Want to learn more about the theories of the universe? Watch Sabine Hossenfelder, Roger Penrose and Michio Kaku debate the multiverse theory in full here! ruclips.net/video/W39kfrxOSHg/видео.html
Neither one of am known why Object's falls downward to Earth Surface, that's very hard to believe, knowing it's because of BONDED together Gas Molecules. Burn the Solid Object to see the freed Gas Molecules rising upward into the atmosphere, they're Born Again with New Life, quite visible to the naked eye's as Gas Smoke, Gravity Debunked. Theres no division within Classical, and Quantum Physics, that's because the Classical Universe is built on Quantum Particles, a hand full of dirt conforms such. Our Quantum Particles atmosphere enables Classical Ocean Waves. Classical human body breathe in Quantum Particles, Atmospheric Gase's. Energy's in Transformation is the driving force of the Universe. The Energy made human body in Atomic Molecular MOTION continues to Debunks Gravity none stop.
First thing's if we keep on looking this universe separately on micro & macro scales then we are definitely not going in right direction because the matter's the same on both scales & no two different types of matter is under consideration so why applying to different theories to observe same matter,either it's on small or large scales & this's common sense that something very essential's missing & that's the reason both prevailing theories not supporting each other & why don't we look beyond these theories for the answer we are striving for? Please don't mess yourself on macro level because the required answer is hidden in micro or quantum level & if we are able to solve the missing links on quantum level then macro level universe will automatically reveal itself without any further or additional theory & if without solving quantum mechanics we try to solve macro scale problems then only mess & confusion will increase & nothing else. So for the time being simply forget macro universe & don't even try to mess with it. Hope that make some sense. INSHA ALLAH.
If you want to hhave an i de, gimme me an idea, hot to get a million dollats out of lying cucademia. they promised million dollars for solving Collatz conjecture. There.
I really loved Sabine's introduction to the problem. It gave very clear starting point even to me, who didn't know why those two theories didn't work together in the first place.
Madam Hossenfelder is one of the most reliable & effective science communicators out there. She can sufficiently condense any scientific topic to fit into the limits of ordinary people... It's always a pleasure to watch her talk on any topic indeed. Such a gem...
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🌌 *Gravity Challenges Overview* - Theories struggle at atomic and galactic scales. - Questioning Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics. - Debate on the feasibility of a unified universe account. 02:19 🤔 *Quantum Gravity Challenges* - Four forces vs. quantum properties. - Theoretical incompatibility, need for quantum gravity. 06:12 🔄 *Rethinking Gravity* - Combining relativity and quantum mechanics. - Microscopic exploration for deeper understanding. - Eric emphasizes understanding gravity's origin. 08:41 📈 *Data-Guided Progress* - Data's role in refining gravity understanding. - Precision measurements for theory testing. - Historical data-driven advancements. 11:51 🤝 *Reconciliation Debate* - Challenge in relativity or quantum mechanics. - Diverse perspectives on reconciliation. - Pria stresses data's role in revealing gaps. 14:38 🧠 *Quantum Gravity Exploration* - Sabina's focus on testing quantum gravity. - Challenges of quantum mechanics and measurements. - Potential for experiments without extreme gravity. 17:10 ⚖️ *Testing General Relativity* - Pushing general relativity's limits. - Belief in gaps emerging under scrutiny. - Cautious approach using known experiments. 19:08 🌌 *Theoretical Guidance* - Eric's theoretical approach, linking to thermodynamics. - Connecting gravity laws to microscopic understanding. 20:14 🌌 *Gravitational Equations Overview* - Gravity equations resembling gas properties. - Progress in treating black holes quantumly. - Rethinking gravity from a microscopic view. 22:22 🤔 *Different Gravity Accounts* - Debate on the need for a new gravity account. - Exploring beyond general relativity. - Discussion on removing gravity from explanations. 23:02 🌌 *Gravity's Cosmic Role* - Gravity's crucial role in cosmic order. - Need for refined gravity description. - Innovative ideas to test strong gravity. 25:19 🌌 *Cosmology Challenges* - Open questions in cosmology, dark entities. - Need for a new quantum gravity perspective. - Recognition of emerging crises and gaps. 26:43 🌀 *Discussion Direction* - Differentiating quantization issues and observations. - Considering gravity as emergent. - Possibility of a more fundamental theory. 30:25 🤨 *Various Approaches Exploration* - Advocacy for exploring multiple gravity approaches. - Caution against overemphasizing dark matter. - Open-minded exploration of diverse theories. 34:23 🤔 *Assessing Modified Gravity* - Reflecting on modified gravity limitations. - Acknowledgment of appealing properties. - Realization of its non-comprehensive solution. 36:26 🎲 *Understanding Gravity's Future* - Focus on understanding, not just modifying, gravity. - Progress in understanding gravity from string theory. - Anticipation of a new gravity perspective. 38:15 🌐 *Holistic Theories Challenges* - Difficulty in untangling astrophysical issues. - Tabletop experiments for quantum exploration. - Acknowledgment of complexity and limits. 40:08 🌌 *Perspective in Theories* - Observer-dependent nature acknowledgment. - Reflection on incomplete descriptions. - Awareness of human perspective limits. 41:07 🌐 *Aspiring to Holistic Account* - Expressing cosmic humility and limits recognition. - Agreement on aspiring to a complete understanding. - Acknowledgment of brain's limitations. Made with HARPA AI
So Sabine, one of the most brilliant physicists alive, says in her intro that since the 1930s many smart scientists have devoted their lives to solving this problem, and if they couldn't make it work, then she's pretty sure she can't either. Yet somehow, incredibly, there are dozens of geniuses right here on this message thread who have figured it out. I truly and humbly stand in awe🤪
🤣A lot of megalomania out there. But I hope that SH, who is really brilliant (as mathematician too) has underestimated herself here in her tipical modesty.
Is Sabine really one of the most brilliant physicists alive? She seems to be a big physics personality, but if she is truly one of the greats I did not realize that.
@@gmrecneps I looked that up at some point. She is among the top science communicators. But not among the top theoretical physicists (although she is active in that field, not just a science communicator).
Breakthrough in quantum mechanics that could impact gravity could still come from lone wolf type researchers, but getting funding support is tricky if you are not a part of a large team.
@@gmrecnepsShe wrote a great book, "Lost in Math", that bravely critizises the methodology in physics in the last decades, and beyond that, the way of funding projects. She also makes suggestions, how to do it better. Since that, she became something like arebel in physics, and a lot of circles of mainstream and establishment try to make her mouthy. Though from her abilities and age she should have a donated professorship in her country, she´s without a payed job.
👏 ❤All three brought the point that not only we’re not able to get enough information to be able to understand the physical universe, but also, our brains are somewhat limited. Two of the panelists expressed that, despite those limitations, it’s worth trying our best. There is hope for this 🌎 after all 😊
I agree, I think it is amazing brains evolved to keep the owner from being eaten by lions have been able to understand the universe as well as we currently do. Lets hope we are able to continue expanding our understanding.
Don't think their Brain is somewhat limited, it's just that they're searching in the waste basket, for instance, they're not, but should be aware that Newton equations works perfect with Energy, setting in MOTION Earth Surface 9.8 Energy Conservation System Activity's at Quantum Level's, including ocean views, hurricane, Tornadoes, Dirt Devils, Earth Quakes, even the human body internal and external MOTION
We need many many more open discussions like this....I believe this mystery is at the very heart of our gap in the field of physics. We need radical new ways of thinking about it as conventional theories are making no progress. The UAP videos show that it is the door to wonderful things.
Especially new ontologies (theories of what the Universe is made of). If something can be in more than one place at a time, it's not a "particle" in any meaningful sense of the word. So what are particles (quanta)? What are fields? What is the vacuum? Those are the questions that need to be asked.
Very good discussion, thanks to all. Lee Smolin is the physicist whose theories I feel most comfortable with. Closer to Sabine and Priyamvada. I think Erik's theoretical approach is needed but not when confined to string theory as a method.
I like Roger Penrose's idea about wave-function collapse being a gravitational phenomenon. It explains measurements occurring in macroscopic detectors but not for single particles in empty space.
Sabine’s approach of trying to measure the gravitation field of a macroscopic quantum object seems like a very good way to bridge the gaps in our understanding of gravity. Maybe current research involving quantum computers might bring this potential closer to being realized.
This idea is suggested in Time Reborn by Lee Smolin. In a philosophical sense he suggests that space is an illusion made up by our brains and that time is a more fundamental thing. I found the book a hard read, look for some good summaries first.
This can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment. The gravitational radius (or Schwarzschild radius) is a characteristic radius defined for any physical body with mass: r(G)=2GM/c^2 Consequently: 2E(0)/r(G)=F(pl)=c^4/G=ε(pl)/r(pl): with indicating the mutual quantization of the mass (energy) and space-time: m(0)//m(pl)=r(G)/2r(pl)=n,where n-total number of quanta of the system; the tension vector flux: n=[(1/4π)(Gћc)^-½]gS ( const for all orbits of the system: n=0,1,2,3....). Moreover, the parameter r(0)=r(G)-r(pl)=(2n-1)r(pl), defining the interval of the formation of the system, at n=0, when r=r(G)=0 (for example, the state of the "universe" before the Big Bang) turns out to be a quite definite quantity: r(0)=-r(pl). In the area [(-rpl) - 0 - (+rpl)] there is an implementation of external forces, "distance": (-rpl)+(+rpl)=0 (≠2rpl). On the Kruskal diagram of the hyperbole r=0 corresponds to the true Schwarzschild feature, the features V and VI are not even covered by the global (R, T)- space-time and correspond to the "absolute" vacuum; then the singular areas above and below the hyperbolas r=0 can be formally treated as the energy source (external forces). That is, the frightening "true singularity" is actually a superconducting heterotrophic "window" between the proto-universe (the source) and physical bodies*. As a fundamental theory, GR has the ability with just one parameter: r(G)/r=k to predict, explain new physical effects, and amend already known ones. Photon frequency shift in gravitational field Δw/w(0)=k; the angle of deflection of a photon from a rectilinear propagation path =2k, the Newtonian orbit of the planet shifts forward in its plane: during one revolution, a certain point of the orbit is shifted by an angle =3πk, for a circular orbit (eccentricity е=0); in the case of an elliptical orbit - for example, for perihelion displacement, the last expression must be divided by (1-e^2). GR/QG predicts a new physical effect: w/w(pl)=k; expression for gravitational radiation from a test body. This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present. ----------------------- *) - From this, generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^½ (w)=-[h/4πm(pl)]w. Final formula:ф(G)=-[w/w(pl)]c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, r(n')=nλ/π=(n+n')2r(pl)l , the corresponding orbital radius, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (space-time); - obviously, the quanta of the field are themselves quantized: λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl) = 2πc/w, where n'/n - system gravity unpacking ratio, n'- the orbit number (n'=0,1,2,3…). Obviously, on the horizon [r=r(rG), n'=0] the "door" is closed, however, the quanta [λ=λ(pl)] can go out singly and form the first and all subsequent half-orbits (n'=1,2, 3 ...) during the time t(0)=r/c=2nт, where т=1/w, т=((1+n'/n)т(pl), spending part of their energy on it each time. And it is this mechanism that provides the step-by-step formation of a variable gravitational field: variably accelerated expansion of spacetime as a phase space: |a|=g=πc^2/L, where L[=πr^2/r(G)] is the length of the phase trajectory (of course, the quanta coming through the "window" are also rhythmically restored). The phase velocity of evolution v'/π= r(pl)w/π; m(0)=(c/2G)rv', where v'=v^2/c. The angular momentum: L(p)=|pr|=n^2ћ [const for all orbits of the system; at n=1: L(p)=ћ] and moment of power: M(F)=dL(p)/dt(0)=nћw/2=-E(G)=E*, where t(0)=r/c, E*- energy of self-action. The gravitational field is characterized by a spontaneous flow: J*=(v'/π )(1/4π) g^2/G, where v'/π- phase velocity of field evolution. Entropy (here: a measure of diversity/variety, not ugliness/disorder) of the system: S=πε(pl)r(t)=(n+n')k, where k is the Boltzmann constant. Obviously, on the horizon entropy=min and with fundamental irreversibility, information is preserved (+ evolves, accumulates). Accordingly, m=m(pl)/(1+n'/n), where m=ħw/c^2, is the quantum of the full mass: M=n'm [
@@gehwissen3975Just as well science doesn’t know when to lay down, if it had given up 500 years ago we would still be burning witches, tilling the fields by hand and have a life expectancy of 35.
