I love gleaning some nuggets from a 5-minute video. As an interested layman who's read lots of books over the years, that issue of a split electron and how to pinpoint the resulting gravity is a concept I've never seen or thought of, but yeah that is a problem isn't it?
Well, there are more problems with it. The most fundamental is that space and time do not seem to be quantized. No matter how hard we look. Even towards the end of the universe, the light is too crisp for a quantized space.
Big Tex: I agree. I too had never heard or thought of this problem. But from an epistemological standpoint, even more basic is the problem of singularities (the one preceding the Big Bang being of course the final extrapolation in a whole series of such from current conditions further and further back, to time "zero"). The attempt to eliminate a singularity (infinite heat), resulting from the black-body problem, is what led Planck and Einstein to requantize light (from Maxwell's waves back to Newton's particles), then to work out the consequences of this, thus starting the whole quantum-mechanical revolution. I don't understand why so many of the physicists I've heard about or read, in their popularizations of quantum theory at least, blithely pass over the problem of black-hole singularities. This singularity, in an important way, makes nonsense of General Relativity as currently formulated. My father (Winfield W. Salisbury) in the 1930s believed he had found errors in Einstein's mathematical exposition of GR. Later, Husseyin Yilmaz, a Turkish-American physicist (d. 2012), believed he had corrected such errors, with the result, he claimed, that "black" holes could not exist, only "gray" holes that do leak radiation. (And from my reading, Hawking radiation is something else, and frankly I can't see how Hawking radiation explains how radiation can leak out of black holes so they eventually evaporate, leading, after an unfathomable length of time, to the final disappearance of all matter.) Yilmaz found few fans in the U.S. (Carroll Alley, prof. emeritus at Univ. of Maryland [d. 2016], is the only one I can name), but found some support in Europe, I've heard, notably Italy. If anyone reading this can explain any of these discrepancies in lay terms, or can point me toward such explanations, please comment.
Sabine is one smart, smart cookie. But you have to remember this is a RUclips vdo. She skips over the fact quanta are never both wave and particle at the same time. So the wave "goes through" both slits, not the particle. The wave function has no classical gravitational effect on itself, it's a function, a representation of incomplete information (q.v. epistemological interpretation of QM), though a quantum wave might have a non-classical self-gravitational effect, I don't think that has been well studied, except perhaps by Penrose. Proof is both theoretical and empirical: we never detect waves, we always detect particles, which only in essembles have the wave interference distributions; and in theory I've never seen any work which is capable of mathematically treating a wave as a particle, never. If the wave function had localised mass, it would not be a wave function, it would be a system of identical particles, not subject to the same superposition rules.
@@ronaldderooij1774 What do you mean by "too crisp"? And how would that be evidence against quantized spacetime? You need to look damn hard to see spacetime quantization, and arguably this is technical, we haven't got anything near spacetime microscopes. So that's not an argument against quantized spacetime. IMHO I think (suspect) spacetime is not quantizable in the same way quantum fields are, since spacetime is not "particulate". Seems to me much more likely spacetime quantization is related more to local non-trivial spacetime topology, not gravitons. (I think gravitons (as entities distinct from spacetime) are fictional, or to push the particle model they'd be just gravitational waves or solitons. So, for example, I'd like to see more theoreticians reinterpreting bosonic strings as topological features of spacetime.)
@@RichardASalisbury1 "Grey holes" are now standard, thanks to Bekenstein and Hawking. "Black hole" is an anachronism, which just sounds cool. I doubt Salisbury and Yilmaz were doing anything different to Bekenstein, maybe a different formulation is all --- any thermal radiation is thermodynamics. Singularities are not nonsense, no more so than any infinity arising in mathematics. Since most singularities are censored by horizons, they are in many senses not physical observables. But even if we permit naked singularities, quantum uncertainty will tend to "fuzz out" the singularity, which I think will always dynamically prevent infinite curvature. People end to forget the idealizations in GR --- it is too often treated as a picture of reality, when in practice is typically deals only with highly idealised matter distributions which never occur in the real world.
@Thomas Shelby Figuring out the perehilion orbit of Mercury with your own theory and being right isn't to easy. It is also unrelated to his achievements in quantum mechanics. I'll send you a telescope but you have to promise you to decipher the true nature of black holes. Talent will let you hit a target no one else can hit. Genius will let you hit a target no one else can see.
@Thomas Shelby . I agree with you. Liebniz was right on it. If you look up Emily Du Chatelet you will see she pointed this out. Newton wasn't observing inverse square laws. Du Chatelet pointed this out about gravitational attraction by dropping a lead ball into clay at two different elevations. I agree with you and wish you well.
Einstein didn't operate in a vacuum. He was proceeded by Henrick Lorentz, who had worked out the mathematics of transform or inertial reference frames assuming that c was invariant to both observers. This was shown experimentally, particulalrly Michelson and Morley in their famous interferometersetup. The invariance of the speed of light was also a theoretically result of Maxwell's equations which implied that a propogating transvese EM wave would travel at a constant speed. Einstein's genius was to synthesize all these results into a coherent theory.
If two theories are having a hard time getting along, it doesn't mean that they're completely wrong, but that they're incomplete and needs to be replaced with a much more complete theory, which will still be incomplete in some cases and then the cycle goes on as science progresses. I think the theory of relativity was such an advancement in science which was necessary for progress
No, not quite. If we look at SR/GR - at first glance they contradict each other and both eventually break given a small enough scale of things. (SR supports the idea that earth is flat and GR inherently requires the earth be round). Paradoxically, we find that the earth is both flat and round. The earth is flat on the smaller scale of things as is evidenced by our every =day observations - that is until you get far enough away from it to realize that because of scale, the "flatness" is really "roundness". Rather, the same way - quantum mechanics requires a finitely small enough scale before the theory can work, where GR/SR requires a finitely large enough scale to work. Therefore, there is most likely an extension of theory that appears to refute both GR and SR on its face, but will only occupy a scale of things that preciesly fits between GR/SR and quantum mechanics as to form a joint between the two in the same way that there is a joint between GR/SR. If GR/SR explains how things the size of planets behave, and quantum mechanics explain how things the size of electrons behave, the question becomes what about a scale of things which is of a size that fits a territory that is too small for GR/SR but too large for SR/GR? I think the trick will be to first identify the precise point that GR/SR breaks down and likewise the precise point that quantum mechanics breaks down as to then define the space in which a third theory must then operate. Rather, it is wise to first determine the size of the hand before attempting to find a latex glove that will properly fit it.
The 2nd postulate is absurd. When quantum physics says 1 electron going through a slit is the same as 2, then it is equally absurd - that simply doesn't happen. Both parties are mathematically deluded!
@@hosh1313 Physics does not say a single electron moves through both slits. What goes through the holes cannot be seen as physical objects, but as the mathematical representation of the electron. The representation is called the wave function. The wave function is a a set of forces that cannot be seen as physical things, but only envisioned as pure mathematics. The effect does happen, the only explanation in traditional physics is that the electron goes through both holes. The explanation in Quantum physics is that the wave function goes through both slits. I prefer to think that what goes through the slits is the electromagnetic effect of the electron on the screen, which displays one result when a detector is added, and another when no detector is present.This is also not true, but works somewhat as an analogy, as long as you dont take it too far.
Has someone that has not studied more than high school physics, i find your explanations very easy to understand. I love to see this kind of content, and hope someday will reach an unified theory that works.
I believe a unified field theory that works exists. It is commonly referred to as consciousness. The theoretical physics community is not ready for that yet. Thus, it is easier to say “we are still looking.” It is identical to someone who says “I’ll never find the love of my life,” then when their consciousness (or self-consciousness) changes, voila, the love of their life appears.
Because they understand the subject they are talking about so well, very smart people like her can explain something complex to not so smart(me) and very smart(definitely not me) people using basic words.
@@maalikserebryakov Well, general relativity doesn't sit well with quantum mechanics. This is because in quantum mechanics, an electron goes through both slits simultaneously in the double slit problem. However since electrons have mass and mass will bend spacetime and produce gravitational pull as per the general relativity, the problem arises which place will the gravitational pull go? This is not a fully solved problem even now but it does prove that the general relativity is incomplete. In addition, general theory of relativity breaks down at singularity, places where general relativity predicts infinite energy density for example at the center of our galaxy (a black hole) and at the time of big bang. The 3rd problem has to do with Hawking radiation emitting out of black holes: once the black hole is gone and radiation is all you have left you can never know what was in the black hole. This loss of information is incompatible with quantum theory. Basically all these are examples of various theories being incompatible with each other in specific situations, thus requiring a more "general" general theory of relativity.
Quantum mechanics does NOT tell us that an electron goes through two slits at once. We have interpretations in which "going through two slits" is part of the explanation, but we DO NOT know what the electron is doing. Also, that our mathematics cannot handle singularities does not imply that General Relativity is wrong and therefore Quantum Mechanics is the answer. It simply means that General Relativity is incomplete or needs to be replaced. Inserting Quantum mechanics into that process is like saying that because cars run out of petrol we can only travel by airplane. And finally, attempting to apply informational theories to spacetime is ridiculous. There is zero evidence that spacetime is quantified. Assuming it has to be is willingly wearing a blindfold. Just as we know Relativity is incomplete, we also know that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete. Perhaps we should be utilizing our intelligence and imagination to explore the holes in our theories before we exclaim that one group of theories needs to be subjugated to another group of theories.
@@BatEatsMoth No. I like it as it renders complex ideas into something that we can easily wrap our brains around, but like all interpretations of Quantum Mechanics we cannot prove it is the "correct" interpretation. That said, there are other interpretations I like simply because they are extremely weird. EDIT: Here's a great 60 Symbols vid of Sean Carroll talking about QM interpretations: ruclips.net/video/ZacggH9wB7Y/видео.html
I’ve found that a lot of physicists do not actually understand the Copenhagen interpretation. most, of course, do not need to. it’s when they pretend that they do that irks me.
I think you mean "Why GR and Quantum Mechanics are incomplete". Why does everyone pick on GR when Quantum theory is equally unable to describe gravity at small scales.
You have put a lot of effort in making this video. It is highly informative and enlightening for people like me who have not studied physics in depth. Please accept my sincere gratitude.
