Why Is Gravity So Elusive? | Frank Wilczek, Erik Verlinde, Laura Mersini-Houghton
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 дек 2017
- Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/gravity?...
We all think we know what gravity is. But where gravity comes from stumped Newton, and 300 years later we are no closer to an explanation.
Erik Verlinde, Frank Wilczek and Laura Mersini-Houghton debate why gravity remains so elusive.
Frank Wilczek is an American theoretical physicist, mathematician and a Nobel laureate. He is currently the Herman Feshbach Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has received many prizes for his work, including a Nobel Prize in Physics in 2004. Wilczek has made seminal contributions to fundamental particle physics, cosmology and the physics of materials. His current theoretical research includes work on Axions, Anyons, and Time Crystals.
Erik Verlinde is a theoretical Physicist at Amsterdam University working on string theory, gravity, cosmology and black holes, known for entropic gravity & the Verlinde formula.
Laura Mersini-Houghton is an Albanian-American cosmologist and theoretical physicist, and Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
#whatisgravity #theproblemwithgravity #physics
![Gravity and the universe | Sabine Hossenfelder, Erik Verlinde, Priyamvada Natarajan [FULL DEBATE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1j0Xh9XM34M/mqdefault.jpg)
![Gravity and the universe | Sabine Hossenfelder, Erik Verlinde, Priyamvada Natarajan [FULL DEBATE]](/img/tr.png)
What do you think of this debate? Leave a comment below
You can watch this debate, Why is Gravity so Elusive, in full at iai.tv/video/gravity?RUclips&
singularity is not just a math thing.. haha
Gravity is a pain in the butt, especially if your bicycle seat is too narrow....
panther105 true statement.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, this is the comment of the day.
Four Professors together and they are helpless like 3 years old children! Funny to see this!!!
I think there is more tension than gravity in this room!
@Samuelestici2This is quiet common among physicists. Nobody REALY understands so there are a lot of completing views theories
@@negaosafado competing*
What a stupid comment.
Billy Hallmon oh Billy
big THANKS to this institute for bringing us this talks
Erik could be correct: Gravity could be a emergent property of matter, in other words, gravitational force Does not exist in the individual matter particles, but as matter Accumulates the force becomes evident. Then gravitons do not exist. Analogy; one or two pixels does not constitute the picture, you need thousands or millions of pixels before the picture becomes relevant. The picture element (pixel) does not constitute the picture, the picture is defined by the entire set of pixels which needs to be a lot greater than one.
ill go you one further. I think all forces are merely emergent from space bending at certain scales. the strong and weak forces have very little bearing at macroscopic or even microscopic scales. The accumulation of weak and strong with quintillions of atoms produces enough bent local space to produce gravitational bending of space on a grander scale.
@John Patriot eagle freedom bonerJust symantics. A symptom is also a "thing"
A good idea as time is influenced by a mass, however, there is nothing in the standard model that would explain how this happens. Is this a clue?
Cymoon RBACpro
AND organised.
@John Patriot eagle freedom boner I've never thought gravity needed a 'force-carrying' particle; the bending of ST works. How would a force-carrying particle escape a black hole? Like I'm qualified to talk about any of this.
"We have to be careful there because even the experiment is our interpretation of the experiment which assumes an underlying theory. In this case General Relativity." Laura Mersini-Houghton
Patterns And Rhythms you’ve put your finger on it there. And the problem is that all research that is publicly funded is authorised by non- scientists who will usually not have the foggiest idea what the applicants are talking about.
That is why science staggers from one gigantic error to another, picking up little bits of truth along the way. It’s grotesquely incompetent, drains huge amounts of resources and elevates second rate performers to the level of seers, however erroneous they are
The mystery of gravity would have been completely explained in the early 20th century had we not been mislead by special relativity and mass-energy equivalence of E=mc².
Gravitation is simply the excess of the attractive forces between unlike charges over the repulsive forces between like charges. This had been proposed in 1830 by O.F. Mossotti, a French physics teacher at the University of Buenos Aires. Faraday and Weber gave serious consideration to the Mossotti hypothesis. But only after we have a better understanding of the atoms that we could complete what Faraday and Weber could not complete. The basic conditions required:
1) Law of mass conservation is universal; there is no mass energy conservation and E=mc².
2) The neutron within the nucleus is just a proton + nuclear electron.
3) Atomic mass of a nuclide is the mass number in amu, an integral value (no mass defect).
All of modern physics is founded on relativistic mechanics of E=mc², but it is a fictitious mechanics. The relativistic force: force= d/dt (mv/√(1-v²/c²)) does not have a real unit of force; the SI Newton is only for :force = ma, nothing else. Thus E=mc² is only a fictitious formula with no real unit of energy.
"The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc2 Fails"
"Coulomb Electric Gravity And A Simple Unified Theory (SUT)"
"US NIST Data Of Atomic Masses Of Nuclide Only Predicted Values"
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore
www.emc2fails.com
@@johnlawrence2757 We need to stop publicly funding politically biased pieces of shit like ECONOMISTS and PSYCHIATRISTS & PSYCHOLOGISTS (like Jordan Peterson). They prove NOTHING. They accomplish NOTHING useful nor practical.
