Thank you for this interesting video! Very thought provoking. It makes me want to learn physics right now, at 4 am.... Great filming, editing, no "like and subscribe" and other time waste - you are one of the best youtubers I know, no joke.
Thank you so much for the kind words! Every bit of encouragement is especially helpful as I figure out how to do this RUclips thing. I hop you get plenty of sleep.
Along similar lines: If math is wrong then logical factual knowledge doesn't work, because if you can prove a single untrue mathematical statement, then you can use that to prove any other untrue statement.
I like the way you talk but the video is like, objectively wrong qft is pretty much local, actually it is so local it can be basically derived by thinking of how n-component wave functions should look like to obey locality (or, in general, lorentz invariance, which implies locality) like, the whole point of using field theories IS to obey locality (so that for example global symmetries imply conserved currents, which obey a continuity equation instead of just conserved quantities) we just aren't sure how it works with gravity (and there's the problem with blackholes, which apparently should break time-reversibility, which is a problem)
@gabitheancient7664 Thank you for the excellent comment! My video puts a lot of load-bearing weight on that "pretty much" qualifier and the problem of gravity. QFT is, indeed, mostly local.
Any physical theory have to be local, otherwise its predictions have no value. QFT is a local theory since Relativity is taken into account in its models. The problem of locality arised with Bell experiments but we cannot discard a failed interpretation of these experiments.A close look to these experiments shows signs of confirmation biais.
What about microcausality? QFT observables commute at spacelike separations! Any nonlocal effect is confined in the nonobservable part of the theoretical construct. The presence at a fundamental level, in the formalism of QM and even more so of QFT, of mathematical ingredients that are not oservable by definition, and yet essential to it, is the most important departure from classical physics. Frankly, more study is needed before making such bold and ill based claims on RUclips videos.
Don't like this concept as if two ideas can't be true just because "for some reason" humans like to unify concepts in mathematics and science, meanwhile light behaves both as a particle and a wave AND a cone simultaneously. Both General and Special Relativity and The Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics have both been substantiated to "the nth degree". As if the Universe cares to be described by a "single" concept, no. Modern Physicists understand this, Hossenfelder, for example, explains that Physicists wanted the 3 separate fundamental Quantum forces, the Electromagnetic, the Strong and Weak Nuclear to be unified, called "Grand Unified Field Theory", "why? because, that would be 'nicer'". She explains. But somehow "The Standard Model" and "General Relativity" are irreconcilable with reality, no, both are very reconcilable with reality, that's what Scientists have proved to be true for decades and decades, that is what we have OBSERVED to be true, in reality, that's what has, so far, agreed with experimentation. And these things haven't been proven like, "oh, we saw a thing one time and so it must be true", no, they've been proven hundreds of millions of times to hundreds of decimal places. Yes, we don't know everything but NO, that doesn't make 'one or the other' "WRONG" just because at certain scales we're required to utilise one over the other. I mean these theories utilise Planck lengths and as of 2023, the attosecond or James Webb capable of looking back to just a few hundred million years after the big bang. So how about giving modern Physics a little credit, you might not understand it all, and we don't understand everything or why certain forces are incompatible or, more like, independent. AND many modern Scientists will be the first to point toward fundamental flaws/inconsitencies and postulate "that doesn't seem right". That doesn't make the fundamental Theories "WRONG". And if you think they are, by all means, go ahead and disprove them, win yourself the Nobel Prize in Physics, be my guest. But, pretty sure this is just click bait. Good job.
@@JJEMTT The unified force is called "electroweak". Its unifiers were awarded the 1979 Noble Prize in Physics. Here's a link to the wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Math reigns supreme.
Math's supremacy is a logical consequence of the upper-boundedness of everything else.
Thank you for this interesting video! Very thought provoking. It makes me want to learn physics right now, at 4 am....
Great filming, editing, no "like and subscribe" and other time waste - you are one of the best youtubers I know, no joke.
Thank you so much for the kind words! Every bit of encouragement is especially helpful as I figure out how to do this RUclips thing.