I’ve know of the necessity of finding quantum gravity for a while now, but this video has brought the addition of the double slit issue to my attention. Thank you for creating such an informative and wonderful video!
@@positivelycurvedpikachu I think in this case (as I interpret it from the video), the problem comes from the fact that general relativity doesn't address how an electron going through a double slit interacts with/creates a gravitational field, since in theory the electron is in two different places simultaneously during that process. Because general relativity doesn't address quantum particles, we can't use it to make an assertion about where the electron generates its gravitational field when it is in such a quantum state (whereas a more complete, universal theory should always be able to find the answer in every case).
@@positivelycurvedpikachu First off the double split is insanity. Light being able to be a wave, which isn’t a thing btw, and a particle at the same time is dumb. We need to bring back the aether for sure before this gets anymore out of control. 2 things cannot be possible based on outside observations according to relativity. This is the only thing I agree with Einstein about. Quantum is dumb and not possible. Yet relativity is just a bandaid to keep your model afloat as well as many many other excuses based solely on philosophy of the Copernican principle. He is wrong, yet all science since then has decided to ignore any and all experimental results that are contradictory to Heliocentrism
@@positivelycurvedpikachu If everyone here actually went back to the history of science after Copernicus and note what happened in regard to experiemental results and the blatant plugging of holes in your model, you would see that it’s all total bs. If you all understood relativity, moreso special relativity, you would understand it’s a purposely complicated theory proposed only to explain away results that kill your model. There has been a lot of this throughout the years even before Copernicus, where things were proposed or changed so that the model would live on. Anyone interested in this let me know and I’ll post a handful of times this has happened. Heliocentrism is not reality, at the very least we’re geocentric and it’s provable if you dismiss the nonsensical excuses that, were again, chosen based SOLELY on philosophical grounds and preference rather than actual scientific reasoning.
She basically does not understand physics. She is not a genius. Here are the facts. THE THEORETICAL, CLEAR, AND UNIVERSAL BALANCING OF E=MC2 AS F=MA: Ultimately and truly, time is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, time DILATION proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) I have mathematically unified and BALANCED physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 is necessarily AND CLEARLY F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. INDEED, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. Great. It is CLEARLY AND FULLY proven in what is a BALANCED fashion. E=mc2 IS F=ma. In fact, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is CLEARLY proven. It is a very great truth in physics that the ability of thought to DESCRIBE OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.) INDEED, E=mc2 IS DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS time dilation proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, ultimately and truly, time is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. In fact, INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. Consider the man who is standing on what is the Earth/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. SO, the mathematical unification of Einstein's equations AND Maxwell's equations (given the addition of A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION) proves that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. By Frank DiMeglio
As a nuclear physicist, i appreciate very much how you translate the formulas into a narrative that elucidates the non technical audience, but remains remarkably intact in accuracy of meaning. I highly recommend for everyone interested in the wonders of this amazing level of reality that we are bound to. Thank you Sabine.
As an Aspiring Physics Enthusiast with an Autodidactic Desire to fill the Glaring Gaps in my Education, this Channel has been invaluable in rectifying my Science Illiteracy. She does a Great Job of making it easier for an Amateur like myself to understand Concepts that are beyond my Meager Grasp of the Subject.
Impressive. No lensing around planets of the solar system. No lensing around stars behind our sun every day. No lensing of the trillions of stars in the universe. Just galaxy lensing. That is called dust and water diffraction. Of 20 lens objects out of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion is impressive to you, keep in mind that statistically your model defines nothing but noise.
@@steviesevieria1868 I was actually an English Major. So, I am WELL aware of the Technical Incorrectness of my Personal Capitalization Habits, but I assure you that it is VERY much intentional. I apologize if you experienced Discomfort at the Unfamiliar Sight of my Avant-garde Style. But alas, that is the Nature of pushing the Boundaries of Acceptable Syntax and Grammar. 🤷♂️
Great video. I think that what General relativity did to Newtonian physics another theory (maybe quantum gravity?) may do the same thing to Einstein’s theory. It doesn’t mean that is something wrong with it. It’s been invaluable in the progress of physics. Same thing with Quantum mechanics. As we learn more and more of particles and the universe, we can come up with better theories or improvements to the existing ones that will cover some of the gaps on the existing ones. That’s what science is about. Making progress, destroying paradigms, expanding our understanding and knowledge. Great respect for the scientist who with open mind work to get us closer to this goal. One of my children is a biochemist and works in a research area of a University in Michigan. One of my nephews is a doctor in mathematics and is also working in a research university in Germany. Very glad that my family is part of that process.
Explanation with visualization is simple, straightforward, & powerful. Einstein was a genius & made a great contribution. He is lucky to face a new direction of improvement of his theory by collective minds of his many admirers.
Einstein was a meat headed plagiarizing cousin marrying falacy factory . He destroyed theoretical physics. Now everyone of you accept falacious 'evidence' as evidence. There has not been one postulate proven with the scientific method. Show me how you bent and warped spacetime to prove the bending and warping of spacetime. Show me where you measured a contraction or dilation. Oh ya , can't do that either . Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Nikola Tesla
just read this fascinating take on the issue "The barrier between these two theories is when we start to approach the present moment in time. The past is observable and measurable therefore predictable, and the future is unobservable and can only be probabilistic. When we look out into the universe we are looking into the past. That is why GR works so well. But when we are looking at particles it becomes unpredictable because we are making observations too close to the present moment and too close to the unobservable future."
I love your channel. You do real science and talk about things most others rarely talk about - like this topic. This is the first time I've heard from anyone that the General Relatively may not be entirely accurate.
Because it is, this video is just showing in which cases GR is not compatible with QM. We can change the title to "Why Quantum Mechanics can't be quite right" and the results will be the same.
@@joaquinmatacastillo7554 Both are not quite right, because both have problems with singularities; this is not merely about incompatibility, but about a fundamental flaw.
@@LoveOverwhelming yeah, both have flaws, but she's telling people that GR is the flawed one just because it is incompatible with QM. That's the problem.
But how do we know that the problem here is with general relativity and not quantum mechanics, since the latter has more problems and dubious things in it than general relativity?
@@hasanalmonem5713 General relativity has GPS to prove it. You literally depend on the theory every time your phone depends on your location. Quantum has its own widespread pratical applications as well, such as computer circuitry that depends on it. But quantum is weird as heck and has very little that's observable visually. My _intuition_ is to doubt the completeness of our quantum interpretations and models first because frankly they make no freakin' sense.
Very much appreciate the explanation. It's refreshing to see a video involving physics and cosmology that admits what we don't know, even with a very well-supported theory, rather than stating that theory as if it was indisputable fact. Thank you!
@@joshuasweeny3737that is even if black holes even exist 😑I have realized they may not 😐the way galaxies work is like hurricanes as their physical properties are somewhat the same 😐
Looks like RUclips algorithm thinks I'm an intellectual and suggested this. Great honor and good to be here 👍 ps: I did NOT understand this video at all 🤫😂
@@unintentionallydramatic WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY: Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!! The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 We don't live in an electric universe. It's been debunked countless times. You sound like a lunatic typing like that. Learn some internet decency.
@@Gandhi_Physique TIME DILATION IS FULLY EXPLAINED, AS THE ULTIMATE MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS CLEARLY PROVEN: A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, as C4 is a POINT that is ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (ON BALANCE) as SPACE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. E=mc2 IS F=ma. A planet AND a star thus constitute what is A POINT in the night sky. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ACCORDINGLY, I have ALSO fully explained the MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION of Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations (GIVEN THE ADDITION OF A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The Sun AND the Earth are F=ma AND E=mc2. Great. SO, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. AGAIN, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Indeed, this NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (E=mc2 IS F=ma.) Therefore, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times consistent WITH/AS E=MC2, F=MA, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. E=mc2 IS F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) E=MC2 IS F=ma. Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Magnificent !!! By Frank DiMeglio
Thank tou Sabine for the clearest explanation I have ever heard regarding this issue! J. D. German, former Prof. of Physics at the U.S. Air Force Academy.
Excellent observations about physics profession. I'd been tempted before, but now I must buy your book. It reinforces something sad for me. I graduated with a degree in physics but spent my whole career in computing instead. Now, sadly, I'm glad I did not spend the last 40 years in physics.
She said at the end, this has been known since the 1930s. It has taken almost 100 years for some one to finally explain it this well. Bravo and thank you for this fine explanation
Einstein may not have won the game but he took us far ahead in the game. It will take another super genius and creative mind like his to solve singularity.
@Donald Kasper Lol, a random nobody on RUclips calling one of the brightest mind in physics and cosmology an idiot, while his GR has been confirmed in the macro state, over and over. You and your electric universe cult are the idiots who have provided NOTHING to science.
@Donald Kasper you couldn't come up with the idea of general relativity had you existed in his day and time. Go back to your chores peasant, your contributions in life for now and in the future are of insignificance.
I really enjoy Ms. Hoseenfelder's videos. A question occurred to me as I listened. Why is the defect, or defects, necessarily with GR? Why a defect with quantum mechanics?
I may not have authority to say this, as I haven't studied either subject in depth, but my guess is that it might be easier to assume a defect with general relativity. How would one go about using general relativity to explain particle interactions and superpositions? How would general relativity explain entanglement? However, it would be much easier to try and create a new type of boson, and by result a field, which describes gravity with the same or possibly greater accuracy than general relativity. Again, this is all my guess, so you should probably take it with numerous grains of salt.
my gut feeling is that QFT has extreme predicting power, while we have found incongruities with general relativity on large scales. i don't know how true that is, however
It's because the GR equations themselves break down when trying to apply to the quantum scale (would be useful for figuring out how the early universe and black holes work). You get infinities that cannot be taken out so they aren't useful at all. Quantum mechanics also can't describe gravity at that scale so I guess you could call it a defect with that too
There are 4 fundamental forces. Gravity EM Strong Nuclear Weak Nuclear Quantum Mechanics explains the last 3 but the first. GR explains the first one but not the last theory. This is why a lot of people assume gravity needs to be quantized. There's a hypothesis called Quantum Loop Gravity. But the one hypothesis that's widely acceptable is String Theory.