We need to stop publicly funding THE MILITARY and RELIGION and WALL STREET, all of which PROVE NOTHING and RESEARCH NOTHING and DO NOTHING USEFUL FOR SOCIETY.
@@johnlawrence2757 And yet scientists & researchers like these are responsible for making your life comfortable & easy, and help save lives by preventing deaths by predicting earthquakes & the consequences of humans burning so much fossil fuels & predicting plagues etc and they are the ONLY ones who ADD knowledge, while extreme Dunning-Kruger individuals such as yourself who have NEVER ONCE bothered to do a single physics homework exercise, pontificate about disciplines that you know nothing about.
The Ultimate Reductionist you sound like you could do with some psychiatric help yourself !
But (a) you don’t respect psychiatry and
(b) like all mentally ill people you don’t realise how sick you are.
So I suppose I’d better just leave you to your ranting and raving. But finish your homework first, OK?
Well, I think Einstein's gemetrodynamics is an amazing theory, but I also expect that extensions is emergent. The latter doesn't imply that the beauty of Einstein's theory is necessarily at risk, QM has an incredible capability to enforce consistency and regularity, so much so that I trust it can yield to the emergence of such a beautiful physics.
Verlinde's idea and effort to explore the link between gravity and information is very interesting.
That's not arrogance, that's three super passionate scientists. Great stuff.
These frauds are pathetic APPP's Academic Public Purse Parasites! ALL OF THEM!!
Grants-Grovelling bullshit artists pushing putrid fairy-tales that CANNOT be explained in reality; SOLELY to keep their unproductive lives running in an overpaid lavish lifestyle as permanently-tenured retirees while supposedly at work in a career!!!!!!
Bogus liars who ALWAYS deal in thinks that ONLY exist as mathematical equations on a blackboard!
These charlatans actually use this math-fraud to fraudulently state there is such a thing as a minus quantity and it actually exists as a thing!
IT DOES NOT!!!
The most egregious lie these APPP's push is that TIME actually exists!!
It CANNOT exist, TIME is DISTANCE!!
Time should NEVER be used in ANY equation to determine ANYTHING in reality!!
And distance is infinite, it CANNOT have ANY limits' see 21C Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Physica www.academia.edu/12805065/21C_Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Physica
Because of this Space-Time was CONCOCTED by Einstein because his mathematics FAILED to determine ANYTHING that can be observationally test-proven in the ONLY THREE dimensions there are of REALITY!!
A concocted farce of a 4th dimension (space-time) is IDENTICAL to the 325 AD Council Of Nicea; where the concocted lie of god failed philosophical proof so these frauds concocted The Blessed Trinity!! (AKA SPACE-TIME)!!
And Lawrence Kauss should be sacked for lying thet a state of NOTHING can actually exist!! It CANNOT!
www.glennfloyd.org/REALITY.pdf
EXACTLY!!
A really interesting discussion. Thank you.
why does not exit any atom with negative charge in nuclear and positron stay around, seem it violate some symmetry.
What does acceleration mean for gravity, such as in equation F = m * a
Very interesting. Thankyou.
Great discussion. Frank, the most accomplished among them, seen most twaddling his fingers thru this debate.
Volume please
What happened to the AC in that room?
Is it a cause, an effect, or both?
The institute should have longer sessions so that the panel members can debate more. While it may not be possible to arrive at answers, but over a period of time things will take shape.
Come to us by way of induction from outside our reality so no experiment can yield any gain in energy hence no model ever completely captures even translation if objects in Newtonian 3D?
These are better abstraction issues but this kind of education sets up such a dialogue. Great video!
so i learned this as a kid...
- "Every action, has an equal and opposite reaction"
but, i never understood this when it comes to gravity...
it seems obvious when talking about 2 objects touching each other (electromagnetic force)
but, when 2 objects (lets say the same size - 2 basketballs) are attracted to each other at a distance,
then, it is gravity acting on them...
if they both are moving toward each other, is that really an "opposite" force ?
my theory is that since photons can act over large distance, so can gravity...
and if all objects (with mass) are attracted to all other objects with mass,
then there should also be a repulsive force somewhere ?
maybe this is dark energy ?
You have discounted the relativistic effects.
Cheers.
Could there be an inflation energy field outside universe that has gravitational attraction like any other energy?
what is the difference between a parameter and a variable?
parameter
/pəˈramɪtə/Submit
noun
1.
TECHNICAL
a numerical or other measurable factor forming one of a set that defines a system or sets the conditions of its operation.
"there are three parameters by which a speaker is able to modify the meaning of the utterance-pitch, volume, and tempo"
Variable
noun
1.
an element, feature, or factor that is liable to vary or change.
"there are too many variables involved to make any meaningful predictions"
Parameters are the limits on variables.
Erik Verlinde seems to have the most interesting and promising approach. It appears to solve all the outstanding mysteries without having to invent new matter and energy assigned with convenient new properties every time there is another observation.
BANKO007 The problem with “atoms of spacetime” is that they contradict Special Relativity: they are not Lorenz-invariant
I agree with this. It is very clear and promising. I am wondering why the physics community is reacting so negatively.