I hop you get plenty of sleep.
If the mathematics is wrong all other fields are wrong as an inherent fact due to its parent classification.
Along similar lines: If math is wrong then logical factual knowledge doesn't work, because if you can prove a single untrue mathematical statement, then you can use that to prove any other untrue statement.
@@lsusr265 Principle of Explosion :)
@@sebij6811 Thanks! I didn't know the name for it.
I like the way you talk but the video is like, objectively wrong
qft is pretty much local, actually it is so local it can be basically derived by thinking of how n-component wave functions should look like to obey locality (or, in general, lorentz invariance, which implies locality)
like, the whole point of using field theories IS to obey locality (so that for example global symmetries imply conserved currents, which obey a continuity equation instead of just conserved quantities)
we just aren't sure how it works with gravity (and there's the problem with blackholes, which apparently should break time-reversibility, which is a problem)
@gabitheancient7664 Thank you for the excellent comment! My video puts a lot of load-bearing weight on that "pretty much" qualifier and the problem of gravity. QFT is, indeed, mostly local.
Any physical theory have to be local, otherwise its predictions have no value. QFT is a local theory since Relativity is taken into account in its models. The problem of locality arised with Bell experiments but we cannot discard a failed interpretation of these experiments.A close look to these experiments shows signs of confirmation biais.
When o write "Relativity", you mean special relativity or general relativity? QFT does indeed account for special relativity.
@@lsusr265 yea but you don't need GR to have this locality thing, everything you said is just special relativity
Post WW2 certain things are not up for discussion, given what had happened, Mr Obvious. That’s why we don’t talk.
I'm confused. This isn't a video about politics or history. Did you mean to post this comment on a different video?
What about microcausality? QFT observables commute at spacelike separations! Any nonlocal effect is confined in the nonobservable part of the theoretical construct. The presence at a fundamental level, in the formalism of QM and even more so of QFT, of mathematical ingredients that are not oservable by definition, and yet essential to it, is the most important departure from classical physics. Frankly, more study is needed before making such bold and ill based claims on RUclips videos.
You make an excellent point.
Don't like this concept as if two ideas can't be true just because "for some reason" humans like to unify concepts in mathematics and science, meanwhile light behaves both as a particle and a wave AND a cone simultaneously. Both General and Special Relativity and The Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics have both been substantiated to "the nth degree". As if the Universe cares to be described by a "single" concept, no. Modern Physicists understand this, Hossenfelder, for example, explains that Physicists wanted the 3 separate fundamental Quantum forces, the Electromagnetic, the Strong and Weak Nuclear to be unified, called "Grand Unified Field Theory", "why? because, that would be 'nicer'". She explains. But somehow "The Standard Model" and "General Relativity" are irreconcilable with reality, no, both are very reconcilable with reality, that's what Scientists have proved to be true for decades and decades, that is what we have OBSERVED to be true, in reality, that's what has, so far, agreed with experimentation.
And these things haven't been proven like, "oh, we saw a thing one time and so it must be true", no, they've been proven hundreds of millions of times to hundreds of decimal places. Yes, we don't know everything but NO, that doesn't make 'one or the other' "WRONG" just because at certain scales we're required to utilise one over the other. I mean these theories utilise Planck lengths and as of 2023, the attosecond or James Webb capable of looking back to just a few hundred million years after the big bang.
So how about giving modern Physics a little credit, you might not understand it all, and we don't understand everything or why certain forces are incompatible or, more like, independent. AND many modern Scientists will be the first to point toward fundamental flaws/inconsitencies and postulate "that doesn't seem right". That doesn't make the fundamental Theories "WRONG". And if you think they are, by all means, go ahead and disprove them, win yourself the Nobel Prize in Physics, be my guest.
But, pretty sure this is just click bait. Good job.
One of these examples isn't quite correct; the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces have been unified too.
@@lsusr265 Sorry, how so? I would be interested to know.
@@JJEMTT The unified force is called "electroweak". Its unifiers were awarded the 1979 Noble Prize in Physics. Here's a link to the wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction