Thanks Sabine, that was very to the point. I am not a phycisist, only a "mere" political/environmental science educated person. Still, I am fascinated by astronomy and cosmology. You seem to be able to find the right words for me to follow in broad terms of what you mean (I think). I enjoy that!
First one of her videos I watched I thought afterwards OMG I understood all of that. Couple of seconds later I was subscribed and clicked the notify bell. Now waiting for delivery of her book from Amazon, just search her name if interested.
GRAVITY AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY ARE LINKED AND BALANCED OPPOSITES, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY is gravity, AS E=mc2 is directly and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Why and how gravity is clearly proven to be ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy: ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Motion is relative. Consider the photon AND the speed of light. Balanced inertia/inertial resistance is fundamental. The speed of light is inertial resistance. Energy has/involves gravity, AND energy has/involves inertia/inertial resistance. Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. So, inertia/inertial resistance is proportional to (or balanced with/as) gravitational force/energy, as this unifies and balances ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND gravity. So, the photon(s) and black hole(s) are linked and balanced opposites, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. In the case of the black hole, there is full gravity with/involving full and balanced inertia/inertial resistance. Therefore, gravitational force/energy is proportional to (or balanced with/as) inertia/inertial resistance. Great !!! Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Motion is relative. Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, a given planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. Magnificent !!! This explains perpetual motion. The falling man feels no gravity, as the feeling of gravity by the man who is standing on the earth/ground ALSO involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. So, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Therefore, inertia/inertial resistance is proportional to (or balanced with/as) gravitational force/energy; as this balances and unifies ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND gravity. Outer "space" involves full inertia, AND it is fully invisible AND black. The sun and photons are linked and balanced, AND the speed of light is inertial resistance. Motion is relative. By Frank DiMeglio
Thank you, as a 60s educated retiree and non physcist. You present and provide inspirational explanation and insight to this fascinating subject. Education never ends.
Hossenfelder is not capable of understanding gravity. Truth, reality, AND nature/natural experience go hand in hand. Hossenfelder is control freak nonsense that is fundamentally based upon a lack of understanding. So, it is the RELATIONAL view of the way things "should be". It is not the way things are. Hossenfelder is not a genius. Hossenfelder is political. Hossenfelder 💰 is the maximum money making agenda "physics". She is extremely slick.
@@frankdimeglio8216 is not capable of understanding Hossenfelder. Truth, reality, AND nature/natural experience go hand in hand. DiMeglio is control freak nonsense that is fundamentally based upon a lack of Hossenfelder. So, it is the DIMEGLIO view of the way things "should be". It is not the way things are. DiMeglio is not a genius. DiMeglio is political. DiMeglio 💰 is the maximum money making agenda "physics". He is extremely sick.
Straight to the point *and* shows various different interpretations *and* does not pretend what we know is 100% accurate, etc. Even though I know she's human and that she will push one thing over the other, at least I get a chance to hear of the alternatives, something you only get glimpses of in other physics channels.
Agree, quite compelling. Shoot, you can pretty much keep general relativity, wholesale. It can still be as "correct" as it appears, just with the caveat that gravity is no longer a fundamental force.
I enjoy your videos. Physics is not day job and I especially like your descriptions of "work in progress" at the boundary of our knowledge: what the hypothesis attempts to address and what are its limits.
Dear Sabine, I recently discovered your channel and slowly becoming a huge fan! your point of views about physics are eye opening and i soon going to read your book, looking forward to do so :) keep on the good work. and thank you very much for sharing your ideas with us!
The idea of emergent gravity sounds really exciting. What I like is how it might suggest the irreversibility of time is something that arises out of the statistical behaviour of reversible QM processes. Also it suggests that working more with the theories that are well known already might lead to a new theory rather than just jumping into a new model.
I really liked reading work of Erik Verlinde on the topic of emergent gravity. It is now heavily being discussed and also partly being questioned about its assumptions. These are some nicely refreshing developments aside the "dark matter" explanations.
@@kapserdeleewu I agree with Bhangra Fan -- when Hossenfelder got to emergent gravity, that's the one that suddenly sounded 'right' to me -- very exciting. Thank you kapserdeleewu for mentioning Erik Verlinde. Yes, very good stuff in his articles and youtube lectures, which you led me to.
the problem with everyone from Einstein to today, is that they do not realize that time is not a dimension in any way shape or form (most people have been given this information in various forms, but they do not Realize the information for some reason), and _does not exist_ (under the strict definition of the term, of course there is something we notice and label time, but as with any statistic, it is purely conceptual. therefore you cannot travel "through" it, it does not "flow", therefore it cannot be "reversed". if time is real and part of the fabric of space, then answer me this : q: if the only thing in this universe was a single dripping faucet, how much time passes between each drip? answer: you dont know, you need at least one other faucet, then you can say something like "the faucet drips twice for each time the other faucet drips". see time emerges purely as a concept, a tool were create by using a comparison of two or more events. we imagine it, and therefore our truthful observations of time, can be truthfully contradicted by other observers, an obvious paradox in the whole theory of time as a dimension .. hell, time is far less like a dimension to be measured, and far more like a measuring stick that does the measuring.
@@Ghryst Doesn't the exact same logic work for space dimensions though? You could only measure the faucet with something else, and different observers might measure different lengths(according to relativity, not sure about the specifics since I'm no expert)
@@trolledwoods377 that is correct. space is not a "thing", it does not "exist", as in it has no existence of its own. you cannot "put" some space in a box, or take some space and show it to someone. space is like a measuring stick also.. it is the Place, or the Area in which Things exist. which means, you cant stretch it, you cant warp it, you cant bend it. tell me how to warp something that does not have form or shape or existence? "excuse me sir, could you please bend this Nothing for me?" and as for measuring the amount of space between things (aka: distances), yes, you need an object of comparison to make that measurement, for example another faucet "this faucet is twice its own length away from the other faucet", or some particles "this faucets is 100billion particles in length", but it would be pointless if there is only one "this faucet is the length of its length" makes no sense. (drips are better examples, because space and faucets that exist within space have multiple dimensions, and you could in fact compare its length to its width, although you could never describe an absolute size, only its proportions)
Its very good this channel. I'm an physicist AND it's very appealing for me. I do solid state physics and I dont have time enough to read about relativity and quantum mechanics advances.
The first time I watched this very good presentation, I was unaware that this particular subject is your actual field of active research, unless I am mistaken. Figuring out just what experiments are possible with present technology to rule out (or dramatically confirm someday) different theories of quantized gravity sounds EXTREMELY interesting, and I would enjoy a video where you give us a glimpse of your work, in your own words. Thank you for all that you do!
I'm happy you mentioned CDT in your video! :) With Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT) one might be able to do "experiments". For example in 3+1 dimensions , we can create space-times which behave according to the Hartle- Hawkin Minisuperspace - model, which is a model to describe our world, and fits to the observations. Soon we will show how a point-particle affects the geometry, which can be compared to the Newtonian potential. Furthermore, the UV -fixed point (proposed by Weinberg, so it aligns with the Asymptotic safety sceario) potentiall could be pinpointed, and performing measurements there could help restoring the continuum theory of quantum gravity.
It is well known (Georgi) that such an approach is pointless. If you knew what the UV fixed point was, adding matter would moving elsewhere and would change the low energy physics. So unless you know know all the particles up to the Planck scale , you couldn't actually pinpoint a UV fixed point that describes our low energy physics.
I would argue, already with your first sentence. "well known" is a bit strong word. Could you please explain it? Adding matter in the form of fields or in a quenched way might change the values of the couplings, but in lattice theories you can measure the effects and changes in your parameter space. Then you can perform an RG flow, which is well defined, and you can find the fixed point. I don't see problem here!
Németh Dániel I see, I was talking about continuum theories. But the point still holds, the problem with this approach was why people before string theory didn't care about quantum gravity. The problem is that even if you write a lattice theory and add matter in some way, the low energy physics you get from the RG Is in principle very dependent on the high energy physics, so unless you know a lot about particle physics at really high scales, we can't make any predictions with quantum gravity.
I think its not true, that people did not care about quantumgravity. Just they didn't have solutions (nor have us today). And yes, the low energy physics depends on the high energy physics, this is what it means to make an RG flow. You can define your theory at high energyies and then check what it says about the low energy (run from UV to IR ). If the model is well defined, then it can reproduce that we can see at CERN.... (for example we can measure interactions/couplings...). A good theory of quantumgravity might give an answer to this "modern cosmologyical problem", that the observations give different values for the Hubble parameter. Maybe its the result of a running constant (in the early universe it had a different value.. ). If one can define a quantum theory of gravity and perfrom an RG flow, it could maybe reproduce our measurements about the space-time. We can make predictions!
Ever since I heard about the problem, I thought about gravity to most likely be an emergent phenomenon. But, I never followed up on it, hence had no clue the idea is actually one of the five major theories. Thanks, Sabine!
I LOVE RUclips! I LOVE RUclips! I LOVE RUclips! To think that at anytime I can be lectured on string theory, loop quantum gravity, quantum mechanics, and relativity (special and general), makes me love living! Thank you Professor Hossenfelder!
do u really think that after watching a couple of scientific videos on youtube you'll get the exhaustive understanding and solid knowledge in such difficult domain like Relativity theory and quantum physics?
@@science_engineering For noobs? What is that? Speak English. I worked in the field of micro-structural metallurgy for a number of years for Honeywell Information systems and also as a chemist. Are you still a teenager? Now I use my knowledge of physics to fix human bodies. and save lives. What have you done. Please reply with an intelligent answer.
The reason one can not quantize gravity is the same reason that one cannot take a ten penny nail, and drive this into the foam on top of a chocolate soda. The reason is both applications and elusivity. Nobody needs to break it down by the applications of high energy physics. Understanding of gravity is essential in the exploration of near and far space for Earth based humans. This is so, as from a block fractal perspective, the rotary wheeled intended concept to promote a made gravity in space, may not be fully applicable to personnel in space. So the geneses of gravity in space for humans, might lay within the direction of a generating array of a made force which can enact in say any room in a space station while in space. The hint clue, is the term (gravity spots).I like you, your'e interesting and a thought provoking scientist.