Not sure science will go anywhere if they just starting ‘laying down’. There’s quite a few theories out there, just looking for more data to show which theory to build on.
@@bishopdredd5349 Science is at a very important transition point, moving from old school to new school. It requires time and patience. We live in a society where we expect today's answers to tomorrow's questions. Society is a bit hasty these days, impatient. There is one thing I truly believe in: due to mankind's curiosity, science will continue to advance. We simply cannot dictate its pace.
@@gehwissen3975 Personally, I hold a more positive view on things. For instance, modern science is still a relatively young field. It needs time to develop, so we shouldn't expect answers tomorrow, or perhaps even within our lifetime for some questions. Of course, there are some questions that we may never find the answers to.
Thank you very much for providing this for us. It is amazing that in this 21st century we are able to hear from these incredible minds! Again thank you and your esteemed panel. H.M. Sims
In the end, all panelists seemed to agree with Feynman’s “shut up and compute”. For me, the discussion raised the fundamental question: what is the purpose of a theory - is it to predict the outcome of an experiment or to explain WHY the outcome is what it is. Quantum mechanics is scoring well according to the first definition but not that well according to the second. Gravity seems to have some problems with both.
I really enjoyed that. It really does feel like we are on the brink of new discoveries. I do wonder however, if it would happen faster if scientists got a bit more psychedelic
A GREAT ENDING: the moderator asks....what is gravity? Prya simply does not know. Erik says gravity is the cost of moving information. sounds like quackery to me. Sabina tried to answer the question although I disagree about the LORENZ part. I think Sabina won the debate by at least one light-year.
It's impressive how Sabine and Priyamvada focus on making us understand their point of view to try and find a solution. It is clear that Sabine and Priyamvada have a complementary approach centered on the scientific method introduced by Galileo. Eric, on the other hand, tells us that we can throw away Einstein's theory confident in the fact that it is a theory of everything, which does not yet agree with reality, but which will in the future. Priyamvda's allusion to free parameters that adjust theories and Sabine's look of approval was amusing, as was Sabine's allusion to the pointless waste of time and money in the search for exotic particles needed to support outlandish theories.
Good analysis.🙂 Sabine already made suggestions in her scientific papers for these table experiments, she mentions here. It´s a shame, that she hasn´t a payed professorship and must fund her research herself.
Do you think there are no more exotic particles in the Standard Model predicted to exist, like the Higgs boson was predicted to exist 50 some years ago ? So,,,,,the Higgs field does not give particles mass in the Universe but the Higgs field drags particles along with it and that's how mass comes about ? We are progressing slowly but surely.
@@Jeff-zs2pq well, the Higgs boson is not exotic in that way, it's part of the competition of the standard model. Other ideas beyond the standard model like supersymmetry would create new particles, but never were found.
@@Jeff-zs2pq No, it's many magnitudes away from that. You need an accelerator of solar systems diameter or more for that. Sabine Hossenfelder explains it very accurately in her book "Lost in Math".
That last remark by Sabine "the problem may be that we don't really understand what quantization means in the first place" sounds to me (as a layman) like the hammer hitting the nail on its head! What are particles? Some sort of localized disturbance in a field? A sort of atto-scaled crop circle maybe?
There’s no known quanta of time There’s no known quanta of gravity This can’t be a coincidence. This is an aspect of the search for quantum gravity to make quantum mechanics and general relativity compatible. Yet, gravitational fields impact time. Yet, objects traveling at speed (acting as a gravitational field?) experience time differently relative to a stationary observer. Does that not demonstrate that gravity itself is not simply the effects on spacetime? Or, are they acting via different mechanisms? Does this support time and gravity as emergent? Some theories suggest a graviton exists, but gravity is so weak that detection of a graviton is almost impossible. Gravitons, if they exist, will be both weak and very rare.
Seeing that gravity directly impacts time gravity must be tried to the idea that time does not exist and is somehow the unifying factor in a static universe where consciousness creates the illusion of time. At the beginning of what we call time the entirety of the mass and geometry was contained in a tiny or folded context and then the geometry began to unfold bringing time with it. Well what if all levels of the universe expansion exist outside of time and gravity is how we experience the early moments of the universe when all matter and all space were one folded tiny thing hence the attraction of matter to all other matter. Gravity is the proof that the universe still exists as that tiny singular all encompassing phenomenon we just don't perceive it that way. Time and maybe space themselves are the illusion because of our limited ability to perceive the universe. After all we are each a location in space time so how can we as a small piece of the universe hope to understand the universe.
In terms of engineering/applications... We have invented and used devices that are based on controlling the other 3 fundamental forces. But not for gravity. We haven't made any device that can turn up or down the gravitational pull (push) of an object with mass. I think that shows our lack of understanding of gravity.
Controle the virtual particles and you controle gravity. Virtual particles recombine. But they can recombine in many diferent patterns. Look up "edg dislocation" when bending metal. Change the atomes to virtual particles sliding against there counterparts and you got space time bending. Also known as gravity. Does ut make sense?
S. Hossenfelder is a hero for laymen like myself. So intelligent and willing to go off the reservation of commonality. I think she's correct that string theory has been pushed and pulled to breaking and not much has changed in the understanding of gravity. A novel way of looking is needed. Go Sabine!
Even if today's theories are only approximations, it is still deeply satisfying to have this understanding of gravity and its limitations. Almost all of humanity in human history was clueless about physics and the nature of the universe.
And again looking down on our ancestors. I just just think we lost some knowledge and/or we're not yet able to comprehend some stuff. And that's alright.
@@garagatza Maybe the human brain, the product of a billion plus years of evolution just doesn’t have , and maybe never will have the ability to comprehend the true nature of reality. The vast majority of humanity can barely comprehend tying their shoe laces, metaphorically speaking that is. But literally most of us can’t comprehend the inner workings of the technology we use.
The Association of Consultant Engineers (ACE), granted me membership and the title Consultant although I am only qualified to HNC level in Electrical Theory. The reason being because I was a trouble shooter on water supply pumping stations, and they were continually referring to me when their Engineers were unable to resolve specific problems concerning gravity flows. Because the fabric of Dark Energy has resultant Main Force Line (MFL) acting concentrically on neutron laden mass, the neutrons cause MFLs to become neutron dragged MFLs (ndMFLs) within the mass, the force difference between MFLs and ndMFLs is Gravity. Ie, Gravity is proportional to neutron content for a given mass!
After ten minutes of these people 'talking around' the subject I gave up. From reading the comments below it is apparent I didn't miss anything important.
This was a master class summarising the known and the unknown aspects of gravity. But even more importantly, this discussion was a demonstration of scientific thinking. Thanks.
Reductionism (division) is dual to holism (unity). These "gamblers" are making predictions -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). The equations of motion and Einstein's theories optimize your predictions about the dynamics of objects -- syntropy. Making predictions is a syntropic process! "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Simultaneity is dual to relativity -- Einstein. Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Knowledge is dual according to Immanuel Kant. Synthetic a priori knowledge -- Immanuel Kant.
As usual what Sabine says makes a lot of sense. I do not know, but we have been trying, and failing, to put gravity into a quantum box for basically a century now. Maybe it's time to ask ourselves if we really have to take that box for granted without ever questioning it.
QM looks incomplete as Sabine mentioned, but frankly GR is too. Like, by what mechanism does energy bend space-time? Why do particles follow geodesics, and what does it even mean for a field excitation? Feels to me like we'll have to fix both, maybe even throw away both altogether.
Always understood it was the mass in spacetime that gives space it’s curvature and that it was this curvature that we see translated as gravity. Bigger mass equals bigger gravitational field equals bigger escape velocities up until black holes where it’s just too big. It’s just how this works quantum mechanically seems to be where we are stuck.
@@tonib5899I believe the only method to counteract the curvature of space caused by mass is through contraction of space, potentially resulting in repulsive gravity. While space can expand, the concept of contracting space seems overlooked in scientific discourse.
@@robinkelly1770 Warp field theory, designed for propulsion, operates universally in space, independent of gravity. Its capabilities exceed our imagination. In my scenario, I aim to leverage planetary mass to elevate objects, potentially necessitating minimal energy due to the subtle interaction between an object and the planet. This approach avoids noticeable effects such as light distortion, mass alteration, or time dilation, effectively reversing gravity's influence, it's like curving space negatively by contracting, since space already expanded after Big Bang, I believe that contraction is possible.
So if Verlinde can manage to successfully describe gravity in terms of quantum mechanics isn't there still the problem of unifying that description with GR?
Because gravity is incredible weak, you just can measure it for large objects that have no quantum properties. That's why Sabine suggests better table experiments.
The idea that it is the exchange of information in quantum level, as this gentleman is saying, it could be the explanation of something like gravity between particles.
@@Thomas-gk42 It’s got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the strength, or lack there of, of gravity. The reason we don’t know the gravity of a particle is because particles can be in more than one place at the same time, so if it’s, for example, going through BOTH slits in an experiment, how do we apportion the gravity? Is it 50/50, 100/100, 70/30, or some other amount? Furthermore, Sabine never said anything at all about needing better experiments, she never mentioned anything of the sort. She’s a theoretical physicist, not an experimentalist, and she would never say “ye, let’s spend many more tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on yet another particle collider or similar experiment”.
@@aaronperelmuter8433As she said on this panel, she sees herself as phenomenologist (in fact, she´s a leading mathematician), and she has suggested experiments, published on arXiv. Sureley they need less then hundreds of million dollars.
I truly do enjoy watching those that disagree but are so respectful. Very interesting ideas, I would agree perhaps the thing that will piece this together is something we have not even thought about. And it might even be a moment of... of course it works like this. How did we not see that.