I learned so much from this video. I hope you do more like it in the future! I enjoy your more topical (and humorous) videos, but you're a great educator. The way you presented this information in a clear matter-of-fact manner is wonderful!
Thanks Sabine for explaining these difficult subjects with simple diagrams. You can enhance communication of the subject by allowing your demo diagrams to dominate the background on the board instead of the unrelated design pattern.
I've been trying to read a lot about these sorts of things and it's very interesting to hear you explain it so simply. With the new discovery of creating mass, as in new quarks, from and electronic field it makes me wonder if the other dimensions we can't see that are extremely small are altered much more by mass in our 4 dimensions we see every day.
I've been suspecting for years, now, that "Pure Time" as dimensions, is also a 3D entity, just like our view of "Space" is 3D... That would give us 6 full dimensions between the two. The trouble (as I see it so far) is that while we can experience the results of traveling through Time in any direction, the exact assignment of and X,Y,Z-concept to Time is much more difficult to calculate or quantify, even if they do exist. We can only get older, as we travel through Time, and it's entirely possible that it won't matter what directional vector through Time we choose (if we can even take that power of choice/agency)... It might also suggest how the Universe is sized and shaped (roughly at my stage of understanding)... If the Universe is actually only limited in Scale to being about 15 Billion YEARS across, then the furthest we can ever visibly see is about 15 Billion Lightyears, since any longer and the light particles slip out of the universe or bump against the "walls" which only exist in Time "substance" but still have effects in the material-space of reality that we CAN directly interact with... The effect would be similar to standing in the center of an enormous colloseum in the dark with only one lit candle. The light can only travel out such that YOU can perceive so far, even if you know for a fact where you are and what's around you... You simply can't directly SEE it... OR maybe something like a "haze" that permanently enshrouds the surroundings, whether or not you hypothesize what lies "beyond", not terribly unlike the microwave background currently (dubiously?) assigned as the residual of the "Big Bang"... only, according to the same proponents of the Big Bang, the universe "is still banging"... I don't know all the answers... AND this is just a CRUDE suspicion, I've been toying at for a while, more resolving things "graphically" than through any pure math... SO a grain of salt and all that. Maybe there's a "Big-brain" out there who finds it interesting enough to run with it... or even take her for a slow meander. haha... :o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 time though is not a real dimension . Not a real physical dimension . Meaning that eliminating time does eliminate space nor the physical ( the periodic table ) . Both of which are three dimensional in and of themselves . Without time .
Here lectures are generally great! Few people are able to express complex concepts in such a clear way as she does! But in this case, I disagree with a lot that is stated. Simply postulating that Quantum Theory is right and General Relativity is wrong so, therefore, Quantum Theory needs to be extended by Quantum Gravity and General Relativity discarded with is not a very scientific approach. Until we have a theory that works for both we will see how much of GR versus QT was correct or perhaps they were both wrong and are replaced by something else. Also, the claim that in a double-slit experiment an unmeasured photon goes through both slits is not substantiated by evidence. The reality is that we do not know what happens, let alone how the wave function relates to gravity! There is no experiment that shows a photon actually goes through both slits. Yes, the calculation requires the wave function to consider both slits but the wavefunction is not necessarily an expression of what physically happens. Also, the expression that a singularity is a problem and an indication a theory is incorrect or at least incomplete is going a bit too far.
@@bngr_bngr Nobody is questioning the outcomes of the double slit experiment. The issue is the statement: "an unmeasured photon goes through both slits"
@Science Revolution You believe a theory you have found on a flat earth or conspiracy theory site. Thie electric world has been disproven over and over and over and over and over and over again. You believe a theory without proof or math. Just 100% stupid mixed with worlds you don't understand and some misunderstanding of Tesla's most idiotic ideas.
*"Quantum mechanics tells us that the particle goes through both slits at the same time."* < It does? Said who? Niels Bohr? The Copenhagen interpretation is but one solution out of many. David Deutsch would disagree, and he's hardly a dummy.
@@hmJgyinPlM The relational _interpretation_ is just that, an interpretation. Quantum mechanics doesn't *say* what's happening, it presents a riddle, open to interpretation. Personally, I don't favor the MWI promoted by Deutsch, *Hawking,* and many others, however I cannot rule it out. It would be just as flawed to claim that quantum mechanics tells us that the MWI is true. I lean much further towards the interpretation she's promoting myself, by the way.
"Quantum mechanics tells us that the particle goes through both slits at the same time." -- What particle? Electromagnetic radiation is a wave that sometimes gets approximated as a particle from time to time.
@@gilian2587 its not particularly relevant whether particles ‘really’ exist or not. Like phonons, they are a useful way to describe the mechanics. Quantum fields are not compatible with general relativity because the matter, which is needed to describe the spacetime curvature, has no defined location and so there is no way to properly describe the curvature in a quantum scale. Quantum theories are also non-local which is another conflict with GR.
Sabine, thank you for another short clear video. If GR and QM are incompatible, then there should be some circumstances in which they make different predictions. Arranging those circumstances is then an experiment to tease out data to refine the theories. Surely there has been significant work towards this goal. Can you make a video telling us about that work?
Unfortunately the only circumstances we can think of where the two theories would produce an observable conflict would be extreme conditions like particle-sized black holes. Unless nature is obliging enough to present us with one, we aren't going to be able to rely on observation.
@Dr Deuteron I didn't mean inside the black holes, I meant just outside the horizon of quantum-scale black holes. Which is tantamount to asking how the two theories behave at extremely high energy scales. It's observable _in principle_, we just haven't stumbled across a real-world example that would allow us to work back from observations to a unified theory.
@Dr Deuteron The big problem is: quantum theory gave us the best matching theoretical and experimental results of any physics theory (including GR) and it doesn't include gravitational interactions or interference (like gravity doesn't exist on that scale), in fact if you try to apply gravity as a force (as the standard model sugests it shoud be), the interactions between gravitons and other particles generate a infinite loop of energy, creating infinite black holes. I think the big problem is describing space itself, if we could describe space in the quantum level, we would be able to explain why gravity is so weak, why it seems to stop working on quantum scales and maybe Einstein's Equations would come from approximations due to scale factors, just like the galilean transformations for motion were an aproximaximation for Lorentz transformations in low speeds.
Wow thank you. I appreciate your elucidation of singularities being an indication that the current working theory is not fundamental. I have been watching videos about black holes and your video finally gives my curiosity some useful closure.
Sabine, another great explanation of Physics. As a physicist and micro biologist myself, I think you are so important in promoting the exciting Pandora's box of the world around us.. Bravo!
How can you be physicist and micro biologist at the same time? And how much time after your 12th class you devoted in both fiieds in just study? That must be very long time bec in just doing grad and post grad...it takes 7 8 or even 9 years....pl answer
@@AB-zg5vy If you cannot figure it out then you clearly do not understand. I am retired, throughout my career I have been in both camps and went to excellent schools when young that set me on these speciality tracks. I have worked in Gov research since young. That is all you will get.
@@vernonfrance2974 investigate science and you might just find out. With every answer in science comes more questions. Never dull, always challenging current models of thought.
Hi, I am from the future. This is a great video, but it's wonderful to see Sabine's progression simply as a You-tube presenter. It's hard to believe even those people good at their professions can improve over time.
It's like your software developer criticize von Newman of his invention of a slow computer compared to what he's using today. Rephrase it to "thanks to the genius of Einstein, we can now understand better his theory of GR", that's because everyone is considering himself a scientist today.
For someone like me for whom so much of this stuff is over his or her head... Yet has a curiosity whose appetite "snacks" on a lot of it... Such people as Sabine (and Victor Toth on Quora) who are as knowledgeable as they are and explain as concisely well as they do to laymen are very satisfying. They not only know their "nuts & bolts", they connect dots and have illuminating insight into what they explain. Very satisfying and whets the appetites of "snackers" like myself for more. Kudos and thanks.
This video is absolute nonsense. According to Fields Medal winner and the greatest living mathematical physicist, Ed Witten, somebody whose physics acumen far exceeds Sabinr Hossfelder, General Relativity is the ONLY theory ever invented - before or since - that can account for WHY gravity obeys an inverse square law. Newton's theory couldn't do that. This was a HUGE clue to actual geniuses like Dirac and Witten, not this clown Hossfelder, that General Relativity must be true. This aspect of General Relativity, which she CONVENIENTLY omits in this post-hoc riddled video, gives it universal credibility amongst REAL physicists even as we look for a Theory of Everything. General Relativity is 100% CORRECT for the observational scope we have. She might as well titled this video "How we Know Quantum Mechanics is Not Quite Right" seeing as there as just as many open, unsolved questions in Quantum Mechanics (if not more) than there are in General Relativity. And thus far not one single theory of quantum gravity has any scientific consensus unless you count String Theory. This has to be the worst video Sabine has ever made. 100% Click Bait Trash, it gives the impression that General Relativity has been falsified and it has NEVER BEEN FALSIFIED. Any problems with the theory are very abstract and non-empirical. I repeat, Quantum Mechanics has just as many problems, if not more, than General Relativity.
This is the one area of science where the human brain really shows its kung fu... to be able to develop a new kind of intuition to understand this subject...very fascinating. It really feels like gravity is not only bending light, but also the mind. Physics is as much a science as it is an art. Thank you for sharing this wonderful knowledge with us!
@@vernonvouga5869 😂. It takes a lot of studies and hard work to begin to understand what she is explaining. But physics is not for everyone, and it doesn't have to be. There are many other things to learn like finance or medicine.
@@lutherhoward7637 I've had a passion that started with astronomy and branched out into physics since i was young. Vortexes are my favorite intrest... i mean, literally everything in nature follows a vortex in one way or another
@@lutherhoward7637 haha, when i was a cable man a few years ago on breaks... i found it a fascinating thought experiment to think about how thin the earths atmosphere is and the fact that its weight is what keeps us together
WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY: Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!! The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio
@@Antonocon WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY: Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!! The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio
I always thought general relitivity was right and the problem was in quantum mechanics. Superposition may be wrong. The Copenhagen interpretation may be wrong as Schrodinger described.
This seems like a much more popular view from what I've seen of current greats in the field Sabine seems to have a very narrow view that she is right absolutely which I get from most of her videos, when talking about disputed things. She gives some nice general info on physics, but has a pretty poor presentation of the science.
I completely agree. Tim Maudlin puts the point well when he says that quantum mechanics is not a theory but rather a recipe for making calculations. It does not specify a self-consistent ontology for space and time - especially the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. GR is a thing of beauty, precisely because it specifies an ontology so well and so completely. She has unfortunately got the wrong end of the stick on this video.
Superposition has been shown to be extremely accurate, though that doesn't mean it's "right". The Copenhagen interpretation has been basically disproven.
I also see QM as a math tool that describes and predicts what happens to atom-scale objects but I don’t like Coppenhagen interpretation. Very anti intuitive Have you ever heard of Pilot Wave theory?
I'm quite unhappy with the rubbersheet "model" as it's quite useful to visualize _potential_ (and not only gravitational but electric as well) but when it comes to the curvature of spacetime, it *doesn't even lead to the right direction* of understanding what GR means by spacetime being curved. First: The rubbersheet stands for space rather than spacetime because a heavy body symbolizes a heavy body sitting in one place. Second: A marble rolling along the sheet will follow what the "down" direction is just as a body in a gravitational field tends to the lower potential regions. If we bent the sheet upwards instead of downwards, the marble would roll _away_ from the center just as an equally charged particle would be repelled. It would *not* follow the sheet's _curvature_ anyway. *A much better model* for what GR means by curvature of spacetime is - Earth's surface. Let's compare lines along it to world lines, where great circles stand for geodesic world lines, i.e. world lines of inertial bodies. In a "flat" surface (including a cylinder's mantle which is bent but geometrically flat as well), parallel lines stay parallel, and so do parallel geodesic world lines in a space workout measurable gravity. Within a positively curved surface or spacetime, even geodesics parallel at some place tend to meet each other, just as the meridians (which are parallel at the equator) do at the poles.
@@ematarkus4121 So 2+2=5? Electrical nature leads to Earth being round. The magnetic field is not flat. Everyone knows that Flat Earthers do not exist. They are bored NASA employees with a predilection for online pranks. We all know that Flat Earth is an obvious aerospace hoax.
Hossenfelder is a Quantum Gravity proponent. Essentially her work argues for this as an alternative to String Theory. I don't take a side as I left physics for CS long ago and was never a theorist.
@mxt mxt they are both wrong when goes 0,00000000000001 accord, people are very close brake that barrier, we have super computers to calculate things einstein could even dream
You can ask the question. Maybe they can both be right, they work well together but the theories does not. So we have a blurred view of their interaction that we can not see. They can be expressions of dark matter of which we can't see.
jmcsquared. I’d love to see Quantum Mechanics wrong and General Relativity right. But maybe there’s something she didn’t explain that and makes her, or them, think otherwise.
@@desiderata8811 I actually think both theories will need to give a little bit before a quantum theory of gravity emerges. One that doesn't just presuppose the supremacy of either theory. In fact, recent research (see Susskind, Maldacena) suggests that the two theories are actually related in many ways.
jmcsquared. Both being incomplete but related is exactly what makes physicists nuts, and drives them to search a new theory to unify them. From what I’ve seen String Theory is almost out of the game. It seems we are far from achieving something new.
Love learning from polemicists :P that’s what made Lenin so awesome, he was keenly aware of what others were saying and thinking, and was always eager for debate
@@SameerGuptacatchymango WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY: Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!! The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio
Glad to have found this channel. It's been added to my list of physics channels! I, however, wish that the flat sheet representing matter's effects on spacetime were replaced by the more accurate 3D models we can create now, which show matter pulling in spacetime and not pushing it down.
They should say space becomes compressed and time rarefied, space attracted and time repelled. People understand the atmosphere becomes more compressed closer to the earth and more rarefied further way, they also understand that aircraft fly faster further from the earth where the air is thin for less energy. If we think of space as atmosphere and inhibition to motion in an atmosphere as "time dilation" the basic idea will be understood in day to day terms.
This video is absolute nonsense. According to Fields Medal winner and the greatest living mathematical physicist, Ed Witten, somebody whose physics acumen far exceeds Sabinr Hossfelder, General Relativity is the ONLY theory ever invented - before or since - that can account for WHY gravity obeys an inverse square law. Newton's theory couldn't do that. This was a HUGE clue to actual geniuses like Dirac and Witten, not this clown Hossfelder, that General Relativity must be true. This aspect of General Relativity, which she CONVENIENTLY omits in this post-hoc riddled video, gives it universal credibility amongst REAL physicists even as we look for a Theory of Everything. General Relativity is 100% CORRECT for the observational scope we have. She might as well titled this video "How we Know Quantum Mechanics is Not Quite Right" seeing as there as just as many open, unsolved questions in Quantum Mechanics (if not more) than there are in General Relativity. And thus far not one single theory of quantum gravity has any scientific consensus unless you count String Theory. This has to be the worst video Sabine has ever made. 100% Click Bait Trash, it gives the impression that General Relativity has been falsified and it has NEVER BEEN FALSIFIED. Any problems with the theory are very abstract and non-empirical. I repeat, Quantum Mechanics has just as many problems, if not more, than General Relativity.
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 How can space bend or shrink? Only if it is a thing, but if it is a thing, then it is somewhere, there is a boundary between a thing and the place it occupies, the place that things occupy is called space, which shows that what the Theory of Relativity calls space is not space. If he is not a thing, then he cannot bend or shrink, for he has no properties or limits, he is simply Nothing. Space is not a thing, but the absence of things, and it is precisely because it is the absence that things can occupy it. Time is not a thing either, it is just a measure of the movement of things. The fact that there is gravity, an invisible thing that bends and shrinks doesn't prove it's space, it could very well be unknown matter (perhaps dark matter?).
How does gravity curve space and time... I mean spacetime? Also can spacematter curve spacetime? How about darkmatter? Can space-energy curve time-matter? Can time-matter curve space-energy, and can space-time curve time-energy? If the conscious mind is so curved, than why does a ruler appear so straight??? 🤔... Just kidding. Man science is cool. I like Albert Einstien, in his time, he was a decent, smart-guy. He also believed in Jesus of Nazareth, that's pretty cool of him. 😇
@@williamandrewshermenegildo6886 This may be the most vague comment here my friend. The fact you said "thing" 11 times muddies the water extremely, the way I try to visualize it is space is a superfluous field, not anything (in the literal sense) "particular' (having or being a particle). I don't think GR postulates that spacetime is an object the way you describe it at all. An objects mass acts as a perturbation in the field, I agree its very hard to grasp, we can hardly even discuss this without a PHD and even then, no one knows what spacetime really IS, we just know how it acts. I can dimly see your point here. However I could say light is not a "thing" but the absence of "dark things", but it doesn't get us any closer to understanding its functionality its just trickery of language , you have to run with what you have an build from there, and right now bent spacetime is the closest thing we have to understanding its function in the universe.
Compared to the other forces of nature, gravitation is extremely weak. When you pick up a nail with a magnet, the magnetic force of that small magnet overcomes the gravitational force of the entire Earth. Interaction of gravity with other forces is therefore extremely hard to measure. It is possible to measure the gravitational field of something heavy, like lead spheres of the Cavendish experiment, but it's impossible to measure gravitational field of a quantum particle. And, if there are no reliable measurements, there can be no reliable theory. That's why a huge and expensive experiment like LHC had to be built in order to prove the existence of Higgs Boson, for example. The road towards reconciliation of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics will be a hard & expensive one, I'm afraid, but, IMHO, this goal is definitively worth pursuing.
Not just smart as hell, my girl got style, too! Thank you so much for the content, Dr. Hossenfelder! 💙 You make me smarter and the Universe just a wee bit clearer.
Surely, proof that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are inconsistent is not proof that General Relativity must be replaced, but rather proof that either QM or GR or both must be replaced.
@@DinarAndFriends sadly apparently so. Its always about the good old boys club, especially where there are no good old girls we know there is something amiss.
All physical theories work in certain circumstances but become less accurate in others. This is because they are models. Each model captures a set of relationships of interest in one context, but there may be other contexts in which different sets of relationships, or dimensions become important.
"All physical theories work in certain circumstances but become less accurate in others. " - the semantic content of that is null - you have said exactly nothing.
@@JamesJoyce12 It's meaning is quite clear to anyone familiar with basic physics. Typically I am talking about scale. For example if you want to fire a bullet at a target Newton's law of gravitation is adequate to do it accurately. If you want to predict the orbit of Mercury then because of the intensity of the gravitational field you have to use Einstein's Theory. A flat Earth theory is ok for surveyors to plan a housing estate, but it is no good to calculate the fuel requirement or plot a course for a trans-Atlantic flight. Most people with a physics background would be familiar with this situation. The main point though is that no theory is universal, because there may be other dimensions to a situation being modelled which are not included in one theory. Any model focuses on certain features of interest, but leaves out others. Under other circumstances these features may prove important and you need to use a different model. Any model is a simplification of something not the thing itself. This is of course an advantage of a model as well as an imperfection.
@@JamesJoyce12 The semantic content of the first sentence may be null, but the whole quote is perfectly clear to me. Newton's laws of motion and gravity were perfectly adequate for his time and place, only becoming less accurate when people started to move faster than the speed of a horse, or steam locomotive. Or to communicate via telegraph or radio. Einstein's laws/theories provide a much better model when we start to deal with satellite communications, GPS and the universe on the large scale. However, the model breaks down at the interface between the very small and very large. One day it will be shown that Einstein's theories are just a better approximation to reality than Newton's, but neither is the final word. The important thing here is that all are models.
@@bhangrafan4480 You need to understand what a 'theory' is - my theory says that it will be 22.4 C outside - inevitably - at some time - it will be 22.4 C and it also fulfills your definition of a 'physical theory' but we would both agree it is not a theory - right?
@@JamesJoyce12 I don't really know what you are talking about. A theory is more than one point observation it is a set of relations between measurable quantities which have to be held up over a range of different measurements. Anyway the criterion of interest is falsification. If the the theory is proved FALSE on one occasion it is incorrect. Have you studied Karl Popper?