I have tried to analyze why I like your video’s so much. Is it the German accent in your scientific English that for my generation spells deep learnedness? Is it the high amount of inflection with which you impart so much understanding and which makes listening to your Referat so easy, with a cup of coffee? Is it the full dedication to content, with a total lack of ego, not trying to show how smart you are, but how interesting the subject matter is? Or is the choice of subjects, that are mundane questions that you are able to make into glittering gems of physics, reminding us physicists what a beautiful field we have chosen? Or is it the total absence of smiling, that so often is strewn all over the presentation by women? I do not know what that means or if it is intentional or not, but it is a constant through all of your fascinating video’s, making them even more fascinating. It has made me think, what does smiling do to a story being told. I’m beginning to find out.
Excellent overview of some contenders for quantizing gravity. Many important papers on he various approaches to quantum gravity are available on the arXiv .
I'm so glad that you put this video up. In the comments for your video on string theory's limitations, I found myself arguing that string theory's problems did not mean that there was a reason to not quantize gravity. It seems like I may have upset some that believe GR is canon and applicable in the full energy spectrum.
Could you also provide reference materials/ original research articles alongside your videos? For eg, I'd love to read original articles on perturbatively quantized gravity.
I'd love to delve deeper into why exactly we shouldn't discriminate between space and time. What if they are separate things? What if the idea of space-time is a knot that needs to be untied in order for the Standard Model to progress? In that case, Causal Dynamical Triangulation could really have a great deal of merit. Einstein was right about many, many things - I even believe he was right about some of the things that a lot of people today believe he was wrong about (such as his faith in determinism) - but I think he may have been wrong about seeing space and time as the same thing, and I believe this possibility needs to be seriously explored.
Many of those ''False Hearted Physicists'' are possibly as Feared & Jealous of her as if it was Joan herself. ruclips.net/video/gtwUyDPXROQ/видео.html “Poetry is just the evidence of life. If your life is burning well, poetry is just the ash.”-Leonard Cohen
@@leyasep5919 Same group of Vipers that wished to nail Galileo for revealing the Truth of Physics in his day. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences Who's ongoing motto is: Leave no child's behind. -9719
I really like your presentation and distillation of the major schools of thought on this. Since I have just stumbled onto your channel, I will have to be doing some catch up with your other clips. I can say at this point all 5 presented still suffer from what I refer to as Newtonian hubris or bias, which is to say the assumption that our frame of reference is the correct one or the core paradigm that matters.
how can you make science without that assumption? without that assumption basically anything goes. Wizard did it becomes a valid explanation, because we're merely looking at things from our frame of reference, so it does not make sense to us, but in some other frame of reference this is valid. That's not science. That's not a testable and falsifiable proposition.
@@vyli1 - your lack of comprehension is not a refutation. Your need for ego feeding hubris is noted. Your need to assume that the universe is all about you, when it is repeatedly demonstrated not to be, is more than problematic. You assume your perspective is 100% accurate regardless of evidence. Gravity doesn't really exist in the way people are taught, it is not a force any more than statistical probability is. It is a side effect. Once you really understand what is happening with space-time curvature. There is a mathematician that does a great explanation of about it, using the relative differences easily demonstrated as refraction in higher density materials. if you could see our 3-d space from a 4-d POV, you would realize our sun really is the diameter of the asteroid belt you see in 3-d. So a star going red giant is not growing, it is space-time turning flatter as mass moves out of the center like a giant ripple from the explosion that started 5 billion years ago. It was just slowed down by mass induced distortions in space-time (gravity well, for laymen). Carl Sagan pointed this out in the 70s before he took the post at Cornell.
Hello Sabine, I have two ideas about gravity. First, the issue for gravity is it is moderated by virtual particles. Messy stuff that is hard to study... Second, it is might be moderated by the possible pathways real particles do not take as those possible pathways have already been allocated by the matter present. Thus the more matter in one place the more possible pathways are allocated and the gravity well becomes deeper. This model shows gravity as an effect of energy inside mass taking up real and virtual pathways, reducing them one by one until you hit a critical mass and achieve the state of a singularity--all possible pathways thru space time are allocated.
@Sabine Hossenfelder I noticed that @2:51 the captions say 'patched' but you say fixed. Also, I noticed that you 'patched' your video to say 'fixed' instead of patched based on your mouth movements. If you don't mind me asking, why did you prefer the term fixed to patched?
Sabine Hossenfelder: "We'll tell you why gravity matters." Me: Lol Gravity and Matter... Me (7 minutes and 18 seconds later): I now understand the ideological force of quantum gravity and the accumulative mass of the ideas it propagates.
Sabine, a crucial question: why should gravity have to be quantum in nature? Can’t it be gravity is not the same as the other forces and a theory of everything doesn’t exist? The response I’ve heard to this is that since the Big Bang produced all the forces, they must all be related, but is this argument absolute proof the forces must knit together? Pls consider a video on this topic.
I have the same question, and thank you for phrasing it in a more informed way. But the way I phrase it (and think about it) is on what is space-time, what is it made of (if that question even makes sense)? was it created with the big bang, or did matter just expanded into it? How can gravity (in general relativity) curve this space-time if it's not even a thing (I can understand curving a surface, but because it's made of something), what is it curving?
Sabine, in "Lost in Math" you suggested String Theory has kind of taken over in terms of the academic scene because it's cheaper to fund it than more hardcore experimental programs. Based on the list of Quantized Gravity theories you gave, how well funded is number 2-5 compared to String?
Hossenfelder has no clue about true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY. She is political. She is not a genius. I am. Here's the proof. THE ULTIMATE AND TRUE MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION AND BALANCING REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS CLEARLY PROVEN, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA: Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, as E=mc2 IS F=ma. Therefore, this NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The Earth/ground is understood as comprising the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. So, E=mc2 IS F=ma. Overlay what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is the Earth. (LOOK at what is the BLUE SKY. The Earth is ALSO BLUE.) Now, notice the black space of what is THE EYE. GREAT !!! Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The Earth/ground is ALSO E=mc2 AND F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Overlay what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is the Earth. (Notice the black space of what is THE EYE.) NOW, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Notice that THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. LOOK up at what is the BLUE SKY. Excellent. Truly and ultimately, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO visible. Great !!!!! I have proven why people are not visible on what is observed to be the Earth as it is SEEN from outer "space". E=mc2 IS F=ma. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience, as E=mc2 IS F=ma. Indeed, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma !!! THEREFORE, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Great !!! THE SUN is E=mc2 AND F=ma. Again, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. THE EARTH/GROUND and WHAT IS THE MOON are both demonstrative of (and subject to) the fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. Beautiful. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. SO, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; and this is THEN consistent WITH E=mc2, F=ma, AND what is perpetual motion; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. SO, THE EARTH/ground is a linked AND BALANCED opposite in relation to what is THE SUN. It therefore represents and comprises what is the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE in a BALANCED fashion, as E=mc2 IS F=ma. Therefore, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. SO, this NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Great !!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. LOOK down at what constitutes the EARTH/ground. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. SO, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of thought (AND description) is, in fact, improved in the truly superior mind. Stellar clustering ALSO proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Very carefully consider what is a galaxy. By Frank DiMeglio
THE ULTIMATE MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS NOW CLEARLY PROVEN: INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. Truly and ultimately, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Consider THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Consider the BALANCED dimensional extension of SPACE.) GREAT. THE EYE IS THE BODY. The BALANCE of being AND EXPERIENCE IS essential. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY is CLEARLY gravity. Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Most importantly, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL experience is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, LOOK around. Piece it ALL together. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Magnificent !!! Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, the rotation of what is THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. E=mc2 IS F=ma. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. The ability of THOUGHT to describe OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. It ALL makes perfect sense. I have mathematically unified physics/physical experience. There is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. GREAT !!!!!!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. THINK !!!!! Again, it ALL makes perfect sense. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) In conclusion, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. THINK !!! I have truly and ULTIMATELY unified physics/physical experience. By Frank DiMeglio
THE ULTIMATE MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS NOW CLEARLY PROVEN: INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. Truly and ultimately, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Consider THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Consider the BALANCED dimensional extension of SPACE.) GREAT. THE EYE IS THE BODY. The BALANCE of being AND EXPERIENCE IS essential. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY is CLEARLY gravity. Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Most importantly, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL experience is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, LOOK around. Piece it ALL together. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Magnificent !!! Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, the rotation of what is THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. E=mc2 IS F=ma. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. The ability of THOUGHT to describe OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. It ALL makes perfect sense. I have mathematically unified physics/physical experience. There is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. GREAT !!!!!!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. THINK !!!!! Again, it ALL makes perfect sense. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) In conclusion, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. THINK !!! I have truly and ULTIMATELY unified physics/physical experience. By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 I appreciate your reply. We should debate that. I have actually discovered the force called: God that's no different than Gravity. I will soon prove it to the world since "God is in Me."
@@frankdimeglio8216 I loved your reply. You challenged me. I am going to post your text on Facebook. Thank you for your insights. God is; but he's all physical laws.
Probably one of the answers related to quantum theory is, time and space are not directly related in one closed equation as Einstein stated. Although light is, that does not represent all circular spin motions of particles.
Since you mentioned Feynman I like to recall his question on whether developing a theory was worthwhile 'Can you tell if my theory is right?' . Looking forward on your video on how to experimentally test if a theoretical model of QG is correct.
Sabine, space is definitely quantum. I've thought about it for years after I spent about 1 year using the big bang theory. I realized that it is this theory that has made us unable to understand gravity. It does this by assuming all matter automatically possess gravity. It does not and that is how dark matter is ignored. After much consideration, I began to realize that space itself is extremely pressurized electron neutrinos although we have no way to read this pressure except through the gravitational constant. The heat in a mass such as our planet is making dark matter. It does this by destroying electrons and shooting them from the mass as electron neutrinos. The only difference is that these energized neutrinos do not react with normal matter. They go directly into space but are slowed because they are running into their unenergized selves in space. This causes the constant pressure of space around the mass to become distorted. This is gravitational lensing. Gravity is created as space uses its pressure to push through the outgoing matter in a perfect transfer of matter. The unenergized electron neutrinos of space do react with normal matter as they are pushed through. Their momentum is transfered to the normal matter but they are not stopped. These neutrinos reform into electrons if they can and cause a charge. A perfect example is lightning. The neutrinos are showered into the clouds, water or volcanic, and reform into new electrons. The clouds are not grounded to the Earth so a massive build-up of electrons is formed. If matter is taken to absolute zero, this flow stops and gravity stops. It took many years to realize this. It all stems from realizing that the "Big Bang" was simply two gargantuan objects colliding at an astronomical speed in an already existing, static universe. Gravity did not give us plasma. The pressure and friction from the collision did. That is why gravity is misunderstood. www.quora.com/profile/Michael-Pollock-12?ch=10&share=841f36e1&srid=hijuf
‘The Economist’ Aug 28 to Sep 03 2021 has a surprisingly good article covering this area of the quantising gravity as well as theories of everything. Strong recommend for anyone interested. It also includes references to some of the recent experimental findings in the last 2 years since this video of Sabine’s was released.
If one really wants to get a view of how gravity can be quantized in a realistic physical way, one has to observe the way the (rotating) micro singularities typically bend and next wrap EM fieldines in spirals around the centre, clockwise and anti-clockwise. Such simulations are abundant in the academic -engineering- world. Next one has to understand that the more Energy is involved with this wrapping (of the same field line), the more windings occur, each separated by the Planck Energy (!) distance (this is why electron orbits are a mulititude of Planck energy). As such, looking from our outside spacetime environment to such a (subatomic) singularity grid, means we see a spiraled grid which is quantized in an integer of 2pi energy filedline windings. This integer of windings is the origin of the Quantum, period. Next, one has to understand that this wrapped fieldine is orthogonally drawn in (contracted) from our space-time environment. its is exactly the same fieldline that constitutes continuous spacetime and the 'quantized' orthogonal wrapped subatomic EM field. As such; the expanding atom generated EM field IS the connected nemesis of the contracting spacetime field around the atom. So in a way electromagnetism is the quantum theory of gravity....
@@RalphDratman I'm sure I've seen you across several lecture videos and discussions about math and physics at least for the past 3 ish years. I have interests in theoretical high energy physics, teaching and philosophy.I just recently started a PhD in physics so I'm still exploring the possibilities but I believe I'll be working on non equilibrium field theory for a while. I imagine you've been on this for quite way longer than I have which to me is super cool.
@@UnforsakenXII I am glad to hear you are pursuing your interests and enjoying the work! I have not become involved in the details because my math skills are not well developed. I just like to read about everything that is happening and try to understand it as well as I can from a distance. Did you already get a bachelor's degree and maybe some other credentials? I'm just curious about that. I kind of rejected myself from the physics curriculum because I did not seem to be able to handle the studying. But I have never stopped thinking about all that.
@@RalphDratman I just recently got my degree in physics and a few other associates in biology and chemistry while I was at community college. Honestly, with all the information that's available online, you can learn quite a lot more than what colleges have to offer in undergrad. In fact, there's never enough time to cover everything so over time, you can build up quite a wealth of fun knowledge.
One of my colleagues who was a physicist used quantum mechanics to design Impatt and Gunn diode oscillators while the rest of us relied on transmission line principles for that design.
She is right about finding a solution. In a way the human mind is an intrinsic part of entropy, natures logarithmic box. If you think about it, Einstein had an essential way when thinking beyond calculation and experimentation, he used thought experimentation. A computer calculating is limited to the knowledge of the programmer( the humans black box).
Why is that no body has guts like you to speak the truth, when you were explaining all your understanding of cosmos, in my eyes you become truly bigger and knowledgeable scientists, thank you for speaking the truth.
The true is that everyone is hanging on his own model, speculating since 40 years without finding anything ! They include virtual particles like the Alakazamino with their mathematical spells to try to convince everyone they’ve found the quintessence
Here are two famous myths about physics: 1) "GR enabled GPS" ... well ... not really ... a table of corrective factors does the trick inside electronics in GPS satellites ... derived from measurements and not from GR based calculus ... (because SR got in its ways! ... just place an atomic clock onto the moon, synchronize it and wait a year ... watch the results compared with values from the initially synchronized atomic clock on earth ...) ... 2) "Quantum physics enabled the semiconducteur industry" ... well ... just listen to the many talks given by Prof. Dr. Carver Mead from Caltech ... he witnessed the very beginnings of the semiconducteur industry ... it all started with companies like Fairchild, then Intel and later Texas Instruments ... all achievements in the field of semiconducteurs were achieved by the only real scientific methodology ... TRIAL (concept/theory) & ERROR (falsification!) ... just repeating it over and over again ... until measurements turned into usfull results ... and quantum physics later on added a nice sounding narrative ... by re-packaging it all as a story of "science" ... nothing could be more distanced from reality than such a myth ... ;-) ruclips.net/video/qhJaq3kl6Dc/видео.html
heh, only transistors (and rectifiers, and LEDs...) were theorized about - using QM - and patented decades before manufacturing became refined enough to make any. if there's an apriori, theory-driven invention, it's semiconductor devices. Calver says something different in your video than what you relay. Perhaps the difference was too subtle. He says people abandoned the search for better devices, instead focussing on how to miniaturize the ones they knew how to make.
@@tinfoil8599 ... well ... it was 1948 when Bardeen & Shockley found out about the separation of charges in semiconductors in order to find the transistor structure ... 1948 ... The development of QM started in the 1920th with Paul Dirac, but got into bigger and bigger trouble. It was Hans Bethe in 1947 with his idea about renormalization who gave the theory development of QM (lather QED) a new impulse. It took another two decades till Tomonaga, Schweiger & Feynman got the nobel price for QED in 1965. So you see, the timeline alone makes it clear that the development of processes for the manufacturing of semiconductors was based nearly all the time on the only real scientific method 'trial & error'. QM in the 1940th. was'nt ready in a form which could have enabled such innovations in the field of semiconductors.
One theory I find appealing is quantized Einstein Cartan theory. It introduces torsion and is the gauge theory of the Poincaré symmetry. As far as I know, it even removes the singularities of torsion-free General Relativity. The scale where it differs substantially from torsion free GR is still away from what is observable at the moment, so it is not yet ruled out as a candidate. I wonder why this theory did not find a wider appreciation up to now...
I’m going with #5, based on the totally scientific premise that “it just feels right to me.” Hope you come back around to hit that one in more detail later.
Thank you Sabine that clarifies a lot of issues around quantum mechanics and gravity for me but just have a question why does it even have to have practical value at all to me just the fact that it's an essential way to understand nature is fascinating enough I always appreciate your lectures thank you
*X = {Y + (T² - Z)} / T* where *T* = (I called it the *"threshold value"* which scales the numerator based on a value chosen for T). *Y* = The input value that's meant to be increasing. *Z* = The input value that's meant to be decreasing. The numerical value of *X* would then increase infinitely if both conditions from above are met. That was the solution I came up with.
After the String Theory, every Theory sounded progressively more obscure. String Theory seems to be the best bet, though lately, it seems a lot contrived. Brian Greene, in his book “The Elegant Universe” clearly explains how string theory can accommodate gravity at quantum distances, and goes on to explain how the Big Bounce occurs, after the Big Crunch of our universe.
I am slowly watching your old videos, too, as well as your new ones, since I found your channel, and I am happy to find that you were always a great science educator, even years ago! So, here's a comment for the Almighty Algorithm, hoping that the old ones are suggested to people as much as new ones. 😁
First off, computers, cell phones, and GPS do not run on quantum mechanics (QM). An atomic clock surely is based on the quantization of the atom and energy levels and E=hv but let's not mistake the model for the map. So nature is quantized, and QM is a model that allows us to take advantage of that. Second, it is likely that if we can crack the atomic scale better - move past QM - we'll solve gravity. I cover off the basics of this - starting with the electron - in my article "Is Physics Missing Something Simple - Are we locked in a Schroedinger box" www.linkedin.com/pulse/physics-missing-something-simple-we-locked-box-navid-sadikali/
@End of Petroleum I read the article, and agree with most of it. I have long believed that much of physics is wrong. Traditional scientists base their views of the world on math, not on physical reality. Your article on the electron is correct. There is no need for probability, we can have exact orbits. Also, electrons do spin, just as you said. In fact, the spin options are in multiple directions, not just two. I have actually published a book on New Model of the Atom, focusing on Electron Orbits and Quantum Leaps, which I think you will like. www.amazon.com/dp/B07TBRDY1S Would love to hear more of your ideas. Find me on social media...
@@fewwiggle I think Carver Mead - one of the eminent physicists of the Silicon Age (he coined the phrase "Moore's law") can speak to this www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6470915639937634304
Like a marble in a fish tank also is the effect of a particle in the universe, the marble displaces its own volume of water, the particle in the universe displaces its own density of space. This effect causes the strong nuclear force at the quantum scale and what we feel it as gravity at the planetary scale and accumulation of matter along with the density of matter. This effect can only be quantized at the atomic scale of a single particle and is quantized. We describe that quantization as the "strong nuclear force"
Sabine, I believe we are overlooking the outcome of the ultraviolet electromagnetic spectrum because we can not see it or understand it inside our 3+1 conscious reality dimensions. Here's an idea from a farmer/artist trying to figure out nature (this works for my food farm). BODY/MATTER: infrared - thermodynamic outcomes rendered in 2+1 dimensions (no visible light causality - light/dark, off/on, 0/1 - no time). MIND: visible light reflects a code of the underlying thermodynamic outcome, rendering the universe into 3+1 dimensions - adding visible light causality to the unfolding math of electromagnetic info between Sun/Earth. SOUL: ultraviolet light renders in death/darkness (from the POV of visible light) and collapses the 4 dimensions into 1 - now encoded through the process of life in some way we can not understand from inside consciousness, where everything propagates through the 3+1 architectures of reality (I can provide a complete list upon request :).
Since I work for Canada Post, the next time I drop a parcel I will analyze the various aspects of gravity’s nuances and tell the customer to relax, this moment in space-time is relative to gravity and we must learn from it now!
Sabine, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't LCG ruled out by experiments that failed to see the predicted dispersion signal from observation of astronomical events where timing was available.
...I remember a song about not wanted to hear about your "theories of everything" and now here you are theorizing the missing piece for a theory of everything....
Echoing amir steklov, I'm quickly becoming a big fan. Just bought Lost in Math, and read the first 5 chapters at one very long sitting, just like a thriller that is a "page-turner," impossible to put down. It's as if God Herself took pity on humans and came down to visit for a while and give us a few pointers. Finally, the voice of reason!! (Peeking ahead at Chapter 8, 'emergent gravity' is there, but obscurely, via the very last word of the third paragraph on page 190 -- then indirectly, via the section on Xiao-Gang Wen on pp. 190-193.) Quite aside from its very solid content, the book is worth buying just for its sly wicked humor, which pops up every 4 or 5 pages.