I think virtual particles moving in a "edge dislocation " fashion would explain gravity. I got the idea from bending metal at an atomic level. Exept instead of atomes sliding, it is virtual particles and there counterparts, sliding agaist eache other. Same way an infinite basketball team siting on an infinite row of chairs, they scoot over to make room for one more person. Thus generating space time and motion also called gravity. It is quit simple. The consequences are not. 😅
The big problem in current detectors is that the energy of observation effect isn’t taken into consideration. Right now, if we observe a difference when something is observed, We don’t separate the observation energy from the reaction energy. Running in circles
I feel a twitch in my eye every time someone describes gravity as a pull force. I personally believe in the "Bending of space" perspective, as described in General Relativity. In my opinion, this makes gravity an effect of mass. Therefore, I do not believe that gravity has a Quantum property as space itself does not have a Quantum property. To sum up, referring to gravity as a pull seems less reasonable to me than the explanation provided by General Relativity.
Verlinde says at 8:43 that we have a good idea of what gravity is, but in reality we don't. We don't know a) why matter bends spacetime. b) what is spacetime composed of (since it gets bent, it is composed of something). c) why matter falls towards the center of gravity. Bending spacetime is one thing, falling towards the center of gravity is another thing. We could have had only the bending, and not the falling, for example.
I think virtual particles moving in a "edge dislocation " fashion would explain gravity. I got the idea from bending metal at an atomic level. Exept instead of atomes sliding, it is virtual particles and there counterparts, sliding against eache other. Same way an infinite basketball team sitting on an infinite row of chairs, they scoot over to make room for one more person. Thus generating space time and motion also called gravity. It is quit simple. The consequences are not. 😅 I hope it makes sense. I just need someone to help me do the math part.
Will we ever know, what space/time/mass is? I think no, but it doesn't matter. 37:46 Erik Verlinde: "I think our next theory of gravity will again not be a modification of the laws of Newton or the Einstein equations. No, it will be totally new perspective that will be given on what gravity is." My reaction: "Yes. Stephen Wolfram offers that perspective in his book A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics ."
I keep repeating to myself "gravity is not a force." Sabine then says "The gravitational force." Now I am in a superposition that is gravitational. Nobel me.
The statement that "gravity is not a force" is debatable at best, and absurd at worst. I think it is a misinterpretation of general relativity, and of what it means to say "spacetime is curved" and that this curvature is the cause of gravity. It's especially weird when physicists say that Einstein's theory demonstrated that gravity is not a force, while Einstein himself referred to it as a force, even within his papers that introduced general relativity.
@@alieninmybeverage I'll gladly hold your Nobel, if in turn you will drop a bowling ball on your toes while repeating to yourself "gravity is not a force". 😸
@@NondescriptMammal Can you define what you mean by a force? With the definition I would use (in essence the definition Newton uses but with curved instead of flat spacetime: Something that induces deviations from a geodesic), gravity is not a force.
Best part is reading all the crackpot "theories" in the comments. Sabine and Tim maudlin are some of the more lucid people today working at the foundations of physics.
She already suggested such experiments since years. They are not funded, cause she´s an outlaw of physics, since she wrote her book "Lost in Math". She´s a brave human being.
I love Sabine. Such brilliant and insightful communicator. She challenges my beliefs and false ideas about science and the universe in such a positive and beneficial way
Why not think first of the magic of the gyroscope, we already use angular momentum to describe shift… We’re now close, but it’s probably electromagnetic in it truest form the alignment of atoms toward an opposite pole
There might be something to the idea of more dimensions, otherwise how can you explain entanglement and all the weirdness of quantum behaviour. There really seems to be a something else behind the quantum mirror.
Reductionism (division) is dual to holism (unity). These "gamblers" are making predictions -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). The equations of motion and Einstein's theories optimize your predictions about the dynamics of objects -- syntropy. Making predictions is a syntropic process! "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Simultaneity is dual to relativity -- Einstein. Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
I have studied this and this is what I think. Gravity has a working radius which I term as the Gravity Radius. If you are smaller than this radius, then gravity cannot influence you. You have to be larger than this radius before the influence of gravity can be felt. This will allow both Quantum Mechanics and the Macroscopic Gravity theories to co-exist. I think that the notion of gravity working at the Plank Scale is unreasonable. Gravity may also be quantized or granular. If the distances are very small (Quantum scales), then Hadrons will not be affected by gravity. Think about this...what if Dark matter is actually NOT matter in space, but space itself.
Interesting; I've always thought it strange that physicists would repeatedly talk about a large relativity scale and a small quantum scale, but never give a cross-over point as an actual length; do you have an approximation of this radius length for gravity?
It would have to be larger that the shell diameter of an atom, because electron orbits are not affected. I also believe that Space is granular or, in other words has structure. This would also be why we see the need for Dark Matter, it is actually the structure of space. Alternatively, Gravity could be quantized which would have the same result...wonderfully pleasurable this subject..comments, please.
Gravity is not a force, it is the result of warped space. What you need to find out is what is causing space to Warp. And is there limits to how far spaced can Warp. Also can we see warp space at extremely large scales, being inside it. My answers to the cause: space grows everywhere, expanding from a very small "space cells" size, pushes against other cells, growing the universe. Space would not grow as fast where there is less space due to particles, and thereby pushes toward the particle from all sides giving it weight. BUT if space inside the magnetic orbitals of an atom can't grow or is limited then space would push in giving it weight. Space would push these together warping space around mass, the more mass the more the warp.
I didn't realize that the electrons mass (gravitational attraction) wasn't compatible with the standard model. There is also the issue that the quark change from proton to neutron is just adding an electron; so an electron is just a quark change. The reasons mount why we should look for a better theory than the standard model...
Eric is the only one that literally seems to know anything about real modern physics ahead of 70 years ago. Both the others contradict themselves over 3 times each and clearly (at least) realise that they are well out of Eric’s league.
Can you please give an example of these contradictions? None of the 3 panelists has the solution to the problem, so how do you know that Erik has a leg up on the other 2? Also, Erik is the only speaker on stage that seems impatient, or condescending, towards the other speakers. It's ashame, because this could have been more of a collaborative brainstorming session than a "Physics Idol" show.
@@kokoflix this is why I never comment too, I would like to also add that my physics level is in now way, I’m sure as nearly high as there’s and it’s about semantics really too. I know why Sabine says things like gravity is not a force, when you learn physics it’s difficult to explain things to people, for the 1st main reason, as I’m sure you’ll all be aware, we live on earth and there is obviously an atmosphere where we have to take brownian motion into account for things like sound. When you study this subject you need to rewire your brain in a sense as we use an old language that does not represent event newtownian physics, let alone, Einstienian. When we do equations they are almost always only as precise as a point of view from a vacuum in space, or you would end up using chaos theory and never having precise answers in small regions. Almost nowhere in the universe to our knowledge has such and incredible dynamic as we have on earth. I find that a little profound and beautiful tbh. But it’s why when people want to engage it’s very hard to not either sound like a pretentious asshole, or condescending know it all, I suppose on that note, then props to anyone that gets people thinking on here. Hope I didn’t come across as I think I did. I’m guessing Sabine knows her audience too so it’s why she uses language she does. The final longwinded point as someone said something I’m guessing inferring this, is despite many audiences misunderstanding the word theory in physics, there are plenty of out there when it comes to to the unknown, but unless we get smaller than quarks we know quite a lot, gravity and dark matter our easily our biggest mysteries but don’t need to be unified, as Eric pointed out, gravity is emergent at different scales, it’s not even existent when quarks dominated the universe, if you would like just an opinion (as it is all it can ever be) I would check out Neil Turok for dark matter (even if wrong, my point being on the cutting edge is that he has working ideas that are about to be tested and proved if that is a good example for my point about Eric, who I will put a link to his lecture and if you are a real geek, then read his papers), and I’m going to slightly contradict even myself about data, but only because if he’s right he will have outdone almost every physicist on earth, is Stephen Wolfram. Mocked by some but has working theories in my opinion better than the standard model (Yes I know that is controversial).
Every particle is energy. Energy is the opposite of space. Energy in contact with space creates the effect of canceling the surrounding space, which we observe as gravitational attraction.
space on the smallest scale is of a foam structure, when in contact with energy this foam collapses and the entire space shifts towards the energy. Scientists misinterpret the Casimir effect
A spinning massive object can drag space behind it like honey. As a consequence of this distortion, light cannot leave the black hole. Near the center of the black hole, where all the energy is concentrated, space disappears, producing an acceleration equal to the speed of light.
@@jarekk.8247 I’m flagging those because you have just shown me so many answers I must come back. But I’ve too many open threads in my mind right now to assimilate. Let’s stay in touch.
I don't understand Sabine's explanation of the problem. She said that since there's uncertainty regarding the electron's position, we don't know exactly where its gravitational field originates. But don't we have the same question regarding its electric field? What's the solution there, and why doesn't it work for gravity?
Electromagentism is part of the standard model of particle physics, you can discribe it with the math of Quantum field theory. So at the very last, yes, the charges of the electron can be at to places at the same time, mathematically. That´s not possible with the math of GR, that´s what she explained here.
TL;DR: Sabine: we need to experiment with what we have, be honest and focused to find what is missing. Priyamvada: we need a big black hole and improved measurements, so theory will crack and break. Erik: we need a different universe, more smoke and mirrors, so we will be even more confused, but the math will work.
When the rate of time slows down, does the overall energy of a moving object change? The answer is no. To maintain the same energy it must accelerate. Time is included in all calculations of energy so if it changes its rate, doesn't that change something else? Acceleration is somehow inversely proportional to the rate of time and vise versa. I don't know why or how but time dilation may in fact actually cause the effect we call gravity much like a difference in air pressure causes wind. They did mention thinking outside the box in the video.
Most people think of space as being nothing. If space was nothing, then how can it be manipulated? The general theory of relativity would not work if space wasn't malleable. And what cracks me up is she described a 4th dimension and was "afraid you would not". Not one person has ever explained the 4th dimension. And don't say time, because time applies to all dimensions
I am Engr. M. Q. Khan from Pakistan. I am talking about range of a force and state of isolation or freedom of something. Things submerge in the depth of its surrounding if it has enough dilution. For freedom in a state of existance or state of isolation, motion and time ( life) come into play before independent existance which depend on the distance between two things or quantity of freedom. This means that space and time are interconvertable. Motion gives us life or freedom for existance due to its multiple manifistations and varieties of nature of forces. Forces interact to snatch life or freedom Or impart it if there is state of equilibrium. Gravity and other forces along with motion compel things to stay in a state of co-existance or system. Theory of egg and chicken demand whether mass attracts a mass or mass curves space-time and force of gravity comes into play. If curvature is the cause then how in a three dimentional world. As we exist inside Space-time or we are part and parcel of space-time, we feel it. Any thing outside the space-time ((dark matter) will not feel it) untill state of co-existance reach and we become part of a sub system.
I saw a headline yesterday - "New Gravity Theory Lacks Energy Conservation." Everything based on Einstein's gravity lacks energy conservation unless you treat Einstein's "gravitational time dilation/compression" as nothing more than gravitational photon dilation/compression, enabling a system-wide time-basis for equations utilizing total system energy balancing.
Phenomenologist. Sabine is correct in saying that "no one knows what it is". I was working on a classified project at one point. My studies had been in physics (I later switched to computer science) and one day I was talking to a colleague, and he gave me his business card. The job title was Phenomenologist. I had no idea what that was. I was very puzzled. At school I worked in the High Energy Physics department. We knew about the theorists. In fact, the HEP department took most of the top floor of the building (it was a large physics department) but on the small wing of the floor there was a theory department. In fact, Charles Misner was located there. Funny we never went down to see him since we all bought the book Gravitation, which he was one of the authors of. But I had never heard about phenomenologists. So, Sabine is probably correct in her attitude, except that with her exposure online, people might begin to understand and appreciate phenomenologists.
I can’t find the comment. Someone just said “even observation is connected”. So let’s break it down to what we know exists according to our relative positions. Energy exists Observation exists Connections exist Things we question Does gravity exist? Does mass exist? So for theoretical sake, what if we throw out gravity and mass and just solve for energy, observation and connection?
Instead of seeing results as random high energy particles, we could consider how we observe the particles as they are connected. What if the small particles (bits of wave reflected) are at an extremely high frequency. They reflect off all the other waves nearby. If you looked at this frequency (taking away energy of observation) you would see a kaladescope of colors and a bazillion bits of light reflecting. Maybe I need to clarify that there isn’t an individual particle. The particle is only the reflection off the wavelength. Since we are on a frequency of a much slower wavelength, we aren’t likely (but not impossible) since the curves of the wave reflect at so many different angles. The light reflection has two main modes of actions between frequencies. The bazillions of particles that can reflect at the higher frequency can reflect at a percentage at the next lower frequency. Each percentage of light bits reduces until it reaches our frequency of observation. Or the planets can aligns. Multiple frequencies can be in sync at one time, such as when the planets align. So a bit of light in the highert frequency might reflect strait into a lower frequency (thereby, by definition, would have to be faster than light) That refractive particle isn’t any higher energy that the bazzilions of light bits that surround it. It’s just at the exact right place at the exact right time.
I still think gravity is what accelerates time. And I would accept an interpretation that from a microscopic point of view gravity is what gives an observer the feeling that time is moving, but personally I think gravity bends the "time" part of space time. To reverse gravity would be the same as reversing time or "unbend" time.
There is always time to discuss time. Here’s my thoughts on time regarding humans. But everything is a fractal, so just slip whatever vocabulary in that works for other dimensions. DNA is history DNA is the future DNA is time. Our carbon based bodies are mass. Our nerves are energy Our chakras are the magnetic force holding things together.
I’m not a professor but I can explain gravity and tell you what is missing. First you have to understand and accept a new term. Time velocity - the rate at which time passes in one direction, forward. It’s very simple, matter or energy displaces time in space and the displacement of time results in the slowing of time. Gravity is simply the reconciliation between two locations with differing velocities of time. Time velocity differential results in what we call gravity. As you approach a black hole gravity increases and when you cross the event horizon gravitational force ceases to increase as you move closer to the center of the black hole. Gravity maxes out when it is strong enough to capture light. Gravity waves are just time differential waves and could be measured with highly accurate clocks. A paradigm shift will have to be made to understand gravity. When we look out in space we are seeing a continuum of time velocities. The reason the center of a galaxy appears to be spinning slower than expected is because time is passing slower at the center of the galaxy but we are seeing both the outer and inner parts of the galaxy in real time from our distant observation point. The fact of time velocity is not explained by current science. This is the problem with current gravitational theory. This is an extremely important concept that is keeping science from moving forward. Dark energy and dark matter don’t exist. The universe is just spinning and has been since its creation giving the illusion of dark energy and matter.
If as so many scientists are coming around to is that gravity is not a force but instead an effect of space-time then we have to stop looking for the properties of a force.
General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated. Even mass that exists at 75% light speed is partially dilated. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center. It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies. The "missing mass" is dilated mass. Einstein wrote about dilation occurring in "large clusters of stars" which is basically a very low mass galaxy. For a galaxy to have no/low dilation it must have very, very low mass (or low mass in its center). It has recently been confirmed in 5 very, very low mass galaxies to show no signs of dark matter. For the same reason binary stars will always have predictable rotation rates. What we see in modern astronomy has been known since 1925. This is when the existence of galaxies was confirmed. It was clear that there should be an astronomical quantity of light emanating from our own galactic center. It wasn't until television and movies began to popularize singularities that the concept gradually became mainstream. There was clarity in astronomy before that happened.
We accept the fact two things can be in two places at the same time and that two things can be invisibly linked across the Universe. This whole conclusion is based upon Einsteins declaration that nothing is faster than the speed of light. Better answer - assume Einstein is wrong. Both entanglement and uncertainty principal can easily be explained if things can move faster than light, but we just can’t measure this. (Yet)
I’m more than willing to explain with details from quantum level to infinity, how gravity forms and works, I’m hoping less than year, I will start to explain what is gravity and how it works.
Possibly we could start by defining the theory of gravity without using the word gravity or describing it as just a magical force that pulls things into one another. It’s really more about matter, weight, density buoyancy, and pressure.
Every time i had questions or perspective on physics and wanted a discussion about it, physicist were very quick at falling back into their paradygm. Most dont want to explore other views
Entanglement is the missing ingredient you need to include in your theory of gravity. The accumulation of entanglement fields [ ∣ψ⟩=a∣0⟩A∣1⟩B+b∣1⟩A∣0⟩B ] increases the force of gravity between the mass of 2 or more particles all the way up to atoms and planets or entire galaxies. Entanglement is your missing link.
35:33 Spot on, Sabine. The paradigm inherited/descended from Aristotle is the problem. Discard that, revert to more fundamental philosophical basics, review the experimental and modeling history … Until then, understanding why the models work will continue to be as puzzling as planets going retrograde was for the Geocentrists. Sad to see scientists making such a basic flat-earther level error for a whole century.
9 месяцев назад
maybe because gravity acts only over mass, not over waves; or the definition is wrong, or incomplete. and near black-holes is not best place to test gravity, for space-time discrepancies tend to occur there.
I have a theory (which is all mine). My theory is that brontosauruses are thin at one end, much bigger in the middle, and thin at the other end. That is my theory. Thank you.
I would really want to go back to the original problem of the split experiment, wave or particle, and so again tackle the duality before quantum theories came in.
It is easy to quantize gravity. We know that the Electro-magnetic force divided by the Gravitational Force, equals the fine structure constant. Therefore the Gravitational force equals the Electro-magnetic Force times the Fine Structure Constant. QED
Is there an absolute zero of gravity? Is there a place where you can say there is no gravity or does no such place exist? Or can it be manufactured artificially? If a place existed could we then introduce each particle and see what happens?
Maybe we are focusing at the wrong thing when we try to understand gravity in the macrocosm and the microcosm. Newton base his theory on mass, einstein on mass curving spacetime but what if mass doesn't really have anything to do with gravity? If you remove mass from the equation then the difference of the extremely big and extremely small is irrelevant. what if instead of mass curving spacetime, its actually the curvature of spacetime time that gives mass to the macrocosmic and microcosmic?
![OhGeesy x Lefty Gunplay - What It Iz [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/L0yzW9t2ixk/mqdefault.jpg)
Want to learn more about the theories of the universe? Watch Sabine Hossenfelder, Roger Penrose and Michio Kaku debate the multiverse theory in full here! ruclips.net/video/W39kfrxOSHg/видео.html
Neither one of am known why Object's falls downward to Earth Surface, that's very hard to believe, knowing it's because of BONDED together Gas Molecules.
Burn the Solid Object to see the freed Gas Molecules rising upward into the atmosphere, they're Born Again with New Life, quite visible to the naked eye's as Gas Smoke, Gravity Debunked.
Theres no division within Classical, and Quantum Physics, that's because the Classical Universe is built on Quantum Particles, a hand full of dirt conforms such.
Our Quantum Particles atmosphere enables Classical Ocean Waves.
Classical human body breathe in Quantum Particles, Atmospheric Gase's.
Energy's in Transformation is the driving force of the Universe.
The Energy made human body in Atomic Molecular MOTION continues to Debunks Gravity none stop.
First thing's if we keep on looking this universe separately on micro & macro scales then we are definitely not going in right direction because the matter's the same on both scales & no two different types of matter is under consideration so why applying to different theories to observe same matter,either it's on small or large scales & this's common sense that something very essential's missing & that's the reason both prevailing theories not supporting each other & why don't we look beyond these theories for the answer we are striving for?
Please don't mess yourself on macro level because the required answer is hidden in micro or quantum level & if we are able to solve the missing links on quantum level then macro level universe will automatically reveal itself without any further or additional theory & if without solving quantum mechanics we try to solve macro scale problems then only mess & confusion will increase & nothing else.
So for the time being simply forget macro universe & don't even try to mess with it.
Hope that make some sense.
INSHA ALLAH.
The Uni-Verse is a 01 binary, minus the purported multiple universes.
she' s such a liar. she lieas about everything.
If you want to hhave an i de, gimme me an idea, hot to get a million dollats out of lying cucademia. they promised million dollars for solving Collatz conjecture. There.
I really loved Sabine's introduction to the problem. It gave very clear starting point even to me, who didn't know why those two theories didn't work together in the first place.
Amazing, they just want to make everything the same, how unexpected. Put word "quantum" everywhere.
Madam Hossenfelder is one of the most reliable & effective science communicators out there. She can sufficiently condense any scientific topic to fit into the limits of ordinary people... It's always a pleasure to watch her talk on any topic indeed. Such a gem...
Absolutely right thanks
@@Thomas-gk42 Hi Thomas! (I recognised you from "her channel")
Her jokes are so ridiculously cringe worthy that they honestly become a delectable guilty pleasure. Can’t get enough.
Ya, I love her. She's just seems hella down to Earth lol (pun intended) :)
@@jeffreyculbert2093 The intentionally bad jokes are one of my favorite parts, honestly. Always gets a smirk and head shake out of me.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🌌 *Gravity Challenges Overview*
- Theories struggle at atomic and galactic scales.
- Questioning Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics.
- Debate on the feasibility of a unified universe account.
02:19 🤔 *Quantum Gravity Challenges*
- Four forces vs. quantum properties.
- Theoretical incompatibility, need for quantum gravity.
06:12 🔄 *Rethinking Gravity*
- Combining relativity and quantum mechanics.
- Microscopic exploration for deeper understanding.
- Eric emphasizes understanding gravity's origin.
08:41 📈 *Data-Guided Progress*
- Data's role in refining gravity understanding.
- Precision measurements for theory testing.
- Historical data-driven advancements.
11:51 🤝 *Reconciliation Debate*
- Challenge in relativity or quantum mechanics.
- Diverse perspectives on reconciliation.
- Pria stresses data's role in revealing gaps.
14:38 🧠 *Quantum Gravity Exploration*
- Sabina's focus on testing quantum gravity.
- Challenges of quantum mechanics and measurements.
- Potential for experiments without extreme gravity.
17:10 ⚖️ *Testing General Relativity*
- Pushing general relativity's limits.
- Belief in gaps emerging under scrutiny.
- Cautious approach using known experiments.
19:08 🌌 *Theoretical Guidance*
- Eric's theoretical approach, linking to thermodynamics.
- Connecting gravity laws to microscopic understanding.
20:14 🌌 *Gravitational Equations Overview*
- Gravity equations resembling gas properties.
- Progress in treating black holes quantumly.
- Rethinking gravity from a microscopic view.
22:22 🤔 *Different Gravity Accounts*
- Debate on the need for a new gravity account.
- Exploring beyond general relativity.
- Discussion on removing gravity from explanations.
23:02 🌌 *Gravity's Cosmic Role*
- Gravity's crucial role in cosmic order.
- Need for refined gravity description.
- Innovative ideas to test strong gravity.
25:19 🌌 *Cosmology Challenges*
- Open questions in cosmology, dark entities.
- Need for a new quantum gravity perspective.
- Recognition of emerging crises and gaps.
26:43 🌀 *Discussion Direction*
- Differentiating quantization issues and observations.
- Considering gravity as emergent.
- Possibility of a more fundamental theory.
30:25 🤨 *Various Approaches Exploration*
- Advocacy for exploring multiple gravity approaches.
- Caution against overemphasizing dark matter.
- Open-minded exploration of diverse theories.
34:23 🤔 *Assessing Modified Gravity*
- Reflecting on modified gravity limitations.
- Acknowledgment of appealing properties.
- Realization of its non-comprehensive solution.
36:26 🎲 *Understanding Gravity's Future*
- Focus on understanding, not just modifying, gravity.
- Progress in understanding gravity from string theory.
- Anticipation of a new gravity perspective.
38:15 🌐 *Holistic Theories Challenges*
- Difficulty in untangling astrophysical issues.
- Tabletop experiments for quantum exploration.
- Acknowledgment of complexity and limits.
40:08 🌌 *Perspective in Theories*
- Observer-dependent nature acknowledgment.
- Reflection on incomplete descriptions.
- Awareness of human perspective limits.
41:07 🌐 *Aspiring to Holistic Account*
- Expressing cosmic humility and limits recognition.
- Agreement on aspiring to a complete understanding.
- Acknowledgment of brain's limitations.
Made with HARPA AI
So Sabine, one of the most brilliant physicists alive, says in her intro that since the 1930s many smart scientists have devoted their lives to solving this problem, and if they couldn't make it work, then she's pretty sure she can't either. Yet somehow, incredibly, there are dozens of geniuses right here on this message thread who have figured it out. I truly and humbly stand in awe🤪
🤣A lot of megalomania out there. But I hope that SH, who is really brilliant (as mathematician too) has underestimated herself here in her tipical modesty.
Is Sabine really one of the most brilliant physicists alive? She seems to be a big physics personality, but if she is truly one of the greats I did not realize that.
@@gmrecneps I looked that up at some point. She is among the top science communicators. But not among the top theoretical physicists (although she is active in that field, not just a science communicator).
Breakthrough in quantum mechanics that could impact gravity could still come from lone wolf type researchers, but getting funding support is tricky if you are not a part of a large team.
@@gmrecnepsShe wrote a great book, "Lost in Math", that bravely critizises the methodology in physics in the last decades, and beyond that, the way of funding projects. She also makes suggestions, how to do it better. Since that, she became something like arebel in physics, and a lot of circles of mainstream and establishment try to make her mouthy. Though from her abilities and age she should have a donated professorship in her country, she´s without a payed job.
👏 ❤All three brought the point that not only we’re not able to get enough information to be able to understand the physical universe, but also, our brains are somewhat limited. Two of the panelists expressed that, despite those limitations, it’s worth trying our best. There is hope for this 🌎 after all 😊
To be fair i think it goes without saying that the entire panel feels that way, otherwise they wouldn´t have become theoretical physicists.
I agree, I think it is amazing brains evolved to keep the owner from being eaten by lions have been able to understand the universe as well as we currently do. Lets hope we are able to continue expanding our understanding.
Don't think their Brain is somewhat limited, it's just that they're searching in the waste basket, for instance, they're not, but should be aware that Newton equations works perfect with Energy, setting in MOTION Earth Surface 9.8 Energy Conservation System Activity's at Quantum Level's, including ocean views, hurricane, Tornadoes, Dirt Devils, Earth Quakes, even the human body internal and external MOTION
Well, we have another 4 billion years to do it - barring any global catastrophes that we are unable to survive. So I'm optimistic.
Or it is a grift.
We need many many more open discussions like this....I believe this mystery is at the very heart of our gap in the field of physics. We need radical new ways of thinking about it as conventional theories are making no progress. The UAP videos show that it is the door to wonderful things.
Especially new ontologies (theories of what the Universe is made of). If something can be in more than one place at a time, it's not a "particle" in any meaningful sense of the word. So what are particles (quanta)? What are fields? What is the vacuum? Those are the questions that need to be asked.
@RagingGeekazoid i agree...one point I see mentioned....the human mind can and will crack this....
As Sabine said, when we can describe what a measurement is, then we will have it
Saw Sabina is on panel. 'Click play'. Thanks for the value.❤
Come for the condescending attitude, stay for the transphobia!!
She's transphobic?
@@Barnaclebeard "transphobia" just means "adherence to reality".
Very good discussion, thanks to all. Lee Smolin is the physicist whose theories I feel most comfortable with. Closer to Sabine and Priyamvada. I think Erik's theoretical approach is needed but not when confined to string theory as a method.
yeah no one cares
@@unfortunatebeam if you have nothing nice to say, don’t speak
I like Roger Penrose's idea about wave-function collapse being a gravitational phenomenon. It explains measurements occurring in macroscopic detectors but not for single particles in empty space.
Gravity is directly proportional to the mass how much mass . The particles in bottom mechanics maybe not manifest enoug gravity to measure
@@Raging.Geekazoid too bad Penrose, or anyone interesting, wasn't on stage here.
Sabine’s approach of trying to measure the gravitation field of a macroscopic quantum object seems like a very good way to bridge the gaps in our understanding of gravity. Maybe current research involving quantum computers might bring this potential closer to being realized.
This idea is suggested in Time Reborn by Lee Smolin. In a philosophical sense he suggests that space is an illusion made up by our brains and that time is a more fundamental thing. I found the book a hard read, look for some good summaries first.
@@pauldowdall144 I’ve seen him give a talk at the Perimeter Institute on Cosmological Natural Selection.
That's already been done.
@@curtishorn1267 Orly? Link?
This can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment.
The gravitational radius (or Schwarzschild radius) is a characteristic radius defined for any physical body with mass: r(G)=2GM/c^2
Consequently: 2E(0)/r(G)=F(pl)=c^4/G=ε(pl)/r(pl): with indicating the mutual quantization of the mass (energy) and space-time: m(0)//m(pl)=r(G)/2r(pl)=n,where n-total number of quanta of the system; the tension vector flux: n=[(1/4π)(Gћc)^-½]gS ( const for all orbits of the system: n=0,1,2,3....).
Moreover, the parameter r(0)=r(G)-r(pl)=(2n-1)r(pl), defining the interval of the formation of the system, at n=0, when r=r(G)=0 (for example, the state of the "universe" before the Big Bang) turns out to be a quite definite quantity: r(0)=-r(pl).
In the area [(-rpl) - 0 - (+rpl)] there is an implementation of external forces, "distance": (-rpl)+(+rpl)=0 (≠2rpl).
On the Kruskal diagram of the hyperbole r=0 corresponds to the true Schwarzschild feature, the features V and VI are not even covered by the global (R, T)- space-time and correspond to the "absolute" vacuum; then the singular areas above and below the hyperbolas r=0 can be formally treated as the energy source (external forces).
That is, the frightening "true singularity" is actually a superconducting heterotrophic "window" between the proto-universe (the source) and physical bodies*.
As a fundamental theory, GR has the ability with just one parameter: r(G)/r=k to predict, explain new physical effects, and amend already known ones.
Photon frequency shift in gravitational field Δw/w(0)=k; the angle of deflection of a photon from a rectilinear propagation path =2k, the Newtonian orbit of the planet shifts forward in its plane: during one revolution, a certain point of the orbit is shifted by an angle =3πk, for a circular orbit (eccentricity е=0); in the case of an elliptical orbit - for example, for perihelion displacement, the last expression must be divided by (1-e^2).
GR/QG predicts a new physical effect: w/w(pl)=k; expression for gravitational radiation from a test body.
This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present.
-----------------------
*) - From this, generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^½ (w)=-[h/4πm(pl)]w.
Final formula:ф(G)=-[w/w(pl)]c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, r(n')=nλ/π=(n+n')2r(pl)l , the corresponding orbital radius, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (space-time); - obviously, the quanta of the field are themselves quantized: λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl) = 2πc/w, where n'/n - system gravity unpacking ratio, n'- the orbit number (n'=0,1,2,3…).
Obviously, on the horizon [r=r(rG), n'=0] the "door" is closed, however, the quanta [λ=λ(pl)] can go out singly and form the first and all subsequent half-orbits (n'=1,2, 3 ...) during the time t(0)=r/c=2nт, where т=1/w, т=((1+n'/n)т(pl), spending part of their energy on it each time. And it is this mechanism that provides the step-by-step formation of a variable gravitational field: variably accelerated expansion of spacetime as a phase space: |a|=g=πc^2/L, where L[=πr^2/r(G)] is the length of the phase trajectory (of course, the quanta coming through the "window" are also rhythmically restored).
The phase velocity of evolution v'/π= r(pl)w/π; m(0)=(c/2G)rv', where v'=v^2/c.
The angular momentum: L(p)=|pr|=n^2ћ [const for all orbits of the system; at n=1: L(p)=ћ] and moment of power: M(F)=dL(p)/dt(0)=nћw/2=-E(G)=E*, where t(0)=r/c, E*- energy of self-action.
The gravitational field is characterized by a spontaneous flow: J*=(v'/π )(1/4π) g^2/G, where v'/π- phase velocity of field evolution.
Entropy (here: a measure of diversity/variety, not ugliness/disorder) of the system: S=πε(pl)r(t)=(n+n')k, where k is the Boltzmann constant. Obviously, on the horizon entropy=min and with fundamental irreversibility, information is preserved (+ evolves, accumulates).
Accordingly, m=m(pl)/(1+n'/n), where m=ħw/c^2, is the quantum of the full mass: M=n'm [
Erik Verlinde's line "We have an incomplete description of everything". I think is spot on.
This should be interpreted as 'We don't have the slightest idea'
Science doesn't know when to lay down....
@@gehwissen3975Just as well science doesn’t know when to lay down, if it had given up 500 years ago we would still be burning witches, tilling the fields by hand and have a life expectancy of 35.
Not sure science will go anywhere if they just starting ‘laying down’. There’s quite a few theories out there, just looking for more data to show which theory to build on.
