As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist and all it has to offer. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe Timestamps: 00:00 - Intro 01:23 - Sean’s Current Work (Holographic Principle) 07:02 - Duality in De Sitter Spacetime 14:24 - “Let’s Talk About Philosophy” 30:36 - The Crisis in Fundamental Physics 45:02 - Pseudoscience / Heterodox Ideas 50:30 - Unconventional Physics Theories 56:02 - Funding Unconventional Theories 01:00:58 - “The Experimenters are Guided by Theorists” 01:02:45 - Sean’s Latest Paper “Beyond Falsifiability” 01:11:40 - Poetic Naturalism 01:13:30 - Morals, Aesthetics, Philosophy 01:17:24 - Boltzmann 01:22:55 - The Big Bang 01:25:28 - Holography / Quantum Gravity 01:29:20 - “Publish or Perish!” 01:33:59 - Dark Matter 01:36:35 - Something New to Blow Your Mind 01:39:52 - Loop Quantum Gravity 01:50:26 - Outro / Support TOE
3:33 Toroidal flow. I appreciate the acknowledgment of my proposal earlier talking about 2d state of universe... was not meant to let anyone know who doesn't already but does let those who do know the logical progression of the spatial Dimensions that you have acknowledged the recurring ♾️ in the logical progression pattern.
19:26 i say the new equation would be to measure the acceleration upwards towards Infinity and how much that acceleration increases or decreases with the infinite dimensional scaling problem i decided to call it just now... so from here on out i will reference it as the infinite dimensional scaling problem.🎉
Dark energy and dark matter are 2 forms of the same thing. Energy=Mass×constant² (E=MC²) energy is mass while in motion and why we need string theory because where does the mass go after redshifting... the process of a red shifting is it shedding its strings that it is composed of and this makes it more lightweight which makes it lighter weight which makes it bounce on the wave Spectrum on a longer skip... this is the Logic on why we need string theory and why particle physics is doomed because we're going to need to explain this so what we should be doing is building colliders to look for Strings eventually and focusing on that small of a scale
I like when people say they aren't going to worry about someone's critiques and then if someone comes up with the best critique of all time and comes up with a theory that other person who said they're not going to worry about someone's critiques isn't even going to read their Theory so you basically just built yourself up on a throne and surrounding yourself with an echo chamber
Someone once asked if Strings could be proved experimentally. Yes. But Strings still needs a Guitar and a Good Guitarist ruclips.net/video/nUtTfjq7CyU/видео.html Guitar vs. "Big Bang"... Guitar will win!
@@vladimirrogozhin7797 pling ploing pling (An actual text version of me sonata in Z - for guitar and strange meditation) Thanks. Fare thee well - on life's journey
@@alkintugsal7563 I do not use emojis - but mine would be the same as yours - with the mouth missing 3 teeth - yet laughing unashamedly. Keep tuning - humour/heart Fare thee well - on life's journey
>the audience of this podcast are all mathematicians etc Look, I'm gonna listen to it anyway. Will I understand much? No, no I won't. But you can't stop me.
Appreciate Curt punching up on our behalf so we can get more detailed and nuanced discussions. It’s past time that physics communicators recognized the format. There’s enough “high-level introduction to (insert physics subtopic)” all over YT. I don’t care if I understand it right away, I can research and revisit these conversations.
@@matthewlennon6289I agree. I was happy when he basically said don't simplify or dumb anything down - we can handle it. It was refreshing to hear something other than a repeat of most other interviews or videos. I would love to see how someone that only gives oversimplified responses like Kaku would handle an interview that required punched up results. I have heard and read enough of Carroll's stuff that I was confident this was gonna be a good interview, and I wasn't disappointed.
I had to quit after 4 minutes. First need a bunch of videos that explains to me what AdS-CFT in d-dimensions do, otherwise it is all just gibberish like in a 60´s Sci-Fi movie. Love Penrose vids. It is allways great fun to watch him struggle with his presentation material & in all that chaos sometimes & miraculously there slips an information through that even I can understand.
@@eyedl YT lives off a great deal much of which whose value is questionable or non-existent relative to value highlighted by this vid, impervious to the dissenting vacuity of semantic pedantry
This is possibly the best episode of TOE ever. I am an avid mindscape listener; I hope this brings Sean into the TOE rotating cast (as so often happens with guests who discover they like being asked complicated questions).
"The audience tends to be researchers and professors in math physics, comp sci, philosophy, etc..." Well damn, 20 years of youtube and self-teaching on the internet is getting me in clubs with the cool kids. Sometimes wish I could go back to school to study this stuff. Have a mind for it. But who needs 200k in debt?
You don't have to go to school to learn anything. All the information taught in school is available online, it juat takes a bit more research without having the structure of school. I think the biggest benefit of school is having access to labs and other people well versed in the material.
Yea Toronto is pretty rough in terms of costs. I refuse to work in Toronto, even though my career wants to take me that way, cost of living is ridiculous
I'm a carpenter in Papua New Guinea with a 11th grade formal education and I've watched every one of Curt's videos. Makes us wonder who we really are. Hang in there mate. To Curt, I truly appreciate the content.
maybe there are a lot of those but maybe half of us are just the curious. No crime to be curious though the so called wise and learned would probably disagree with that. (they don't want anyone noticing how ignorant they really are) LOL
I really like this guy, he has a way to help explain extreamly complex concepts, ideas, in a way that reaches people who do not have to have PHD's in anything.
Sean is a national treasure. While a legitimate working physicist, I think of him as a clear, original thinker. We’re lucky to have him as a representative of the expert class. He’s done the work, as a scientist and a philosopher, and actually cares about being understood.
I love Sean Carroll. He's an excellent communicator. That being said, he seems to play a role in the "Silence" component of the "crisis". I don't blame him, it's necessary-attention is a limited resource and prioritizing allocation of it is of paramount importance. If I were him though, I'd probably open the gates I'm keeping every once in a while and direct at least some attention to the more popular alternatives, regardless of the pedigree or origin of those ideas, firstly as a public service to communicate why others shouldn't waste their attention on those ideas, and secondly in the off chance I might learn something new
You have to remember that science communicators popular enough as Sean Carroll, are getting inundated daily by crackpots, failed theorists and attention seekers - this would def make him a bit jaded and prone to gatekeeping and close minded - much like Simon Cowell is a bit jaded against lay performers My own thoughts are that once LLMs and AI develop formal proof and theorizing capacity that unpopular theorists and outsiders will be able to upload our pet theory to them and get a “translation” that considers all active theories for comparison and lets us know if we have something A Cyber physics pope so to say :) let’s see I def think that Curt’s channel is great btw
@@rippedtorn2310 I'm not aware of him 'silencing' any particular idea. I'm referring to part of this video that explains the three parts of the crisis, particularly part 3 "The Great Silence" (52:38). I am basing my opinion off of what he said about how he decides to allocate his attention-which is entirely his perogative and totally understandable, and nevertheless contributes to that part of the problem. His expert communication skills could be quite useful to others if he decided to pay at least some of his attention toward the more popular ideas of those who he claims 'haven't put in the work', or 'don't get the basics', even if just cursorily explaining what work hasn't been put in or what hasn't been understood.
This is similar to the suggestion that people who are developing new vaccines would benefit from studying quantum field theory. Perhaps they could benefit, but it would be a waste of time and slow down the next vaccine development.
Why would you listen to someone who has not explained any observables throughout his entire career?! You should watch the videos about the Janus Cosmological Model by Jean-Pierre Petit. His physics will humble any cosmologists because it can explain around 20 observables including the Great Repeller. You'll also learn that every single cosmologists did not read the fundamental articles about the General Relativity because they were published in German. They then built the current flawed models such as lambda-CDM and Black Holes based on the Telephone Game. Laziness at all stages and throughout 3 generations of physicists.
Just so you know it's not just physics professors and graduates who love listening to your intricate podcasts! I hope you were as excited to interview him as I was to see this upload
Sean is a beast when it comes to expressing himself about science. As a regular listener to his podcast his ability to express himself about other areas is also very impressive. He has obviously at his best when he's talking about physics.
"They appreciate and crave the details" Carl says when Sean asked how detailed he should go. You know your audience well, and those of us here appreciate this. Thank you!
Paradigms tend to be unraveled from the fringes. And the fringes are populated by those fearless individuals who put substance before ego. Thankfully in our day we have podcasts like yours. Keep giving the fringes a voice. 🙏
I'm so glad you asked for some more detailed discussion on the holographic principle. I was just thinking a minute ago that I would like to write similar questions for Sean to maybe answer on his podcast.
Freud meets a string theorist @1:28:20… Freud: Greetings, my patient. Are you a string theorist? String Theorist: No, I’m thinking about theoretical physics. Freud: Ah, so…. Then you say you are not actually a string theorist? String Theorist: No, definitely not. Freud: But you have been working on string theory for 50 years, without producing a verifiable experiment, even in principle. String Theorist: I’m not a string theorist… I’m not… I’m not… Freud: Perhaps shame leads to concealment? String Theorist: I hate you. Freud: Ah, transference. We have much to discuss… String Theorist: OK, as long as you don’t call me a string theorist! Now, let me tell you about my latest string theory, it’s so fascinating, and this time, it MUST be correct… Freud: I think I’ll light a cigar.
@@vladimirrogozhin7797philosophy is the MOST rigorous? that has to be obviously not true no? it doesn't make philosophy bad, there's so many amazing things out there that are not rigorous
@@PedroTricking John A. Wheeler: *_"Philosophy is too important to be left to philosophers."_* A.N. Whitehead: *_"A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge."_*
Excellent episode. BTW I'm not a grad student or professor, but I adore being able to hear Professor Carroll speak at a level slightly higher than the usual podcast.
In a sense, physics has always been in crisis. There have always been unanswered questions which seem unclear how to resolve, until a theory comes forward which takes us in a completely new direction. It is perhaps a bit early to say whether physics has stagnated. If there is a crisis, it may be that getting at deeper structure requires ever higher energies, which require highly expensive projects like the LHC. It may be that as we seek answers to harder problems, our progress slows down.
I started following Sean during Covid and it's the best thing I did at that time, I left school with very little education and now on my early 60,s I so wish I had gone onto collgue to graduate but some four years on watching hundreds of Vlogs, I feel very confident following science and enjoying the learning process.
You did well to avoid the poisonous fumes of Academia. Self education is having the ability to remain open to new information. Unlike traditional higher education .
@98danielray. Perhaps? In my personal experience it is a uninformed opinion. Too which you are Perfectly entitled to hold. We all walk a unique Path HOME to Source. As Above So Below. All is in Motion. ALL is in Flow.
@@98danielray Can you point me to earlier videos on this channel under which you were able to engage in meaningful conversation(s)? I'm new here. Cheers from a molecular biologist
Leonard Susskind said, "The three-dimensional world of ordinary experience--the universe filled with galaxies, stars, planets, houses, boulders, and people--is a hologram, an image of reality coded on a distant two-dimensional surface." .....There is no evidential justification for this assertion whatsoever! 😅
I have been married to a string theorist for nearly forty years. He started to pursue string theory in the 1980s, when it was seen as exciting and somewhat exotic. But the string theorists were still in the minority. I witnessed how it became all the rage in the 1990s. In 1997 the annual big string conference was held in Germany and a famous physicist who was confined to a wheel chair and spoke to us with a computer generated voice, invited himself, although he wasn't a string theorist. The consequence was that mainstream media went completely crazy, and when Kennedy Junior died in a plane crash, the weekly print magazines had the physicists on the title page instead of Kennedy! It was generally believed that the "theory of everything" was just around the corner. Well, it didn't exactly come true. Eventually the excitement decreased. And nowadays it has become fashionable to lash out against string theory. Some people even claim that there is a conspiracy, and the most famous and accomplisbed string theorist Ed Witten is called the Lord Voldemort of physics, who actually wanted to stall the progress of modern physics and keep the physics community busy with pursuing a grail which they could never reach 😊 While the disenchantment is understandable, and string theory couldn't live up to it's initial promise, people react with discarding the baby with the bathtub - and many of these nay-sayers aren't even physicists! This talk is refreshingly different and far more level-headed. And I know from personal experience that string theorists got swamped with ideas which were sent to them with the request to evaluate them, and it was simply impossible to look into all of them and figure out if they had some merit. There was not enough time for doing this. This has nothing to do with arrogance, although it may be true that paradigm changes are slow to happen.
However you slice it, it’s bullshit. You can’t falsify another dimension, so the goalposts just keep getting moved. Meanwhile, an entire generation is stunted because the media keeps pushing Einstein, who wasn’t regarded enough to get peer reviewed, oddly enough.
I watched Hammeroff at Arizona State like 15 years ago talking about microtubules. His idea is an awesome idea. I was glad Sir Rodger Penrose hoped aboard.
@@Littleprinceleon I am not sure, maybe Penrose filled in some details, but the theory I have in my notes are almost word for word what Hameroff said a few weeks ago. At minimum the overview is the same.
Hi Curt. First time listener to your channel. I’m not a student or scientist, just a lover of science and cosmology. Been following Sean for years now. He’s an absolute beast and one of the best communicators of high concept, hard to understand subjects. We are lucky to have someone like him to be able to break things down for people like me to understand. I loved your approach to this talk. You’ve gained a new subscriber
As a no longer practicing physicist I am so happy having discover your channel. You have truly outstanding guests and have them maintain the right level for a non-expert audience though balancing with more in depth insight and math. During this wonderful episode I thought: - You might consider hosting a 2 or 3 parties’ debates - Was surprised as occasionally you discussed K Popper’s philosophy there was no mention of David Deutsch: he would be a great addition hugely clarifying epistemology and quantum theory - I would like to more in-depth discussion on experimental verification of theories, follow on LHC and/or other colliders, precision cosmology... - My ah ah moment was when Sean discussed so clearly the Boltzmann H theorem and the criticism by David Albert - I liked the short discussion on LQG, maybe to be extended Great work: I’ll not miss your other episodes.
Hi Curt, I've been following you for a long time and your channel is awesome! I love following your super smart conversations, but could I ask you a little favor? Could you "not" disable the subtitles automatically generated by RUclips? I ask you because in many videos, cuts have been made, and the subtitles inserted by you, are out of sync; also, for some languages, like Italian, the sentences become so long, that it is difficult to read at the speed of your words. Instead, the automatic ones of RUclips, follow one another with a shorter metric and it becomes easier to follow your speeches. If you can't do it, no problem ... I still want to tell you that you have one of the most spectacular channels on RUclips! Keep it up! Greetings from Italy! Marsio Salcuni 🙂
@@TheoriesofEverything You know, different languages all over the world, I think that's the real problem that slows down progress in everything... Thank you so much for your kindness!
Here's a ChatGPT summary: - Fundamental physics has not had any experimentally verified breakthroughs for a long time. - Sean Carroll argues that there is no crisis in physics, despite some professors' criticisms. - Carroll discusses the holographic principle, which suggests our universe can be thought of as a two-dimensional space with densely encoded quantum information. - Carroll and his colleagues are working on the phenomenological consequences of holography, particularly in relation to the IceCube experiment at the South Pole. - The holographic principle originated from black hole information theory, suggesting that the total quantum information of a black hole resides on its event horizon. - The ADSCFT correspondence is a form of holography that relates a D-dimensional spacetime to a D+1 dimensional spacetime. - Carroll believes that while ADSCFT is useful, it may not answer all quantum gravity questions, especially in non-ADS universes. - Carroll discusses the challenges of duality in decider space-time and CFT, noting that decider space has a finite dimensional Hilbert space. - Carroll argues that philosophy is essential for science, as scientists often make philosophical claims without realizing it. - He criticizes the lack of philosophical rigor in defining problems like the hierarchy problem in particle physics. - Carroll believes that physicists should engage more with philosophy to avoid making uneducated philosophical statements. - He discusses the relationship between physics and philosophy, emphasizing the importance of philosophical clarity in scientific problems. - Carroll critiques the idea that physicists should avoid philosophy, arguing that philosophical questions are integral to scientific inquiry. - He discusses the Large Hadron Collider's motivation, which was partly based on philosophical notions of naturalness. - Carroll believes that the crisis in physics is often overstated and that most physics is not fundamental physics. - He argues that the lack of breakthroughs in fundamental physics does not imply a crisis in the field as a whole. - Carroll emphasizes the importance of understanding the historical and intellectual context of current theories. - He discusses the importance of experimental predictions and the role of theorists in guiding experiments. - Carroll critiques the falsifiability criterion, arguing that the relationship between theory and data is more complex. - He believes that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a legitimate scientific theory. - Carroll discusses the challenges of quantum gravity and the importance of holography in understanding it. - He believes that quantum gravity will not come from quantizing general relativity but from more subtle approaches. - Carroll emphasizes the importance of keeping an open mind and supporting diverse approaches in physics. - He discusses the role of string theory and its contributions to understanding quantum gravity. - Carroll believes that the academic system should allocate resources to support minority perspectives in physics. - He discusses the importance of experimental predictions and the role of theorists in guiding experiments. - Carroll critiques the falsifiability criterion, arguing that the relationship between theory and data is more complex. - He believes that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a legitimate scientific theory. - Carroll discusses the challenges of quantum gravity and the importance of holography in understanding it. - He believes that quantum gravity will not come from quantizing general relativity but from more subtle approaches. - Carroll emphasizes the importance of keeping an open mind and supporting diverse approaches in physics. - He discusses the role of string theory and its contributions to understanding quantum gravity. - Carroll believes that the academic system should allocate resources to support minority perspectives in physics. - Main message: The perceived crisis in fundamental physics is often overstated, and while breakthroughs are slow, the field is progressing through diverse and speculative approaches, with a need for philosophical engagement and open-mindedness.
It seems only natural that the questions are becoming ever harder. That is not a crisis in physics but just the nature of reality. A crisis in physics would be if we stopped exploring and investigating, and that is certainly not the case.
From earliest grade school on, we're rigorously trained to be afraid because ashamed, of making mistakes. This is, in itself, a colossal mistake. In the business world, most new companies don't make it. The same is true of radical ideas, at least til they become discarded, or, in some form, accepted. 'Nothing ventured, nothing gained'. Don't fear mistakes - learn from them!!
"From earliest grade school on, we're rigorously trained to be afraid because ashamed, of making mistakes." That's because we don't really have "educational" system. What we have is in fact system of conditioning kids to certain set of belief systems imposed on them. It's in fact amazing that there are so many creative people out there despite all the brainwashing we went through. We are brainwashed to blindly follow the authorities, be it from government, politics, religion, science etc. That's where that shame comes from, because thought that you are "less than" them is imposed very early. And for most people, it stays deep inside them during whole life.
Sean Carroll should absolutely be the mouthpiece for science to a popular audience rather than DeGrAsshole Tyson. Humble rather than cocky, actually keeps up with and understands modern physics, has a genuine passion rather than out for self notoriety. I’ve known about Carrol for about 17 years but really followed him closely after he destroyed Christian apologist William Lane Craig in their debate. A true gentleman and scholar.
I'm amazed by the brain of Sean Carroll. He is so concise, precise and honest, it is amazing to listen to him answering and being patient in defining correct statements, assumptions and their consequences. I love his way of thinking, but it is almost impossible to replicate, given the efforts it takes for the host to follow along.
Thank you Curt and Sean. This was a fantastic discussion. As a young person who grew up before youtube in a small town, I had no science mentors. I didn't even take physics in high-school. As an AI specialist and technologist, I fell in love with physics as a middle aged adult. You both have greatly encouraged me to dip my toes into esoteric waters. Many of the subjects you cover impact both my field and curiosity. I'm going back and learning math that I neglected in my younger days. I want to better understand this reality. All that you both do is greatly appreciated.
I agree with Sean, in that the illegitimate favoring of some speculative theories over others is a product of individuals' game-theoretic behavior and the funding structure, not innate hatred between researchers. That was a mature response, Sean. As for Curt, I'd love to see you communicate with more physicists about how to fix this culture!
@_GOD_HAND_ ok, point taken. But the structure and sociology of academic departments does play a huge role in this, and it's not fair to all point fingers when we are all creating that culture. The only thing that disappointed me was that he didn't want to speak to that culture any further, dismissing the idea as a culture problem that he himself doesn't want to address. I think we can do better than that.
@@benthayermath Sure, academic departments are run almost exactly like medieval feudal fiefdoms. I don't even think that's a problem necessarily, but I wish people would be honest about it instead of reciting the usual PC platitudes.
Richard Feynman: _"I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."_ Quantum mechanics is a phenomenological (parametric "effective") theory without ontological justification (ontological basification). Lee Smolin: "All the theories we work with, including the Standard Model of Particle Physics and General relativity, are approximate theories applicable to truncations of nature that include only a subset of the degrees of freedom in the universe. We call such an approximate theory an effective theory." It is necessary to "dig" deeper into matter to the most remote meaningful ontological depths of its existence as a holistic process in order to "grasp" (understand) the primordial generating structure. "The event of grasping the structure means understanding." (G. Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse")
Sean: I agree with Nima. String Theory's history has been garbage Also Sean: No I don't pay any attention to other people's theories. I'm interested in String Theory. I've never seen someone SO afraid to re-examine their worldview.
Sean: if you propose a new theory you need extraordinary evidence before I spend my limited time on it. Also Sean: even though String theory has no experimental evidence backing it I will spend most of my time on it because there are so many cool ideas coming out of it.
the funny part is watching people who have no idea how any of this high level math and physics stuff works, yet have a very strong opinion on who is right or wrong based on political bias.
And? People can't have views or thoughts on these topics without first having a lifelong career working these fields? So you can't have an opinion on the president without first being a president? Who cares if People discuss, let them, that's how they figure shit out with time.
I am one of those people. My math and physics just isn't up to par, yet. Probably never will be. I have only managed to teach myself enough to help me realise that, at the end of the day, Einstein's math and physics wasn't good enough... and the next Einstein's math and physics, a thousand years from now, or a million, still probably won't be good enough...not if they are a human being like I am with a brain like mine, connected neuraly to a physical human body, like mine... I don't think that any quantum physicists math or physics will EVER be good enough... I mean... from what point on can you stop distinguishing between a pageful of math formulas, and a page filled with an artist's doodles? One is supposed to be precise, down to the literal 'tee'(t?), the other is supposed to be abstract artistic expression... Just how the heck can you describe all that weirdness going on at the subatomic level with math, when I can't even come up with a good way to visualize it through art??? Are you that much smarter than me?
@@sacr3 well the president is something that we get to experience hands on. math and physics can be experienced hands on as well, but the people i'm referring to are skipping the education part and jumping to a conclusion based on who they think the physicist votes for. that's not an intelligent way to form an opinion on a scientific subject. when you vote in a presidential election, obviously that decision is based on "political beliefs". a person's scientific opinions influencing their political beliefs seems like a a more intelligent type of decision making to me. let's take this topic of string theory: i don't know whether weinstein is right or whether the string theorists are right, but i can say that from my point of view, weinstein is making the more persuasive argument. i still don't have a very strong opinion on whether he is right or wrong though. on the other hand, if you go to professor dave's cesspool channel, you will find a comment section full of people who believe string theory simply because eric weinstein is a conservative. that just seems dumb to me.I wonder if they base their workouts and diets on politics too.
@@ycart_tech6726 but it doesn't sound like you are forming your opinions based on politics. it seems like you are actually thinking critically and being open minded and also trying to educate yourself. much more respectable.
I'm just an amateur, but understand enough of the content to follow along...this is the most insightful, stimulating, passionate, comprehensive, information dense discussion I've listened to...ever.
@@Itsgone99 the more I think about the holographic principle, the less I'm able to accept it to be true. Not only can I personally see, experience, and act in 3 dimensions, but we have common technology that would be impossible without 3D. Either I'm missing one giant detail, or this holographic stuff is crap. Plus I don't really much care for how this guy handles criticism. I don't need a better theory to know that yours is wrong.
When Carroll declared that he isn't interested in what people like Peter Woit say but claims to not know what Peter Woit actually has said then he made himself look very foolish.
Some modern scientists argue that Newton's law of gravitation is outdated and that Einstein's Theory of Relativity provides a more accurate description of gravitational forces. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to conclusively support this claim.
Obviously something is wrong because we seem to have hit a Dark matter wall.......do we have the means to test and measure all the Theoretical ideas from were we are (on Earth) do we need to leave the comfort of our planet to really move forward......btw Kurt , you are constantly breaking barriers for this community, Thankyou!
The fundamental phenomenon of dilation explains galaxy rotation curves. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A time dilation graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words, that mass is all around us. In other words, common spiral galaxies are centerless. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter, in other words they have normal rotation rates. All planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates for the same reason.
It's true to say "turtles, all the way down". But that's only what/how we perceive the state of Turtledom, from our three-dimensional perspective in space without time. These infinite turtles are actually curving, AND CURVED BY... spacetime. And so... it's MORE correct to say "turtles, all the way AROUND." When we actually zoom out far enough, oddly... this endless line of turtles actually begins to create a repeated message. In standard English cursive, none the less! Which, to be fair, could be a problem of scale. We're really not sure where to go from there. But more curious than anything is what the message purports to spell. "I like turtles!" Which may have, within it, solved Platonic Solids in the key of E. We think it's worth further consideration in funding. 🧐
It took me learning and working with a high ranking dude in aerospace projects briefly to realize how deeply held back and flawed contemporary physics was. The next revolution has already happened behind closed doors. But I'll share what I think it will be : - the primacy of the quantum vacuum (subway quantum) in EVERYTHING. As both source of energy and information. -a better understanding of gravity -the primacy of the electro dynamic nature of the body -the inherent interconnection between everything. Both at the planetary level and cosmic level and all it's mechanisms -how consciousness relates to all of the above and why and how intuition works. -a Bohmain type idea of holographic universe. Layered It is also interesting he frequently referred to de sitter and anti desitter spaces as real things, and that entities often used them...take that for whatever that may mean to you
I have all those figured out, I have unveiled the thread that connects numbers, do we can account for the evolution of numbers to physics. The is called SWT theory and it gives the most symmetrical theory of gravity, EMF, blackhole. I am looking for a journal that accept autodidact paper. Amongst the papers I will submit is the proof of existence outside our minds.
49:00 I don’t know if this gets discussed later but Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez is a great example of being a good heretic. As if physics wasn’t enough for him, he also made a major contribution to geology in, along with his son and some others, identifying that it was most likely a meteor that yeeted the dinosaurs
I’ve listened to a lot of theories since 2004. From classical theories to spooky theoretical cosmology physics. And I always lean towards the basic principles because I’ve noticed micro life and basic life are showing us how science can be understood in the basic fundamental principles. Yet listening to this show, I find it the most interesting and mind boggling among all. Opinions and advice on consciousness, physics 101, string theories, entropy, probability, Nobel prize winners on physics, quantum mechanics, holograms, etc., all in the name of the basic fundamental principles of reality, revolving around it all. 🧐
@@TheMikesylv One examole: What does physics tell is about morality? We've had profound and meaningful discussions of philosophy for thousands of years. Physics has been around for a couple hundred max. I see almost no relationship between philosophy and physics.