While I am a Scientist, I know sht about Physics, so I can't add my two cents. But I 100 percent AGREE that a complete understanding of gravity is VERY important!
I understand that quantum mechanics about the very small is like a staircase whereas general relativity about gravitation of the very large is like a slide. With quantum mechanics there are sudden jumps to different quanta and energy levels. In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity changes gradually. I also understand that the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of relativity contradict each other, but one good thing in string theory is that these two contrary physical laws can be resolved.
Physics is a model produced by scientists and backed, as far as we can by observation, it might not be entirely how the universe works. Getting a full knowledge, a Grand Universal Theory might be impossible but that is no reason not to try. Quantum gravity might not have any known practical use now, but how many uses did we have for Quantum physics. If you never open the box, is the cat always alive, potentially forever? (joke)
@@GradyPhilpott you would , of course, need an auto feeder and water supply so you could not tell if it is eating or not. Soundproofing, poo and urine disposal. Smell. Lots of iffs and buts. Then, if someone else looks in but never tells you to them it is alive or dead but to you it is still both.
Alfred North Whitehead said something like if one cannot feel science, or make a connection of it with our emotions, then it won't matter. I don't know how I feel about this, since I think he is talking a little about Gravity too, which we cannot see with our eyes directly, but only feel at times. I wrote a self-published book, Structure: How we Made Happiness, as an alternative to our idea of Gravity. I don't think it is a theoretical book always, but it depends on how you read it. In fact, I need to rewrite the whole book to rephrase it completely, I am just reminded! Ok, sorry. I am glad you are making all of these videos. If Quantum Gravity can be useful, I hope we find it soon.
I also think, that gravity is an emergent phenomenon. Maybe space itself emerges out of the number of particle-interactions. Vacuume is full of particles, and the number of interactions tells us how big an area is. So you don't need "finite particle sizes" any more. You can consider these particles zero-sized, with some size-uncertainty caused by interaction-probability. The pure interaction count gives us the "impression" of space and dimension. That's how I would explain that.
I watch a few physics channels. Your channel with less diagrams does require some subject familiarity. Including references really helps. As a fun excerise I want go through Einstein's special relativity thought experiments. I want to share this exercise with my daughter.
@ 4:54. That is the clue; "...infinities which appear when quantum particles interact at very short distances." The substitution of the short distances with "objects of finite extension" is the flaw in this approach. Thank you / Mahalo!
I like the emergent approach. Question: Checking the gravitational pull of a small object like a particle in superposition would be difficult. Is there any research investigating the gravity of entangled material objects separated by large distances? Is large-scale non-locality worth investigating? Also, a little more philosophical: We seem to be very far from everyday experience and hitting some very unintuitive "dualities". Is having a single theory even a reasonable goal, or do we have to accept a theory that works within empirical limits because the universe is observer-dependent?
I think accepting a theory that works in lieu of a single theory that is complete is a possible long-term outcome, but we are nowhere near being able to reach such a conclusion. The reductive approach has achieved so much already, and, for instance, "dark matter" is still a completely open question, meaning there is a great deal of fundamental experimental/observational work yet to be done.
Pavlos, I think you may really like some videos I'm currently editing. In my simulations, time dilation is the emergent behaviour. I'd like to invite you to my channel. I have a few non physics, "primordial particle system" videos that got me into emerging behaviour, and into physics simulators... Stop by and say hi!
"Checking the gravitational pull of a small object like a particle in superposition would be difficult" I think they're trying to do that now with Rydberg atoms
@@AndDiracisHisProphet Two of the greatest mind in #scientific #history agree: "All attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena is futile and destined to oblivion." - Nikola Tesla "I just want to explain what I mean when I say that we should try to hold on to physical reality. We are … all aware of the situation regarding what will turn out to be the basic foundational concepts in physics: the point-mass or the particle is surely not among them; the field, in the Faraday-Maxwell sense, might be, but not with certainty. But that which we conceive as existing ("real") should somehow be localized in time and space. That is, the real in one part of space, A, should (in theory) somehow "exist" independently of that which is thought of as real in another part of space, B. If a physical system stretches over A and B, then what is present in B should somehow have an existence independent of what is present in A. What is actually present in B should thus not depend the type of measurement carried out in the part of space A; it should also be independent of whether or not a measurement is made in A. If one adheres to this program, then one can hardly view the quantum-theoretical description as a complete representation of the physically real. If one attempts, nevertheless, so to view it, then one must assume that the physically real in B undergoes a sudden change because of a measurement in A. My physical instincts bristle at that suggestion. However, if one renounces the assumption that what is present in different parts of space has an independent, real existence, then I don't see at all what physics is supposed to be describing. For what is thought to be a "system" is after all, just conventional, and I do not see how one is supposed to divide up the world objectively so that one can make statements about parts." - Albert Einstein
Sabine, love your content! I was wondering, as a request, if you might be able to do a more in-depth video exploring emergent gravity, both in terms of its theoretical promise, and in terms of its theoretical roadblocks. Thanks!
It seems to me, as a mathematician, that quantizing gravity (General Relativity GR) is the wrong way to proceed. The issue is that Quantum Mechanics (QM) is linear in mathematical character, while GR is non-linear. Every linear theory is non-linear. This confusing and seemingly contradictory statement is due to unfortunate choice of terminology. "non-linear" does not really mean NOT linear, but rather not necessarily linear. Non-linearity is MORE GENERAL than linearity. Hence it is impossible, even in principle, to quantize gravity GR because it is impossible to make a non-linear theory such as GR into a linear theory such as QM. Instead, in my opinion, the mathematically feasible approach should be the geometrization of QM rather than the quantization of GR. The underlying variables in QM are linear space & time, so that trying to cram GR into the Procrustean bed of QM is doomed to failure. GR can be formulated on a variational principle: Einstein-Hilbert action. QM can also be formulated on a variational principle. It seems to me that combining these approaches has promise.
@Julez O'Neil String theory has so far accomplished exactly NOTHING. It explains nothing, makes no testable predictions, and is so far empty. I do not imply that it will never work, but it has failed utterly so far.
@Julez O'Neil New Mathematics? YES. I agree that String Theory has produced some very new and interesting Mathematics. New Physics? Not until clear predictions have been tested extensively. I don't hate it at all. But I do not accept it as Physics until it has paid its proper dues.
@Julez O'Neil "Just out of reach" = phooey. Fusion power has been just out of reach for 50 years. Wait until AFTER the predictions have been made and verified before declaring success.
In induced gravity approach, EH action comes out as an approximation. There are quantum correction terms to the action. Also, contrary to the quantum case, the equations of quantum mechanics may not describe dynamics, so that the *actual* dynamics may be actually nonlinear :D
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks Sabine, that was very to the point. I am not a phycisist, only a "mere" political/environmental science educated person. Still, I am fascinated by astronomy and cosmology. You seem to be able to find the right words for me to follow in broad terms of what you mean (I think). I enjoy that!
First one of her videos I watched I thought afterwards OMG I understood all of that.
Couple of seconds later I was subscribed and clicked the notify bell. Now waiting for delivery of her book from Amazon, just search her name if interested.
@@seriousthree6071 Cool. Thanks.
GRAVITY AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY ARE LINKED AND BALANCED OPPOSITES, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY:
Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY is gravity, AS E=mc2 is directly and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Why and how gravity is clearly proven to be ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy:
ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Motion is relative. Consider the photon AND the speed of light. Balanced inertia/inertial resistance is fundamental. The speed of light is inertial resistance. Energy has/involves gravity, AND energy has/involves inertia/inertial resistance. Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. So, inertia/inertial resistance is proportional to (or balanced with/as) gravitational force/energy, as this unifies and balances ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND gravity. So, the photon(s) and black hole(s) are linked and balanced opposites, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. In the case of the black hole, there is full gravity with/involving full and balanced inertia/inertial resistance. Therefore, gravitational force/energy is proportional to (or balanced with/as) inertia/inertial resistance. Great !!! Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.
Motion is relative. Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, a given planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. Magnificent !!! This explains perpetual motion.
The falling man feels no gravity, as the feeling of gravity by the man who is standing on the earth/ground ALSO involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. So, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Therefore, inertia/inertial resistance is proportional to (or balanced with/as) gravitational force/energy; as this balances and unifies ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND gravity.
Outer "space" involves full inertia, AND it is fully invisible AND black.
The sun and photons are linked and balanced, AND the speed of light is inertial resistance. Motion is relative.
By Frank DiMeglio
Frank DiMeglio is the world authority on quantum gravity. Hossenfelder is lying her head off. Ask her about Frank DiMeglio.
Astronomy has nothing to do with telescopes.
Fantastic stuff as always.
oh look it's the guy whose stories I love!
a wild exurb1a!
@@frankdimeglio8216 u ok my dude?
@@frankdimeglio8216 U right?
@exurb1a quite like your fantastic videos ^^
I love your videos because you explain without simplifications. No other source I know of has described all these ideas.
Thank you, as a 60s educated retiree and non physcist. You present and provide inspirational explanation and insight to this fascinating subject.
Education never ends.
Hossenfelder is not capable of understanding gravity. Truth, reality, AND nature/natural experience go hand in hand. Hossenfelder is control freak nonsense that is fundamentally based upon a lack of understanding. So, it is the RELATIONAL view of the way things "should be". It is not the way things are. Hossenfelder is not a genius. Hossenfelder is political. Hossenfelder 💰 is the maximum money making agenda "physics". She is extremely slick.
@@frankdimeglio8216 is not capable of understanding Hossenfelder. Truth, reality, AND nature/natural experience go hand in hand. DiMeglio is control freak nonsense that is fundamentally based upon a lack of Hossenfelder. So, it is the DIMEGLIO view of the way things "should be". It is not the way things are. DiMeglio is not a genius. DiMeglio is political. DiMeglio 💰 is the maximum money making agenda "physics". He is extremely sick.
Zabina is good, but you need to take her with a grain of salt
This is, in my opinion, the most informative physics channel. Straight to the point. Thanks a lot for this.