@@bishopdredd5349 Science is at a very important transition point, moving from old school to new school. It requires time and patience. We live in a society where we expect today's answers to tomorrow's questions. Society is a bit hasty these days, impatient. There is one thing I truly believe in: due to mankind's curiosity, science will continue to advance. We simply cannot dictate its pace.
@@gehwissen3975 Personally, I hold a more positive view on things. For instance, modern science is still a relatively young field. It needs time to develop, so we shouldn't expect answers tomorrow, or perhaps even within our lifetime for some questions. Of course, there are some questions that we may never find the answers to.
Thank you very much for providing this for us. It is amazing that in this 21st century we are able to hear from these incredible minds!
Again thank you and your esteemed panel.
H.M. Sims
What a great debate. Why we can’t discuss like this on daily basis?
Because most people dont want to or cant
In the end, all panelists seemed to agree with Feynman’s “shut up and compute”. For me, the discussion raised the fundamental question: what is the purpose of a theory - is it to predict the outcome of an experiment or to explain WHY the outcome is what it is. Quantum mechanics is scoring well according to the first definition but not that well according to the second. Gravity seems to have some problems with both.
I really enjoyed that. It really does feel like we are on the brink of new discoveries. I do wonder however, if it would happen faster if scientists got a bit more psychedelic
A GREAT ENDING: the moderator asks....what is gravity? Prya simply does not know. Erik says gravity is the cost of moving information. sounds like quackery to me. Sabina tried to answer the question although I disagree about the LORENZ part. I think Sabina won the debate by at least one light-year.
It's impressive how Sabine and Priyamvada focus on making us understand their point of view to try and find a solution. It is clear that Sabine and Priyamvada have a complementary approach centered on the scientific method introduced by Galileo. Eric, on the other hand, tells us that we can throw away Einstein's theory confident in the fact that it is a theory of everything, which does not yet agree with reality, but which will in the future. Priyamvda's allusion to free parameters that adjust theories and Sabine's look of approval was amusing, as was Sabine's allusion to the pointless waste of time and money in the search for exotic particles needed to support outlandish theories.
Good analysis.🙂 Sabine already made suggestions in her scientific papers for these table experiments, she mentions here. It´s a shame, that she hasn´t a payed professorship and must fund her research herself.
Do you think there are no more exotic particles in the Standard Model predicted to exist, like the Higgs boson was predicted to exist 50 some years ago ? So,,,,,the Higgs field does not give particles mass in the Universe but the Higgs field drags particles along with it and that's how mass comes about ? We are progressing slowly but surely.
@@Jeff-zs2pq well, the Higgs boson is not exotic in that way, it's part of the competition of the standard model. Other ideas beyond the standard model like supersymmetry would create new particles, but never were found.
Considering that the LHC cannot provide the energy needed for Supersymmetry particles to appear?
@@Jeff-zs2pq No, it's many magnitudes away from that. You need an accelerator of solar systems diameter or more for that. Sabine Hossenfelder explains it very accurately in her book "Lost in Math".
solidarity with Sabine. love the conversation. thank ypu whoever put this together
That last remark by Sabine "the problem may be that we don't really understand what quantization means in the first place" sounds to me (as a layman) like the hammer hitting the nail on its head! What are particles? Some sort of localized disturbance in a field? A sort of atto-scaled crop circle maybe?
Thank you for providing access to this extremely informative, succinct discourse.
There’s no known quanta of time
There’s no known quanta of gravity
This can’t be a coincidence.
This is an aspect of the search for quantum gravity to make quantum mechanics and general relativity compatible.
Yet, gravitational fields impact time.
Yet, objects traveling at speed (acting as a gravitational field?) experience time differently relative to a stationary observer. Does that not demonstrate that gravity itself is not simply the effects on spacetime? Or, are they acting via different mechanisms? Does this support time and gravity as emergent?
Some theories suggest a graviton exists, but gravity is so weak that detection of a graviton is almost impossible. Gravitons, if they exist, will be both weak and very rare.
Seeing that gravity directly impacts time gravity must be tried to the idea that time does not exist and is somehow the unifying factor in a static universe where consciousness creates the illusion of time. At the beginning of what we call time the entirety of the mass and geometry was contained in a tiny or folded context and then the geometry began to unfold bringing time with it. Well what if all levels of the universe expansion exist outside of time and gravity is how we experience the early moments of the universe when all matter and all space were one folded tiny thing hence the attraction of matter to all other matter. Gravity is the proof that the universe still exists as that tiny singular all encompassing phenomenon we just don't perceive it that way. Time and maybe space themselves are the illusion because of our limited ability to perceive the universe. After all we are each a location in space time so how can we as a small piece of the universe hope to understand the universe.
@willbrink these are good questions and deserve an answer without woo
There's no known quanta of consciousness either. Bet that comment made you wince?
@@PKWeaver74 There is no known quanta of my pet gold fish. Who cares?
@@QuantumPolyhedron Well there is actually though isn't there!
Dear Dr. Biene, I think I have an answer to the subject but I dare not to go public with it for the hassle accompanied.
In terms of engineering/applications... We have invented and used devices that are based on controlling the other 3 fundamental forces. But not for gravity. We haven't made any device that can turn up or down the gravitational pull (push) of an object with mass.
I think that shows our lack of understanding of gravity.
That's becuz gravity is basically time, and we can't control time. Yet.
Controle the virtual particles and you controle gravity.
Virtual particles recombine.
But they can recombine in many diferent patterns.
Look up "edg dislocation" when bending metal.
Change the atomes to virtual particles sliding against there counterparts and you got space time bending. Also known as gravity.
Does ut make sense?
S. Hossenfelder is a hero for laymen like myself. So intelligent and willing to go off the reservation of commonality. I think she's correct that string theory has been pushed and pulled to breaking and not much has changed in the understanding of gravity. A novel way of looking is needed. Go Sabine!
She´s a remarksable lady
Even if today's theories are only approximations, it is still deeply satisfying to have this understanding of gravity and its limitations. Almost all of humanity in human history was clueless about physics and the nature of the universe.
And I think the vast majority still are.
And again looking down on our ancestors. I just just think we lost some knowledge and/or we're not yet able to comprehend some stuff. And that's alright.
@@garagatza Maybe the human brain, the product of a billion plus years of evolution just doesn’t have , and maybe never will have the ability to comprehend the true nature of reality. The vast majority of humanity can barely comprehend tying their shoe laces, metaphorically speaking that is. But literally most of us can’t comprehend the inner workings of the technology we use.
The Association of Consultant Engineers (ACE), granted me membership and the title Consultant although I am only qualified to HNC level in Electrical Theory.
The reason being because I was a trouble shooter on water supply pumping stations, and they were continually referring to me when their Engineers were unable to resolve specific problems concerning gravity flows. Because the fabric of Dark Energy has resultant Main Force Line (MFL) acting concentrically on neutron laden mass, the neutrons cause MFLs to become neutron dragged MFLs (ndMFLs) within the mass, the force difference between MFLs and ndMFLs is Gravity.
Ie, Gravity is proportional to neutron content for a given mass!
We haven’t scratched the surface 😊
After ten minutes of these people 'talking around' the subject I gave up. From reading the comments below it is apparent I didn't miss anything important.
Things are very exciting at the moment. The ground is being tilled for a new set of ideas that can better describe everything.
This channel is new to me. It's good!!
This was a master class summarising the known and the unknown aspects of gravity. But even more importantly, this discussion was a demonstration of scientific thinking. Thanks.
Yep, great panel. Sabine is unique and brilliant.
"Science doesn't think at all" Heidegger.
Worth to think about. Seems unintuitiv first.... :)
The comments section is far more interesting..so many brilliant ideas here.
@@paulmuriithi9195 sarcasm?
Reductionism (division) is dual to holism (unity).
These "gamblers" are making predictions -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
The equations of motion and Einstein's theories optimize your predictions about the dynamics of objects -- syntropy.
Making predictions is a syntropic process!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Simultaneity is dual to relativity -- Einstein.
Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality.
Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic.
Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Knowledge is dual according to Immanuel Kant.
Synthetic a priori knowledge -- Immanuel Kant.
As usual what Sabine says makes a lot of sense. I do not know, but we have been trying, and failing, to put gravity into a quantum box for basically a century now. Maybe it's time to ask ourselves if we really have to take that box for granted without ever questioning it.
QM looks incomplete as Sabine mentioned, but frankly GR is too. Like, by what mechanism does energy bend space-time? Why do particles follow geodesics, and what does it even mean for a field excitation?
Feels to me like we'll have to fix both, maybe even throw away both altogether.
And rely on the best choice, Langan's CTMU.
Always understood it was the mass in spacetime that gives space it’s curvature and that it was this curvature that we see translated as gravity. Bigger mass equals bigger gravitational field equals bigger escape velocities up until black holes where it’s just too big. It’s just how this works quantum mechanically seems to be where we are stuck.
@@tonib5899I believe the only method to counteract the curvature of space caused by mass is through contraction of space, potentially resulting in repulsive gravity. While space can expand, the concept of contracting space seems overlooked in scientific discourse.
@@celiogouveaWarp field theory
@@robinkelly1770 Warp field theory, designed for propulsion, operates universally in space, independent of gravity. Its capabilities exceed our imagination. In my scenario, I aim to leverage planetary mass to elevate objects, potentially necessitating minimal energy due to the subtle interaction between an object and the planet. This approach avoids noticeable effects such as light distortion, mass alteration, or time dilation, effectively reversing gravity's influence, it's like curving space negatively by contracting, since space already expanded after Big Bang, I believe that contraction is possible.
So if Verlinde can manage to successfully describe gravity in terms of quantum mechanics isn't there still the problem of unifying that description with GR?
I’m a simple person 🧍♀️
I see Sabine, I click and like 👍🏼 😊
She's a jewel of science.❤
Love Hossefelder! She is such a brilant mind. I can't get enough of her speaking about gravity.
It's always a joy to hear sabine speak. Such clarity and engaging presentation.
Right!
seeking new perspectives. Wonderful. Thank You
With so much progress we can not answer what is gravitational field of particle in the box? Amasing!
Because gravity is incredible weak, you just can measure it for large objects that have no quantum properties. That's why Sabine suggests better table experiments.
The idea that it is the exchange of information in quantum level, as this gentleman is saying, it could be the explanation of something like gravity between particles.
@@Thomas-gk42 It’s got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the strength, or lack there of, of gravity. The reason we don’t know the gravity of a particle is because particles can be in more than one place at the same time, so if it’s, for example, going through BOTH slits in an experiment, how do we apportion the gravity? Is it 50/50, 100/100, 70/30, or some other amount?
Furthermore, Sabine never said anything at all about needing better experiments, she never mentioned anything of the sort. She’s a theoretical physicist, not an experimentalist, and she would never say “ye, let’s spend many more tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on yet another particle collider or similar experiment”.
@@aaronperelmuter8433As she said on this panel, she sees herself as phenomenologist (in fact, she´s a leading mathematician), and she has suggested experiments, published on arXiv. Sureley they need less then hundreds of million dollars.