PLEASE make a post on the relation between DIV GRAD at finite density charge sources and the relation of this to gravitational curvature for finite density mass distributions. For zero charge density DIV GRAD X=0, while for mass the mass on a rubber sheet model suggests negative (Gaussian) curvature in the surrounding vacuum, suggesting DIV g
Wow, this just has put so many things into perspective for me regarding general relatively and such. I feel like it will never all fit together and in fact it’ll probably fit together even less the more we learn about quantum physics because regular physics is a projection of quantum physics which isn’t in the realm of time and space which is beyond the natural form of cause and effect in the way we know it. This is just my view though in my very limited understanding.
I've known many of these informations but it's nice to find all informations in one video. We know that Einstein was in some things wrong. On the other hand, history of physics teaches us that we need a better theory. Thank you for clear explanation.😊❤
I thought in quantum mechanics that, in the electron example, the electron isn’t actually in two places at once but rather our tools to observe at the quantum level are insufficient thus the best science can do is calculate all the possibilities of the movement of the electron in wave. And when we finally observe the actual placement of the electron it fits alongside one of the many possibilities calculated. Hopefully I’ve said this correctly.
From my limited knowledge there isn’t a consensus. Some argue we don’t know how to measure yet, others that it’s impossible because it’s inherently random.
The problem arises from people who are from older school of thought who still consider there to be things as "particles". It's all waves. There are no real "particles" as we tend to think of them. This is where people have trouble reconciling the double slit experiment. But what they mistake as a "particle" is simple a property of a larger wave pattern. Example for clarity, if you're standing in the ocean, you are in a larger body of water, but you also can detect what we colloquially call a "wave", a condensed portion of the water moving together, in that larger body of water. That "wave" is essentially what we think of as a "particle". It's a property of the larger body of matter. In the example, the larger body is the entire ocean, i.e. the electromagnetic field, and the "wave" is the electron moving in that field. The double slit is not at odds with anything. It's all waves. Another reference for clarity is to consider "particles" as the harmonics, or standing waves, of larger EM field. The electrons are harmonic standing tones in a larger fluidic body that is the electromagnetic field. So in the double slit, the wave is going through both slits every time. It's just people tend to forget the rest of the electromagnetic field is there and they overfocus on the "particle", on the electron.
@@phoenixamaranth taking this further, does this allow us to consider the inevitable existence of a single wave function at very large distance and hence there is no spookiness in actions at large distance and that it will happen instantly ?.... the wave and other waves are 'already there'
It is true, that Hossenfelder might say that quantum physics is the wrong part. But Hossenfelder's approach is more than "theory of relativity vs. quantum physics". She doubts many concepts of the mainstream. After nearly a century of failing to unify both columns of modern physics, doubts might be correct.
Me after watching PBS Spacetime: I have no idea what this means. I wonder if someone could explain it in layman's terms for a sad brain like mine. Me after watching Sabine: Why yes, I do now understand the practical application of quantum mechanics. *adjusts monocle*
I love gleaning some nuggets from a 5-minute video. As an interested layman who's read lots of books over the years, that issue of a split electron and how to pinpoint the resulting gravity is a concept I've never seen or thought of, but yeah that is a problem isn't it?
Well, there are more problems with it. The most fundamental is that space and time do not seem to be quantized. No matter how hard we look. Even towards the end of the universe, the light is too crisp for a quantized space.
Big Tex: I agree. I too had never heard or thought of this problem. But from an epistemological standpoint, even more basic is the problem of singularities (the one preceding the Big Bang being of course the final extrapolation in a whole series of such from current conditions further and further back, to time "zero"). The attempt to eliminate a singularity (infinite heat), resulting from the black-body problem, is what led Planck and Einstein to requantize light (from Maxwell's waves back to Newton's particles), then to work out the consequences of this, thus starting the whole quantum-mechanical revolution. I don't understand why so many of the physicists I've heard about or read, in their popularizations of quantum theory at least, blithely pass over the problem of black-hole singularities. This singularity, in an important way, makes nonsense of General Relativity as currently formulated. My father (Winfield W. Salisbury) in the 1930s believed he had found errors in Einstein's mathematical exposition of GR. Later, Husseyin Yilmaz, a Turkish-American physicist (d. 2012), believed he had corrected such errors, with the result, he claimed, that "black" holes could not exist, only "gray" holes that do leak radiation. (And from my reading, Hawking radiation is something else, and frankly I can't see how Hawking radiation explains how radiation can leak out of black holes so they eventually evaporate, leading, after an unfathomable length of time, to the final disappearance of all matter.) Yilmaz found few fans in the U.S. (Carroll Alley, prof. emeritus at Univ. of Maryland [d. 2016], is the only one I can name), but found some support in Europe, I've heard, notably Italy. If anyone reading this can explain any of these discrepancies in lay terms, or can point me toward such explanations, please comment.
Sabine is one smart, smart cookie. But you have to remember this is a RUclips vdo. She skips over the fact quanta are never both wave and particle at the same time. So the wave "goes through" both slits, not the particle. The wave function has no classical gravitational effect on itself, it's a function, a representation of incomplete information (q.v. epistemological interpretation of QM), though a quantum wave might have a non-classical self-gravitational effect, I don't think that has been well studied, except perhaps by Penrose. Proof is both theoretical and empirical: we never detect waves, we always detect particles, which only in essembles have the wave interference distributions; and in theory I've never seen any work which is capable of mathematically treating a wave as a particle, never. If the wave function had localised mass, it would not be a wave function, it would be a system of identical particles, not subject to the same superposition rules.
@@ronaldderooij1774 What do you mean by "too crisp"? And how would that be evidence against quantized spacetime? You need to look damn hard to see spacetime quantization, and arguably this is technical, we haven't got anything near spacetime microscopes. So that's not an argument against quantized spacetime. IMHO I think (suspect) spacetime is not quantizable in the same way quantum fields are, since spacetime is not "particulate". Seems to me much more likely spacetime quantization is related more to local non-trivial spacetime topology, not gravitons. (I think gravitons (as entities distinct from spacetime) are fictional, or to push the particle model they'd be just gravitational waves or solitons. So, for example, I'd like to see more theoreticians reinterpreting bosonic strings as topological features of spacetime.)
@@RichardASalisbury1 "Grey holes" are now standard, thanks to Bekenstein and Hawking. "Black hole" is an anachronism, which just sounds cool. I doubt Salisbury and Yilmaz were doing anything different to Bekenstein, maybe a different formulation is all --- any thermal radiation is thermodynamics. Singularities are not nonsense, no more so than any infinity arising in mathematics. Since most singularities are censored by horizons, they are in many senses not physical observables. But even if we permit naked singularities, quantum uncertainty will tend to "fuzz out" the singularity, which I think will always dynamically prevent infinite curvature. People end to forget the idealizations in GR --- it is too often treated as a picture of reality, when in practice is typically deals only with highly idealised matter distributions which never occur in the real world.
You have to give Albert credit. He had no atom smashers. No LIGO. Just a pencil, a paper and his imagination. In 1905 he forever changed the world.
Not necessarily for the better...
@@nik8099 Not necessarily for the bad either. It's how you want to look at it.
@Thomas Shelby Figuring out the perehilion orbit of Mercury with your own theory and being right isn't to easy. It is also unrelated to his achievements in quantum mechanics. I'll send you a telescope but you have to promise you to decipher the true nature of black holes. Talent will let you hit a target no one else can hit. Genius will let you hit a target no one else can see.
@Thomas Shelby . I agree with you. Liebniz was right on it. If you look up Emily Du Chatelet you will see she pointed this out. Newton wasn't observing inverse square laws. Du Chatelet pointed this out about gravitational attraction by dropping a lead ball into clay at two different elevations. I agree with you and wish you well.
Einstein didn't operate in a vacuum. He was proceeded by Henrick Lorentz, who had worked out the mathematics of transform or inertial reference frames assuming that c was invariant to both observers. This was shown experimentally, particulalrly Michelson and Morley in their famous interferometersetup. The invariance of the speed of light was also a theoretically result of Maxwell's equations which implied that a propogating transvese EM wave would travel at a constant speed. Einstein's genius was to synthesize all these results into a coherent theory.
I love the way she pronounces “ Einstein “, the German way !
Oin Shhtoin
Me too, though to my english ears it /almost/ sounds mocking.
Indeed! That was the best part of the full video!
I think she is Swiss?
She has a german accent in general.
If two theories are having a hard time getting along, it doesn't mean that they're completely wrong, but that they're incomplete and needs to be replaced with a much more complete theory, which will still be incomplete in some cases and then the cycle goes on as science progresses. I think the theory of relativity was such an advancement in science which was necessary for progress
You are precisely right. Einstein said almost exactly back in papers meant for lay persons who are unfamiliar with the math.
@@bobbarclay3203 thank you good sir
No, not quite. If we look at SR/GR - at first glance they contradict each other and both eventually break given a small enough scale of things. (SR supports the idea that earth is flat and GR inherently requires the earth be round). Paradoxically, we find that the earth is both flat and round. The earth is flat on the smaller scale of things as is evidenced by our every =day observations - that is until you get far enough away from it to realize that because of scale, the "flatness" is really "roundness". Rather, the same way - quantum mechanics requires a finitely small enough scale before the theory can work, where GR/SR requires a finitely large enough scale to work. Therefore, there is most likely an extension of theory that appears to refute both GR and SR on its face, but will only occupy a scale of things that preciesly fits between GR/SR and quantum mechanics as to form a joint between the two in the same way that there is a joint between GR/SR. If GR/SR explains how things the size of planets behave, and quantum mechanics explain how things the size of electrons behave, the question becomes what about a scale of things which is of a size that fits a territory that is too small for GR/SR but too large for SR/GR? I think the trick will be to first identify the precise point that GR/SR breaks down and likewise the precise point that quantum mechanics breaks down as to then define the space in which a third theory must then operate. Rather, it is wise to first determine the size of the hand before attempting to find a latex glove that will properly fit it.
The 2nd postulate is absurd.
When quantum physics says 1 electron going through a slit is the same as 2, then it is equally absurd - that simply doesn't happen.
Both parties are mathematically deluded!
