Peter Woit's New Unification in Physics "NO EXTRA DIMENSIONS"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- Main episode with Peter Woit (September 2024): • The Forgotten Geometry...
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....
TOE'S TOP LINKS:
- Support TOE on Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Listen to TOE on Spotify: open.spotify.c...
- Become a RUclips Member Here:
/ @theoriesofeverything
- Join TOE's Newsletter 'TOEmail' at www.curtjaimun...
SPONSORS (please check them out to support TOE):
- THE ECONOMIST: As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist....
- INDEED: Get your jobs more visibility at indeed.com/the... ($75 credit to book your job visibility)
- HELLOFRESH: For FREE breakfast for life go to www.HelloFresh...
Other Links:
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
#science #physics #math
Main episode with Peter Woit (September 2024): ruclips.net/video/TTSeqsCgxj8/видео.html
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
In his theory: What exactly is 'time' that it can be calculated? And 'imaginary time', really??????
You should look into and reach out to Malcolm Bendell. He recently spoke at The Cosmic Summit. See the channel for the lecture.
Malcolm Bendall invented a plasmoid-induced and controlled atomic energy release process that uses water as atomic fuel.
In doing so he had to come up with a unified model. Check it out.
This fool doesn't know of my work and contributions to string theory and I blame curt for not conveying that information. I recently simplified my explanation of the logical progression of the spatial dimensions even more and I'm gonna leave it here. let me show you the logical establish pattern so you can understand better, infinite amounts of 0 dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence because it is nothing and infinite amount of nothing can stack in any size version of something. 1D equals length only. Now infinite amounts of one-dimensional existence can stack into any size two dimensional existence because it is length and now that you've added width in so then infinite amounts of one dimensional existence can stack inside of it. Now infinite amounts of two dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence because this is length and width and now you add depth... When we add in depth we allow for infinite stacking of two-dimensional planes to stack into any size three dimensional existence because of the additional depth dimension. Now given this logically established pattern we can conclude that if a fourth spatial dimension exist then infinite amounts of three dimensional existence can stack into any size 4 dimensional existence... This means that if a fourth spatial dimension exist our universal potentiality of our three-dimensional universe will be compressed down into a relatively flat state which is exactly what we observe of our universe. This means if a 4th spacial dimension exists (as verified by this logical progression pattern that aligns with our observations) then infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into ANY SIZE 4D existence making a infinite 3d multiverse the norm... This explains Mandela effects.
We can see how infinite amounts of the previous dimension can stack into any size version of the next but like he said this is the baseline architecture and with each increase we are diminishing the acceleration towards Infinity... So it's not the exact same as a stacking and we are working on the calculations for 2d time and 1d time... Obviously we simplify for a reason so you can understand the bassline but once everyone understands the baseline we can further elaborate and go down on why we should change the structures... We have to get everyone aligned first before we start drilling down on complexity...
If you're going from two-dimensional to three-dimensional you should be using a cubed root function not a square root function for conversion.
I like the fact that you’re so well rounded as an interviewer, and at the same time, you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.😊
I recently simplified my explanation of the logical progression of the spatial dimensions even more and I'm gonna leave it here. let me show you the logical establish pattern so you can understand better, infinite amounts of 0 dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence because it is nothing and infinite amount of nothing can stack in any size version of something. 1D equals length only. Now infinite amounts of one-dimensional existence can stack into any size two dimensional existence because it is length and now that you've added width in so then infinite amounts of one dimensional existence can stack inside of it. Now infinite amounts of two dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence because this is length and width and now you add depth... When we add in depth we allow for infinite stacking of two-dimensional planes to stack into any size three dimensional existence because of the additional depth dimension. Now given this logically established pattern we can conclude that if a fourth spatial dimension exist then infinite amounts of three dimensional existence can stack into any size 4 dimensional existence... This means that if a fourth spatial dimension exist our universal potentiality of our three-dimensional universe will be compressed down into a relatively flat state which is exactly what we observe of our universe. This means if a 4th spacial dimension exists (as verified by this logical progression pattern that aligns with our observations) then infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into ANY SIZE 4D existence making a infinite 3d multiverse the norm... This explains Mandela effects.
I have worked out a completion of General Relativity to help people understand gravity better, if you can approach Einstein's field equation the right way, gravity as we know it pops out mathematically. Leaving quantum mechanics to be the underlying framework for maintaining classical symmetries.
This equation has been misunderstood so often that many have gone down odd paths in order to explain "why gravity?", current physics still believes that we must find a way to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity, but actually, when you analyse the equations from a certain valid perspective, it becomes a necessity to have gravity given the baryonic matter that inhabits our known universe.
"Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move."
This encapsulates the idea that the presence of mass and energy warps the fabric of spacetime, and that curvature, in turn, affects the motion of objects.
This a good summation of GR, let's break it down looking at Einstein's equation, we have 2 fundamental tensors that are in Einstein's field equation, the Stress Energy tensor and the Ricci tensor (There are others too, but these 2 represent the above English summation well.)
The Ricci tensor represents the shape of the curvature and the Stress Energy tensor represents all the stuff that moves, they affect each other in a continuous feedback loop, at the speed of light, hence the English summation above.
It is commonly thought that there is a conflict between Newton's laws and GR, because Newton's laws apply to a Euclidean space geometry and Einstein's spacetime is curved, but it turns out, if we accept some axioms, what we experience as gravity will just pop out as an artefact of the math.
The Answer? Gravity is the result of applying Newton's laws of motion to the presence of baryonic matter in space, specifically, the conservation of momentum and in the case of baryonic matter, which is all the matter we know so far, it is the conservation of *angular* momentum that helps us see Gravity clearly.
That is actually the answer, so, let me explain it.
Why *Angular* momentum? This is because the matter we deal with is made of tiny spheroidal shaped atoms, that's all of it too, other than dark matter, which we don't understand yet. These are the reason gravity exists given some basic valid postulates:
1. Space is all connected together as a fabric, whereby energy radiates at the speed of light throughout in all directions, it is all connected up and interacting with itself at the speed of light.
2. Atoms posses angular momentum not just from quantum spin, but from the intense vibration it undergoes being held together as an atom in the first place, the strong force and the weak force are binding the atom, if we consider these vibrations as actually rotations of electrons around a nucleus, held inside the atom, then we can see that the electron clouds possess much angular momentum, even when they connect up from atom to atom in molecules. Tiny little gyroscopes.
3. Newton's law of conservation of Angular momentum in a closed system says that if an object rotates, the surrounding environment rotates in a real sense , the *opposite* way slightly to balance it and that this is very small, but for this purpose, it is not negligible. This is not frame-dragging, that is different again and is another artefact.
This is all we need to establish that something like gravity must exist and when I say like, I mean directly correlated leaving only a scale factor to consider. The curvature is an eigenvector of balanced motion.
How is this true?
Let's consider a simple thought experiment involving 2 atoms of the same atomic mass in our known universe and a point P, at some distance away from these atoms.
Each of these atoms possess rotating energy in the form electrons with some mass and therefore angular momentum.
Postulate 3 above is basically saying that when you consider what happens to a gyroscope as you change its rotation speed with energy, this energy is conserved in it's environment too, meaning that if I spin the gyroscope faster, I must impart rotational energy that will rotate me the other slightly, in balance. Given postulate 1, space is a connected fabric, the surrounding universe can be said to rotate on summation, the opposite direction.
This conservation of angular momentum around one atom can be imagined like a balance of 2 regional fields, the rotation within the atom and the rotation of the surrounding region, speed one up, the other speeds up the opposite way, in balance.
So let's say that our 2 atoms are rotating in opposite directions to each other, just for the sake of argument, then the inverted angular momentum of the surrounding region superimpose over each other to affect position P together, but rotating in opposite directions.
In reality, there are many more atoms, but the principle is the same.
There is a philosophical connection as to to why the entire universe around a rotating object rotates the other way, it's not just a simple closed system, the surrounding region does not affect itself in any way in our simplified universe model of an atom, it can be considered as a whole connected region where it moves one way relative to the motion of the gyroscope within. Again, somewhat simplified for an atom or 2, but I'm focusing on the rotation as a minimal required transformation of inner and outer regions.
So position P has a combined affect from the inverted rotation of the space fabric that almost cancels in this case, if you consider one cycle of rotation, point P is moved slightly one way and the other by the 2 atoms, but, this is the key, they don't entirely cancel each other out, because the atoms are in different positions in space, the combined affect after one rotation of both atoms is going to be a motion vector that is the residual of this motion, which is going to be tiny vector pointing back to the centre position sitting between the 2 atoms, otherwise known as the centre of mass, for generalising out to different atom types.
You can draw a few triangles to see that is true.
How does this tiny vector change according to the distance from our system of 2 atoms?
Well, if we consider that philosophical principle well, we can see that it is rotational in space by the inverse square law, because the vector's energy is the almost cancelling of 2 sphere surfaces overlapping where the surfaces are rotating, it is related to the nature of the surface of a sphere, that is why it is inverse square, it's the energy at the surface of a sphere that is rotating. See the formula for angular momentum.
We see that the energy is proportional to R². This means that if we double the radius while keeping the angular velocity constant, the rotational energy of a point on the surface will increase by a factor of 4.
So, we have now discovered that by allowing our universe of 2 atoms to rotate, a residual vector pointing back to the centre of mass with strength proportional to the inverse distance squared pops out in Euclidean space!
We just discovered gravity by defining the Ricci tensor in terms of the conservation of angular momentum of the stress energy tensor remembering that Energy and Mass and therefore momentum are equivalent.
Voila! Gravity exists because we combined Newton's Laws of motion and Einstein's GR together.
What does this mean for everything?
It means that gravity as described by GR exists in Euclidean geometry! The curved geometry is merely a snapshot from a single perspective of matter to matter within the frame.
Why? because atoms can be considered as tiny gyroscopes with non-negligible rotational effects on their surrounding universe.
We assumed that our universe contained 2 atoms that specifically mostly cancelled each other, but if we extend this to orders of magnitude higher, the atoms of any rotational origin will cancel with this consistent tiny residual on average anyway.
Gravity is perception we have of attraction in a world of flowing electrons around many nuclei, governed by Newton's laws of motion alone.