@@amaliaantonopoulou2644I don´t really understand his theory, how information is connected with gravity. But perhaps it´s hidden deep in his math.
What is gravity? 'A phenomenon that keeps our feet on the ground.'
I can definitely say I know what I don't know!
Definitely not. 'I know what I don't know' is an inner contradiction
I truly do enjoy watching those that disagree but are so respectful. Very interesting ideas, I would agree perhaps the thing that will piece this together is something we have not even thought about. And it might even be a moment of... of course it works like this. How did we not see that.
I think virtual particles moving in a "edge dislocation " fashion would explain gravity.
I got the idea from bending metal at an atomic level. Exept instead of atomes sliding, it is virtual particles and there counterparts, sliding agaist eache other.
Same way an infinite basketball team siting on an infinite row of chairs, they scoot over to make room for one more person.
Thus generating space time and motion also called gravity.
It is quit simple.
The consequences are not. 😅
Like an edge effect election crystals can form?
What a wonderful discussion with great minds! Sabine is a favorite of mine, of course, with the other million plus YT subscribers….
The big problem in current detectors is that the energy of observation effect isn’t taken into consideration. Right now, if we observe a difference when something is observed,
We don’t separate the observation energy from the reaction energy. Running in circles
That's why you need the CTMU. A supertautology.
On these shows, it always feels like the host has no clue what the guests are talking about :D
But the discussion overall was wonderful.
There are many questions unanswered here but perhaps we need to reconceive our view of the nature of reality.
I feel a twitch in my eye every time someone describes gravity as a pull force. I personally believe in the "Bending of space" perspective, as described in General Relativity. In my opinion, this makes gravity an effect of mass. Therefore, I do not believe that gravity has a Quantum property as space itself does not have a Quantum property. To sum up, referring to gravity as a pull seems less reasonable to me than the explanation provided by General Relativity.
Gravity isw not a force and it definitely does not pull.
Verlinde says at 8:43 that we have a good idea of what gravity is, but in reality we don't.
We don't know
a) why matter bends spacetime.
b) what is spacetime composed of (since it gets bent, it is composed of something).
c) why matter falls towards the center of gravity. Bending spacetime is one thing, falling towards the center of gravity is another thing. We could have had only the bending, and not the falling, for example.
I think virtual particles moving in a "edge dislocation " fashion would explain gravity.
I got the idea from bending metal at an atomic level. Exept instead of atomes sliding, it is virtual particles and there counterparts, sliding against eache other.
Same way an infinite basketball team sitting on an infinite row of chairs, they scoot over to make room for one more person.
Thus generating space time and motion also called gravity.
It is quit simple.
The consequences are not. 😅
I hope it makes sense.
I just need someone to help me do the math part.
Spacetime is composed of events. We know exactly why matter "falls" and a little odd that you wouldn't have heard of general relativity.
@@aurelienyonracErik Verlinde already did the math. He proved gravity can be represented by information.
There's more explanation needed tho.
Will we ever know, what space/time/mass is? I think no, but it doesn't matter.
37:46 Erik Verlinde: "I think our next theory of gravity will again not be a modification of the laws of Newton or the Einstein equations. No, it will be totally new perspective that will be given on what gravity is."
My reaction: "Yes. Stephen Wolfram offers that perspective in his book A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics ."
Man never for anyone on tv or music etc have i thought this. But i love this woman. Lol truly. ❤ 🤗
I keep repeating to myself "gravity is not a force." Sabine then says "The gravitational force." Now I am in a superposition that is gravitational.
Nobel me.
The statement that "gravity is not a force" is debatable at best, and absurd at worst. I think it is a misinterpretation of general relativity, and of what it means to say "spacetime is curved" and that this curvature is the cause of gravity. It's especially weird when physicists say that Einstein's theory demonstrated that gravity is not a force, while Einstein himself referred to it as a force, even within his papers that introduced general relativity.
@NondescriptMammal "debatable at best and absurd at worst" is the human condition and all it contains.
Hold my Nobel.
@@alieninmybeverage I'll gladly hold your Nobel, if in turn you will drop a bowling ball on your toes while repeating to yourself "gravity is not a force". 😸
@@NondescriptMammal
Can you define what you mean by a force?
With the definition I would use (in essence the definition Newton uses but with curved instead of flat spacetime: Something that induces deviations from a geodesic), gravity is not a force.
@@NondescriptMammal Gravity ACTS as a force.
Sabine was standing (speaking) head & shoulders above the other panel members here. Please, give her more time, and stop the rude interruptions.
She´s a remarkable smart lady.
Best part is reading all the crackpot "theories" in the comments.
Sabine and Tim maudlin are some of the more lucid people today working at the foundations of physics.
But they don´t agree about locality.
No
A very good idea from Sabine, to measure the gravitational field of a massive quantum object. I strongly believe that‘s the way to go.
She already suggested such experiments since years. They are not funded, cause she´s an outlaw of physics, since she wrote her book "Lost in Math". She´s a brave human being.
I love Sabine. Such brilliant and insightful communicator. She challenges my beliefs and false ideas about science and the universe in such a positive and beneficial way
right, same with me🙂
Why not think first of the magic of the gyroscope, we already use angular momentum to describe shift…
We’re now close, but it’s probably electromagnetic in it truest form the alignment of atoms toward an opposite pole
I am amazed that there is still someone promoting String Theory.
Me too, considering it has never had any empirical evidence to definitively support it.
Parrots. It'll end up being true
@@NondescriptMammal
Indeed. String theory is purely a mathematical construct.
There might be something to the idea of more dimensions, otherwise how can you explain entanglement and all the weirdness of quantum behaviour. There really seems to be a something else behind the quantum mirror.
Something that is not 3 dimensional.
hey Sabine, your hairstyle is wonderfull, love it. thanks for your vlogs.
Trying to unify quantum mechanics with gravity is like trying to unify statistical mechanics with regular mechanics with one simple equation.
Reductionism (division) is dual to holism (unity).
These "gamblers" are making predictions -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
The equations of motion and Einstein's theories optimize your predictions about the dynamics of objects -- syntropy.
Making predictions is a syntropic process!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Simultaneity is dual to relativity -- Einstein.
Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality.
Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic.
Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Of course gravity is just a part of quantum mechanics & not something out of it.
You will find the exact nature of gravity within the folds of ATOM.
Great discussion
I have studied this and this is what I think. Gravity has a working radius which I term as the Gravity Radius. If you are smaller than this radius, then gravity cannot influence you. You have to be larger than this radius before the influence of gravity can be felt. This will allow both Quantum Mechanics and the Macroscopic Gravity theories to co-exist. I think that the notion of gravity working at the Plank Scale is unreasonable. Gravity may also be quantized or granular. If the distances are very small (Quantum scales), then Hadrons will not be affected by gravity. Think about this...what if Dark matter is actually NOT matter in space, but space itself.
Interesting; I've always thought it strange that physicists would repeatedly talk about a large relativity scale and a small quantum scale, but never give a cross-over point as an actual length; do you have an approximation of this radius length for gravity?
It would have to be larger that the shell diameter of an atom, because electron orbits are not affected. I also believe that Space is granular or, in other words has structure. This would also be why we see the need for Dark Matter, it is actually the structure of space. Alternatively, Gravity could be quantized which would have the same result...wonderfully pleasurable this subject..comments, please.
@@OnlyOneRace 4 angstroms?
Gravity is not a force, it is the result of warped space. What you need to find out is what is causing space to Warp. And is there limits to how far spaced can Warp. Also can we see warp space at extremely large scales, being inside it.
My answers to the cause: space grows everywhere, expanding from a very small "space cells" size, pushes against other cells, growing the universe.
Space would not grow as fast where there is less space due to particles, and thereby pushes toward the particle from all sides giving it weight.
BUT if space inside the magnetic orbitals of an atom can't grow or is limited then space would push in giving it weight. Space would push these together warping space around mass, the more mass the more the warp.
When space is not growing as fast as the rest of space, it is pushed harder then it can push back and is warped, like being crushed.
Great Panel, peaceful debate and substantial content. Sabine is a unique and extraordinary personality. I love her books and her channel.
I didn't realize that the electrons mass (gravitational attraction) wasn't compatible with the standard model. There is also the issue that the quark change from proton to neutron is just adding an electron; so an electron is just a quark change. The reasons mount why we should look for a better theory than the standard model...
Eric is the only one that literally seems to know anything about real modern physics ahead of 70 years ago. Both the others contradict themselves over 3 times each and clearly (at least) realise that they are well out of Eric’s league.
Its Erik, not Eric.
Can you please give an example of these contradictions? None of the 3 panelists has the solution to the problem, so how do you know that Erik has a leg up on the other 2? Also, Erik is the only speaker on stage that seems impatient, or condescending, towards the other speakers. It's ashame, because this could have been more of a collaborative brainstorming session than a "Physics Idol" show.
@@Stefan-jl3oc lol. Spell check.
@@Stefan-jl3oc lol spell check
@@kokoflix this is why I never comment too, I would like to also add that my physics level is in now way, I’m sure as nearly high as there’s and it’s about semantics really too. I know why Sabine says things like gravity is not a force, when you learn physics it’s difficult to explain things to people, for the 1st main reason, as I’m sure you’ll all be aware, we live on earth and there is obviously an atmosphere where we have to take brownian motion into account for things like sound. When you study this subject you need to rewire your brain in a sense as we use an old language that does not represent event newtownian physics, let alone, Einstienian. When we do equations they are almost always only as precise as a point of view from a vacuum in space, or you would end up using chaos theory and never having precise answers in small regions. Almost nowhere in the universe to our knowledge has such and incredible dynamic as we have on earth. I find that a little profound and beautiful tbh. But it’s why when people want to engage it’s very hard to not either sound like a pretentious asshole, or condescending know it all, I suppose on that note, then props to anyone that gets people thinking on here. Hope I didn’t come across as I think I did. I’m guessing Sabine knows her audience too so it’s why she uses language she does. The final longwinded point as someone said something I’m guessing inferring this, is despite many audiences misunderstanding the word theory in physics, there are plenty of out there when it comes to to the unknown, but unless we get smaller than quarks we know quite a lot, gravity and dark matter our easily our biggest mysteries but don’t need to be unified, as Eric pointed out, gravity is emergent at different scales, it’s not even existent when quarks dominated the universe, if you would like just an opinion (as it is all it can ever be) I would check out Neil Turok for dark matter (even if wrong, my point being on the cutting edge is that he has working ideas that are about to be tested and proved if that is a good example for my point about Eric, who I will put a link to his lecture and if you are a real geek, then read his papers), and I’m going to slightly contradict even myself about data, but only because if he’s right he will have outdone almost every physicist on earth, is Stephen Wolfram. Mocked by some but has working theories in my opinion better than the standard model (Yes I know that is controversial).
Every particle is energy. Energy is the opposite of space. Energy in contact with space creates the effect of canceling the surrounding space, which we observe as gravitational attraction.
Hello Jarek. Your statement is interesting. Please explain a little more in detail.
space on the smallest scale is of a foam structure, when in contact with energy this foam collapses and the entire space shifts towards the energy. Scientists misinterpret the Casimir effect
A spinning massive object can drag space behind it like honey. As a consequence of this distortion, light cannot leave the black hole. Near the center of the black hole, where all the energy is concentrated, space disappears, producing an acceleration equal to the speed of light.
The Horizon keeps appearing. And it never ever disappears. Just like you can’t catch a rainbo
@@jarekk.8247 I’m flagging those because you have just shown me so many answers I must come back. But I’ve too many open threads in my mind right now to assimilate. Let’s stay in touch.
The three scientists were disagreeing much less than the host wanted to make us believe.
The relativity of the known World is only valid up to and without the bending of spacetime fabric.
I don't understand Sabine's explanation of the problem. She said that since there's uncertainty regarding the electron's position, we don't know exactly where its gravitational field originates. But don't we have the same question regarding its electric field? What's the solution there, and why doesn't it work for gravity?
Electromagentism is part of the standard model of particle physics, you can discribe it with the math of Quantum field theory. So at the very last, yes, the charges of the electron can be at to places at the same time, mathematically. That´s not possible with the math of GR, that´s what she explained here.
TL;DR: Sabine: we need to experiment with what we have, be honest and focused to find what is missing. Priyamvada: we need a big black hole and improved measurements, so theory will crack and break. Erik: we need a different universe, more smoke and mirrors, so we will be even more confused, but the math will work.
Great analysis, I bet on Sabine😉
Data has its place, but vision will drive a theory.
Good debate 👌
Thanks 🙏
"Curvature differential manifold of dimension four with lorentzian signature" - all clear now. thanks Sabine.
When the rate of time slows down, does the overall energy of a moving object change? The answer is no. To maintain the same energy it must accelerate. Time is included in all calculations of energy so if it changes its rate, doesn't that change something else? Acceleration is somehow inversely proportional to the rate of time and vise versa. I don't know why or how but time dilation may in fact actually cause the effect we call gravity much like a difference in air pressure causes wind. They did mention thinking outside the box in the video.
Most people think of space as being nothing. If space was nothing, then how can it be manipulated? The general theory of relativity would not work if space wasn't malleable. And what cracks me up is she described a 4th dimension and was "afraid you would not". Not one person has ever explained the 4th dimension. And don't say time, because time applies to all dimensions
I am Engr. M. Q. Khan from Pakistan. I am talking about range of a force and state of isolation or freedom of something. Things submerge in the depth of its surrounding if it has enough dilution. For freedom in a state of existance or state of isolation, motion and time ( life) come into play before independent existance which depend on the distance between two things or quantity of freedom. This means that space and time are interconvertable. Motion gives us life or freedom for existance due to its multiple manifistations and varieties of nature of forces. Forces interact to snatch life or freedom Or impart it if there is state of equilibrium. Gravity and other forces along with motion compel things to stay in a state of co-existance or system. Theory of egg and chicken demand whether mass attracts a mass or mass curves space-time and force of gravity comes into play. If curvature is the cause then how in a three dimentional world. As we exist inside Space-time or we are part and parcel of space-time, we feel it. Any thing outside the space-time ((dark matter) will not feel it) untill state of co-existance reach and we become part of a sub system.
I saw a headline yesterday - "New Gravity Theory Lacks Energy Conservation."
Everything based on Einstein's gravity lacks energy conservation unless you treat Einstein's "gravitational time dilation/compression" as nothing more than gravitational photon dilation/compression, enabling a system-wide time-basis for equations utilizing total system energy balancing.
And we can’t balance the things we don’t see
Isn't gravity the effect of space pushing matter inward from higher dimensions?
Phenomenologist. Sabine is correct in saying that "no one knows what it is".
I was working on a classified project at one point. My studies had been in physics (I later switched to computer science) and one day I was talking to a colleague, and he gave me his business card. The job title was Phenomenologist. I had no idea what that was. I was very puzzled.
At school I worked in the High Energy Physics department. We knew about the theorists. In fact, the HEP department took most of the top floor of the building (it was a large physics department) but on the small wing of the floor there was a theory department. In fact, Charles Misner was located there. Funny we never went down to see him since we all bought the book Gravitation, which he was one of the authors of.
But I had never heard about phenomenologists. So, Sabine is probably correct in her attitude, except that with her exposure online, people might begin to understand and appreciate phenomenologists.
I can’t find the comment. Someone just said “even observation is connected”.
So let’s break it down to what we know exists according to our relative positions.
Energy exists
Observation exists
Connections exist
Things we question
Does gravity exist?
Does mass exist?
So for theoretical sake, what if we throw out gravity and mass and just solve for energy, observation and connection?
Instead of seeing results as random high energy particles, we could consider how we observe the particles as they are connected.
What if the small particles (bits of wave reflected) are at an extremely high frequency. They reflect off all the other waves nearby. If you looked at this frequency (taking away energy of observation) you would see a kaladescope of colors and a bazillion bits of light reflecting. Maybe I need to clarify that there isn’t an individual particle. The particle is only the reflection off the wavelength.
Since we are on a frequency of a much slower wavelength, we aren’t likely (but not impossible) since the curves of the wave reflect at so many different angles. The light reflection has two main modes of actions between frequencies. The bazillions of particles that can reflect at the higher frequency can reflect at a percentage at the next lower frequency. Each percentage of light bits reduces until it reaches our frequency of observation.
Or the planets can aligns. Multiple frequencies can be in sync at one time, such as when the planets align. So a bit of light in the highert frequency might reflect strait into a lower frequency (thereby, by definition, would have to be faster than light) That refractive particle isn’t any higher energy that the bazzilions of light bits that surround it. It’s just at the exact right place at the exact right time.
Now we know where to look for the Higgs Boson
Verlinde: Gravity is the cost of moving information.
Hossenfelder: This is beyond science.
...Hossenfelder👍
I still think gravity is what accelerates time. And I would accept an interpretation that from a microscopic point of view gravity is what gives an observer the feeling that time is moving, but personally I think gravity bends the "time" part of space time. To reverse gravity would be the same as reversing time or "unbend" time.
There is always time to discuss time. Here’s my thoughts on time regarding humans. But everything is a fractal, so just slip whatever vocabulary in that works for other dimensions.
DNA is history
DNA is the future
DNA is time.
Our carbon based bodies are mass.
Our nerves are energy
Our chakras are the magnetic force holding things together.
I’m not a professor but I can explain gravity and tell you what is missing. First you have to understand and accept a new term. Time velocity - the rate at which time passes in one direction, forward. It’s very simple, matter or energy displaces time in space and the displacement of time results in the slowing of time. Gravity is simply the reconciliation between two locations with differing velocities of time. Time velocity differential results in what we call gravity. As you approach a black hole gravity increases and when you cross the event horizon gravitational force ceases to increase as you move closer to the center of the black hole. Gravity maxes out when it is strong enough to capture light. Gravity waves are just time differential waves and could be measured with highly accurate clocks. A paradigm shift will have to be made to understand gravity. When we look out in space we are seeing a continuum of time velocities. The reason the center of a galaxy appears to be spinning slower than expected is because time is passing slower at the center of the galaxy but we are seeing both the outer and inner parts of the galaxy in real time from our distant observation point. The fact of time velocity is not explained by current science. This is the problem with current gravitational theory. This is an extremely important concept that is keeping science from moving forward. Dark energy and dark matter don’t exist. The universe is just spinning and has been since its creation giving the illusion of dark energy and matter.
If as so many scientists are coming around to is that gravity is not a force but instead an effect of space-time then we have to stop looking for the properties of a force.
General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated. Even mass that exists at 75% light speed is partially dilated.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center.
It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies. The "missing mass" is dilated mass.
Einstein wrote about dilation occurring in "large clusters of stars" which is basically a very low mass galaxy. For a galaxy to have no/low dilation it must have very, very low mass (or low mass in its center). It has recently been confirmed in 5 very, very low mass galaxies to show no signs of dark matter. For the same reason binary stars will always have predictable rotation rates.
What we see in modern astronomy has been known since 1925. This is when the existence of galaxies was confirmed. It was clear that there should be an astronomical quantity of light emanating from our own galactic center. It wasn't until television and movies began to popularize singularities that the concept gradually became mainstream. There was clarity in astronomy before that happened.
We accept the fact two things can be in two places at the same time and that two things can be invisibly linked across the Universe. This whole conclusion is based upon Einsteins declaration that nothing is faster than the speed of light. Better answer - assume Einstein is wrong. Both entanglement and uncertainty principal can easily be explained if things can move faster than light, but we just can’t measure this. (Yet)
I’m more than willing to explain with details from quantum level to infinity, how gravity forms and works, I’m hoping less than year, I will start to explain what is gravity and how it works.
Possibly we could start by defining the theory of gravity without using the word gravity or describing it as just a magical force that pulls things into one another. It’s really more about matter, weight, density buoyancy, and pressure.
Every time i had questions or perspective on physics and wanted a discussion about it, physicist were very quick at falling back into their paradygm. Most dont want to explore other views
Entanglement is the missing ingredient you need to include in your theory of gravity. The accumulation of entanglement fields [ ∣ψ⟩=a∣0⟩A∣1⟩B+b∣1⟩A∣0⟩B ] increases the force of gravity between the mass of 2 or more particles all the way up to atoms and planets or entire galaxies. Entanglement is your missing link.
35:33
Spot on, Sabine.
The paradigm inherited/descended from Aristotle is the problem.
Discard that, revert to more fundamental philosophical basics, review the experimental and modeling history …
Until then, understanding why the models work will continue to be as puzzling as planets going retrograde was for the Geocentrists.
Sad to see scientists making such a basic flat-earther level error for a whole century.
maybe because gravity acts only over mass, not over waves;
or the definition is wrong, or incomplete.
and near black-holes is not best place to test gravity, for space-time discrepancies tend to occur there.
I have a theory (which is all mine). My theory is that brontosauruses are thin at one end, much bigger in the middle, and thin at the other end. That is my theory. Thank you.
I would really want to go back to the original problem of the split experiment, wave or particle, and so again tackle the duality before quantum theories came in.
It is easy to quantize gravity. We know that the Electro-magnetic force divided by the Gravitational Force, equals the fine structure constant. Therefore the Gravitational force equals the Electro-magnetic Force times the Fine Structure Constant. QED
Only Sabine making things clear and concise, framing the issues correctly and pointing out the biases of the other 2 guys
To me it’s like spacetime flows like water towards mass carrying everything it contains with it.
Is there an absolute zero of gravity? Is there a place where you can say there is no gravity or does no such place exist? Or can it be manufactured artificially? If a place existed could we then introduce each particle and see what happens?
"But nature knows how it works" - Sabine on top again!
Maybe we are focusing at the wrong thing when we try to understand gravity in the macrocosm and the microcosm. Newton base his theory on mass, einstein on mass curving spacetime but what if mass doesn't really have anything to do with gravity? If you remove mass from the equation then the difference of the extremely big and extremely small is irrelevant. what if instead of mass curving spacetime, its actually the curvature of spacetime time that gives mass to the macrocosmic and microcosmic?