Physics is fundamentally quantitative and philosophy is fundamentally ontological or epistemological (ie what can we know and how) driven - good physics is fundamentally falsifiable, in some ways physics is a subset of philosophy that leads to quantifiable observations that are empirically tested and validated for truth in our observable universe
Exactly my thoughts. I always say that philosophy is the foundation of science, so what do you expect when you remove the foundation of a house?.. I believe it was intentionally done to avoid and minimize the thought of God, which should have never been opposed to science in the first place. There is no reason they cannot be complementary!
@@ahmedkhan25 Not really. The difference is process more than anything. Physics is actually a branch of philosophy, aka natural/physical studies. Physics has a tendency to qualify everything quantitatively, but it still requires a defined set of qualities which we must assume. Color, light, sound, time, (un)consciousness, observation all show this by refusing to be qualified/limited/reduced to a simple number. It’s also not surprising to me that all the greatest advancements in science lately have come from non-physical(non-“natural”) theories or ideas.
Way too technical for me but ❤❤ Sean Carol for caring which audience and happy to go either way!! Very interesting subject if it ever gets dumbed down for poetic consumption!
Philosophy (the most rigorous science, "mother of all sciences") says: "multiverse" is an extremely dangerous pseudoscientific speculation for humanity.
@1:38:00 while infinite causal regress is possible (plenty of mathematical models for that) this idea of "emerging" the laws out of a Mutliverse is nothing but emerging secondary laws out of other primary laws (whatever governs the Multiverse). The only way to get physics laws from *_not more fundamental physics laws_* is to invoke metaphysical mysticism (which btw I'm ok with, but it's not science). Did someone say physicists tend be be bad at philosophy?
It’s no wonder physics hasn’t moved forward or going anywhere for that matter. This guy is the definition of full of yourself and thinking your right on all fronts
@@steffenbendel6031 not true... The "rules" as you stated, for physics, is it's methodology... Which unfortunately, is still heavily dominated by Logical Positivism Methodology, which is pathetic... But don't worry, a new methodology is coming within the next decade, give or take a few years... It's already led to amazing breakthroughs the world will soon hear about...
@@thomabow8949 like quantum gravity, which it was developed side by side with... And higher dimensional geometries, which is currently only 4-dimensional geometry in the process of having it's presentation finished... It is a new realist methodology, which has the potential of rewriting all scientific theories where observations and equations, are compared and interpreted...
The viewpoint that we understand everything already with just a couple little gaps to fill is ridiculous but also pervasive. It's very frustrating. Literally every one of our models breaks down at some point. Very few mesh together nicely. Hints of completely new physics constantly. We don't understand one of the most fundamental "forces" almost at all.
We are like the second class in an airplane behind the first class curtain when it comes to having UAP's tell us what to do to solve that propulsion problem. Or as Brian Regan says in his airplane standup routine "I don't want to even look at you!"
Regarding the 3 problems quoted, in particular "The Great Silence": I think this perceived problem is rooted fundamentally in missing peices from the training of physicists in particular but scientists in general. That is, there is too little training in humanities-related practices such as writing, speaking, and communicating. This has created generations of science and physics students who believe what they were taught in their own experience, and what they personally know and understand, is THE truth (i.e. I think, therefore We are). This comes from "Batch" style course programs where your identity is stripped away and replaced with multiple choice, state-mandated testing and short paragraph writing samples (but no real training in how to think, how to communicate what you think, and how to appreciate the existence of thoughts that are outside of you). Interviews and blogs that demonstrate real-time discourse are the solution, but only if these kinds of discourse can serve examples for real in-person discourse. This is a long way of saying thanks to @TheoriesofEverything for posting this.
At the basis of physics is the most basic of rookie mistakes which you would not believe until or unless you were shown. This foundational mistake is why physics is at the point of crisis you speak about. But, it goes way beyond a crisis. It means all of physics is 1. Outrightly and absolutely wrong, or at best 2. Physics that can only be classified as 'approximate'. It is indeed a little of both, depending upon the specific area pf physics. This 'rookie mistake' caused physicists to overlook the true nature of reality and its fundamental physics all quantified by a remarkable Grand Constant that quantifies all aspects of reality and its physics, including the nature and mechanism of this phenomenon we call 'gravity'. I am in the process of putting together the story that is the truth of the physics of reality. Sean is a fantastic speaker and writer. While this creates an impression of authority for listeners and readers, it does not make him correct. This physics he, and all other physicists speak about does not exist. I know that is a huge claim, but I will prove it.
@10:00 I'm confused by Sean. Our universe is FRWL, not de Sitter, it is only asymptotically de Sitter. This also has implications. Also, folks need to look into Jacob Barandes (not one of the big names, but he gives a good webinar and writes decent arXiv papers). He explains clearly why Hilbert space *_cannot be_* physical reality (massive gauge redundancy).
Aurélien Drezet also has a lot of papers showing why MWI doesn't work, mostly focusing on the fact that there is no consistent way to recover probabilities.
![WE GOT ACCESS TO GPT-3! [Epic Special Edition]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iccd86vOz3w/mqdefault.jpg)
As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist and all it has to offer. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe
Timestamps:
00:00 - Intro
01:23 - Sean’s Current Work (Holographic Principle)
07:02 - Duality in De Sitter Spacetime
14:24 - “Let’s Talk About Philosophy”
30:36 - The Crisis in Fundamental Physics
45:02 - Pseudoscience / Heterodox Ideas
50:30 - Unconventional Physics Theories
56:02 - Funding Unconventional Theories
01:00:58 - “The Experimenters are Guided by Theorists”
01:02:45 - Sean’s Latest Paper “Beyond Falsifiability”
01:11:40 - Poetic Naturalism
01:13:30 - Morals, Aesthetics, Philosophy
01:17:24 - Boltzmann
01:22:55 - The Big Bang
01:25:28 - Holography / Quantum Gravity
01:29:20 - “Publish or Perish!”
01:33:59 - Dark Matter
01:36:35 - Something New to Blow Your Mind
01:39:52 - Loop Quantum Gravity
01:50:26 - Outro / Support TOE
3:33 Toroidal flow. I appreciate the acknowledgment of my proposal earlier talking about 2d state of universe... was not meant to let anyone know who doesn't already but does let those who do know the logical progression of the spatial Dimensions that you have acknowledged the recurring ♾️ in the logical progression pattern.
19:26 i say the new equation would be to measure the acceleration upwards towards Infinity and how much that acceleration increases or decreases with the infinite dimensional scaling problem i decided to call it just now... so from here on out i will reference it as the infinite dimensional scaling problem.🎉
Dark energy and dark matter are 2 forms of the same thing. Energy=Mass×constant² (E=MC²) energy is mass while in motion and why we need string theory because where does the mass go after redshifting... the process of a red shifting is it shedding its strings that it is composed of and this makes it more lightweight which makes it lighter weight which makes it bounce on the wave Spectrum on a longer skip... this is the Logic on why we need string theory and why particle physics is doomed because we're going to need to explain this so what we should be doing is building colliders to look for Strings eventually and focusing on that small of a scale
I always reconsider every time things don't work out my way so that's how I have made such incredible Leaps to what does work out.
I like when people say they aren't going to worry about someone's critiques and then if someone comes up with the best critique of all time and comes up with a theory that other person who said they're not going to worry about someone's critiques isn't even going to read their Theory so you basically just built yourself up on a throne and surrounding yourself with an echo chamber
Someone once asked if Strings could be proved experimentally. The String said no, I'm a frayed knot.
I feel roped along - by that humorous note. Hope it makes sense in English - (from Germany)
😂
Someone once asked if Strings could be proved experimentally.
Yes. But Strings still needs a Guitar and a Good Guitarist
ruclips.net/video/nUtTfjq7CyU/видео.html
Guitar vs. "Big Bang"...
Guitar will win!
@@vladimirrogozhin7797 pling ploing pling
(An actual text version of me sonata in Z - for guitar and strange meditation) Thanks.
Fare thee well - on life's journey
@@alkintugsal7563 I do not use emojis - but mine would be the same as yours - with the mouth missing 3 teeth - yet laughing unashamedly. Keep tuning - humour/heart
Fare thee well - on life's journey
>the audience of this podcast are all mathematicians etc
Look, I'm gonna listen to it anyway. Will I understand much? No, no I won't. But you can't stop me.
Appreciate Curt punching up on our behalf so we can get more detailed and nuanced discussions. It’s past time that physics communicators recognized the format. There’s enough “high-level introduction to (insert physics subtopic)” all over YT. I don’t care if I understand it right away, I can research and revisit these conversations.
@@matthewlennon6289I agree. I was happy when he basically said don't simplify or dumb anything down - we can handle it. It was refreshing to hear something other than a repeat of most other interviews or videos. I would love to see how someone that only gives oversimplified responses like Kaku would handle an interview that required punched up results. I have heard and read enough of Carroll's stuff that I was confident this was gonna be a good interview, and I wasn't disappointed.
@@linkgunther1618 I would be happy if he gave discussions at both levels of expertise, but yes if i had to choose i'd want the more detailed version
Hey, I'm right here with you nodding and enjoying the pretty words. Seriously though this stuff is amazing!
I had to quit after 4 minutes. First need a bunch of videos that explains to me what AdS-CFT in d-dimensions do, otherwise it is all just gibberish like in a 60´s Sci-Fi movie. Love Penrose vids. It is allways great fun to watch him struggle with his presentation material & in all that chaos sometimes & miraculously there slips an information through that even I can understand.
Great job getting Sean into rare form! He went higher level here than he had on probably any other podcast (excluding his own)
It is vids like this that highlight the true value of RUclips.
true and the effect of the informatics revolution. And haven't even process that revolution yet, and we have a new one with AI
crazy times dudes
I disagree) they don't highlight the value of YT. they have their own value that YT lives off
@@eyedl YT lives off a great deal much of which whose value is questionable or non-existent relative to value highlighted by this vid, impervious to the dissenting vacuity of semantic pedantry
@@bongomcgurk7363 I completely agree.
Not Sean, no
This is possibly the best episode of TOE ever. I am an avid mindscape listener; I hope this brings Sean into the TOE rotating cast (as so often happens with guests who discover they like being asked complicated questions).
Thank you so much! Do let Sean know. - Curt
If I had to bet on string theory or Penrose my money would be on Penrose
If you had a third option that both are wrong, it’d be better to bet on that.
@@aaronclarke1434 So you would rather engage in gambling than think for yourself?
So you would rather engage in gambling than think for yourself?
I know that Penrose is wrong in his theory about consciousness.
@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 How do you know?
"The audience tends to be researchers and professors in math physics, comp sci, philosophy, etc..." Well damn, 20 years of youtube and self-teaching on the internet is getting me in clubs with the cool kids. Sometimes wish I could go back to school to study this stuff. Have a mind for it. But who needs 200k in debt?
@@UniverseSpeck peterson academy
A lot of work with the result, that reality and dream are the same. Any dream is real, so every reality can be a dream.
You don't have to go to school to learn anything. All the information taught in school is available online, it juat takes a bit more research without having the structure of school. I think the biggest benefit of school is having access to labs and other people well versed in the material.
I feel the same way. I love this stuff but way out of my depth credentiallu
@@Braun09tv You're equivocating on the use of the word "is", the first use is of predication and the second use is of identity.
I have my grade 8 and still understand everything you guys discuss. Cheers from a homeless 42 year old in Toronto. I
love all of you
Yea Toronto is pretty rough in terms of costs. I refuse to work in Toronto, even though my career wants to take me that way, cost of living is ridiculous
Hang in there, friend. Which part of the city are you based in? - Curt
I'm a carpenter in Papua New Guinea with a 11th grade formal education and I've watched every one of Curt's videos. Makes us wonder who we really are.
Hang in there mate. To Curt, I truly appreciate the content.
I’m a hairstylist in Florida. Love listening 🙏🏻🥰
@@slatinadidi Wonderful. Where specifically?
Our audience is mostly Scientists, Mathematicians and Graduates. Hears me, silently, Embarrassingly backing out of the room.
maybe there are a lot of those but maybe half of us are just the curious. No crime to be curious though the so called wise and learned would probably disagree with that. (they don't want anyone noticing how ignorant they really are) LOL
Yep 👍🤦♀️
You might find a few garden variety stoners in the audience too.
How did he hear you back out of the room if you did it silently?
...checkmate.
@@plexus Entanglement.
Carroll is, and have been, one of the most remarkable 'explainers' I've ever seen..
The best
He’s the most articulate science communicator I’ve ever seen.
I really like this guy, he has a way to help explain extreamly complex concepts, ideas, in a way that reaches people who do not have to have PHD's in anything.
Which is a feat indeed. I'm often lost listening to Lex Fridman's guests too.
Sean is a national treasure. While a legitimate working physicist, I think of him as a clear, original thinker. We’re lucky to have him as a representative of the expert class. He’s done the work, as a scientist and a philosopher, and actually cares about being understood.
I had hoped to get to bed early tonight, now this.
Well shit, that ain't going to happen.
Listen in bed with headphones
I viewed the episode once again today while fully awake, and wow - great episode.
Carroll is in a loop, like others they never know the truth and they say we will never know the truth either.
I love Sean Carroll. He's an excellent communicator. That being said, he seems to play a role in the "Silence" component of the "crisis". I don't blame him, it's necessary-attention is a limited resource and prioritizing allocation of it is of paramount importance. If I were him though, I'd probably open the gates I'm keeping every once in a while and direct at least some attention to the more popular alternatives, regardless of the pedigree or origin of those ideas, firstly as a public service to communicate why others shouldn't waste their attention on those ideas, and secondly in the off chance I might learn something new
You have to remember that science communicators popular enough as Sean Carroll, are getting inundated daily by crackpots, failed theorists and attention seekers - this would def make him a bit jaded and prone to gatekeeping and close minded - much like Simon Cowell is a bit jaded against lay performers
My own thoughts are that once LLMs and AI develop formal proof and theorizing capacity that unpopular theorists and outsiders will be able to upload our pet theory to them and get a “translation” that considers all active theories for comparison and lets us know if we have something
A Cyber physics pope so to say :) let’s see
I def think that Curt’s channel is great btw
Can you give an example of him silencing an idea ?
@@rippedtorn2310 I'm not aware of him 'silencing' any particular idea. I'm referring to part of this video that explains the three parts of the crisis, particularly part 3 "The Great Silence" (52:38). I am basing my opinion off of what he said about how he decides to allocate his attention-which is entirely his perogative and totally understandable, and nevertheless contributes to that part of the problem.
His expert communication skills could be quite useful to others if he decided to pay at least some of his attention toward the more popular ideas of those who he claims 'haven't put in the work', or 'don't get the basics', even if just cursorily explaining what work hasn't been put in or what hasn't been understood.
This is similar to the suggestion that people who are developing new vaccines would benefit from studying quantum field theory. Perhaps they could benefit, but it would be a waste of time and slow down the next vaccine development.
Actually, it's not similar to that at all
Wow.. Carroll in the house. No sleep 'til 4am then. Sweet.
Why would you listen to someone who has not explained any observables throughout his entire career?! You should watch the videos about the Janus Cosmological Model by Jean-Pierre Petit. His physics will humble any cosmologists because it can explain around 20 observables including the Great Repeller. You'll also learn that every single cosmologists did not read the fundamental articles about the General Relativity because they were published in German. They then built the current flawed models such as lambda-CDM and Black Holes based on the Telephone Game. Laziness at all stages and throughout 3 generations of physicists.
Just so you know it's not just physics professors and graduates who love listening to your intricate podcasts! I hope you were as excited to interview him as I was to see this upload
Wow, thank you!
Sean is a beast when it comes to expressing himself about science. As a regular listener to his podcast his ability to express himself about other areas is also very impressive. He has obviously at his best when he's talking about physics.
Oh ok
"They appreciate and crave the details" Carl says when Sean asked how detailed he should go. You know your audience well, and those of us here appreciate this. Thank you!
Paradigms tend to be unraveled from the fringes. And the fringes are populated by those fearless individuals who put substance before ego. Thankfully in our day we have podcasts like yours. Keep giving the fringes a voice. 🙏
Curt on guitar, Sean on bass, Wolfram on drums and Hoffman on vocals
And Chris Langan as song writer.
I'm so glad you asked for some more detailed discussion on the holographic principle. I was just thinking a minute ago that I would like to write similar questions for Sean to maybe answer on his podcast.
Thank you!
+1 great questions Kurt
Freud meets a string theorist @1:28:20…
Freud: Greetings, my patient. Are you a string theorist?
String Theorist: No, I’m thinking about theoretical physics.
Freud: Ah, so…. Then you say you are not actually a string theorist?
String Theorist: No, definitely not.
Freud: But you have been working on string theory for 50 years, without producing a verifiable experiment, even in principle.
String Theorist: I’m not a string theorist… I’m not… I’m not…
Freud: Perhaps shame leads to concealment?
String Theorist: I hate you.
Freud: Ah, transference. We have much to discuss…
String Theorist: OK, as long as you don’t call me a string theorist! Now, let me tell you about my latest string theory, it’s so fascinating, and this time, it MUST be correct…
Freud: I think I’ll light a cigar.
Your interviewing and this RUclips mode really get Sean Carroll at his best. Good stuff
This level of technical detail is truly excellent. Thank you. Carroll is awesome.
Love that Carroll was a Philosophy minor as an undergrad. I was a Physics minor 😎
*Philosophy is the Most Rigorous and Joyful Science, “mother of all sciences.”*
Carroll is still a pgilosophy "minor"😅
@@vladimirrogozhin7797philosophy is the MOST rigorous? that has to be obviously not true no? it doesn't make philosophy bad, there's so many amazing things out there that are not rigorous
@@PedroTricking
John A. Wheeler: *_"Philosophy is too important to be left to philosophers."_*
A.N. Whitehead: *_"A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge."_*
Excellent episode. BTW I'm not a grad student or professor, but I adore being able to hear Professor Carroll speak at a level slightly higher than the usual podcast.
Thanks for sharing that!
Really enjoying catching up on this one, and greatly appreciate when you've decided to add an explanation of a concept here and there for context.
In a sense, physics has always been in crisis. There have always been unanswered questions which seem unclear how to resolve, until a theory comes forward which takes us in a completely new direction. It is perhaps a bit early to say whether physics has stagnated.
If there is a crisis, it may be that getting at deeper structure requires ever higher energies, which require highly expensive projects like the LHC. It may be that as we seek answers to harder problems, our progress slows down.