The weaknesses in the argument come from focusing too much on angular momentum at the atomic level to explain gravity, which doesn’t really fit with what we know from General Relativity (GR). GR shows gravity as the result of spacetime curving because of mass and energy, not just as a force you can explain through Newton’s laws and angular momentum. The claim that gravity works in Euclidean geometry also clashes with the curved spacetime view GR presents. Plus, the argument lacks solid mathematical backing and drifts away from the mainstream understanding of how gravity, quantum mechanics, and classical physics fit together.
Nice ideas, thanks, but I still fail to understand how a rotation or angular momentum would bring objects closer together, vs just orbiting each other forever without ever coming closer?
The graveyard of string theory is coming 😂
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
It seems to me that ANY theory of everything idea should be able to answer the below items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. If that idea does not, then is it truly a theory of everything?
a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. Surely the very nature of reality has to allow numbers and mathematical constants to actually exist for math to do what math does in this existence.
b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above.
e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality?
f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe for billions of light years? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And why aren't photons that go across the vast universe torn apart by other photons, including photons with the exact same energy frequency, and/or by matter, matter being made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them?
Electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. So why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe?
Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above.
Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?).
g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent?
h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?
* NOTE: Even General Relativity and the Standard Model of Particle Physics cannot answer these items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. Shouldn't these above items also require accurate answers?
Walter Russell explain the Stuff-side in a Eternal Perspective,
but the simplicity is not so easy to fully grasp, it need experience,
and compromise-less logical thinking.
But there is Hope, 'The Eternal World Picture', is mainly about
the Life-side of Life, but also involve the Stuff-side,
as well as also W.R. involve the Life-side.
The Contrast-Princip and Perspective-Princip, is main-parts
of the Motion-Princip, Stuff-side of Life is a Motion-Ocean.
Motion become Time, and time become Time-Spaces.
Time do Only exist in the Consciousness of Living beings.
So, much of the orthodox believe from last century will gradually
be corrected, Stuff-side of Life, is a Real Illusion, a Eternal Miracle.
So, Space is Not curved, it is the Energies as goes in Circuits.
Space-time is Doomed, and Time is the 'shadow' of Motion.
The Life-Desire is Motor of Life, in direct extension We have Will, Life-side
and Gravity, Stuff-side. When In-put become Out-put, is the 'point'
where the Energies Turns, the Point of All Creation.
@@nunkatsu
String theories are just examples of QFT’s and QFT’s are of interest for reasons beyond simply cataloguing particles.
nunkatsu • Yes, it is coming, but string theory is already in it.
charlesb4 • Correct.
Also, science doesn't know what a "charge" is in REALITY.
The same for "electron", "proton", etc.
What is behind the + and - ( plus and minus ) CHARGES in REALITY? What do they represent in REALITY?
Etc.
Thank you for the video.
This video is wonderful! Dr. Woit provides a physics-respecting, experimentally-aware analysis focused on uncovering the best possible and least complicated mathematical model for what decades of observation establish as solidly reproducible in the lab.
As I listened to his deeply insightful exposition on the need for care rather than carelessness when selecting and applying mathematical models to observed reality, this quote came to mind:
_The modern quantum theory … forces us to employ a … number of dimensions [that] is not that of previous physics, namely 4, but which has dimensions increasing without limit as the number of the particles constituting the system under examination increases. I cannot help confessing that I myself accord to this interpretation no more than a transitory significance._
- Albert Einstein, 1934, _On the Method of Theoretical Physics._
Thus, you are in excellent company, Dr. Woit. It is refreshing to someone like you doing legitimate physics theory in an ocean of overconfident mathematical generative silliness that inexplicably treats severely oversimplified, physics-indifferent data structures such as Hilbert spaces as "more real" than anything we observe in the physical world.
Surface(cos(u/2)cos(v/2),cos(u/2)sin(v/2),sin(u)/2),u,0,2pi,v,0,4pi
This is the shape of our manifold.
Two regions joined at a catastrophe.
Each side the inverse of the other.
Matter and antimatter.
A single
Like a never ending roller coaster weeee
Ahhh see, I always thought our manifold was like:
x(u, v) = (1 + 0.5 * cos(v)) * cos(u), y(u, v) = (1 + 0.5 * cos(v)) * sin(u), z(u, v) = 0.5 * sin(v) * cos(u)
Or maybe just, in the end:
x(u, v) = (1 + v * cos(u / 2)) * cos(u), y(u, v) = (1 + v * cos(u / 2)) * sin(u), z(u, v) = v * sin(u / 2)
That's the hopf fibration!
Our universe is a 3-sphere.
I recently simplified my explanation of the logical progression of the spatial dimensions even more and I'm gonna leave it here. let me show you the logical establish pattern so you can understand better, infinite amounts of 0 dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence because it is nothing and infinite amount of nothing can stack in any size version of something. 1D equals length only. Now infinite amounts of one-dimensional existence can stack into any size two dimensional existence because it is length and now that you've added width in so then infinite amounts of one dimensional existence can stack inside of it. Now infinite amounts of two dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence because this is length and width and now you add depth... When we add in depth we allow for infinite stacking of two-dimensional planes to stack into any size three dimensional existence because of the additional depth dimension. Now given this logically established pattern we can conclude that if a fourth spatial dimension exist then infinite amounts of three dimensional existence can stack into any size 4 dimensional existence... This means that if a fourth spatial dimension exist our universal potentiality of our three-dimensional universe will be compressed down into a relatively flat state which is exactly what we observe of our universe. This means if a 4th spacial dimension exists (as verified by this logical progression pattern that aligns with our observations) then infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into ANY SIZE 4D existence making a infinite 3d multiverse the norm... This explains Mandela effects..........
I know everyone thinks that time is a 4th dimension, but how can nothing more than a measurement of change be a dimension?
Compactified time.
Creates limits.
Forces conservation.
Joins the limits
Creating the flow which is gravity.
I recently simplified my explanation of the logical progression of the spatial dimensions even more and I'm gonna leave it here. let me show you the logical establish pattern so you can understand better, infinite amounts of 0 dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence because it is nothing and infinite amount of nothing can stack in any size version of something. 1D equals length only. Now infinite amounts of one-dimensional existence can stack into any size two dimensional existence because it is length and now that you've added width in so then infinite amounts of one dimensional existence can stack inside of it. Now infinite amounts of two dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence because this is length and width and now you add depth... When we add in depth we allow for infinite stacking of two-dimensional planes to stack into any size three dimensional existence because of the additional depth dimension. Now given this logically established pattern we can conclude that if a fourth spatial dimension exist then infinite amounts of three dimensional existence can stack into any size 4 dimensional existence... This means that if a fourth spatial dimension exist our universal potentiality of our three-dimensional universe will be compressed down into a relatively flat state which is exactly what we observe of our universe. This means if a 4th spacial dimension exists (as verified by this logical progression pattern that aligns with our observations) then infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into ANY SIZE 4D existence making a infinite 3d multiverse the norm... This explains Mandela effects....
It’s not just dimensions, it’s everything, including rotations… in given contexts, even phi becomes multi-modal also capable of defining rotations as we accustomed ourselves to using mostly pi to resort to such circular definitions or calculations.
I just published a discovery I made; Fine-structure constant with no physical constants (exact), using irrational numbers and i, and a formulaic approach uniting every irrational number and imaginary i in a single formula, defining all physical constants. This is not a joke, been trying to reach this channel for months. So, with no one getting back to me, I just published it on my own.
Keep up the good work, Curt and Peter. We got this.
Thank you so much!
So are we saying “time” is variable…just like “light speed”?🤔
Also, what are the physical representations of Spinors and Twistors?
Are spinors located on a belt in the equatorial plane and the twistors represent the import/export cones of the quantum moment?
On one side is neutron decay, which takes a femtosecond and then you have billions of years falling from deep void into an event horizon.
It is this pressure difference which powers the universe
Boy Peter Woit has learned to speak better. I’ve seen videos of him stuttering and stumbling through explanations until his comments were indecipherable. This one is much better.
There are 4 physical dimensions that we can observe. The dimensions of the world to come are said to be the same.
No D5? No Dn? Maybe Minkowsky is incomplete. Spinors are cool.
❤ oh what a tangled Web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
The Three Dimensions is,
Micro- Medio- and Macro-Cosmos.
If you can't picture 4D in your head then why does this guy think there is only 4, surely if we can't comprehend 4D then 5D will make our heads pop off?
Part of the problem may be that the Wick rotation is just a trick for making things look symmetrical in each coordinate. However, there's no particular reason to think that the i in the Wick rotation is the same as the i in operator theory - rather, they perhaps should be treated as i and j, like in quaternions (but without all the baggage of k).
A science which cannot be proven might as well be called “magic.” In a nutshell, that’s String Theory.
I recently simplified my explanation of the logical progression of the spatial dimensions even more and I'm gonna leave it here. let me show you the logical establish pattern so you can understand better, infinite amounts of 0 dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence because it is nothing and infinite amount of nothing can stack in any size version of something. 1D equals length only. Now infinite amounts of one-dimensional existence can stack into any size two dimensional existence because it is length and now that you've added width in so then infinite amounts of one dimensional existence can stack inside of it. Now infinite amounts of two dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence because this is length and width and now you add depth... When we add in depth we allow for infinite stacking of two-dimensional planes to stack into any size three dimensional existence because of the additional depth dimension. Now given this logically established pattern we can conclude that if a fourth spatial dimension exist then infinite amounts of three dimensional existence can stack into any size 4 dimensional existence... This means that if a fourth spatial dimension exist our universal potentiality of our three-dimensional universe will be compressed down into a relatively flat state which is exactly what we observe of our universe. This means if a 4th spacial dimension exists (as verified by this logical progression pattern that aligns with our observations) then infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into ANY SIZE 4D existence making a infinite 3d multiverse the norm... This explains Mandela effects.
If electrons are described by Physicists as point particles with no volume, where is there mass? Therefore, there must be at least one extra spatial dimension. Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory.
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
my incoherent variant:
1.gravity is a 3d shape in space (scalar magnetic field).
2.mass is a 2d shape.
