Видео

gravity=weight=quantity????

Nope.

Thanks for this interview, and all your others. If I can make a suggestion, I wonder if you could not do the moving background? It’s distracting (more to some of us than others), and it uses bandwidth, so lower quality video on (say) mobile or other poor internet. Just a suggestion!

you guys have been trying resolve gravity and quantum mechanics forever. Whats going on?

The rock would never be in a super position, it's too large. Smaller particles that could have a superposition are too small to impart a gravitational change

All matter is entangled with the gravitational field. A two-slit experiment will result in an entanglement with different metric configurations for the two masses. I have no problem with that. However, quantum mechanics is linear and this can only really be correct for weak gravitation. In that case the nonlinear terms are c^{-2} times smaller and insignificant. The problem becomes apparent if the masses are large or we have very strong gravitational interaction due to very high energy. This is where the real problem enters in. Oppenheim might in a funny way be right there, where these gravitational phases may be taken up into spacetime itself in a different form. I am glad this is short. One problem with listening to Wallace is that it is a bit like trying to figure out what Porky Pig is saying.

Can explanation of the different phenomenology that MW and standard quantum theory predict for quantum gravity fit into a single-world framework? Or can the differences be explained only in terms of and by appealing to an infinitude of parallel worlds?

Superposed locations of massive objects are hard to pull off in the real world! This is where the on and off mass shell ideas shine: Only interactions that are On and within the Mass shell there so conservation of the quantum numbers over sequences in time, this acts as a partition on all the possibilities entailed by superposition.

Bhaiya..I have founded new theory...Cosmological tubulence theory..In which I have shown that Due to death of star turbulence form ..I have shown through Einstein hilbert equation...This turbulence called Reccie Ring

19:57 n+m zero na ho to commute nahi karenge?

Man, sorry to disappoint you, but everybody knows that String Theory is BS 😂😂😂😂

How come you never read Schwartz book on QFT??? 😮😮😮😮

Zangwill + Maggiore >> Jackson

To be a good physicist, the best is to go through dedicated textbooks for Complex Analysis, Ordinary Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations, Variational Calculus, Functional Analysis, Fourier Series and Differential Geometry. Krantz, Zill, Saff&Snider have great books for Complex Analysis and ODE, i suggest going through 4 books out of the 6. For PDE Asnar and Haberman are the best options, but Pivato too is great, only a bit more sophisticated. For Variational Calculus Komzsik and Cassel (there aren't many options). Sasane for Functional Analysis, Olson for Fourier. For Differential Geometry i would suggest Oprea, Tapp and also an advanced textbook like the one by Loring Tu or the one by Lee. As for Mathematical Methods, i would skip this basic textbooks like Arfken or Kreysig (just use them as review if you really want), and go through something more "meaty" like the 3 books by Cahill, Appel and Nakahara.

Seriously complete crap!

Thanks Hassaan, you’re an informed and respectful host that allowed your guest to answer your questions without constantly interjecting like some well known ‘personalities’ on this platform. Thanks also to Dr Wallace for his illuminating insights into a range of burning scientific problems and issues old and new. Always a pleasure to listen to this brilliant writer, teacher and communicator. Cheers.

Goddamn, is that Mike from breaking bad 😮

The guy who ruined physics