I started following Sean during Covid and it's the best thing I did at that time, I left school with very little education and now on my early 60,s I so wish I had gone onto collgue to graduate but some four years on watching hundreds of Vlogs, I feel very confident following science and enjoying the learning process.
You did well to avoid the poisonous fumes of Academia. Self education is having the ability to remain open to new information. Unlike traditional higher education .
I too share ur sentiment 💯💯
@@maramclaine830also to remain very ignorant.
@98danielray. Perhaps? In my personal experience it is a uninformed opinion. Too which you are Perfectly entitled to hold. We all walk a unique Path HOME to Source. As Above So Below. All is in Motion. ALL is in Flow.
@@98danielray Can you point me to earlier videos on this channel under which you were able to engage in meaningful conversation(s)?
I'm new here.
Cheers from a molecular biologist
Leonard Susskind said, "The three-dimensional world of ordinary experience--the universe filled with galaxies, stars, planets, houses, boulders, and people--is a hologram, an image of reality coded on a distant two-dimensional surface."
.....There is no evidential justification for this assertion whatsoever! 😅
I have been married to a string theorist for nearly forty years. He started to pursue string theory in the 1980s, when it was seen as exciting and somewhat exotic. But the string theorists were still in the minority. I witnessed how it became all the rage in the 1990s. In 1997 the annual big string conference was held in Germany and a famous physicist who was confined to a wheel chair and spoke to us with a computer generated voice, invited himself, although he wasn't a string theorist. The consequence was that mainstream media went completely crazy, and when Kennedy Junior died in a plane crash, the weekly print magazines had the physicists on the title page instead of Kennedy! It was generally believed that the "theory of everything" was just around the corner. Well, it didn't exactly come true. Eventually the excitement decreased. And nowadays it has become fashionable to lash out against string theory. Some people even claim that there is a conspiracy, and the most famous and accomplisbed string theorist Ed Witten is called the Lord Voldemort of physics, who actually wanted to stall the progress of modern physics and keep the physics community busy with pursuing a grail which they could never reach 😊 While the disenchantment is understandable, and string theory couldn't live up to it's initial promise, people react with discarding the baby with the bathtub - and many of these nay-sayers aren't even physicists! This talk is refreshingly different and far more level-headed. And I know from personal experience that string theorists got swamped with ideas which were sent to them with the request to evaluate them, and it was simply impossible to look into all of them and figure out if they had some merit. There was not enough time for doing this. This has nothing to do with arrogance, although it may be true that paradigm changes are slow to happen.
However you slice it, it’s bullshit. You can’t falsify another dimension, so the goalposts just keep getting moved. Meanwhile, an entire generation is stunted because the media keeps pushing Einstein, who wasn’t regarded enough to get peer reviewed, oddly enough.
You don’t need to be a Scientist, Mathematician, graduate, or anything with a title. You need to just love Science to become a student of it.
This intro is amazing
I watched Hammeroff at Arizona State like 15 years ago talking about microtubules. His idea is an awesome idea. I was glad Sir Rodger Penrose hoped aboard.
@@dag410 what progress did he (and his col) make?
@@Littleprinceleon I am not sure, maybe Penrose filled in some details, but the theory I have in my notes are almost word for word what Hameroff said a few weeks ago. At minimum the overview is the same.
Simply superb Curt, well done! ❤️
Glad you enjoyed it!
Hi Curt. First time listener to your channel. I’m not a student or scientist, just a lover of science and cosmology. Been following Sean for years now. He’s an absolute beast and one of the best communicators of high concept, hard to understand subjects. We are lucky to have someone like him to be able to break things down for people like me to understand. I loved your approach to this talk. You’ve gained a new subscriber
Welcome! Hope you enjoy the channel. I look forward to your comments.
5:51 I am not a simple harmonic oscillator
Nope, you're a complex harmonic oscillator
Sean Carroll is a simple harmonic oscillator in the Z direction when he walks or runs
You're just living in a simulation and instead of polygons like in the ether our reality is assembled with atoms.
Lol removed my comment. Classic
@@Wiiillllson151So annoying. RUclips kills all of my best one-liners.
@@Mmmmkaaay Yeah man sux
As a no longer practicing physicist I am so happy having discover your channel. You have truly outstanding guests and have them maintain the right level for a non-expert audience though balancing with more in depth insight and math. During this wonderful episode I thought:
- You might consider hosting a 2 or 3 parties’ debates
- Was surprised as occasionally you discussed K Popper’s philosophy there was no mention of David Deutsch: he would be a great addition hugely clarifying epistemology and quantum theory
- I would like to more in-depth discussion on experimental verification of theories, follow on LHC and/or other colliders, precision cosmology...
- My ah ah moment was when Sean discussed so clearly the Boltzmann H theorem and the criticism by David Albert
- I liked the short discussion on LQG, maybe to be extended
Great work: I’ll not miss your other episodes.
Your videos are so well done now Curt. Great editing, great everything. Thank you.
Glad you enjoy them :)
Hi Curt,
I've been following you for a long time and your channel is awesome!
I love following your super smart conversations, but could I ask you a little favor?
Could you "not" disable the subtitles automatically generated by RUclips?
I ask you because in many videos, cuts have been made, and the subtitles inserted by you, are out of sync;
also, for some languages, like Italian, the sentences become so long, that it is difficult to read at the speed of your words.
Instead, the automatic ones of RUclips, follow one another with a shorter metric and it becomes easier to follow your speeches.
If you can't do it, no problem ... I still want to tell you that you have one of the most spectacular channels on RUclips!
Keep it up!
Greetings from Italy!
Marsio Salcuni 🙂
Thank you I will look into doing this!
@@TheoriesofEverything You know, different languages all over the world, I think that's the real problem that slows down progress in everything...
Thank you so much for your kindness!
Guy has a radio voice
I hear it more as a curious amalgam of a radio announcer and Kermit the frog.
It's always a joy to listen to someone astute in several levels of physics and philosophy as Sean Carroll.
Here's a ChatGPT summary:
- Fundamental physics has not had any experimentally verified breakthroughs for a long time.
- Sean Carroll argues that there is no crisis in physics, despite some professors' criticisms.
- Carroll discusses the holographic principle, which suggests our universe can be thought of as a two-dimensional space with densely encoded quantum information.
- Carroll and his colleagues are working on the phenomenological consequences of holography, particularly in relation to the IceCube experiment at the South Pole.
- The holographic principle originated from black hole information theory, suggesting that the total quantum information of a black hole resides on its event horizon.
- The ADSCFT correspondence is a form of holography that relates a D-dimensional spacetime to a D+1 dimensional spacetime.
- Carroll believes that while ADSCFT is useful, it may not answer all quantum gravity questions, especially in non-ADS universes.
- Carroll discusses the challenges of duality in decider space-time and CFT, noting that decider space has a finite dimensional Hilbert space.
- Carroll argues that philosophy is essential for science, as scientists often make philosophical claims without realizing it.
- He criticizes the lack of philosophical rigor in defining problems like the hierarchy problem in particle physics.
- Carroll believes that physicists should engage more with philosophy to avoid making uneducated philosophical statements.
- He discusses the relationship between physics and philosophy, emphasizing the importance of philosophical clarity in scientific problems.
- Carroll critiques the idea that physicists should avoid philosophy, arguing that philosophical questions are integral to scientific inquiry.
- He discusses the Large Hadron Collider's motivation, which was partly based on philosophical notions of naturalness.
- Carroll believes that the crisis in physics is often overstated and that most physics is not fundamental physics.
- He argues that the lack of breakthroughs in fundamental physics does not imply a crisis in the field as a whole.
- Carroll emphasizes the importance of understanding the historical and intellectual context of current theories.
- He discusses the importance of experimental predictions and the role of theorists in guiding experiments.
- Carroll critiques the falsifiability criterion, arguing that the relationship between theory and data is more complex.
- He believes that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a legitimate scientific theory.
- Carroll discusses the challenges of quantum gravity and the importance of holography in understanding it.
- He believes that quantum gravity will not come from quantizing general relativity but from more subtle approaches.
- Carroll emphasizes the importance of keeping an open mind and supporting diverse approaches in physics.
- He discusses the role of string theory and its contributions to understanding quantum gravity.
- Carroll believes that the academic system should allocate resources to support minority perspectives in physics.
- He discusses the importance of experimental predictions and the role of theorists in guiding experiments.
- Carroll critiques the falsifiability criterion, arguing that the relationship between theory and data is more complex.
- He believes that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a legitimate scientific theory.
- Carroll discusses the challenges of quantum gravity and the importance of holography in understanding it.
- He believes that quantum gravity will not come from quantizing general relativity but from more subtle approaches.
- Carroll emphasizes the importance of keeping an open mind and supporting diverse approaches in physics.
- He discusses the role of string theory and its contributions to understanding quantum gravity.
- Carroll believes that the academic system should allocate resources to support minority perspectives in physics.
- Main message: The perceived crisis in fundamental physics is often overstated, and while breakthroughs are slow, the field is progressing through diverse and speculative approaches, with a need for philosophical engagement and open-mindedness.
It seems only natural that the questions are becoming ever harder. That is not a crisis in physics but just the nature of reality. A crisis in physics would be if we stopped exploring and investigating, and that is certainly not the case.