3.photon is a 1d shape with 2 poles (1 electric in 0d and 1 magnetic in 1d).
in 3d gravity 2d mass always attracts each other because 2d mass has degree of freedom in 3d and temperature>0.
For example if to throw one by one magnets on frictionless table then they will be attracted to each other making 1d lines(strings).
Likewise 1d photon has degree of freedom in 2d.
And 2d temperature>0, therefore photons always attracts each other inside 2d, like masses in 3d.
For example 3 photons attracts each other and make triangle (mass).
Inside that triangle might be catched more photons ,which ,if enough, makes 2d non-gravitational black hole,
and ,therefore,2d mass becomes undestroyable (can't emit photons).
For shapes in space(matter) to change N-S magnetic polarity needed:
For 1d photon - 90 degrees in 2d;(because one pole located in 0d)
For 2d mass - 180 degrees in 3d;(both poles located in 3d on opposite sides of plane)
For 3d graviton - 360 degrees in 4d;
Gravity didnt allow proton to change its magnetic poles.
Instead, proton, being stable, and therefore it has 2d black hole inside ,
easily can rotate in 0d and change it's electric poles,
be attracted by neighbor poroton, AFTER that proton-neutron pair arises.
To do this proton must have degree of freedom in 0d. And it did it.
2d black hole destroys 1 rotational dof ("rotation of photon around center of proton"),
therefore 1 rotational(electric) dof must appear in 0d, according to the law of conservation of entropy(dof).
4 dimensional twister would be crazy lol
I need to learn how magnetism actually works... Why don't you understand that magnetism is a torrid with opposite spinning vortices then you can see how we don't need gravity at all...
This fool doesn't know the recent discoveries I have been progressing in string theory...
While this seemed interesting I didn’t understand it one bit except for the most important part that there are only four dimensions. To this point I agree for whatever it’s worth.
A lot of Luciferians doubling down on refusing to see anything beyond the physical universe these days, eh? That's a choice, I guess, though I don't envy them choosing the undead path to higher consciousness. Someone has to be the recyclable red shirts and stock villains in past/future seasons of the Star Trek/Time Team reality shows. There are better grails to choose for those keen on meeting the real God one day in the highest heaven and really understanding the meaning of life at more than a superficial level.
explain how imaginary time isnt an extra time dimensions the chat gpt says its mathematical and not physical unlike string theory where there are physical dimension but its an extra time dimension so i think its still exotic
Also with no extra dimensions you can not explain information complexity of a black hole's interior. But indeed you are right this is a contradiction to its own set of rules.
Why are you asking ChatGpt advanced physics questions when it cant even add 2 numbers? Dont take for granted anything ChatCpt says. Double check everything it says.
@@OchiiDinUmbraaagreed, it can be a great tool but oracle is not one of them.
@@OchiiDinUmbraaif you get into it’s hallucinations mode it may bully you.
And I thought women in grass skirts were exotic 😂
If you haven't notice all planets in the solar system are spinning away from the Sun as they orbit the Sun this is because the sun puts out an impulse and the gravitational field coming from the Sun pulls the planets toward it.
Inside the quantum electric magnetic field particles are completely engulfed automatically after creation and then they move into a resting point inside an electric magnetic energy field just before it is simultaneously sucked inside of a vacuum pressure incubator bubble provided by the universe space time similar to how planets are engulfed by the sun electric magnetic and gravitational field and then the solar system is engulfed by the universe space-time.
But to make a long story short imagine just having only an electric magnetic field and you sprinkle particles throughout the field of space time and no spin took place this is because all the particles are evenly balanced so not one particle can trigger the other into a spin but if you put a sun in that electric magnetic field all the particles around it would spin accordingly with the solar system formation. To really understand the truth about particles.
A particle is not divided inside the electric magnetic field the moment it is created inside the electric magnetic field it is the electric magnetic field that is divided and not the particle and this is also the rest mode before they become spinners this is also how fusion is shaped inside an electric magnetic field out in deep space and without a doubt this is how twisters are formed through implosion basically electric magnetism forces coming from Stars and black holes and sometimes planets are the startup triggers for particle spins out in deep space.
It would be nice if you could figure out what spacetime is made of. What are dimensions made of. In what way are the building blocks of spacetime and dimensions encoded with physics constants. You fancy-physicists always talk about complicated non-real things like spinors, but NEVER about simple physically real things like physics constants.
Space-time is doomed, because it give No meaning,
Stuff-side of Life is a Motion-Ocean, coursed/keept by
Eternal Basic-Energies and Creator-Principles.
The Eternal Life is Not physical, in it-self.
Thought-Power, Particles and Empty Space,
Life-side, Stuff-side, and the Living Being.
@@holgerjrgensen2166 How would you know whether or not spacetime is somehow related to a spiritual existence?
@@wulphstein Well, The Eternal Life, is the Only existing Reality, it have no neighbour.
It is a Living Being = Space-less space.
So, No one have seen the Being behind the Living, We have Never seen our Self, but
it is Not so easy to deny our own existence.
In fact, We are 'the Only Real Steady Point',
in Existence, We call it ''I''.