@@hosh1313 Physics does not say a single electron moves through both slits. What goes through the holes cannot be seen as physical objects, but as the mathematical representation of the electron. The representation is called the wave function. The wave function is a a set of forces that cannot be seen as physical things, but only envisioned as pure mathematics. The effect does happen, the only explanation in traditional physics is that the electron goes through both holes. The explanation in Quantum physics is that the wave function goes through both slits. I prefer to think that what goes through the slits is the electromagnetic effect of the electron on the screen, which displays one result when a detector is added, and another when no detector is present.This is also not true, but works somewhat as an analogy, as long as you dont take it too far.
Has someone that has not studied more than high school physics, i find your explanations very easy to understand. I love to see this kind of content, and hope someday will reach an unified theory that works.
Ok so summarise why general relativity can’t be true in less than 40 words.
@@maalikserebryakov Because I said so.
I believe a unified field theory that works exists. It is commonly referred to as consciousness. The theoretical physics community is not ready for that yet. Thus, it is easier to say “we are still looking.” It is identical to someone who says “I’ll never find the love of my life,” then when their consciousness (or self-consciousness) changes, voila, the love of their life appears.
Because they understand the subject they are talking about so well, very smart people like her can explain something complex to not so smart(me) and very smart(definitely not me) people using basic words.
@@maalikserebryakov Well, general relativity doesn't sit well with quantum mechanics. This is because in quantum mechanics, an electron goes through both slits simultaneously in the double slit problem. However since electrons have mass and mass will bend spacetime and produce gravitational pull as per the general relativity, the problem arises which place will the gravitational pull go? This is not a fully solved problem even now but it does prove that the general relativity is incomplete. In addition, general theory of relativity breaks down at singularity, places where general relativity predicts infinite energy density for example at the center of our galaxy (a black hole) and at the time of big bang. The 3rd problem has to do with Hawking radiation emitting out of black holes: once the black hole is gone and radiation is all you have left you can never know what was in the black hole. This loss of information is incompatible with quantum theory.
Basically all these are examples of various theories being incompatible with each other in specific situations, thus requiring a more "general" general theory of relativity.
Quantum mechanics does NOT tell us that an electron goes through two slits at once. We have interpretations in which "going through two slits" is part of the explanation, but we DO NOT know what the electron is doing.
Also, that our mathematics cannot handle singularities does not imply that General Relativity is wrong and therefore Quantum Mechanics is the answer. It simply means that General Relativity is incomplete or needs to be replaced. Inserting Quantum mechanics into that process is like saying that because cars run out of petrol we can only travel by airplane.
And finally, attempting to apply informational theories to spacetime is ridiculous. There is zero evidence that spacetime is quantified. Assuming it has to be is willingly wearing a blindfold.
Just as we know Relativity is incomplete, we also know that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete. Perhaps we should be utilizing our intelligence and imagination to explore the holes in our theories before we exclaim that one group of theories needs to be subjugated to another group of theories.
Well said
Check mate
So do you favor pilot wave theory?
@@BatEatsMoth No. I like it as it renders complex ideas into something that we can easily wrap our brains around, but like all interpretations of Quantum Mechanics we cannot prove it is the "correct" interpretation. That said, there are other interpretations I like simply because they are extremely weird.
EDIT: Here's a great 60 Symbols vid of Sean Carroll talking about QM interpretations: ruclips.net/video/ZacggH9wB7Y/видео.html
I’ve found that a lot of physicists do not actually understand the Copenhagen interpretation. most, of course, do not need to. it’s when they pretend that they do that irks me.
A more accurate title would be "Why general relativity is an incomplete theory"
As a great statistician once said "All models are wrong. But some are useful."
@@obsoleteboomermobileobsole2043 Seems somewhat accurate for all fields of apllied mathematics.
Glad you were on top of it. Thanks
I think you mean "Why GR and Quantum Mechanics are incomplete". Why does everyone pick on GR when Quantum theory is equally unable to describe gravity at small scales.
@@TheCoyoteWayOverland Good point. We will only have a complete model when all physical models are consolidated into one universal model.
You have put a lot of effort in making this video. It is highly informative and enlightening for people like me who have not studied physics in depth. Please accept my sincere gratitude.
Watched for a second time, 4 years later. Those infinities keep revisiting me! Fascinating as ever, thank you Sabine.
I’ve know of the necessity of finding quantum gravity for a while now, but this video has brought the addition of the double slit issue to my attention. Thank you for creating such an informative and wonderful video!
I didn't understand why the double slit is an issue for General relativity. Please, can you explain it?
@@positivelycurvedpikachu I think in this case (as I interpret it from the video), the problem comes from the fact that general relativity doesn't address how an electron going through a double slit interacts with/creates a gravitational field, since in theory the electron is in two different places simultaneously during that process. Because general relativity doesn't address quantum particles, we can't use it to make an assertion about where the electron generates its gravitational field when it is in such a quantum state (whereas a more complete, universal theory should always be able to find the answer in every case).
@@positivelycurvedpikachu First off the double split is insanity. Light being able to be a wave, which isn’t a thing btw, and a particle at the same time is dumb. We need to bring back the aether for sure before this gets anymore out of control. 2 things cannot be possible based on outside observations according to relativity. This is the only thing I agree with Einstein about. Quantum is dumb and not possible. Yet relativity is just a bandaid to keep your model afloat as well as many many other excuses based solely on philosophy of the Copernican principle. He is wrong, yet all science since then has decided to ignore any and all experimental results that are contradictory to Heliocentrism
@@positivelycurvedpikachu If everyone here actually went back to the history of science after Copernicus and note what happened in regard to experiemental results and the blatant plugging of holes in your model, you would see that it’s all total bs. If you all understood relativity, moreso special relativity, you would understand it’s a purposely complicated theory proposed only to explain away results that kill your model. There has been a lot of this throughout the years even before Copernicus, where things were proposed or changed so that the model would live on. Anyone interested in this let me know and I’ll post a handful of times this has happened. Heliocentrism is not reality, at the very least we’re geocentric and it’s provable if you dismiss the nonsensical excuses that, were again, chosen based SOLELY on philosophical grounds and preference rather than actual scientific reasoning.
@@RegisTerSlow yes! please share
I found your channel just a few days ago. It is obvious you have extraordinary mind and a talent for expresing with a great clarity and precision.
Well said!
😊wow, clear structured information. A pleasure to see and hear Sabine
Will I take 5 minutes out of my day to learn about physics? Absolutely.
Informative and to the point.
She basically does not understand physics. She is not a genius. Here are the facts. THE THEORETICAL, CLEAR, AND UNIVERSAL BALANCING OF E=MC2 AS F=MA:
Ultimately and truly, time is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, time DILATION proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) I have mathematically unified and BALANCED physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 is necessarily AND CLEARLY F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. INDEED, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. Great. It is CLEARLY AND FULLY proven in what is a BALANCED fashion. E=mc2 IS F=ma. In fact, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is CLEARLY proven.
It is a very great truth in physics that the ability of thought to DESCRIBE OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.) INDEED, E=mc2 IS DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS time dilation proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, ultimately and truly, time is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. In fact, INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY.
Consider the man who is standing on what is the Earth/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. SO, the mathematical unification of Einstein's equations AND Maxwell's equations (given the addition of A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION) proves that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY.
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 What the fuck are you talking about?
As a nuclear physicist, i appreciate very much how you translate the formulas into a narrative that elucidates the non technical audience, but remains remarkably intact in accuracy of meaning. I highly recommend for everyone interested in the wonders of this amazing level of reality that we are bound to. Thank you Sabine.
As an Aspiring Physics Enthusiast with an Autodidactic Desire to fill the Glaring Gaps in my Education, this Channel has been invaluable in rectifying my Science Illiteracy. She does a Great Job of making it easier for an Amateur like myself to understand Concepts that are beyond my Meager Grasp of the Subject.
Impressive. No lensing around planets of the solar system. No lensing around stars behind our sun every day. No lensing of the trillions of stars in the universe. Just galaxy lensing. That is called dust and water diffraction. Of 20 lens objects out of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion is impressive to you, keep in mind that statistically your model defines nothing but noise.
As a high-school drop out-
e•lu•ci•date
Verb
- to make clear; explain.
"-Sabine's ability to elucidate any subject matter is uncanny."
@@pariah_carey One of the gaps in your education is learning not to use capitalization improperly.
@@steviesevieria1868 I was actually an English Major. So, I am WELL aware of the Technical Incorrectness of my Personal Capitalization Habits, but I assure you that it is VERY much intentional.
I apologize if you experienced Discomfort at the Unfamiliar Sight of my Avant-garde Style.
But alas, that is the Nature of pushing the Boundaries of Acceptable Syntax and Grammar. 🤷♂️
The background image is WILD and MIND-BENDING!
they got you.
You share your knowledge quite effectively, emphasis on the word 'share', which makes you an excellent instructor. Thanks and Cheers
Great video.
I think that what General relativity did to Newtonian physics another theory (maybe quantum gravity?) may do the same thing to Einstein’s theory. It doesn’t mean that is something wrong with it. It’s been invaluable in the progress of physics. Same thing with Quantum mechanics. As we learn more and more of particles and the universe, we can come up with better theories or improvements to the existing ones that will cover some of the gaps on the existing ones. That’s what science is about. Making progress, destroying paradigms, expanding our understanding and knowledge. Great respect for the scientist who with open mind work to get us closer to this goal. One of my children is a biochemist and works in a research area of a University in Michigan. One of my nephews is a doctor in mathematics and is also working in a research university in Germany. Very glad that my family is part of that process.
you get it
Cool. I received my PhD in Mathematics in '92. Semi - retired now.
Reinhold Von Treffencaunbowz, PhD
Love your videos! So well explained and understandable!
Explanation with visualization is simple, straightforward, & powerful. Einstein was a genius & made a great contribution. He is lucky to face a new direction of improvement of his theory by collective minds of his many admirers.
I'm not an admirer. he's a bafoon who just made up a bunch of nonsense.
@@qweqqweq2090 lmfao okay
@@qweqqweq2090 General Relativity has been confirmed in every single test run; it's not nonsense, and without it, GPS wouldn't work.
@@LoveOverwhelming Are you sure about that?
Einstein was a meat headed plagiarizing cousin marrying falacy factory .
He destroyed theoretical physics. Now everyone of you accept falacious 'evidence' as evidence. There has not been one postulate proven with the scientific method. Show me how you bent and warped spacetime to prove the bending and warping of spacetime.
Show me where you measured a contraction or dilation.
Oh ya , can't do that either .
Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.
Nikola Tesla
Modern physics classes only have about 10 students at a university of 45,000. But a RUclips video on physics attracts millions of experts.
just read this fascinating take on the issue "The barrier between these two theories is when we start to approach the present moment in time. The past is observable and measurable therefore predictable, and the future is unobservable and can only be probabilistic. When we look out into the universe we are looking into the past. That is why GR works so well. But when we are looking at particles it becomes unpredictable because we are making observations too close to the present moment and too close to the unobservable future."
I love your channel. You do real science and talk about things most others rarely talk about - like this topic. This is the first time I've heard from anyone that the General Relatively may not be entirely accurate.
Because it is, this video is just showing in which cases GR is not compatible with QM. We can change the title to "Why Quantum Mechanics can't be quite right" and the results will be the same.
Is this your first video? lol
@@joaquinmatacastillo7554 Both are not quite right, because both have problems with singularities; this is not merely about incompatibility, but about a fundamental flaw.
@@LoveOverwhelming yeah, both have flaws, but she's telling people that GR is the flawed one just because it is incompatible with QM. That's the problem.
@@joaquinmatacastillo7554 no, that's the exact point. Both of them fail when merged, meaning both have problems.
But how do we know that the problem here is with general relativity and not quantum mechanics, since the latter has more problems and dubious things in it than general relativity?
When you get it all figured out, let me know.
cuz quantum mechanics has experimental proof
@@hasanalmonem5713 Actually relativity theory arguably has better proof than quantum mechanics do.
@@psychohist yes, in general it does..but not in this issue I think..i am no expert..just a casual reader..so I may be wrong
@@hasanalmonem5713 General relativity has GPS to prove it. You literally depend on the theory every time your phone depends on your location. Quantum has its own widespread pratical applications as well, such as computer circuitry that depends on it. But quantum is weird as heck and has very little that's observable visually. My _intuition_ is to doubt the completeness of our quantum interpretations and models first because frankly they make no freakin' sense.
Brilliant! Thank you for your cogent and concise explanation of such a difficult and, sometimes misunderstood, topic.
Once I figured out that “meta” was actually “matter,” it started to make sense.
lol yeah that spazzed me for a minute too
Subtitles saved me on that one.
Oh, yeah, you mean instead of MADDER?
Is this some sort of English joke I'm too cosmopolitan to understand?
Kurington Kuriton No, just vowel shifts in language.
Very much appreciate the explanation. It's refreshing to see a video involving physics and cosmology that admits what we don't know, even with a very well-supported theory, rather than stating that theory as if it was indisputable fact. Thank you!
Very much love your lectures...
Thank you for all you reveal and breakdown for the layman who can't do the math...
pathetic simp comment
I love how everybody considers whether or not relativity is correct but nobody considers whether or not quantum physics is correct or not
It's a numbers game. They both give super accurate predictions within their limmits.
I think not understanding what a singularity truly is at the center of a black hole isn't a good enough reason to assume Einstein was wrong.
@@joshuasweeny3737that is even if black holes even exist 😑I have realized they may not 😐the way galaxies work is like hurricanes as their physical properties are somewhat the same 😐
Exactly, and in newer videos, Sabine herself seems to question quantum theory, and prefers superdeterminism that completely undermines it, I do too.
we have confirmed that Black holes indeed exist
@@jettmthebluedragon
Sabine, I wish you a happy life and many more subscribers. Totally in love with your brain.
Haa! Liar!
Butt SMOOCHER ALERT!
Looks like RUclips algorithm thinks I'm an intellectual and suggested this. Great honor and good to be here 👍
ps: I did NOT understand this video at all 🤫😂
PBS Space Time & Isaac Arthur.
You'll love it.
@@unintentionallydramatic WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY:
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.)
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!!
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!!
The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216
Take your meds.
@@frankdimeglio8216 We don't live in an electric universe. It's been debunked countless times. You sound like a lunatic typing like that. Learn some internet decency.
@@Gandhi_Physique TIME DILATION IS FULLY EXPLAINED, AS THE ULTIMATE MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS CLEARLY PROVEN:
A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, as C4 is a POINT that is ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (ON BALANCE) as SPACE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. E=mc2 IS F=ma. A planet AND a star thus constitute what is A POINT in the night sky. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ACCORDINGLY, I have ALSO fully explained the MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION of Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations (GIVEN THE ADDITION OF A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The Sun AND the Earth are F=ma AND E=mc2. Great. SO, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. AGAIN, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Indeed, this NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (E=mc2 IS F=ma.) Therefore, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times consistent WITH/AS E=MC2, F=MA, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. E=mc2 IS F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) E=MC2 IS F=ma. Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Magnificent !!!
By Frank DiMeglio
Thank tou Sabine for the clearest explanation I have ever heard regarding this issue! J. D. German, former Prof. of Physics at the U.S. Air Force Academy.
Do you sign all of your messages?
Excellent observations about physics profession. I'd been tempted before, but now I must buy your book. It reinforces something sad for me. I graduated with a degree in physics but spent my whole career in computing instead. Now, sadly, I'm glad I did not spend the last 40 years in physics.
They just created a wormhole. It's a good time to go to physics
She said at the end, this has been known since the 1930s. It has taken almost 100 years for some one to finally explain it this well. Bravo and thank you for this fine explanation
Einstein may not have won the game but he took us far ahead in the game. It will take another super genius and creative mind like his to solve singularity.
@Donald Kasper Lol, a random nobody on RUclips calling one of the brightest mind in physics and cosmology an idiot, while his GR has been confirmed in the macro state, over and over. You and your electric universe cult are the idiots who have provided NOTHING to science.
Donald Kasper
A know-it-all that knows nothing.
@Donald Kasper you couldn't come up with the idea of general relativity had you existed in his day and time. Go back to your chores peasant, your contributions in life for now and in the future are of insignificance.
@Donald Kasper And you're an idiot that doesn't realise that RUclips exposes charlatans, the gullible and the slow minded for what they are.
scitechdaily.com/astronomers-observe-the-birth-of-a-massive-star-in-the-milky-way/
I really enjoy Ms. Hoseenfelder's videos. A question occurred to me as I listened. Why is the defect, or defects, necessarily with GR? Why a defect with quantum mechanics?
I may not have authority to say this, as I haven't studied either subject in depth, but my guess is that it might be easier to assume a defect with general relativity. How would one go about using general relativity to explain particle interactions and superpositions? How would general relativity explain entanglement? However, it would be much easier to try and create a new type of boson, and by result a field, which describes gravity with the same or possibly greater accuracy than general relativity. Again, this is all my guess, so you should probably take it with numerous grains of salt.
my gut feeling is that QFT has extreme predicting power, while we have found incongruities with general relativity on large scales. i don't know how true that is, however
It's because the GR equations themselves break down when trying to apply to the quantum scale (would be useful for figuring out how the early universe and black holes work). You get infinities that cannot be taken out so they aren't useful at all. Quantum mechanics also can't describe gravity at that scale so I guess you could call it a defect with that too
There are 4 fundamental forces.
Gravity
EM
Strong Nuclear
Weak Nuclear
Quantum Mechanics explains the last 3 but the first. GR explains the first one but not the last theory.
This is why a lot of people assume gravity needs to be quantized. There's a hypothesis called Quantum Loop Gravity.
But the one hypothesis that's widely acceptable is String Theory.
You are correct. The problem lies with quantum theory. We know both theories are incorrect by themselves. But quantum is a subset of relativity.
I learned so much from this video. I hope you do more like it in the future! I enjoy your more topical (and humorous) videos, but you're a great educator. The way you presented this information in a clear matter-of-fact manner is wonderful!
Best 5min physics lecture I have ever experienced Sabine, totally sublime !
Ma'am you are so smart. Thank you for this amazing video.
Thanks Sabine for explaining these difficult subjects with simple diagrams. You can enhance communication of the subject by allowing your demo diagrams to dominate the background on the board instead of the unrelated design pattern.
don't be picky now
My name isn’t N
I've been trying to read a lot about these sorts of things and it's very interesting to hear you explain it so simply. With the new discovery of creating mass, as in new quarks, from and electronic field it makes me wonder if the other dimensions we can't see that are extremely small are altered much more by mass in our 4 dimensions we see every day.
Yes it does seem as if physics is explained in terms of 3D only.
I've been suspecting for years, now, that "Pure Time" as dimensions, is also a 3D entity, just like our view of "Space" is 3D... That would give us 6 full dimensions between the two. The trouble (as I see it so far) is that while we can experience the results of traveling through Time in any direction, the exact assignment of and X,Y,Z-concept to Time is much more difficult to calculate or quantify, even if they do exist.
We can only get older, as we travel through Time, and it's entirely possible that it won't matter what directional vector through Time we choose (if we can even take that power of choice/agency)...
It might also suggest how the Universe is sized and shaped (roughly at my stage of understanding)... If the Universe is actually only limited in Scale to being about 15 Billion YEARS across, then the furthest we can ever visibly see is about 15 Billion Lightyears, since any longer and the light particles slip out of the universe or bump against the "walls" which only exist in Time "substance" but still have effects in the material-space of reality that we CAN directly interact with... The effect would be similar to standing in the center of an enormous colloseum in the dark with only one lit candle. The light can only travel out such that YOU can perceive so far, even if you know for a fact where you are and what's around you... You simply can't directly SEE it... OR maybe something like a "haze" that permanently enshrouds the surroundings, whether or not you hypothesize what lies "beyond", not terribly unlike the microwave background currently (dubiously?) assigned as the residual of the "Big Bang"... only, according to the same proponents of the Big Bang, the universe "is still banging"...
I don't know all the answers... AND this is just a CRUDE suspicion, I've been toying at for a while, more resolving things "graphically" than through any pure math... SO a grain of salt and all that. Maybe there's a "Big-brain" out there who finds it interesting enough to run with it... or even take her for a slow meander. haha... :o)
How do you know that new quarks and creating mass actually happens , physically ?