@@stefanmangold6512 Is it maybe because he has no experimental proof or way to prove it (yet)?
@@wayfa13 thanks, I see your point!
@@wayfa13 Well, it does explain the rotational speeds of galaxies and galactic clusters so that we don't need dark matter. So there is that.
Is there a unified gravity theory? Gravity could be as different as salt water in the Atlantic ocean is from salt water in the Pacific.
Force (physics) does not exist physically in the same way that an object with mass,
thus making it “not” the initial cause of pushing, pulling, shaping objects,
motion, work or being a Vector Quantity (Magnitude + Direction).
In physics, the word, “Force” as we know it, turns out to be nothing more than an
expression to express an idea like one would use the word “Love” to express
one's feelings. But, physics and in
mathematics, still use “Force” as thou it were something physical that could
enable the initial cause of motion making it counterintuitive.
Example: Without applying the Energy from within you, choose an object of your choices
to push and pull by simply applying “only” the Force or Net Force.
Meaning that Energy (applied energy) is the origin of motion and not “Force”.
Once Energy (E) is applied, it creates what is known as Momentum (p).
When this Momentum (object in motion) comes in contact with another object(s),
it makes a surface contact that will enable you to push and pull. Example:
Ep=ma, Ep=mv and so on. Note: Ep is not to be confused as Kinetic Energy in
any way.
Momentum represents things like work, wave, gravity, light, lightning, tsunami,
earthquake, current, electricity, motion, magnetism, hurricane, etc.
Without Energy, there is no Momentum. Without Momentum, there is no surface
contact on an object(s) to push, pull, work, shaping objects, motion, gravity,
etc. Momentum does not and cannot exist without the applied Energy that
creates it. Energy and Momentum or “Ep” is
the one and only common denominator that links all fundamental forces of
nature. Without Ep, all fundamental forces
of nature would be inert and non-existence.
Energy is energy, but it’s when Energy (E) is being applied that creates the Momentum
(p) making it the initial cause of motion. Example: Ep.
By applying the right amount of Energy, nothing is immovable or unstoppable. ~ Guadalupe Guerra
Naive question perhaps, but "normal" matter and energy are interconvertible (mostly). But normal energy is simply the relative motion of normal matter, as in an enclosed bottle of gas molecules, where temperature is the measure of the average energy. So what is "dark energy"? Is it the energy of movement of "dark matter"? Why would dark energy be detectible differently from normal energy? How could you detect it if you can't measure dark matter? If the only measureable effect of dark energy / matter is via their "gravitational" effect on normal matter, then the law(s) describing gravity as we understand them seem to have a serious problem.
When Verlinde and Haughton speak Wilczek usually has his arms and legs crossed, his nose in the air, while wearing a "know it all" smirk. He avoids eye contact with the others, preferring instead to gaze off into the distance or stare at the ceiling or the floor when they speak. I call that arrogance. This of course has nothing to do with the validity of his theories. We must all understand that these brilliant people are "theorists" and are not necessarily presenting facts. They could all be wrong and I suspect they all are. Dark matter and dark energy are hypotheticals, inserted in to failed mathematical models to patch them up. They are "dark" not because they cannot be seen, but rather because they cannot be explained.
My impression of Wilczek was that he is a man who lives within his own mind, by which I mean he is completely focused on his chain of thought at the expense of basic social skills. No bad thing for a theoretical physicist.
My impression of Verlinde was that he has the patience of a saint.
cyberroth1 If Frank has a slight hearing problem, (and I have a slight hearing deficiency) that could explain his posture. I will sometimes turn my head so that one ear or the other is “pointed” towards another speaker, in order to hear more clearly what they are saying. I’m not saying that this is the case, but it’s one possible explanation.
As far as who gets the most time speaking, that is up to the moderator and format. This is not a formal debate (with two sides) it’s more of a three way conversation.
It's not arrogance, it's simply body language, a language that most of us can easily read and understand. And Neil Axe is correct I think. Perceiving it as arrogance, just tells you're a very normal person who has not spent too much time thinking about psychology ;-). It's o.k. Einstein also had the personality that Neil Axe is hinting at, so not a bad thing. His body language is in my mind saying that what is thrown at him from his right side completely violates his thinking, and as such he takes distance from it, almost feals threatned by it, and feels a need to protect himself from it. But psychology is a sience even less understood than quantum physics or gravity ;-).
I apologize for Wilczek’s behavior
Sorry sorry sorry Erik!
Dr Frank Wilczek, Dr Laura Mersini-Haughton, Dr Erik Verlinde were all very entertaining,
but Dr Frank Wilczek was the best. The most confident & knowledgeable.
Despite a few glaring omissions and hyper-conservative lapses of judgement along the way, the Swedish Academy has generally awarded the Nobel Prizes to a justly revered selection of the most influential and credible of scientists and their achievements. Frank Wilczek was about twenty years old when he gained his core theoretical insights concerning quark confinement and the operation of the strong force in nature. His subsequent career achievements have been likewise impressive.
Dr Frank Wilczek is (kind of) ignoring that general relativity breaks on at least three things (quantum level, singular points, black hole loss of information problem). Undoubtedly smart, but also very close-minded.
Frank seems to represent a dogma that often sets in around established ideas. But it also (perhaps unwittingly) serves to bring rigor to new proposed ideas.
We figure out out gravity, we have the keys to the universe
The gravity of this discussion is strong.
10 to -16th power resolution/centimeter on the 2 Ligo device folks, I'm impressed.
Singularity is a mathematical solution but it isn’t physically there? Where’s the collapsed mass/matter then? It continues to exert influence.
Kind of crazy gravity is the weakest force we know of yet seems to have the strongest hand in creating everything we know. The entire Universe can thank gravity for its very existence.
even electro-magnetic force is stronger which is evident if you use magnet to hold piece of metal while gravity at the same time pulls that metal down. Same gravity that hold us pinned down to earth can't overcome magnetic field to separate piece of metal from grasp of the magnet field
So simple yet effective demonstration.
@Nisha chambiyal We experience the same effect as the Earth. Gravity isn’t pulling it is warping space time and we are falling same as Earth falling into the Sun. Just Earths speed keeping it in orbit
Not much of a debate, I think its right in front of us , we are just overlooking it. I would suggest revisiting newton's cradle.
I wonder if looking at gravity as being kind of ani-space, be that a particle or whatever, would help?
Take for example a planet.
Think of the planet's gravity as pushing against space.
It would still act the same way and maybe even over the whole universe when taking into account all the matter within it, then it's possible that it would push space that's further away, away from us at faster speeds.
Rather like putting an object into water and the water being displaced.
Just a thought.
Erik Verlinde and Frank Wilczek might be both correct. Erik Verlinde seems more consistent with quantum mechanics, and Frank Wilczek seems more consistent with General Relativity, but they can be both consistent relatively to a simpler theory.
I’d like to ask this, gravitational waves appear to indicate that space is a fabric, maybe even so at a quantum level, but what if we have all been hoodwinked, what if gravity itself is the fabric of space and that it is much more powerful than we think, what if we change our opinion to one where bodies of matter are squeezed by the very fabric of space rather than say bodies of matter collapse under their own weight, and when I say gravity is more powerful than we might observe yet appears so weak why do I think that. We know a huge amount about atoms, we have a periodic table, we have absorption and emission of many wavelengths, we have electromagnetism, we have chemistry, so much information about those beautiful tiny things, but what about the true nature of atoms, could you describe an atom as a tiny pressure relief valve, what if the Earths gravity appears so weak is because of the vast space created within it by atoms so what if the very fabric of space reaches right to the centre of the Earth so can’t grip it as hard as it would like, I don’t know, however this 70 years old retired blacksmith with the curiosity of a 10 year old feels we must look in an entirely different way to solve it.
Cause of gravity: Expansion of space is continuous from the inside of matter to outer space. However, the expansion velocity changes inside the material. This velocity change is observed by us as gravity due to the acceleration of the space. Gravity is not a property peculiar to matter, but a force of space that results from the interaction between matter and space in the expansion space.
Music ruins the video. I can't hear what the are saying.
Laura Mersini seems to be most reasonable and polite in this discussion.
How does gravity, weak as it is, reach out so far across the universe?
If "mass attracts mass" why don't we see more head on collisions? Why do objects in space always seem to just miss each other and orbit each other?
My theory. Mass doesn't attract mass, however mass causes mass to attract mass. Just because it is mass.
Black holes for instance are the most dense objects in space. They displace the exact same area of the fabric of space (spacetime) as the size of the black hole. This displacement of spacetime is now accumulated around the black hole (this is what warped space is).
With this multiple of spacetime, and with the constant expansion of space (spacetime is space), a pressure is placed on the Black hole.
It is this spacetime that gets warped that causes objects to attract, and it's what extends out so far across the universe. When an objects warped spacetime comes in contact with another objects warped spacetime their trajectory is altered toward each other. Call this gravity.
Gravity on earth and gravity in the universe between objects are caused by the same thing. By the displacement of spacetime and this spacetime in multiples around said object.
The more dense the object is the more spacetime is displaced.
I know what the new new model is. It is very simple, elegant, testable and explains the rapid expansion at the very early moments of the big bang.
Could dark energy possibly be explained by the otherwise inexplicable absense of anti-matter? If gravitational force is an intrinsic result of matter coalescing is it not possible that collections of anti-matter act with a repulsive force?
@TurboCMinusMinus I asked the question in the hope of being offered an explanation why it can't but, obviously you can't be arsed. Thanks for that.
I'm not well versed in the dark side of the force. But I remember that this idea has been proposed by some scientists: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120215-dark-energy-antimatter-physics-alternate-space-science/
Not sure what the scientific community at large nowadays thinks about that idea. I haven't heard about it for a while. So My assumption is that it might have fallen out of favor.
However, as Sith scientist Sheev Palpatine once said: "The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural."
Gravity acts same for matter and anti-matter. Anti-matter doesn’t produce an anti-gravity force.
if some theory doesn't work this is exactly the moment when it is through away!