Thought-Power is our Day-Consciousness,
it is Motion. (Life-side)
Particles is the Stuff-side, also Motion,
so, the Life-side and Stuff-side is different kinds of Motion, creation.
Space is also part of the Motion-Ocean and Stuff-side.
If there was No Motion, there would be No
Life, No Experience, and No Space.
Main-parts of the Motion-Princip, is the
Contrast-Princip, Perspective-Princip and
the Circuit-Princip, last is in everything at all levels, at the Life-side and Stuff-side.
Last months, august, it is 40 years ago,
I had this spontan and un-expected experience of seeing that We are the Being, as cant be seen, only known, it leds to a extensive study, but it was first in the last decade, and my interest in Walter Russell,
that I finally was able to see and understand the nature of space.
Dude smoking some serious shit with that reply ... 😳
Bro is smoking straight dualism
Dimensions are meaningless terms. We will simply never understand a universe that we exist in that was created from beyond our universe because we are not built to be able to understand it. It doesn't matter if we understand it. It's all ego.
Consider the math for my theory of everything idea ('gem' photon being the eternally existent energy unit of all of existence itself):
MATHEMATICS FOR TOE IDEA:
The mathematics for the TOE doesn't even exist yet as far as I am currently aware. It goes beyond any quantum field theory formulas that I am currently aware of. The outline though is basically as follows:
The formula has at least 3 levels to it:
1. The Internal Photon Level: The 3 interacting forces, (which might even be just a singular force with 3 different modalities), all interacting at basically 90 degrees to each other and all simultaneously pulsating and swirling. A complex part of the formula but I believe to be totally doable.
2. The External Photon Level: For each pulsating, swirling photon, all the pulsating, swirling photons interacting with it. An exponential part of the formula that I am not even sure modern day super computers could adequately handle.
3. The Inter-dimensional Photon Level: For each modality within each photon would have an energy frequency associated with it. The energy frequencies could be seen as being in their own space time dimension. (For me, 'space' is energy itself of which is the 'gem' photon and 'time' is the flow of energy; 'temperature' is the interaction of energy), so one would be dealing with way more than just 3 spatial dimensions and way more than just 1 time dimension (as there would many different energy frequencies with many different flows of energy). Whenever like resonate energy frequencies resonated with each other, they would affect each other, kind of like 'spooky action at a distance'. Anytime energy frequencies overlapped, there would be a temporary spike of some sort in each space time dimension. In addition, if in reality the 'gem' photon is just a singular force with 3 different modalities, it's possible that energy could 'slip' between modalities which would also affect the results. A very complex part of the formula on top of all the complexity that came before it.
4. Any time any energy moved in the system, the entire formula would have to be recalculated due to potential ripple effects.
5. In addition, I am operating in a realm where one plus one does not always equal two, and often does not.
While in bed one morning after a restful nights sleep, and assuming the above is correct, I mentally went 'inside' the 1 (the singular pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon itself). I still saw with my mind the 3 different interacting modalities, the 6 maximum modality points, the '9' including and being the neutral points in the middle which faded into a 6 (as each maximum modality point came towards zero), that 6 fading into a 3 (as each modality came together), which turned into a 1 (which was the '0' point), but '0' wasn't zero. So, '0' is not really '0' but is something, not nothing. '0' is a relative '0'. But then here again, the zero point energy point is the maximum potential energy point for any and all modalities of the 'gem' photon. '0' is '1' and '1' is '0', this is the '1' inside the '1'.
Now I just have to come up with some tests to test this idea of the zero point energy point being '1', a maximum potential energy point of the singular pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon itself. The maximum potential energy point not really being potential energy per se, but the neutral point of kinetic energy. Tapping into here would be tapping into the 'zero' point energy point of eternally existent ever flowing energy. But then again, tapping into here, 'if' distorted what makes up space and time itself (assuming that 'space' is energy itself [the 'gem' photon] and that 'time' is the flow of energy), could it alter or even destroy the very fabric of space itself? What would occur if even only a single pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon were to explode? What potential ripple effects could occur with the rest of space and time?
Hence also why I try to think some things all the way through so as to try to identify potential issues before the test. Unexpected, unintended, potentially dangerous or even deadly consequences. If nothing else, it keeps my mind active. The mind, use it or lose it, but using it could also lose it, permanently. (My own and other's).
Like I said above, I don't even believe the mathematics exists yet for what I am trying to do, but at a minimum, the formula would contain the above levels the way I currently see it to be. And I never said it would be easy. But now I will say that putting the 'zero point energy point' into actual practice could be deadly. Warning: Proceed with Caution. The last words of human existence on this Earth might be, 'Hey it worked, ooooppppppsssssss.............'.
NUMBERS: (AND ZERO POINT ENERGY):
'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time, my gravity test has to be done which will help prove or disprove the TOE idea), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe (including 'space' which is energy itself, 'time' being the flow of energy), and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, the 'gravity' modality acting 90 degrees from the 'em' modalities, which act 90 degrees to each other, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows:
Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction;
Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction;
Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction.
Then:
1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe.
(And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have. This would also be the maximum potential energy point or as some might call it, the 'zero point energy point'.).
And also how possibly mathematical constants exist in this universe as well.