Straight to the point *and* shows various different interpretations *and* does not pretend what we know is 100% accurate, etc.
Even though I know she's human and that she will push one thing over the other, at least I get a chance to hear of the alternatives, something you only get glimpses of in other physics channels.
Gravity as an emergent phenomena sounds compelling
Gravity could be a very weak side effect of electrical forces not cancelling out completely.
Gravity could be like sand; it's course and it gets everywhere. I like it.
Agree, quite compelling. Shoot, you can pretty much keep general relativity, wholesale. It can still be as "correct" as it appears, just with the caveat that gravity is no longer a fundamental force.
Hasbeenninconsistent with tests
@@starseed96 no, it couldn't.
I enjoy your videos. Physics is not day job and I especially like your descriptions of "work in progress" at the boundary of our knowledge: what the hypothesis attempts to address and what are its limits.
Dear Sabine, I recently discovered your channel and slowly becoming a huge fan! your point of views about physics are eye opening and i soon going to read your book, looking forward to do so :) keep on the good work. and thank you very much for sharing your ideas with us!
Thanks for the feedback. Glad you find it useful!
@@SabineHossenfelder Sabine, Thank you for your intelligent and knowledge and your teachings, Although I get lost sometimes.
Too much new info.
Your takes are like a breath of fresh air, given how much mathematics (without going anything like full Mach) have directed recent developments.
Hello there Sabine. Excellent lecture, a complex problem, simply explained, easy to understand, even for the layman. Thank u.
The idea of emergent gravity sounds really exciting. What I like is how it might suggest the irreversibility of time is something that arises out of the statistical behaviour of reversible QM processes. Also it suggests that working more with the theories that are well known already might lead to a new theory rather than just jumping into a new model.
I really liked reading work of Erik Verlinde on the topic of emergent gravity. It is now heavily being discussed and also partly being questioned about its assumptions. These are some nicely refreshing developments aside the "dark matter" explanations.
@@kapserdeleewu I agree with Bhangra Fan -- when Hossenfelder got to emergent gravity, that's the one that suddenly sounded 'right' to me -- very exciting. Thank you kapserdeleewu for mentioning Erik Verlinde. Yes, very good stuff in his articles and youtube lectures, which you led me to.
the problem with everyone from Einstein to today, is that they do not realize that time is not a dimension in any way shape or form (most people have been given this information in various forms, but they do not Realize the information for some reason), and _does not exist_ (under the strict definition of the term, of course there is something we notice and label time, but as with any statistic, it is purely conceptual. therefore you cannot travel "through" it, it does not "flow", therefore it cannot be "reversed".
if time is real and part of the fabric of space, then answer me this :
q: if the only thing in this universe was a single dripping faucet, how much time passes between each drip?
answer: you dont know, you need at least one other faucet, then you can say something like "the faucet drips twice for each time the other faucet drips".
see time emerges purely as a concept, a tool were create by using a comparison of two or more events. we imagine it, and therefore our truthful observations of time, can be truthfully contradicted by other observers, an obvious paradox in the whole theory of time as a dimension ..
hell, time is far less like a dimension to be measured, and far more like a measuring stick that does the measuring.
@@Ghryst Doesn't the exact same logic work for space dimensions though? You could only measure the faucet with something else, and different observers might measure different lengths(according to relativity, not sure about the specifics since I'm no expert)
@@trolledwoods377 that is correct. space is not a "thing", it does not "exist", as in it has no existence of its own. you cannot "put" some space in a box, or take some space and show it to someone. space is like a measuring stick also.. it is the Place, or the Area in which Things exist.
which means, you cant stretch it, you cant warp it, you cant bend it. tell me how to warp something that does not have form or shape or existence?
"excuse me sir, could you please bend this Nothing for me?"
and as for measuring the amount of space between things (aka: distances), yes, you need an object of comparison to make that measurement, for example another faucet "this faucet is twice its own length away from the other faucet", or some particles "this faucets is 100billion particles in length", but it would be pointless if there is only one "this faucet is the length of its length" makes no sense. (drips are better examples, because space and faucets that exist within space have multiple dimensions, and you could in fact compare its length to its width, although you could never describe an absolute size, only its proportions)
Its very good this channel. I'm an physicist AND it's very appealing for me. I do solid state physics and I dont have time enough to read about relativity and quantum mechanics advances.
The first time I watched this very good presentation, I was unaware that this particular subject is your actual field of active research, unless I am mistaken.
Figuring out just what experiments are possible with present technology to rule out (or dramatically confirm someday) different theories of quantized gravity sounds EXTREMELY interesting, and I would enjoy a video where you give us a glimpse of your work, in your own words.
Thank you for all that you do!
I'm happy you mentioned CDT in your video! :) With Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT) one might be able to do "experiments". For example in 3+1 dimensions , we can create space-times which behave according to the Hartle- Hawkin Minisuperspace - model, which is a model to describe our world, and fits to the observations. Soon we will show how a point-particle affects the geometry, which can be compared to the Newtonian potential. Furthermore, the UV -fixed point (proposed by Weinberg, so it aligns with the Asymptotic safety sceario) potentiall could be pinpointed, and performing measurements there could help restoring the continuum theory of quantum gravity.
It is well known (Georgi) that such an approach is pointless. If you knew what the UV fixed point was, adding matter would moving elsewhere and would change the low energy physics. So unless you know know all the particles up to the Planck scale , you couldn't actually pinpoint a UV fixed point that describes our low energy physics.
I would argue, already with your first sentence. "well known" is a bit strong word. Could you please explain it?
Adding matter in the form of fields or in a quenched way might change the values of the couplings, but in lattice theories you can measure the effects and changes in your parameter space. Then you can perform an RG flow, which is well defined, and you can find the fixed point. I don't see problem here!
Németh Dániel I see, I was talking about continuum theories. But the point still holds, the problem with this approach was why people before string theory didn't care about quantum gravity. The problem is that even if you write a lattice theory and add matter in some way, the low energy physics you get from the RG Is in principle very dependent on the high energy physics, so unless you know a lot about particle physics at really high scales, we can't make any predictions with quantum gravity.
I think its not true, that people did not care about quantumgravity. Just they didn't have solutions (nor have us today). And yes, the low energy physics depends on the high energy physics, this is what it means to make an RG flow. You can define your theory at high energyies and then check what it says about the low energy (run from UV to IR ). If the model is well defined, then it can reproduce that we can see at CERN.... (for example we can measure interactions/couplings...).
A good theory of quantumgravity might give an answer to this "modern cosmologyical problem", that the observations give different values for the Hubble parameter. Maybe its the result of a running constant (in the early universe it had a different value.. ). If one can define a quantum theory of gravity and perfrom an RG flow, it could maybe reproduce our measurements about the space-time. We can make predictions!
Ever since I heard about the problem, I thought about gravity to most likely be an emergent phenomenon. But, I never followed up on it, hence had no clue the idea is actually one of the five major theories.
Thanks, Sabine!
I LOVE RUclips! I LOVE RUclips! I LOVE RUclips! To think that at anytime I can be lectured on string theory, loop quantum gravity, quantum mechanics, and relativity (special and general), makes me love living! Thank you Professor Hossenfelder!
do u really think that after watching a couple of scientific videos on youtube you'll get the exhaustive understanding and solid knowledge in such difficult domain like Relativity theory and quantum physics?
@@science_engineering I have been studying this before you and the internet were even born.
@@justanotherguy469 and keep watching videos for "noobs"?
Ok ok...
@@science_engineering For noobs? What is that? Speak English. I worked in the field of micro-structural metallurgy for a number of years for Honeywell Information systems and also as a chemist. Are you still a teenager? Now I use my knowledge of physics to fix human bodies. and save lives. What have you done. Please reply with an intelligent answer.
Ok, zoomer. Happy 13th birthday. You don’t even know what is a noob. You are the EMBODIMENT of a noob .
The reason one can not quantize gravity is the same reason that one cannot take a ten penny nail, and drive this into the foam on top of a chocolate soda. The reason is both applications and elusivity. Nobody needs to break it down by the applications of high energy physics. Understanding of gravity is essential in the exploration of near and far space for Earth based humans. This is so, as from a block fractal perspective, the rotary wheeled intended concept to promote a made gravity in space, may not be fully applicable to personnel in space. So the geneses of gravity in space for humans, might lay within the direction of a generating array of a made force which can enact in say any room in a space station while in space. The hint clue, is the term (gravity spots).I like you, your'e interesting and a thought provoking scientist.
I have tried to analyze why I like your video’s so much. Is it the German accent in your scientific English that for my generation spells deep learnedness? Is it the high amount of inflection with which you impart so much understanding and which makes listening to your Referat so easy, with a cup of coffee? Is it the full dedication to content, with a total lack of ego, not trying to show how smart you are, but how interesting the subject matter is? Or is the choice of subjects, that are mundane questions that you are able to make into glittering gems of physics, reminding us physicists what a beautiful field we have chosen? Or is it the total absence of smiling, that so often is strewn all over the presentation by women? I do not know what that means or if it is intentional or not, but it is a constant through all of your fascinating video’s, making them even more fascinating. It has made me think, what does smiling do to a story being told. I’m beginning to find out.
Excellent overview of some contenders for quantizing gravity. Many important papers on he various approaches to quantum gravity are available on the arXiv .
I'm so glad that you put this video up. In the comments for your video on string theory's limitations, I found myself arguing that string theory's problems did not mean that there was a reason to not quantize gravity. It seems like I may have upset some that believe GR is canon and applicable in the full energy spectrum.
Could you also provide reference materials/ original research articles alongside your videos?
For eg, I'd love to read original articles on perturbatively quantized gravity.
Will try to do that in the future. Thanks for the feedback.
Why don't you look it up yourself... lazy
I merely added a public reply like it asked me to.
Learn not to be lazy
FS
I'd love to delve deeper into why exactly we shouldn't discriminate between space and time. What if they are separate things? What if the idea of space-time is a knot that needs to be untied in order for the Standard Model to progress? In that case, Causal Dynamical Triangulation could really have a great deal of merit. Einstein was right about many, many things - I even believe he was right about some of the things that a lot of people today believe he was wrong about (such as his faith in determinism) - but I think he may have been wrong about seeing space and time as the same thing, and I believe this possibility needs to be seriously explored.
So glad you buck the assumptions of the status quo.
Saving this video.