5:58 "I AM NOT A SIMPLE HARMONIC OSCILLATOR" - Oh yes you are!
put that on a birthday card!!!
Carroll's a real baller yo
From earliest grade school on, we're rigorously trained to be afraid because ashamed, of making mistakes. This is, in itself, a colossal mistake. In the business world, most new companies don't make it. The same is true of radical ideas, at least til they become discarded, or, in some form, accepted. 'Nothing ventured, nothing gained'. Don't fear mistakes - learn from them!!
"From earliest grade school on, we're rigorously trained to be afraid because ashamed, of making mistakes."
That's because we don't really have "educational" system.
What we have is in fact system of conditioning kids to certain set of belief systems imposed on them.
It's in fact amazing that there are so many creative people out there despite all the brainwashing we went through.
We are brainwashed to blindly follow the authorities, be it from government, politics, religion, science etc.
That's where that shame comes from, because thought that you are "less than" them is imposed very early.
And for most people, it stays deep inside them during whole life.
@@fortissimoXwow, such a brave vague anti-establish manifesto that we have not read 1000 times before
I can’t wait to hear the first track recorded by “I Am Not A Simple Harmonic Oscillator” ❤
Sean Carroll should absolutely be the mouthpiece for science to a popular audience rather than DeGrAsshole Tyson. Humble rather than cocky, actually keeps up with and understands modern physics, has a genuine passion rather than out for self notoriety. I’ve known about Carrol for about 17 years but really followed him closely after he destroyed Christian apologist William Lane Craig in their debate. A true gentleman and scholar.
@@Greg-xi8yx yea well , he doesn’t have time for nutty quirky ideas he’s busy with other universes and there physical laws.
Do you find him humble? LOL
@@Zr0BitesHumble as opposed to not a blowhard I suppose
Love to see Dr. Carroll's bass in the background :)
Finally!!! Glad you got our boy on there
I'm amazed by the brain of Sean Carroll. He is so concise, precise and honest, it is amazing to listen to him answering and being patient in defining correct statements, assumptions and their consequences. I love his way of thinking, but it is almost impossible to replicate, given the efforts it takes for the host to follow along.
Yet another top-notch episode, Curt! Thank you, Sir!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you Curt and Sean. This was a fantastic discussion. As a young person who grew up before youtube in a small town, I had no science mentors. I didn't even take physics in high-school. As an AI specialist and technologist, I fell in love with physics as a middle aged adult. You both have greatly encouraged me to dip my toes into esoteric waters. Many of the subjects you cover impact both my field and curiosity. I'm going back and learning math that I neglected in my younger days. I want to better understand this reality. All that you both do is greatly appreciated.
I'm so glad. Keep it up - Curt
I agree with Sean, in that the illegitimate favoring of some speculative theories over others is a product of individuals' game-theoretic behavior and the funding structure, not innate hatred between researchers. That was a mature response, Sean. As for Curt, I'd love to see you communicate with more physicists about how to fix this culture!
It's a bullshit response. "I didn't cheat on you, babe. I was optimizing my game-theoretic outcomes vis a vis mate selection."
@_GOD_HAND_ ok, point taken. But the structure and sociology of academic departments does play a huge role in this, and it's not fair to all point fingers when we are all creating that culture. The only thing that disappointed me was that he didn't want to speak to that culture any further, dismissing the idea as a culture problem that he himself doesn't want to address. I think we can do better than that.
@@benthayermath Sure, academic departments are run almost exactly like medieval feudal fiefdoms. I don't even think that's a problem necessarily, but I wish people would be honest about it instead of reciting the usual PC platitudes.
@@_GOD_HAND_ that's completely fair, I don't disagree. Confession is the road to healing
@@_GOD_HAND_and that is exactly what he mentioned, smoothbrain
What an outstanding podcast! I’ll have to listen to this one again on my commute to work in the morning.
I don't care about the crisis in Physics. I'm still trying to understand quantum mechanics. I'm not sure I'll ever understand it.
Richard Feynman: _"I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."_
Quantum mechanics is a phenomenological (parametric "effective") theory without ontological justification (ontological basification).
Lee Smolin: "All the theories we work with, including the Standard Model of Particle Physics and General relativity, are approximate theories applicable to truncations of nature that include only a subset of the degrees of freedom in the universe. We call such an approximate theory an effective theory."
It is necessary to "dig" deeper into matter to the most remote meaningful ontological depths of its existence as a holistic process in order to "grasp" (understand) the primordial generating structure.
"The event of grasping the structure means understanding." (G. Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse")
No one understands QM. We just use it.
@@stephenanastasi748 That blows my mind. I can't comprehend we discovered something we don't understand. Incapable of understanding maybe.
I'm a regular listener to MindScape, and this conversation was really illuminating
Welcome, Peter. Hopefully you enjoy some of the other podcasts on the channel as well. - Curt
Sean: I agree with Nima. String Theory's history has been garbage
Also Sean: No I don't pay any attention to other people's theories. I'm interested in String Theory.
I've never seen someone SO afraid to re-examine their worldview.
Exactly. It was so odd.
Sean: if you propose a new theory you need extraordinary evidence before I spend my limited time on it.
Also Sean: even though String theory has no experimental evidence backing it I will spend most of my time on it because there are so many cool ideas coming out of it.
Love the direction Kurt, hello and good tidings to Dr. Carrol as well
the funny part is watching people who have no idea how any of this high level math and physics stuff works, yet have a very strong opinion on who is right or wrong based on political bias.
And? People can't have views or thoughts on these topics without first having a lifelong career working these fields?
So you can't have an opinion on the president without first being a president?
Who cares if People discuss, let them, that's how they figure shit out with time.
I am one of those people. My math and physics just isn't up to par, yet. Probably never will be. I have only managed to teach myself enough to help me realise that, at the end of the day, Einstein's math and physics wasn't good enough... and the next Einstein's math and physics, a thousand years from now, or a million, still probably won't be good enough...not if they are a human being like I am with a brain like mine, connected neuraly to a physical human body, like mine... I don't think that any quantum physicists math or physics will EVER be good enough... I mean... from what point on can you stop distinguishing between a pageful of math formulas, and a page filled with an artist's doodles? One is supposed to be precise, down to the literal 'tee'(t?), the other is supposed to be abstract artistic expression... Just how the heck can you describe all that weirdness going on at the subatomic level with math, when I can't even come up with a good way to visualize it through art??? Are you that much smarter than me?
@@sacr3 well the president is something that we get to experience hands on. math and physics can be experienced hands on as well, but the people i'm referring to are skipping the education part and jumping to a conclusion based on who they think the physicist votes for. that's not an intelligent way to form an opinion on a scientific subject. when you vote in a presidential election, obviously that decision is based on "political beliefs". a person's scientific opinions influencing their political beliefs seems like a a more intelligent type of decision making to me.
let's take this topic of string theory: i don't know whether weinstein is right or whether the string theorists are right, but i can say that from my point of view, weinstein is making the more persuasive argument. i still don't have a very strong opinion on whether he is right or wrong though. on the other hand, if you go to professor dave's cesspool channel, you will find a comment section full of people who believe string theory simply because eric weinstein is a conservative. that just seems dumb to me.I wonder if they base their workouts and diets on politics too.
@@ycart_tech6726 but it doesn't sound like you are forming your opinions based on politics. it seems like you are actually thinking critically and being open minded and also trying to educate yourself. much more respectable.
@@sacr3they can. As can I call their ideas moronic
I'm just an amateur, but understand enough of the content to follow along...this is the most insightful, stimulating, passionate, comprehensive, information dense discussion I've listened to...ever.
Well done on this, Curt.
This is the 1500th podcast I've saved in my library, and it was very good, thank you, peace
"we're a projection of 2d" this is a conclusion borne from simply having nothing but a 2d sheet of paper to work with for so many generations...
@@Itsgone99 the more I think about the holographic principle, the less I'm able to accept it to be true. Not only can I personally see, experience, and act in 3 dimensions, but we have common technology that would be impossible without 3D. Either I'm missing one giant detail, or this holographic stuff is crap. Plus I don't really much care for how this guy handles criticism. I don't need a better theory to know that yours is wrong.
Once you grasp field theory you will understand @@warlock64c
Calling someone a “simple harmonic oscillator” is the sickest of burns.
Thanks!
Thank you so much!
When Carroll declared that he isn't interested in what people like Peter Woit say but claims to not know what Peter Woit actually has said then he made himself look very foolish.
Great video, great guest thank you very much. Peace ✌️ 😎
Some modern scientists argue that Newton's law of gravitation is outdated and that Einstein's Theory of Relativity provides a more accurate description of gravitational forces. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to conclusively support this claim.
Ty to both of you.
Thank you Curt I do not sit through too many of the long conversations from your channel.
But if one you should do is with Sean Carroll.
Obviously something is wrong because we seem to have hit a Dark matter wall.......do we have the means to test and measure all the Theoretical ideas from were we are (on Earth) do we need to leave the comfort of our planet to really move forward......btw Kurt , you are constantly breaking barriers for this community, Thankyou!
The fundamental phenomenon of dilation explains galaxy rotation curves. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A time dilation graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers.
The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words, that mass is all around us. In other words, common spiral galaxies are centerless.
Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter, in other words they have normal rotation rates. All planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates for the same reason.
It's true to say "turtles, all the way down". But that's only what/how we perceive the state of Turtledom, from our three-dimensional perspective in space without time. These infinite turtles are actually curving, AND CURVED BY... spacetime.
And so... it's MORE correct to say "turtles, all the way AROUND."
When we actually zoom out far enough, oddly... this endless line of turtles actually begins to create a repeated message. In standard English cursive, none the less! Which, to be fair, could be a problem of scale. We're really not sure where to go from there.
But more curious than anything is what the message purports to spell. "I like turtles!" Which may have, within it, solved Platonic Solids in the key of E.
We think it's worth further consideration in funding. 🧐
17 min and counting. I’ll mow now.
Change is not Crisis, Change is advancement/learning
It took me learning and working with a high ranking dude in aerospace projects briefly to realize how deeply held back and flawed contemporary physics was. The next revolution has already happened behind closed doors. But I'll share what I think it will be :
- the primacy of the quantum vacuum (subway quantum) in EVERYTHING. As both source of energy and information.
-a better understanding of gravity
-the primacy of the electro dynamic nature of the body
-the inherent interconnection between everything. Both at the planetary level and cosmic level and all it's mechanisms
-how consciousness relates to all of the above and why and how intuition works.
-a Bohmain type idea of holographic universe. Layered
It is also interesting he frequently referred to de sitter and anti desitter spaces as real things, and that entities often used them...take that for whatever that may mean to you
I have all those figured out, I have unveiled the thread that connects numbers, do we can account for the evolution of numbers to physics. The is called SWT theory and it gives the most symmetrical theory of gravity, EMF, blackhole. I am looking for a journal that accept autodidact paper. Amongst the papers I will submit is the proof of existence outside our minds.
Great interview!
It's rare to see a physicist even mention, let alone talk about, philosophy of science.
It's not our expertise and we don't need to know it to do science. So stay quiet and respect the philosophers
We don't like the arrogance of Brian Greene and Neil Degrasse Tyson.
49:00
I don’t know if this gets discussed later but Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez is a great example of being a good heretic. As if physics wasn’t enough for him, he also made a major contribution to geology in, along with his son and some others, identifying that it was most likely a meteor that yeeted the dinosaurs
Fantastic discussion.
"I am not a simple harmonic oscillator" 5:56
Two hours. Sean Carroll obviously enjoys to being interviewed by Curt Jaimungal. I really enjoyed listening to this conversation.
Did you watch the same interview I did?
I’ve listened to a lot of theories since 2004. From classical theories to spooky theoretical cosmology physics. And I always lean towards the basic principles because I’ve noticed micro life and basic life are showing us how science can be understood in the basic fundamental principles. Yet listening to this show, I find it the most interesting and mind boggling among all. Opinions and advice on consciousness, physics 101, string theories, entropy, probability, Nobel prize winners on physics, quantum mechanics, holograms, etc., all in the name of the basic fundamental principles of reality, revolving around it all. 🧐
I am a layman with that said I don’t see how philosophy can be separate from physics in any way, a bicycle without wheels
@@TheMikesylv One examole: What does physics tell is about morality? We've had profound and meaningful discussions of philosophy for thousands of years. Physics has been around for a couple hundred max. I see almost no relationship between philosophy and physics.
Physics is fundamentally quantitative and philosophy is fundamentally ontological or epistemological (ie what can we know and how) driven - good physics is fundamentally falsifiable, in some ways physics is a subset of philosophy that leads to quantifiable observations that are empirically tested and validated for truth in our observable universe
In practice, physics is separate from philosophy by just turning it into applied mathematics. "Shut up and calculate" etc etc.
Exactly my thoughts. I always say that philosophy is the foundation of science, so what do you expect when you remove the foundation of a house?.. I believe it was intentionally done to avoid and minimize the thought of God, which should have never been opposed to science in the first place. There is no reason they cannot be complementary!
@@ahmedkhan25 Not really. The difference is process more than anything. Physics is actually a branch of philosophy, aka natural/physical studies. Physics has a tendency to qualify everything quantitatively, but it still requires a defined set of qualities which we must assume. Color, light, sound, time, (un)consciousness, observation all show this by refusing to be qualified/limited/reduced to a simple number. It’s also not surprising to me that all the greatest advancements in science lately have come from non-physical(non-“natural”) theories or ideas.
Thank-you Sean, and thank-you to all of Curt's guests, for your time.
Great discussion. 👍
Way too technical for me but ❤❤ Sean Carol for caring which audience and happy to go either way!! Very interesting subject if it ever gets dumbed down for poetic consumption!
Keep watching! It gets simpler. Thank you :)
Multiverse is a get out of serious thought card.
Philosophy (the most rigorous science, "mother of all sciences") says: "multiverse" is an extremely dangerous pseudoscientific speculation for humanity.
I mean, it's fine if someone can prove it.
@@bobcousins4810 You didn't post this, your Other-kin did ;-)
@1:38:00 while infinite causal regress is possible (plenty of mathematical models for that) this idea of "emerging" the laws out of a Mutliverse is nothing but emerging secondary laws out of other primary laws (whatever governs the Multiverse). The only way to get physics laws from *_not more fundamental physics laws_* is to invoke metaphysical mysticism (which btw I'm ok with, but it's not science). Did someone say physicists tend be be bad at philosophy?
Yes 😂
It’s no wonder physics hasn’t moved forward or going anywhere for that matter. This guy is the definition of full of yourself and thinking your right on all fronts
If you choose a reference frame, where (the rules of) physics is static, no wonder it does not move anywhere.
@@steffenbendel6031 not true... The "rules" as you stated, for physics, is it's methodology... Which unfortunately, is still heavily dominated by Logical Positivism Methodology, which is pathetic... But don't worry, a new methodology is coming within the next decade, give or take a few years... It's already led to amazing breakthroughs the world will soon hear about...
@@marcreiter5675 Like...?
@@thomabow8949 like quantum gravity, which it was developed side by side with... And higher dimensional geometries, which is currently only 4-dimensional geometry in the process of having it's presentation finished... It is a new realist methodology, which has the potential of rewriting all scientific theories where observations and equations, are compared and interpreted...
Scientist who are full of themselves seems to be a common theme.
Excellent! Another wake-n-bake with TOE 🙂
When UAP's are doing what they're doing, we definitely have a few things to still figure out.
The viewpoint that we understand everything already with just a couple little gaps to fill is ridiculous but also pervasive. It's very frustrating. Literally every one of our models breaks down at some point. Very few mesh together nicely. Hints of completely new physics constantly. We don't understand one of the most fundamental "forces" almost at all.
We are like the second class in an airplane behind the first class curtain when it comes to having UAP's tell us what to do to solve that propulsion problem. Or as Brian Regan says in his airplane standup routine "I don't want to even look at you!"
No proof though
@@User-tc9vt ruclips.net/video/qYZPfgrmQ4Q/видео.html
timestamped for you, one example of many, from NASA no less
Show me the money shot.
Regarding the 3 problems quoted, in particular "The Great Silence": I think this perceived problem is rooted fundamentally in missing peices from the training of physicists in particular but scientists in general. That is, there is too little training in humanities-related practices such as writing, speaking, and communicating. This has created generations of science and physics students who believe what they were taught in their own experience, and what they personally know and understand, is THE truth (i.e. I think, therefore We are). This comes from "Batch" style course programs where your identity is stripped away and replaced with multiple choice, state-mandated testing and short paragraph writing samples (but no real training in how to think, how to communicate what you think, and how to appreciate the existence of thoughts that are outside of you). Interviews and blogs that demonstrate real-time discourse are the solution, but only if these kinds of discourse can serve examples for real in-person discourse. This is a long way of saying thanks to @TheoriesofEverything for posting this.
At the basis of physics is the most basic of rookie mistakes which you would not believe until or unless you were shown. This foundational mistake is why physics is at the point of crisis you speak about. But, it goes way beyond a crisis. It means all of physics is 1. Outrightly and absolutely wrong, or at best 2. Physics that can only be classified as 'approximate'. It is indeed a little of both, depending upon the specific area pf physics. This 'rookie mistake' caused physicists to overlook the true nature of reality and its fundamental physics all quantified by a remarkable Grand Constant that quantifies all aspects of reality and its physics, including the nature and mechanism of this phenomenon we call 'gravity'. I am in the process of putting together the story that is the truth of the physics of reality.
Sean is a fantastic speaker and writer. While this creates an impression of authority for listeners and readers, it does not make him correct. This physics he, and all other physicists speak about does not exist. I know that is a huge claim, but I will prove it.
I believe you and agree with this assessment
Are you a good crackpot or a bad crackpot?
The title shows that Curt wasn't even listening to Sean.
@10:00 I'm confused by Sean. Our universe is FRWL, not de Sitter, it is only asymptotically de Sitter. This also has implications. Also, folks need to look into Jacob Barandes (not one of the big names, but he gives a good webinar and writes decent arXiv papers). He explains clearly why Hilbert space *_cannot be_* physical reality (massive gauge redundancy).
Aurélien Drezet also has a lot of papers showing why MWI doesn't work, mostly focusing on the fact that there is no consistent way to recover probabilities.
Thank you for your nice work! Really enjoyed the conversation!