* While in bed one morning after a restful nights sleep, and assuming the above is correct, I mentally went 'inside' the 1 (the singular pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon itself). I still saw with my mind the 3 different interacting modalities, the 6 maximum modality points, the '9' including and being the neutral points in the middle which faded into a 6 (as each maximum modality point came towards zero), that 6 fading into a 3 (as each modality came together), which turned into a 1 (which was the '0' point), but '0' wasn't zero. So, '0' is not really '0' but is something, not nothing. '0' is a relative '0'. But then here again, the zero point energy point is the maximum potential energy point for any and all modalities of the 'gem' photon. '0' is '1' and '1' is '0', this is the '1' inside the '1'.
Now I just have to come up with some tests to test this idea of the zero point energy point being '1', a maximum potential energy point of the singular pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon itself. The maximum potential energy point not really being potential energy per se, but the neutral point of kinetic energy. Tapping into here would be tapping into the 'zero' point energy point of eternally existent ever flowing energy. But then again, tapping into here, 'if' distorted what makes up space and time itself (assuming that 'space' is energy itself [the 'gem' photon] and that 'time' is the flow of energy), could it alter or even destroy the very fabric of space itself? What would occur if even only a single pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon were to explode? What potential ripple effects could occur with the rest of space and time?
Hence also why I try to think some things all the way through so as to try to identify potential issues before the test. Unexpected, unintended, potentially dangerous or even deadly consequences. If nothing else, it keeps my mind active. The mind, use it or lose it, but using it could also lose it, permanently. (My own and other's).
Putting the 'zero point energy point' into actual practice could be deadly. Warning: Proceed with Caution. The last words of human existence on this Earth might be, 'Hey it worked, ooooppppppsssssss.............'.
* Note also: Nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and mathematical constants can exist and do what they do in this universe from the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP). While the SMPP has it's place, I believe we need to move beyond the SMPP to get closer to real reality.
Peter Woit is an excellent teacher. Clear logic. Sadly level of material is a bit high for me but I try to grasp, as a layman. Valuable presentation. Thank you.
Wrong... I recently simplified my explanation of the logical progression of the spatial dimensions even more and I'm gonna leave it here. let me show you the logical establish pattern so you can understand better, infinite amounts of 0 dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence because it is nothing and infinite amount of nothing can stack in any size version of something. 1D equals length only. Now infinite amounts of one-dimensional existence can stack into any size two dimensional existence because it is length and now that you've added width in so then infinite amounts of one dimensional existence can stack inside of it. Now infinite amounts of two dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence because this is length and width and now you add depth... When we add in depth we allow for infinite stacking of two-dimensional planes to stack into any size three dimensional existence because of the additional depth dimension. Now given this logically established pattern we can conclude that if a fourth spatial dimension exist then infinite amounts of three dimensional existence can stack into any size 4 dimensional existence... This means that if a fourth spatial dimension exist our universal potentiality of our three-dimensional universe will be compressed down into a relatively flat state which is exactly what we observe of our universe. This means if a 4th spacial dimension exists (as verified by this logical progression pattern that aligns with our observations) then infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into ANY SIZE 4D existence making a infinite 3d multiverse the norm... This explains Mandela effects.
It doesn't matter whether we use spinors, operators or any other means, they all represent the same information being transformed and scaled from 2d area to 3d volume. Essentially if you just pay attention to what fermions with 1/2 integer spin tell us, you will see where we get lost. In reality though it represents the fractal transformation of a 3d volume unto a fractal volume using 2d for transcription and scaling so its more like, a 3d to 2d back to 3d transformation, resulting in a compactified 3d volume in fractal form. If humanity took such a quantum leap today, our conscious perception would go from milisecond level to the microsecond level.
I thought there was a paper published in the 1970s that internal and spacetime symmetries could only be joined trivially. How does this square with that?
1/k times the TEMPERATURE (he misspoke at the end). Very interesting, thank you!
I wrote a 3D virtual program with exactly what he's talking about a year ago ask him where he got his theory the information from
It’s the shape. A cylinder feymen, analytical moire
Not all.. will compensate for 4 dimensions… yet all will be subject to them regardless if all react”.
Jeremy
Hypothetically speaking would this, “Trick,” work if, “Imaginary time,” was real?
i.e. May an additional complex rotation exist? No idea but it’s funny when certain tricks actually work. ^.^
I don't think you'll find unification without a dimension that ties local 4D spacetime to 5D cosmological space time. Time isn't actually relative to a point in space.. And then you have the inter-dimensional quantum phase space that could be used to predict probabilistic models of the future. While it's not a physical dimension. It's very useful..
So you're saying that nobody has yet "squared away" the difference between euclidean and minikowski geometry? ;-)
If I were a 2 dimensional object, I would never see the third
How does he know he has no other dimensions? I don't understand
That's not true. A lesser dimensional entity *can* observe higher dimensions, it just won't look anything like you expect it might. Google "Carl Sagan Flat land"
Well he know there are 3 dimensions 4 if you include time. The other “ dimensions” cannot be philosophically proven. Much like the physical aspects of string theory. They cannot place it in your hand. Many people are waking up to the possibility that string theory may well be a case of the emperors new clothes, A psyop, or even a destruction from actual physics.