*The problem with gravitational wave detection* Assuming that we understanding gravity.
In reference to this signal( gravitational wave) here is something to consider LIGO False positive, problem is that the methods used to interpret the noise (which has a smaller amplitude than the atomic nuclei) use predetermined template comparisons that introduce a bias in these observations. The signature of chirps that begins with a low and moves to a higher frequency may be due to many other natural phenomena. There is also a problem and that is, to associate the Signal (chirps) with cosmic events that is with a specific gamma Burst; There are three natural relationships: similarity, contiguity and cause and effect. Of these, the causes and effects it is the most problematic where the narrative does not have a connecting principle, but instead it is artificially juxtaposed by the mind and not real. In other words, how many of these events could be associated artificially and are not real. How many of these events occur in the Universe and are accidentally and wrongly associated. This is a problem that has not been answered beyond a shadow of a doubt.
*The doubt about the correlated gamma.rays Burst and its significance*
Is Gamma rays the birth cries of black hole,? well, I think not , have you ever heard of TGF , terrestrials gamma rays flashes, they are generated by lightning on earth.
A terrestrial gamma-ray flash is a burst of gamma rays produced in Earth's atmosphere. TGFs have been recorded to last 0.2 to 3.5 milliseconds, and have energies of up to 20 million electronvolts. It is speculated that TGFs are caused by intense electric fields produced above or inside thunderstorms! So you see , *you don’t need a supermassive black hole or high Gravitational field! All you need is plasma in a high electrical field potential.* So let’s not be too naïve. In addition; In 2009, the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope in Earth orbit observed intense burst of gamma rays corresponding to positron annihilations coming out of a storm formation on earth. Scientists wouldn't have been surprised to see a few positrons accompanying any intense gamma ray burst, but the lightning flash detected by Fermi appeared to have produced about 100 trillion positrons. This was reported by news media in January 2011, and had never been previously observed. This information puts into question this assumption Gamma bursts is exclusively the signature a black hole creation, This would also includes X-Rays which also Abound When Lightning Strikes. And When considering that 99% of the gas in space is actually plasma, which is ionized gas with Electrical charge it would not go beyond the pale that lightning do occur in the cosmic environments producing many order of magnitude of the value 100 trillion positrons electron pairs and there are in average over 300 gamma burst detected per year (as reported by NASA)
The dark matter explanation for the rotation of galaxies is not the only way to explain it.
What I love is that this people don't know about quantum mechanics more than we* do. What I hate is that they won't even want to listen ideas of people outside their small circle of professional domain.
Let the lady speak... 37:04 sub-conscious finger movements indicating impatience.
I'm a late-commer, but my problem with gravity is analogized as follows. The bowling ball on a rubber sheet deforming the rubber sheet is the starting point for the cause of gravity even in its weak state presently, but imagine taking the equivalent weight of the bowling ball in dry sand and spreading it uniformly across the sheet. There would be no significant deformation from spread out bits of sand yet the large object like the sun needs gravity to form it from such a state, uniformly dispersed hydrogen atoms in the early universe. How could the source of gravity also be the cause of gravity before the source existed in its present form?
That's why dark energy is needed to make or force those sheets of particle to form a sphere.
I thought the Multiverse was poetry
And thought to hear, here
The music of the Cosmos
And yet, I find
A world of music
Yet only one may be, alone
True symphony of the stars
34 syllables = Haiku Doble
Erik Verlinde is enormously patient. Frank Wilczek’s sneer and dismissive body language would flummox a lesser man.
EGO Verlinde is out there claiming all Physics is wrong and String "Theory"/SCAM/academic job program/CULT is the solution. Frank is a SAINT for tolerate that guy.
@@Domispitaletti aren't there some problems in the foundations of physics though ? Should we just BLINDLY
follow the SAINTS if they can't find good answers ??
alongside Erik Verlinde, Frank Wilczek and Laura Mersini-Haughton, they should have given a mention for Vase de Fleur.
R Dunphy wat?
Killer talk
Gravity is being described as something other than a force with quantum physicists. Is magnetism a force, I would expect quantum physicists would describe magnetism as something other than a force that bends or warps space-time. They would probably describe swallowing as something other than a force that bends or warps space time.
My answer..."It IS as IT IS" that is all she wrote. It is above me. I just work with it and stay off ladders.
4:06.... no comment!
We can see the effects of gravity. We can measure it. We can predict it. We just cannot explain exactly what it is. Yet.
The theory of gravity explains it. That's what scientific theories do.
Is there a fourth dimension or is the holy Trinity of time space an unimpea hable matter of faith? Does all energy cim
Watch video "Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity | EU2015".
No thanks. Watching anything from the Electric Universe cranks that only survive via ad Hominem attacks on the actual working Scientific community. I meet Thornhill and asked him two questions he denied to answer... No one has answered these yet maybe you can.
1. Mainstream astronomy and astrophysics has guided science into pioneering discoveries in gravity, with the application of space flight, and atomic and nuclear physics, with the applications of semiconductors and materials science. You Humans have moved into space without one single model that yields testable measurements from the Electric Universe supporters.