Many of those ''False Hearted Physicists'' are possibly as Feared & Jealous of her as if it was Joan herself.
ruclips.net/video/gtwUyDPXROQ/видео.html
“Poetry is just the evidence of life. If your life is burning well, poetry is just the ash.”-Leonard Cohen
@@soldtobediers what do you mean by ''False Hearted Physicists'' ?
@@leyasep5919 Why? Do you ask? -9719
@@soldtobediers because I don't see why fear and jealousy are relevant here, and I don't get who you talk about.
@@leyasep5919 Same group of Vipers that wished to nail Galileo for revealing the Truth of Physics in his day. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences
Who's ongoing motto is: Leave no child's behind. -9719
Thermodynamics. Gravidynamics. Nice.
Also, your graphics and animations are superb! You’re the whole package, Sabine.
I really like your presentation and distillation of the major schools of thought on this. Since I have just stumbled onto your channel, I will have to be doing some catch up with your other clips. I can say at this point all 5 presented still suffer from what I refer to as Newtonian hubris or bias, which is to say the assumption that our frame of reference is the correct one or the core paradigm that matters.
how can you make science without that assumption? without that assumption basically anything goes. Wizard did it becomes a valid explanation, because we're merely looking at things from our frame of reference, so it does not make sense to us, but in some other frame of reference this is valid. That's not science. That's not a testable and falsifiable proposition.
@@vyli1 - your lack of comprehension is not a refutation. Your need for ego feeding hubris is noted. Your need to assume that the universe is all about you, when it is repeatedly demonstrated not to be, is more than problematic. You assume your perspective is 100% accurate regardless of evidence.
Gravity doesn't really exist in the way people are taught, it is not a force any more than statistical probability is. It is a side effect. Once you really understand what is happening with space-time curvature. There is a mathematician that does a great explanation of about it, using the relative differences easily demonstrated as refraction in higher density materials.
if you could see our 3-d space from a 4-d POV, you would realize our sun really is the diameter of the asteroid belt you see in 3-d. So a star going red giant is not growing, it is space-time turning flatter as mass moves out of the center like a giant ripple from the explosion that started 5 billion years ago. It was just slowed down by mass induced distortions in space-time (gravity well, for laymen). Carl Sagan pointed this out in the 70s before he took the post at Cornell.
There are many good maths channels but I think this one is the best physics channel
It's amazing how much information you include in such a short video. I only knew 3 of these theories. I appreciate your work.
Hello Sabine,
I have two ideas about gravity. First, the issue for gravity is it is moderated by virtual particles. Messy stuff that is hard to study...
Second, it is might be moderated by the possible pathways real particles do not take as those possible pathways have already been allocated by the matter present. Thus the more matter in one place the more possible pathways are allocated and the gravity well becomes deeper. This model shows gravity as an effect of energy inside mass taking up real and virtual pathways, reducing them one by one until you hit a critical mass and achieve the state of a singularity--all possible pathways thru space time are allocated.
Thanks for this interesting recap. Hope you plan more detailed videos on the last 3 theories you introduced. 🙂
Try "The Case for Strong Emergence"! Beautiful!
@Sabine Hossenfelder
I noticed that @2:51 the captions say 'patched' but you say fixed. Also, I noticed that you 'patched' your video to say 'fixed' instead of patched based on your mouth movements. If you don't mind me asking, why did you prefer the term fixed to patched?
Sabine Hossenfelder: "We'll tell you why gravity matters."
Me: Lol Gravity and Matter...
Me (7 minutes and 18 seconds later): I now understand the ideological force of quantum gravity and the accumulative mass of the ideas it propagates.
Why am I addicted to this information that I clearly don't understand -especially when the video ends?
Sabine, a crucial question:
why should gravity have to be quantum in nature? Can’t it be gravity is not the same as the other forces and a theory of everything doesn’t exist?
The response I’ve heard to this is that since the Big Bang produced all the forces, they must all be related, but is this argument absolute proof the forces must knit together?
Pls consider a video on this topic.
I have the same question, and thank you for phrasing it in a more informed way. But the way I phrase it (and think about it) is on what is space-time, what is it made of (if that question even makes sense)? was it created with the big bang, or did matter just expanded into it? How can gravity (in general relativity) curve this space-time if it's not even a thing (I can understand curving a surface, but because it's made of something), what is it curving?
@Anne-Lou So we want ......key words there,,,,
I love how your explanations cut straight to the point. No chit-chat and no extended history lesson. Just my kind of content 🙂 Keep it up!
Sabine, in "Lost in Math" you suggested String Theory has kind of taken over in terms of the academic scene because it's cheaper to fund it than more hardcore experimental programs. Based on the list of Quantized Gravity theories you gave, how well funded is number 2-5 compared to String?
Hossenfelder has no clue about true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY. She is political. She is not a genius. I am.
Here's the proof. THE ULTIMATE AND TRUE MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION AND BALANCING REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS CLEARLY PROVEN, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA:
Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, as E=mc2 IS F=ma. Therefore, this NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity.
The Earth/ground is understood as comprising the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. So, E=mc2 IS F=ma. Overlay what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is the Earth. (LOOK at what is the BLUE SKY. The Earth is ALSO BLUE.) Now, notice the black space of what is THE EYE. GREAT !!!
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The Earth/ground is ALSO E=mc2 AND F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Overlay what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is the Earth. (Notice the black space of what is THE EYE.) NOW, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Notice that THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. LOOK up at what is the BLUE SKY. Excellent. Truly and ultimately, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO visible. Great !!!!! I have proven why people are not visible on what is observed to be the Earth as it is SEEN from outer "space". E=mc2 IS F=ma.
Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience, as E=mc2 IS F=ma. Indeed, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma !!! THEREFORE, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Great !!! THE SUN is E=mc2 AND F=ma. Again, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. THE EARTH/GROUND and WHAT IS THE MOON are both demonstrative of (and subject to) the fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. Beautiful. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand.
SO, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; and this is THEN consistent WITH E=mc2, F=ma, AND what is perpetual motion; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.
E=mc2 IS F=ma. SO, THE EARTH/ground is a linked AND BALANCED opposite in relation to what is THE SUN. It therefore represents and comprises what is the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE in a BALANCED fashion, as E=mc2 IS F=ma. Therefore, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. SO, this NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Great !!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. LOOK down at what constitutes the EARTH/ground. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. SO, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of thought (AND description) is, in fact, improved in the truly superior mind.
Stellar clustering ALSO proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Very carefully consider what is a galaxy.
By Frank DiMeglio
Thank you! Your videos are a breath of fresh air.
Very good. Thank you. You're much appreciated-so is your wisdom.
THE ULTIMATE MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS NOW CLEARLY PROVEN:
INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. Truly and ultimately, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. E=mc2 IS F=ma.
Consider THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Consider the BALANCED dimensional extension of SPACE.) GREAT. THE EYE IS THE BODY. The BALANCE of being AND EXPERIENCE IS essential. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY is CLEARLY gravity. Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Most importantly, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL experience is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, LOOK around. Piece it ALL together. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Magnificent !!!
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, the rotation of what is THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. E=mc2 IS F=ma. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. The ability of THOUGHT to describe OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. It ALL makes perfect sense. I have mathematically unified physics/physical experience. There is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. GREAT !!!!!!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. THINK !!!!! Again, it ALL makes perfect sense. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.)
In conclusion, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. THINK !!! I have truly and ULTIMATELY unified physics/physical experience.
By Frank DiMeglio
THE ULTIMATE MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS NOW CLEARLY PROVEN:
INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. Truly and ultimately, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. E=mc2 IS F=ma.
Consider THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Consider the BALANCED dimensional extension of SPACE.) GREAT. THE EYE IS THE BODY. The BALANCE of being AND EXPERIENCE IS essential. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY is CLEARLY gravity. Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Most importantly, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL experience is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, LOOK around. Piece it ALL together. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Magnificent !!!
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, the rotation of what is THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. E=mc2 IS F=ma. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. The ability of THOUGHT to describe OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. It ALL makes perfect sense. I have mathematically unified physics/physical experience. There is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. GREAT !!!!!!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. THINK !!!!! Again, it ALL makes perfect sense. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.)
In conclusion, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. THINK !!! I have truly and ULTIMATELY unified physics/physical experience.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 I appreciate your reply. We should debate that. I have actually discovered the force called: God that's no different than Gravity. I will soon prove it to the world since "God is in Me."
@@frankdimeglio8216 I loved your reply. You challenged me. I am going to post your text on Facebook. Thank you for your insights. God is; but he's all physical laws.
@@frankdimeglio8216 It's a good idea to avoid Capitalisation if you want to be taken seriously for more than 3 seconds.
Probably one of the answers related to quantum theory is, time and space are not directly related in one closed equation as Einstein stated. Although light is, that does not represent all circular spin motions of particles.
Since you mentioned Feynman I like to recall his question on whether developing a theory was worthwhile 'Can you tell if my theory is right?' . Looking forward on your video on how to experimentally test if a theoretical model of QG is correct.
Sabine, space is definitely quantum. I've thought about it for years after I spent about 1 year using the big bang theory. I realized that it is this theory that has made us unable to understand gravity. It does this by assuming all matter automatically possess gravity. It does not and that is how dark matter is ignored.
After much consideration, I began to realize that space itself is extremely pressurized electron neutrinos although we have no way to read this pressure except through the gravitational constant. The heat in a mass such as our planet is making dark matter. It does this by destroying electrons and shooting them from the mass as electron neutrinos. The only difference is that these energized neutrinos do not react with normal matter. They go directly into space but are slowed because they are running into their unenergized selves in space. This causes the constant pressure of space around the mass to become distorted. This is gravitational lensing. Gravity is created as space uses its pressure to push through the outgoing matter in a perfect transfer of matter. The unenergized electron neutrinos of space do react with normal matter as they are pushed through. Their momentum is transfered to the normal matter but they are not stopped. These neutrinos reform into electrons if they can and cause a charge. A perfect example is lightning. The neutrinos are showered into the clouds, water or volcanic, and reform into new electrons. The clouds are not grounded to the Earth so a massive build-up of electrons is formed. If matter is taken to absolute zero, this flow stops and gravity stops.
