
P¹·³ our 4-dimensional psuedo-Riemannian spacetime, West Coast [+ - - -]
!⇣↑ π₁
O²⁷·²⁷ the 54-dimensional Ehresmannian manifold "behind the scenes"
⇣↑ π₂
N⁶⁷¹⁰⁸⁸⁶⁴·⁶⁷¹⁰⁸⁸⁶⁴ U(67108864, 67108864) structure group of Weyl spinors†
†decomposed from U(134217728, ℂ) Dirac spinor
such that U(c, ℂ) where c = 2²⁷ where 27 = ⌊54 / 2⌋
where H¹·³* x V²⁶·²⁴ → C(Y)²⁷·²⁷ or Spin(1, 3) x Spin(26, 24) → Spin(27, 27)
You will need to view this diagram in a desktop web browser so that none of the lines undergo word wrap.
Here, the complexified Spin group with 54 implicit dimensions is based off the cardinality of the unrestricted set of dimensional measures of the 9 dimensions, where P-symmetry can be obtained via a non-chiral theory provided that m = 4k + 2 where k is a Natural number, as a necessary requirement for Complexification:
Zᵘ·ᶜ U(u, ℂ) where u is the structure group given by the formula U(u, ℂ) where u = 2ⁿ and n = ⌊m / 2⌋
⇡
Yᵐ·ᶜ Spin(m, ℂ) where m is the complexified cardinality of the unrestricted set of dimensional measures of Xᵈ given by m = ⌊(d² + 3d) / 2⌋ ⊗ ℂ
⇡
Xᵈ this d dimensional surface is based on geometry defined by Bernard Reimann where d is a Natural number
Obviously, this is a larger structure group than we need for observed phenomena, but that just implies that there are more phenomena which have not yet been observed. Given that we infer the existence of Dark Matter yet have not found it experimentally at the LHC or the same in regards to Supersymmetric superpartner 'particles' like the selectron having a large but finite group is no bad thing. If it were infinite it would seem like a cop out. Minimally we can recover what little we phenomenologically know, i.e. our current version of _The Standard Model_ by taking the subset Spin(6, 4) which is included within Spin(26, 24) given that:
Spin(1, 3) x Spin(6, 4) → Spin(7, 7)
it can also be shown that Spin(6, 4) includes the _Grand Unified Theory_ developed by Jogesh Pati and Abdus Salam:
Spin(6, 4) ≅ SU(4) x ( SU(2) x SU(2) )
ᴸ ᴿ
As you can see this is non-chiral, and this undergoes spontaneous symmetry breaking to choose an apparent asymmetry of 'particles' with left handed spin in the context of the Weak interaction within our spacetime X¹·³
SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1)
These implicit dimensions are smuggled in using imaginary numbers (specifically the normed division algebras, which exclude the Sedenions and Trigintaduonions as it is not useful to throw away multiplicative normedness). Ordinary spacetime uses the real numbers within _General Relativity,_ however the requirement to include 'particles' with right handed spin means we need a Spin(54, ℂ) theory which has a non-compact Lorentz group L = Sl(2, ℂ) included within Spin(1, 3) as that is the double cover of SO(1, 3). The math for this is outside the scope of a UA-cam comment so I refer to the answers to this question on physics stackexchange:
_What's the relationship between SL(2, ℂ), SU(2) x SU(2) and SO(1, 3)?_
so now as a result of that we have recovered spacetime from the infinite meta mathematical multiverse, although there is one remaining snag: why 54? This shouldn’t be viewed as being the magic number needed to get the math to work, so although it remains an open question it is probably something to do with knots. Edward Witten took _String Theory_ in the wrong direction with his _M-theory._ This can now be seen in retrospect as a diplomatic move to bring all the five different flavours of _String Theory_ under a single multiversal umbrella by adding an 11th dimension. This can now be seen to be a mistake as he overlooked the huge clue that _Type IIB string theory_ is the only flavour which has _S-duality_ with itself. This factoid might not be that curious were it not true that this was the reason why it connected nine dimensional D9-branes which are well suited to this model (D1 ‘strings’ are insufficient and D11 branes excessive). _Type IIB string theory_ connects through the _Grand Unification of Mathematics_ which is the _Langlands Program_ and passes through _K-theory_ and _Modular Forms_ (used by Sir Andrew Wiles to prove _Fermat's Last Theorem_ ), into a connection with _Knot Theory_ which Witten has also done work on. Unfortunately, he seems to have gotten distracted by the potential benefits of knots as a representation which can undergo surgery, rather than have the intuition that the Lorentzian (1, 3) split-signature metric is the only combination of temporal and spatial dimensions in which it is possible to tie a persistent knot. It isn’t possible in a (1, 2) “Flatland”, nor is it possible in a (1, 4) ‘universe’ as there is an adjacent hyperspace that allows a ‘strand’ to slip past its bonds, in the (2, 3) case you may encounter an adjacent dimension whose parallel universe has a west coast convention and consequently the knot can go into this and reverse all of the steps by which it was knotted and appear to unravel itself as knowledge of how to do so is stored within the history of how the ‘strands’ came to be knotted in the first place.
There is too much of a coincidence that this mathematical curiosity involving persistence operates only within our X¹·³ spacetime, which when paired with P¹·³ and quantised T you get the nine dimensions which grow the maximum set of dimensional measures needed to chart them as the Ehresmannian manifold which is initially based on Spin(54, ℂ) and as there is no other direct route from (1, 3) to any other flavour of _String Theory_ it strongly implies that those other 4 flavours describe mathematics and only _Type IIB_ has any relevance to physics. That said we still have a problem of selection, and usually Brian Greene or Sean Caroll will hand wave this away by saying all variants exist in a physical multiverse. This is unsatisfactory as it means that there are an infinite number of versions of you, so that none of your achievements have significance as other versions may be failing elsewhere. We need to be the protagonist in our own story, or at least adopt some other _Weltanschauung_ which does not undermine us existentially.