What does EU provide that is not already provided by mainstream astronomy and geophysics?
2. Every book on how to write applications & interpret the signals from GPS satellites emphasizes the importance of relativity in converting these signals into a high-precision receiver position - Yet Electric Universe supporters deny the importance of relativity in this application.
Has any EU supporter designed and built a working high-precision (< 1 meter accuracy) GPS receiver that can be certified as free of relativistic corrections?
The answer is:- look but cannot see. If a ball drops from your hand to the ground, you'll say: the Earth's gravity has attracted it. But the actual fact is the charges of the Earth has interacted with the charges in the ball. Now you'll object that the ball is electrically neutral ! (You 'll not argue that the Earth is electrically neutral because it is common knowledge that the Earth has a magnetic field, and where magnetism is, there electric field is.)For this I'll refer you to Volume II of The Feynman's Lectures on Physics- The Millennium Edition, there Feynman explained why a charged object can attract bits of paper which is neutral electrically ! It seems that the great Richard Feynman also looked but could not see the identity between electromagnetism and gravity, but of course there he was delivering a lecture on electromagnetism specifically. Mass in kilograms = Charges in Coulombs Squared x 10^ - 7 / distance in meters between two charges. That is why NASA has been able to use Newton's Law of universal gravitation with accuracy sufficient for space expedition purposes.
Sum of gravitational potential energy gmm/n of all proton relate to one proton by label every proton by n, equal to 2*3.14*gm^2=ch quantum vacuum energy form black hole by gravity, strong force, EM force at Planck, proton, Atom scale, is the key.
Er, are you aware that the Planck, proton, and "Atom" scales are separated by circa 18 and 5 *orders of magnitude* , respectively, E.C.?
@Enlong I was just about to say the same thing!
Even more elusive is where I put my glasses and wallet.
Because Einstein is right and you have to accept it. The first problem m/r2 is good math it's the point of using charge radius for the charge and gravity radius for gravity in single particles they are both different radiuses and point in different directions in time one will increase while the other decreases and vise versa there is no graviton
Protons didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang, but did so after the Bang cooled to creat them. Can one then say that proton creation is an emergent phenomenon?
I Can't believe how ARROGANT Frank Wilczek is ! Is being a co-laureate of Nobel prize make him this way or is this is fondamental behavioral character ? It ruin all the debate !
Noble syndrome. This is a real disorder, trust me.
Space is expanding... Ed Hubble....... If you were standing on the surface of a sphere, & the space that contains that sphere was expanding @32ft/sec/sec.... wouldn't that acceleration be the exact same thing as gravity.?
I like Frank's viewpoint that all the forces become one at high energy/short distances. There is no more reason to replace general relativity, than quantum mechanics. Just because the particle for dark energy has not yet been found is not reason enough to throw away the theory of general relativity. Perhaps it will one day be possible to show all the forces are emergent and that at the most basic level, physics is a theory of information, but that may depend on a workable string theory where supersymmetry is experimentally detected and calculations using string theory can be performed. This may require quantum computers. The thing that is noticeable about physics by the public, is that the subject is becomming baroque, with all these claims by eminent scientists of things that have no experimental justification.
I think Einstein would appreciate Erik’s efforts to push beyond the current dogma in General Relativity. After all, Einstein didn’t have any qualms about blowing up Newton’s descriptions. I’m still not sure why the three experts called gravity a fundamental force, however. It’s like they code switched into Newtonian mechanics while speaking Einstein. The whole idea behind General Relativity is that gravity isn’t a force at all, rather it’s the removal of a force that causes accelerations along geodesic paths in curved space time. Very odd that they would call it a fundamental force.
"The whole idea behind General Relativity is that gravity isn’t a force at all" I am so sick and tired of this perpetuated fallacy, I might as well educate you: yes, in spite of dealing with "curvatures", gravity still _is_ a force of Nature; why? Because if, in some prespecified patch of spacetime (this is not nonsense, BTW; vide infra), the aforementioned curvature vanishes, that's your smoking gun there is no gravity there (cf. the EM field in Lorentz's force). Also, it minimally couples a connection to other particles and fields (again just like in Maxwell's theory - you referred to this as "the removal of a force that causes accelerations along geodesic paths in curved space time", but the geodesics are actually the mathematical statement of those accelerated motions in case of nonzero curvature, and of inertial motions otherwise). There is, however, a twist: instead of allowing that connection to be the dynamical piece of the theory, Einstein's geometrodynamics dumps all the gauge content to the metric - and, since the metric is closely related to coordinate transformations, this gives the illusion that the coordinates themselves are dynamical - or, in other words, that the "geometry" itself is dynamical. _It is not_ ; the metric is a tensor field like any other - and as such, it is coord-free, but completely specifiable at any nonsingular point of any coord chart that covers your piece of spacetime
@@thstroyur I was just about to say that very statement.
@@manjsher3094 You can still give us your unique take on the math here
@@thstroyur I was really hoping it would go without stating... Really hoping. Cheers.
if you would like to hear a very understandable theory, please contact me
I suspect you of spamming "God commercials". God is a far more complicated (and therefore less probable) solution than physics.
It's elusive because it originates from the highest dimension and is proportionally distributed throughout (higher dimension = higher gravity) leaving only a small remnant in our physical dimension/universe!
Gravity practically observed by a shade tree mechanic: Angular
Momentum,The product of angular velocity of a body and its moment of
inertia about the axis of rotation....Shade tree mechanic's translation:
In a electromagnetic free environment,such as far enough from Earth's
magnetic field,electrons orbit the nucleus of atoms and or molecules
evenly spaced,thus,no electromagnetic output and or acceleration or
movement of said matter unless acted upon by an outside force....As said
matter approaches Earth's magnetic field,the orbiting electrons
experience torque and or compression causing angular displacement and
greater electromagnetic output and acceleration of said matter into
Earth's denser magnetic field at ground level....I THINK....
If gravity exist and in large quantity. it has a density function in space. then the gradient of the density function would be gravitational field intensity.
The video's title and the blurb seem to have been created by an art student who has no grounding in science. The source of gravity is understood perfectly well courtesy of Einstein (whom the blurb skipped over, conveniently?). It is quantum theory's relation to it that is puzzling, and how the visible matter in galaxies fails to account for their spin characteristics. which I'm sure is what the panel will address (unless they mislead you with the atomic nucleus) so I'm not wasting my time with this video (but since I have 45 minutes to waste, I will)...
I wonder why a Nobel laureate is so negative about a new theory explaining gravity with a new perspective that can answer the questions general realtivity is not answering. A new theory will not prove Einstein wrong as GR did not prove Newton's gravity wrong but provided a more elaborate picture of the universe.
we are making this thing too complicated, actually the gravity is as simplee as objects is breathing the gravitons. when matter exhale,it does isotropic , so nomomentum change, but when matter inhale, it depend on graviton density distribution around the matter. the direction with more graviton, will inhale more. that cause a pulling momentum from side has more gaviton. as the nearby matter exhaling graviton cause that direction has more graviton so atracting the matter inhaling move towards the matter exhaling.
actually matter also inhale photon to gain momentum. photon will have a blue shift which is a pulling effect in proess of inhaled by matter and the matter experience momentum change similar inhaling graviton.
The concept of a black hole without a vacuum it can be embeded in makes no sense what so ever. I’m with Erik here tbh, not in detail perhaps, but i think the others are far out there in terms of their personal relationship to physical theories.
It's not about scale .. it's about context.
Wilczek is so pissed about Verlinde trashing the flaws in his precious GR that he can't even look at him.
Because the big band theory having difficult to explain the asymmetry of the universe, Why no matter with negative nuclear found. Therefore a correction to big band need apply. The correction is instead of every thing came from a single point, two giant electron and positron beam collide. The resulting flying away matters with similar effect as big bang. BIg difference here, with the electron/positron beams, huge electric current forming a huge circular magnetic field and this magnetic field deflect the charged collision product into two half space, positive universe and negative universe therefore occupy half of the whole space.
"Gravity works well". It does, if it doesn't bother you that you have to postulate that the universe is made up of 95% of stuff you can't explain.
Scientifically speaking, a non sequitur and a meaningless, fruitless example of contrarian misdirection. Blah, blah, Blaga. Yawn.
The lack of knowledge about the origins of observed phenomena speaks nothing of the efficiency of gravitational models.
You don't have to postulate that. In fact, nobody thought anything like that before *experiments* showed it had to be the case.
It does, until the gravity battery needs replacing...........
my electron and positron beam colliding model provide a circular magnetic field which seperate the negative universe from positive universe.
Frank Xu Please don’t separate the negative universe from the positive universe. At this moment I still need both of them.
you will need travel to boarder of the universe to see the other universe,do not attemp to cross the boarder line, very dangerous.
OK I’ll keep that in mind. I will remain on Earth.
Laura is the only one who gets the larger conceptual picture.
She believes the ball earth nonsense: 21:45
Hopeless.
is there any possibility that graviton do exist?
think this way, before big bang , there is only electron and positron exist. or consider big bang is two giant beam of electron and positron hit each other. we consider each mass of a electron has a soul with its observable is electric charge and spin. with big bang, mass accumulate together while the souls of electron and positron left around. the counter rotation of soul of electron and positron can form a photon which with counter rotation of positive and negative charge plus moving with speed of light ,the photo will stir up electromagnetic ossilation. But two photons with opposite spins bind together form can form graviton. it will not show any electromagnetic ossilation so no longer electromagnetic wave. imaging a photon without electromagnetic wave, It will not be observable. That might be reason graviton can not be measured in micro scale.
you say 'before big bang only electrons or positrons exist' how can that be? I am under the impression that there was nothing before the big bang, I'm beginning to small a rat with this so-called 'Big Bang' thing......
@@captainboggles This is Frank Xu, you are right, I should not borrow "big bang" here. Big bang said everything out of nothing, while I was saying positron and electron is the only thing needed for every to be generated. Quite different here. No any matter came out of nothing. Nothing will be disappeared as well.
The cosmologist professor lady here, states that the shortest distance between Canada and London is "an arch" over the North Pole??! Wow!
And so it is - on a sphere.
@@stan.rarick8556 Ok... Show me.
Neutrinos pass straight through the earth. An airplane can pass through the atmosphere, but obviously not in the straight line of a neutrino.
@@davidal1210 Ok. Now, get a globe, and a tape measure, and show me.
@Soren: Check this out. It maps the shortest flight path between any two airports. Vancouver to London passes over Greenland. Not quite as north as the North Pole but pretty close. www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=YVR-LHR
I would defer everyone to Wal Thornhill's work on dipole gravity.
Thornhill, eh? Gimme a "c"... gimme an "r"... gimme an "a"... etc., etc.: What does it spell? ---> c...r...a...c...k...p...o...t! ...So, then, deferred from science to the pathetic, you mean?
Einstein had it all wrong -- obviously, what a dope (!)... sure, sure. What is the matter with you people? At least you can all exchange Christmas cards with one another, one and all, and still have money left over for a piss up on News Year's Eve.
agreed. electric universe is the true future of physics - once mainstream pulls its head out of its ass.
@@frederickj.7136 Yeah... "Yack, yack, yack". Heard it all a before. Good luck with your crackpot CGI blackholes, impossible to find dark matter, gravity to describe gravity and your preponderance for assumption physics. Leave the real stuff to electrical engineers and people who make accurate predictions and make simple physics rather than the convoluted creation myth you advocate for with your religious zealotry.
Earth to 'Problembeing'... Please seek out a (better?) qualified psychotherapist before you harm yourself or hurt others -- my best advice for you. The meds or chicken sacrifices don't seem to be working. CGI black holes... ha, ha, ha, cute. Einstein a complete nutter, or worse.... yeah, sure. The physical sciences, a "religion"? If so, the first religion to ever make dependable, consistently accurate predictions about the natural world we live in, and to respect well-vetted empirical evidence! Faked NASA moon landings next, maybe? Flat earthing for fun in your spare time, perhaps?
Good luck with a recovery, if that's possible. Meanwhile, I'll just stick with the Nobel Laureates in the physical sciences, thank you.
@@frederickj.7136 discredit and vilify the man and...his message is also discredited?
E = h.f..............and..........P=h.f.f For electromagnetic waves and gravitational waves!
Good to see some friction . Friction can spark something..bad-da bing bad-da boom...............
if we can dig through the earth, i guess it will be some hints
gravity is from the mass because of it curved space time. why we don't think the curved space which are basic property of the universe, the mass is only pattern of it. then the string theory become more reasonable. it makes everything and meantime produced curved space.
Gravity is a composite force as follows:
1. It is an attractive EM force derived from the fact that interacting objects are moving in the same direction in a stationary aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands.
2. The interacting objects are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. This has a repulsive effect between the interacting objects.
3. Gravity is the combined effect of these opposing forces and that’s why it is so weak compared to the other forces.
4. A paper on the above description of gravity is available in the following link: www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
That's called the Bull-Hocky Theory
Ken, how do you know all this?
Read my book in the following link: www.modelmechnanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
Gravity is very much like magnetism. Mass attracting mass. Anti gravity is a predicted force or if you are a quantum dingbat, a thing that distorts space time. Matter is composed of "stuff" that has this attractive field and this field is polar and has a positive and negative side that is pulled together composed of many particles employing a field of gravitism. A large piece of matter is composed of many particles that have a positive and negative side which have arranged themselves much like a magnet. The only problem is that the gravitism extends throughout the galaxy and is only measurable on the outer edges as far as the anti or positive field is concerned.
These people didn't explain what gravity is the only thing that can be explained is what it does as an effect
I love dark energy and dark matter. I thank science. I use undefined dark costs in my administration, and the IRS accepts it as valid costs. That makes me happy. Not. I like much better Eric’s explanation. But it is tough to let go the dark stuff.
The dark side is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.
Wilczek and Verlinde walk on the street, discussing gravity. Suddenly a huge junk of roof falls on Wilczek's head. Verlinde keeps walking and says to Wilczek - don't worry it's just an illusion.
They say that gravity breaks down in black holes and at the BB, but they don't know at all that this is actually the case, so you can't say the relativity breaks down, it might be your understanding of black holes and the big bang that is breaking down. Relativity cannot both 'predict' black holes and break down within them!!
No, they say the *equations* of GR break down in those places. They result in nonsensical answers. Gravity itself clearly works.
@@davep8221Do you have any evidence or observations at all that show that the equations of GR break down?
Frank Wilczek rolling his eyes at Laura 30:30 or am i imagining that?
no, he is thinking, people very often look up when having a thought.
No because he recovers too fast, he is looking straight up and then down (not in a circle) and he nods his head in agreement at 3:37
Nice chairs.
Since there’s no centrifugal force on the North or South Poles, do you weigh more there?
Never mind, I googled it & the answer is yes:
curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/42-our-solar-system/the-earth/gravity/94-does-your-weight-change-between-the-poles-and-the-equator-intermediate
I think this kind of stuff is mostly contrived nonsense.
What if it's the force of everything else in the universe keeping u where u r? And when u jump u just tip the balance lol