It took many years to realize this. It all stems from realizing that the "Big Bang" was simply two gargantuan objects colliding at an astronomical speed in an already existing, static universe. Gravity did not give us plasma. The pressure and friction from the collision did. That is why gravity is misunderstood.
www.quora.com/profile/Michael-Pollock-12?ch=10&share=841f36e1&srid=hijuf
Sabine, you are amazing and your videos are amazing, thank you!
‘The Economist’ Aug 28 to Sep 03 2021 has a surprisingly good article covering this area of the quantising gravity as well as theories of everything. Strong recommend for anyone interested. It also includes references to some of the recent experimental findings in the last 2 years since this video of Sabine’s was released.
Please give this brilliant woman a grant and let her do some research on the matter.
She should go on Patreon to get support. I will contribute there too.
If one really wants to get a view of how gravity can be quantized in a realistic physical way, one has to observe the way the (rotating) micro singularities typically bend and next wrap EM fieldines in spirals around the centre, clockwise and anti-clockwise. Such simulations are abundant in the academic -engineering- world. Next one has to understand that the more Energy is involved with this wrapping (of the same field line), the more windings occur, each separated by the Planck Energy (!) distance (this is why electron orbits are a mulititude of Planck energy). As such, looking from our outside spacetime environment to such a (subatomic) singularity grid, means we see a spiraled grid which is quantized in an integer of 2pi energy filedline windings. This integer of windings is the origin of the Quantum, period.
Next, one has to understand that this wrapped fieldine is orthogonally drawn in (contracted) from our space-time environment. its is exactly the same fieldline that constitutes continuous spacetime and the 'quantized' orthogonal wrapped subatomic EM field. As such; the expanding atom generated EM field IS the connected nemesis of the contracting spacetime field around the atom. So in a way electromagnetism is the quantum theory of gravity....
This is wonderfully clear and concise. Thank you so much, Sabine.
I see you everywhere still!
@@UnforsakenXII Hi! We must be watching the same videos. What are your interests?
@@RalphDratman I'm sure I've seen you across several lecture videos and discussions about math and physics at least for the past 3 ish years. I have interests in theoretical high energy physics, teaching and philosophy.I just recently started a PhD in physics so I'm still exploring the possibilities but I believe I'll be working on non equilibrium field theory for a while. I imagine you've been on this for quite way longer than I have which to me is super cool.
@@UnforsakenXII I am glad to hear you are pursuing your interests and enjoying the work! I have not become involved in the details because my math skills are not well developed. I just like to read about everything that is happening and try to understand it as well as I can from a distance. Did you already get a bachelor's degree and maybe some other credentials? I'm just curious about that. I kind of rejected myself from the physics curriculum because I did not seem to be able to handle the studying. But I have never stopped thinking about all that.
@@RalphDratman I just recently got my degree in physics and a few other associates in biology and chemistry while I was at community college. Honestly, with all the information that's available online, you can learn quite a lot more than what colleges have to offer in undergrad. In fact, there's never enough time to cover everything so over time, you can build up quite a wealth of fun knowledge.
This is the second of your explanations that I have watched and again your have explained it with amazing clarity!! I have just become a subscriber.
Your channel is a total trip.
❤❤❤❤❤❤
One of my colleagues who was a physicist used quantum mechanics to design Impatt and Gunn diode oscillators while the rest of us relied on transmission line principles for that design.
She is right about finding a solution. In a way the human mind is an intrinsic part of entropy, natures logarithmic box. If you think about it, Einstein had an essential way when thinking beyond calculation and experimentation, he used thought experimentation. A computer calculating is limited to the knowledge of the programmer( the humans black box).
Very well said sir!
Why is that no body has guts like you to speak the truth, when you were explaining all your understanding of cosmos, in my eyes you become truly bigger and knowledgeable scientists, thank you for speaking the truth.
she has the guts to doit, she doesnot sound to ENGLISH were is she from?
The true is that everyone is hanging on his own model, speculating since 40 years without finding anything ! They include virtual particles like the Alakazamino with their mathematical spells to try to convince everyone they’ve found the quintessence
Love the idea of strings, waves, and fuzzyness.
Movement as always seemed to be apart of gravity's influence.
Here are two famous myths about physics:
1) "GR enabled GPS" ... well ... not really ... a table of corrective factors does the trick inside electronics in GPS satellites ... derived from measurements and not from GR based calculus ... (because SR got in its ways! ... just place an atomic clock onto the moon, synchronize it and wait a year ... watch the results compared with values from the initially synchronized atomic clock on earth ...) ...
2) "Quantum physics enabled the semiconducteur industry" ... well ... just listen to the many talks given by Prof. Dr. Carver Mead from Caltech ... he witnessed the very beginnings of the semiconducteur industry ... it all started with companies like Fairchild, then Intel and later Texas Instruments ... all achievements in the field of semiconducteurs were achieved by the only real scientific methodology ... TRIAL (concept/theory) & ERROR (falsification!) ... just repeating it over and over again ... until measurements turned into usfull results ... and quantum physics later on added a nice sounding narrative ... by re-packaging it all as a story of "science" ... nothing could be more distanced from reality than such a myth ... ;-)
ruclips.net/video/qhJaq3kl6Dc/видео.html
Even the inventor of the atomic clock (Louis Essen) thinks GR is nonsense
heh, only transistors (and rectifiers, and LEDs...) were theorized about - using QM - and patented decades before manufacturing became refined enough to make any. if there's an apriori, theory-driven invention, it's semiconductor devices.
Calver says something different in your video than what you relay. Perhaps the difference was too subtle. He says people abandoned the search for better devices, instead focussing on how to miniaturize the ones they knew how to make.
@@tinfoil8599 ... well ... it was 1948 when Bardeen & Shockley found out about the separation of charges in semiconductors in order to find the transistor structure ... 1948 ...
The development of QM started in the 1920th with Paul Dirac, but got into bigger and bigger trouble. It was Hans Bethe in 1947 with his idea about renormalization who gave the theory development of QM (lather QED) a new impulse. It took another two decades till Tomonaga, Schweiger & Feynman got the nobel price for QED in 1965.
So you see, the timeline alone makes it clear that the development of processes for the manufacturing of semiconductors was based nearly all the time on the only real scientific method 'trial & error'. QM in the 1940th. was'nt ready in a form which could have enabled such innovations in the field of semiconductors.
One theory I find appealing is quantized Einstein Cartan theory. It introduces torsion and is the gauge theory of the Poincaré symmetry. As far as I know, it even removes the singularities of torsion-free General Relativity. The scale where it differs substantially from torsion free GR is still away from what is observable at the moment, so it is not yet ruled out as a candidate. I wonder why this theory did not find a wider appreciation up to now...
I’m going with #5, based on the totally scientific premise that “it just feels right to me.” Hope you come back around to hit that one in more detail later.
Thank you Sabine that clarifies a lot of issues around quantum mechanics and gravity for me but just have a question why does it even have to have practical value at all to me just the fact that it's an essential way to understand nature is fascinating enough I always appreciate your lectures thank you
*X = {Y + (T² - Z)} / T*
where *T* = (I called it the *"threshold value"* which scales the numerator based on a value chosen for T).
*Y* = The input value that's meant to be increasing.
*Z* = The input value that's meant to be decreasing.
The numerical value of *X* would then increase infinitely if both conditions from above are met.
That was the solution I came up with.
Kids, this is why you don't do drugs.
And what would this randomness be for?
spare me Lol
@@ThomasJr It works! Trust me, bro.
@@CaptainJeoy works, indeed, but nobody knows for what Haha
After the String Theory, every Theory sounded progressively more obscure. String Theory seems to be the best bet, though lately, it seems a lot contrived. Brian Greene, in his book “The Elegant Universe” clearly explains how string theory can accommodate gravity at quantum distances, and goes on to explain how the Big Bounce occurs, after the Big Crunch of our universe.
Thanks to this channel I know how to pronounce "Einstein"
And me Porsche.
I am slowly watching your old videos, too, as well as your new ones, since I found your channel, and I am happy to find that you were always a great science educator, even years ago! So, here's a comment for the Almighty Algorithm, hoping that the old ones are suggested to people as much as new ones. 😁
First off, computers, cell phones, and GPS do not run on quantum mechanics (QM). An atomic clock surely is based on the quantization of the atom and energy levels and E=hv but let's not mistake the model for the map. So nature is quantized, and QM is a model that allows us to take advantage of that.
Second, it is likely that if we can crack the atomic scale better - move past QM - we'll solve gravity. I cover off the basics of this - starting with the electron - in my article "Is Physics Missing Something Simple - Are we locked in a Schroedinger box" www.linkedin.com/pulse/physics-missing-something-simple-we-locked-box-navid-sadikali/
@End of Petroleum
I read the article, and agree with most of it. I have long believed that much of physics is wrong. Traditional scientists base their views of the world on math, not on physical reality.
Your article on the electron is correct. There is no need for probability, we can have exact orbits. Also, electrons do spin, just as you said. In fact, the spin options are in multiple directions, not just two.
I have actually published a book on New Model of the Atom, focusing on Electron Orbits and Quantum Leaps, which I think you will like. www.amazon.com/dp/B07TBRDY1S
Would love to hear more of your ideas. Find me on social media...
@@markfennell1167 How can "physical reality" be precisely conveyed from mind to mind without using maths?
@@fewwiggle I think Carver Mead - one of the eminent physicists of the Silicon Age (he coined the phrase "Moore's law") can speak to this www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6470915639937634304
Like a marble in a fish tank also is the effect of a particle in the universe, the marble displaces its own volume of water, the particle in the universe displaces its own density of space. This effect causes the strong nuclear force at the quantum scale and what we feel it as gravity at the planetary scale and accumulation of matter along with the density of matter. This effect can only be quantized at the atomic scale of a single particle and is quantized. We describe that quantization as the "strong nuclear force"
Thank you Sabine for this concise and very interesting talk.
Sabine, I believe we are overlooking the outcome of the ultraviolet electromagnetic spectrum because we can not see it or understand it inside our 3+1 conscious reality dimensions. Here's an idea from a farmer/artist trying to figure out nature (this works for my food farm). BODY/MATTER: infrared - thermodynamic outcomes rendered in 2+1 dimensions (no visible light causality - light/dark, off/on, 0/1 - no time). MIND: visible light reflects a code of the underlying thermodynamic outcome, rendering the universe into 3+1 dimensions - adding visible light causality to the unfolding math of electromagnetic info between Sun/Earth. SOUL: ultraviolet light renders in death/darkness (from the POV of visible light) and collapses the 4 dimensions into 1 - now encoded through the process of life in some way we can not understand from inside consciousness, where everything propagates through the 3+1 architectures of reality (I can provide a complete list upon request :).