But if something else you were studying could move in extra dimensions, you might be able to detect that, even though you can only perceive the 2D representation. For example, when some conserved quantity expands from a point, like light from a bulb, that quantity's density would drop more quickly if it is expanding in more dimensions. And you will see this drop, even though you only perceive part of the expansion. Basically, if you know there is a conserved quantity (like energy), you can sometimes make a judgement as to how many dimensions something acts within, even from your lower dimensional point of view.
Our Perspective is Medio-Cosmic,
We Only see the borders of Micro- and Macro-Cosmos,
due to the Perspective-Princip.
Good observation, Nicodemus.
Hi Curt , just an idea for you to invite on your show would be Lorna Byrne , a lovely Irish woman who has seen Angels ever since she opened her eyes as a child !
I have been watching a few of her RUclips videos quite recently , and find them fascinating !
If "Wick Rotation' transforms Euclidian geometry into Minkowski, the how do you explain symmetry/asymmetry of matter and anti-matter. In fact Peter will need to make many ends meet. This will go deeper than 'abstract algebra/geometry'.
I understood everything
I have absolutely no idea on what he’s talking about. Why am I listening to this though 🤔
The Primum Mobile or the Atlas Glome.
Does this theory make any new predictions that can be tested? If not....
No extradimensions, because no extras are needed. All the dimensions are there. But he's unable to detect them using his physicalist methods, because physicalism only deal with 4.5% of the universe.
4.4431%, ACTUALLY
@@Haveuseenmyjetpack Facts 😅
Look dude I can't see it, so guess what? It ain't there chief.
Compactified time
There ain’t no time in space.
Chubby Checkers physics ;-)
The universe has progressed from simple to complex with a program similar to a kind of cellular automaton. This leads to the misconception that the evolution of this program is a coincidence. A system that progresses from simple to complex cannot be explained by a higher system. This does not mean that there are no higher dimensions such as the hypercube. This is perhaps something we will never know. This is the real metaphysics and unfortunately we do mathematics with metaphysics. A particle in 4-dimensional space-time. Attempting to explain it with a fifth dimension above it is sheer madness no matter how you look at it. Mathematics has a much more comprehensive understanding. They need education in the philosophy of science. If they could distinguish the difference between "infinite" and "unlimited" (see: Rene Guenon - Metaphysical Principles of Infinitesimal Calculus), it would not be possible for them to talk about such nonsense as an infinite parallel universe today. Finally I met someone smart, thank you😊👍
Rainbow picture our Eternal Consciousness,
Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory.
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo.
First three, is the Stuff-Bearing basic-Energies,
but all Stuff and Mind-Stuff, is a certain composition
of them all.
On addition is a range of Creator-Principles,
Contrast-Princip and Perspective-Princip make
Feeling into Sensing.
Intelligence, means Logic and Order,
Perspective-Princip, means All Relations Relationsship,
Intelligence + Perspective-Princip = Mathematic.
Rainbow also show the Circuit-Princip, it is in everything,
at all levels.
Għ/c² U(2)ω = Gμν + Λgμν = κTμνξ
The Einstein Unified Field Equation
I say this to the other people on the bus and iM cRaZy
❤️🔥👽🔥❤️
His approach is unlikely to result in a unification of physics it is over burdened with mathematical complexity and abstracts which separates it from any real fundamental physical observation! Physics needs to get back to basics of describing the real world
You’re describing string theory. “His approach” is less complex than string theory.
If a person is working. They are moving towards something
@@brendawilliams8062 or away from something
@@brendawilliams8062 @BillEFabian The problem with Woit's approach is it is coming from complex abstract mathematics seeking some kind of parallels in physics rather than starting from foundational principles of physics and empirical observations from physics and forming conceptual understanding then using mathematics in formulating a mathematical framework based on the conceptual framework. In other words Woit's approach seems to be driven more by exploring abstract mathematical structures and looking for potential connections to physics, rather than starting from foundational physical principles and observations. And that approach is doomed to fail!
Mathematical formalism should follow conceptual understanding: A mathematical framework is developed to formalize the conceptual ideas, not the other way around. This ensures that the mathematics is in service of the physics!
No comprende 🤔
With our limited brain cavity we can talk funny and say 4 dimensions and 11
😅😅😅 take a break. 🛑
saying math proves it and math doesn’t lie 😅😅 is joke.
nonsense.
Be humble and say that with our limited brains capacity we know that there are 4 dimension and we presume g 11 and And we can play with other dimensions for sometime!😅😅
How could there not be more dimensions, when the highest form of existence emanates from a higher order. It couldn't just stop at 3D, 4D, 5D, even if proven to be inside the mind or imagination of god.
Our 4. That easy. Why? Different ‘language’ different math, so on, going from 4-5, so on…yet, we describe them as 4 or 5, indicating their non existence due to our ‘language’. The very language of math…would be inferior.
Talking about 4 dimensions is gay. Learn some Spacetime Geometric Algebra. Just because a formula has 4 variables, doesn't mean it has that many dimensions. Plücker coordinates of a line contains 6 parameters, but we don't say a line is 6D.
lmao.
😂