I'm really starting to appreciate this chick,she seems to have a talent for allowing regular folks to understand science.Reminds me of Dr.Sagan a bit
Since I work for Canada Post, the next time I drop a parcel I will analyze the various aspects of gravity’s nuances and tell the customer to relax, this moment in space-time is relative to gravity and we must learn from it now!
Sabine, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't LCG ruled out by experiments that failed to see the predicted dispersion signal from observation of astronomical events where timing was available.
Absolutely love listening to this woman.
Quantized Inertia (McCulloch) may yield insights as well.
...I remember a song about not wanted to hear about your "theories of everything" and now here you are theorizing the missing piece for a theory of everything....
7:17 just subscribed.
thanks for this interesting and fascinating overview.
Echoing amir steklov, I'm quickly becoming a big fan. Just bought Lost in Math, and read the first 5 chapters at one very long sitting, just like a thriller that is a "page-turner," impossible to put down. It's as if God Herself took pity on humans and came down to visit for a while and give us a few pointers. Finally, the voice of reason!!
(Peeking ahead at Chapter 8, 'emergent gravity' is there, but obscurely, via the very last word of the third paragraph on page 190 -- then indirectly, via the section on Xiao-Gang Wen on pp. 190-193.)
Quite aside from its very solid content, the book is worth buying just for its sly wicked humor, which pops up every 4 or 5 pages.
German lady told us to subscribe, you better do it!
While I am a Scientist, I know sht about Physics, so I can't add my two cents. But I 100 percent AGREE that a complete understanding of gravity is VERY important!
Smolin has a new theory in the new issue if New Scientist
He's good. I like him
I understand that quantum mechanics about the very small is like a staircase whereas general relativity about gravitation of the very large is like a slide. With quantum mechanics there are sudden jumps to different quanta and energy levels. In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity changes gradually. I also understand that the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of relativity contradict each other, but one good thing in string theory is that these two contrary physical laws can be resolved.
Physics is a model produced by scientists and backed, as far as we can by observation, it might not be entirely how the universe works. Getting a full knowledge, a Grand Universal Theory might be impossible but that is no reason not to try.
Quantum gravity might not have any known practical use now, but how many uses did we have for Quantum physics.
If you never open the box, is the cat always alive, potentially forever? (joke)
"If you never open the box, is the cat always alive, potentially forever?"
And dead. (Supposedly, no joke.)
@@GradyPhilpott you would , of course, need an auto feeder and water supply so you could not tell if it is eating or not. Soundproofing, poo and urine disposal. Smell. Lots of iffs and buts.
Then, if someone else looks in but never tells you to them it is alive or dead but to you it is still both.
One of your better expository videos. 👏🏻
P.S. Love the pink chevrons, too.
Thank you, very inspirational and educational, keep up the good work : )
The graphics in the background used to pictorialise each approach as you discuss it were outstanding.
These are free graphics you find online! At times the internet can indeed be amazing!
The perfect start for my weekend!
Alfred North Whitehead said something like if one cannot feel science, or make a connection of it with our emotions, then it won't matter. I don't know how I feel about this, since I think he is talking a little about Gravity too, which we cannot see with our eyes directly, but only feel at times. I wrote a self-published book, Structure: How we Made Happiness, as an alternative to our idea of Gravity. I don't think it is a theoretical book always, but it depends on how you read it. In fact, I need to rewrite the whole book to rephrase it completely, I am just reminded! Ok, sorry. I am glad you are making all of these videos. If Quantum Gravity can be useful, I hope we find it soon.
I want the theory to break down at high energies.. 😐
The quantum field breaks down at the Schwinger limit. So must gravity.
American, or simply ignorant?
I also think, that gravity is an emergent phenomenon. Maybe space itself emerges out of the number of particle-interactions. Vacuume is full of particles, and the number of interactions tells us how big an area is. So you don't need "finite particle sizes" any more. You can consider these particles zero-sized, with some size-uncertainty caused by interaction-probability.
The pure interaction count gives us the "impression" of space and dimension. That's how I would explain that.
i think CMB = GRAVITY
Increased gravity = the increased absence of nothing.
gravity exists is the one that brakes or desolves mass so can be used to soak up energy to stay alive the systems.
I watch a few physics channels.
Your channel with less diagrams does require some subject familiarity.
Including references really helps.
As a fun excerise I want go through Einstein's special relativity thought experiments.
I want to share this exercise with my daughter.
Simple answer, we don’t know.
Cow Dog, that doesn't look like a Cow Dog.
@ 4:54. That is the clue; "...infinities which appear when quantum particles interact at very short distances." The substitution of the short distances with "objects of finite extension" is the flaw in this approach. Thank you / Mahalo!
Quantized inertia please :)
More thumbs up for your channel I really like the idea with application not just a mere speculation
'Which one of these theories is the right one?'
And you missed the golden opportunity to follow up with 'Leave your answer in the comments.'
I like the emergent approach. Question: Checking the gravitational pull of a small object like a particle in superposition would be difficult. Is there any research investigating the gravity of entangled material objects separated by large distances? Is large-scale non-locality worth investigating?
Also, a little more philosophical: We seem to be very far from everyday experience and hitting some very unintuitive "dualities". Is having a single theory even a reasonable goal, or do we have to accept a theory that works within empirical limits because the universe is observer-dependent?
I think accepting a theory that works in lieu of a single theory that is complete is a possible long-term outcome, but we are nowhere near being able to reach such a conclusion. The reductive approach has achieved so much already, and, for instance, "dark matter" is still a completely open question, meaning there is a great deal of fundamental experimental/observational work yet to be done.
Pavlos, I think you may really like some videos I'm currently editing. In my simulations, time dilation is the emergent behaviour. I'd like to invite you to my channel. I have a few non physics, "primordial particle system" videos that got me into emerging behaviour, and into physics simulators... Stop by and say hi!
"Checking the gravitational pull of a small object like a particle in superposition would be difficult"
I think they're trying to do that now with Rydberg atoms
what's with all the electric universe crackpots in this comment section?
It's actually the Quantum Magicians who are the crackpots:
steemit.com/funny/@lamare/steemit-poll-quantum-magic-or-pseudoscientific-crackpottery
Arendeke... C'm'on...
@@l4m4re yea...no. i'm pretty sure it's the electric universers that are the crackpots.
@@l4m4re argument from personal incredulity is not very convincing
@@AndDiracisHisProphet Two of the greatest mind in #scientific #history agree:
"All attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena is futile and destined to oblivion." - Nikola Tesla
"I just want to explain what I mean when I say that we should try to hold on to physical reality.
We are … all aware of the situation regarding what will turn out to be the basic foundational concepts in physics: the point-mass or the particle is surely not among them; the field, in the Faraday-Maxwell sense, might be, but not with certainty. But that which we conceive as existing ("real") should somehow be localized in time and space.
That is, the real in one part of space, A, should (in theory) somehow "exist" independently of that which is thought of as real in another part of space, B. If a physical system stretches over A and B, then what is present in B should somehow have an existence independent of what is present in A. What is actually present in B should thus not depend the type of measurement carried out in the part of space A; it should also be independent of whether or not a measurement is made in A.
If one adheres to this program, then one can hardly view the quantum-theoretical description as a complete representation of the physically real. If one attempts, nevertheless, so to view it, then one must assume that the physically real in B undergoes a sudden change because of a measurement in A. My physical instincts bristle at that suggestion.
However, if one renounces the assumption that what is present in different parts of space has an independent, real existence, then I don't see at all what physics is supposed to be describing. For what is thought to be a "system" is after all, just conventional, and I do not see how one is supposed to divide up the world objectively so that one can make statements about parts." - Albert Einstein
Sabine, love your content! I was wondering, as a request, if you might be able to do a more in-depth video exploring emergent gravity, both in terms of its theoretical promise, and in terms of its theoretical roadblocks. Thanks!
Sabine Hossenfelder: "We'll tell you why gravity matters."
"crickets chirping in the background"
It seems to me, as a mathematician, that quantizing gravity (General Relativity GR) is the wrong way to proceed. The issue is that Quantum Mechanics (QM) is linear in mathematical character, while GR is non-linear. Every linear theory is non-linear. This confusing and seemingly contradictory statement is due to unfortunate choice of terminology. "non-linear" does not really mean NOT linear, but rather not necessarily linear. Non-linearity is MORE GENERAL than linearity. Hence it is impossible, even in principle, to quantize gravity GR because it is impossible to make a non-linear theory such as GR into a linear theory such as QM.
Instead, in my opinion, the mathematically feasible approach should be the geometrization of QM rather than the quantization of GR. The underlying variables in QM are linear space & time, so that trying to cram GR into the Procrustean bed of QM is doomed to failure. GR can be formulated on a variational principle: Einstein-Hilbert action. QM can also be formulated on a variational principle. It seems to me that combining these approaches has promise.
@Julez O'Neil String theory has so far accomplished exactly NOTHING. It explains nothing, makes no testable predictions, and is so far empty. I do not imply that it will never work, but it has failed utterly so far.
@Julez O'Neil New Mathematics? YES. I agree that String Theory has produced some very new and interesting Mathematics.
New Physics? Not until clear predictions have been tested extensively. I don't hate it at all. But I do not accept it as Physics until it has paid its proper dues.
@Julez O'Neil "Just out of reach" = phooey. Fusion power has been just out of reach for 50 years. Wait until AFTER the predictions have been made and verified before declaring success.
In induced gravity approach, EH action comes out as an approximation. There are quantum correction terms to the action. Also, contrary to the quantum case, the equations of quantum mechanics may not describe dynamics, so that the *actual* dynamics may be actually nonlinear :D
Just waking up. I thought it read Gravy.
With gravy one must always be wary of infinities.
hhhmmm - quantum gravy -- soooo gooood - Homer Simpson
Gravy granule non Euclidean oxo cube.
@5:40 Casual dynamical triangulation: It treats space and time differently. How so ?
I’ll order the number 5 with french fries please
Emergent Gravity is the only theory out of the five where its shortcoming was not mentioned…