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 time though is not a real dimension . Not a real physical dimension . Meaning that eliminating time does eliminate space nor the physical ( the periodic table ) . Both of which are three dimensional in and of themselves . Without time .
Here lectures are generally great! Few people are able to express complex concepts in such a clear way as she does!
But in this case, I disagree with a lot that is stated.
Simply postulating that Quantum Theory is right and General Relativity is wrong so, therefore, Quantum Theory needs to be extended by Quantum Gravity and General Relativity discarded with is not a very scientific approach. Until we have a theory that works for both we will see how much of GR versus QT was correct or perhaps they were both wrong and are replaced by something else.
Also, the claim that in a double-slit experiment an unmeasured photon goes through both slits is not substantiated by evidence. The reality is that we do not know what happens, let alone how the wave function relates to gravity! There is no experiment that shows a photon actually goes through both slits. Yes, the calculation requires the wave function to consider both slits but the wavefunction is not necessarily an expression of what physically happens.
Also, the expression that a singularity is a problem and an indication a theory is incorrect or at least incomplete is going a bit too far.
Agreed, since the quantum function results in a complex number that seems to be the mystery, on what the heck that means. Probability is a hack.
My understanding of the double slit experiment is that the photon acts as both a particle or a wave and is altered by the act of observation
The double slit experiment has been proven by various methods.
@@bngr_bngr Nobody is questioning the outcomes of the double slit experiment. The issue is the statement: "an unmeasured photon goes through both slits"
@@mattk1358 Exactly!
I always had a suspicion there was something not quite right with my relatives. ^^
I love this comment. Hahhaa
@Science Revolution Simply put you know nothing.
I have the feeling that you have kind of misunderstanding of the theory of relativity, I cann' t belam you, I think nobody understands it .
@Science Revolution You believe a theory you have found on a flat earth or conspiracy theory site. Thie electric world has been disproven over and over and over and over and over and over again. You believe a theory without proof or math. Just 100% stupid mixed with worlds you don't understand and some misunderstanding of Tesla's most idiotic ideas.
@Science Revolution Now you are spamming
*"Quantum mechanics tells us that the particle goes through both slits at the same time."* < It does? Said who? Niels Bohr? The Copenhagen interpretation is but one solution out of many. David Deutsch would disagree, and he's hardly a dummy.
someone paid attention, thanks
I agree with you
@@hmJgyinPlM The relational _interpretation_ is just that, an interpretation. Quantum mechanics doesn't *say* what's happening, it presents a riddle, open to interpretation. Personally, I don't favor the MWI promoted by Deutsch, *Hawking,* and many others, however I cannot rule it out. It would be just as flawed to claim that quantum mechanics tells us that the MWI is true. I lean much further towards the interpretation she's promoting myself, by the way.
"Quantum mechanics tells us that the particle goes through both slits at the same time." -- What particle? Electromagnetic radiation is a wave that sometimes gets approximated as a particle from time to time.
@@gilian2587 its not particularly relevant whether particles ‘really’ exist or not. Like phonons, they are a useful way to describe the mechanics. Quantum fields are not compatible with general relativity because the matter, which is needed to describe the spacetime curvature, has no defined location and so there is no way to properly describe the curvature in a quantum scale. Quantum theories are also non-local which is another conflict with GR.
Exceptional summary
Sabine, thank you for another short clear video.
If GR and QM are incompatible, then there should be some circumstances in which they make different predictions. Arranging those circumstances is then an experiment to tease out data to refine the theories. Surely there has been significant work towards this goal. Can you make a video telling us about that work?
Unfortunately the only circumstances we can think of where the two theories would produce an observable conflict would be extreme conditions like particle-sized black holes. Unless nature is obliging enough to present us with one, we aren't going to be able to rely on observation.
@Dr Deuteron I didn't mean inside the black holes, I meant just outside the horizon of quantum-scale black holes. Which is tantamount to asking how the two theories behave at extremely high energy scales. It's observable _in principle_, we just haven't stumbled across a real-world example that would allow us to work back from observations to a unified theory.
@Dr Deuteron The big problem is: quantum theory gave us the best matching theoretical and experimental results of any physics theory (including GR) and it doesn't include gravitational interactions or interference (like gravity doesn't exist on that scale), in fact if you try to apply gravity as a force (as the standard model sugests it shoud be), the interactions between gravitons and other particles generate a infinite loop of energy, creating infinite black holes.
I think the big problem is describing space itself, if we could describe space in the quantum level, we would be able to explain why gravity is so weak, why it seems to stop working on quantum scales and maybe Einstein's Equations would come from approximations due to scale factors, just like the galilean transformations for motion were an aproximaximation for Lorentz transformations in low speeds.
Wow thank you. I appreciate your elucidation of singularities being an indication that the current working theory is not fundamental. I have been watching videos about black holes and your video finally gives my curiosity some useful closure.
Sabine, another great explanation of Physics. As a physicist and micro biologist myself, I think you are so important in promoting the exciting Pandora's box of the world around us.. Bravo!
What is exciting about Pandora's box?
How can you be physicist and micro biologist at the same time?
And how much time after your 12th class you devoted in both fiieds in just study?
That must be very long time bec in just doing grad and post grad...it takes 7 8 or even 9 years....pl answer
@@AB-zg5vy If you cannot figure it out then you clearly do not understand. I am retired, throughout my career I have been in both camps and went to excellent schools when young that set me on these speciality tracks. I have worked in Gov research since young. That is all you will get.
@@vernonfrance2974 investigate science and you might just find out. With every answer in science comes more questions. Never dull, always challenging current models of thought.
Probably not very good at either profession
Hi, I am from the future.
This is a great video, but it's wonderful to see Sabine's progression simply as a You-tube presenter. It's hard to believe even those people good at their professions can improve over time.
Ikr. I’m all how is Elon going to call with out a ☎️
That was a stunning background.
And a stunning outfit...
Its a great video. You explained very well, and clear.
Every thing was clear.
Thank you.
Except it is all false. Just more fantasy.
Her claims are wrong
@@Steve-go8yr please explain breifly.
subscribed! you talk like a scientists/educator, not a journalist/vlogger. makes me feel im in a classroom, learning mode switched on. thanks!
I've known meny information from this video but it's nice that we can find all these informations in one video. Thank you for clear explanation.😊
Lovely way of conveying technical subjects elegantly and understandably. Thank you.
I frickin love science especially astronomy, physics, the union that is astrophysics, cosmology, QM, QT, and GUT/TOEs.
Go into engineering -- you'll have a better chance at feeding yourself.
I know! astrology is awesome. I'm a gemini
@@wakemeup9343 ... okay
@@wakemeup9343 I'm a sagittarius.
@@warkunitale /r/woosh
Clearly explained! Keep up the good work!
It's like your software developer criticize von Newman of his invention of a slow computer compared to what he's using today. Rephrase it to "thanks to the genius of Einstein, we can now understand better his theory of GR", that's because everyone is considering himself a scientist today.
Gravity seems more so like an emergent effect. I get the feeling that trying to quantise gravity may be a red herring.
I feel the same way, but I'm also just a philosopher and not a physicist, so I'm not sure why physicists think it's a worthwhile pursuit
Bro thought he solved physics in the RUclips comment section
@@stevelarry3870 Scientific breakthroughs can begin anywhere. 😊
@@Ytremz They definitely aren't going to occur here my man.
@@coreysherman2143 Because it offers a way forward, where as "it's an emergent effect maybe!" doesn't.
For someone like me for whom so much of this stuff is over his or her head... Yet has a curiosity whose appetite "snacks" on a lot of it... Such people as Sabine (and Victor Toth on Quora) who are as knowledgeable as they are and explain as concisely well as they do to laymen are very satisfying. They not only know their "nuts & bolts", they connect dots and have illuminating insight into what they explain. Very satisfying and whets the appetites of "snackers" like myself for more. Kudos and thanks.
This video is absolute nonsense. According to Fields Medal winner and the greatest living mathematical physicist, Ed Witten, somebody whose physics acumen far exceeds Sabinr Hossfelder, General Relativity is the ONLY theory ever invented - before or since - that can account for WHY gravity obeys an inverse square law. Newton's theory couldn't do that. This was a HUGE clue to actual geniuses like Dirac and Witten, not this clown Hossfelder, that General Relativity must be true. This aspect of General Relativity, which she CONVENIENTLY omits in this post-hoc riddled video, gives it universal credibility amongst REAL physicists even as we look for a Theory of Everything.
General Relativity is 100% CORRECT for the observational scope we have. She might as well titled this video "How we Know Quantum Mechanics is Not Quite Right" seeing as there as just as many open, unsolved questions in Quantum Mechanics (if not more) than there are in General Relativity. And thus far not one single theory of quantum gravity has any scientific consensus unless you count String Theory.
This has to be the worst video Sabine has ever made. 100% Click Bait Trash, it gives the impression that General Relativity has been falsified and it has NEVER BEEN FALSIFIED. Any problems with the theory are very abstract and non-empirical. I repeat, Quantum Mechanics has just as many problems, if not more, than General Relativity.
This is the one area of science where the human brain really shows its kung fu... to be able to develop a new kind of intuition to understand this subject...very fascinating. It really feels like gravity is not only bending light, but also the mind. Physics is as much a science as it is an art. Thank you for sharing this wonderful knowledge with us!
By far the best and simplest video I’ve ever seen on this topic. Thank you.
Attracted by title, even though I knew I wouldn’t understand a single word
I love the way she says Einstein. We live in a country full of people from other countries, unless you're living in another country. LOL
@@vernonvouga5869 😂. It takes a lot of studies and hard work to begin to understand what she is explaining. But physics is not for everyone, and it doesn't have to be. There are many other things to learn like finance or medicine.
@@lutherhoward7637 I've had a passion that started with astronomy and branched out into physics since i was young. Vortexes are my favorite intrest... i mean, literally everything in nature follows a vortex in one way or another
@@vernonvouga5869 I wish everyone would take some interest in nature like you have. It increases your neurons like lifting weights for your brain.
@@lutherhoward7637 haha, when i was a cable man a few years ago on breaks... i found it a fascinating thought experiment to think about how thin the earths atmosphere is and the fact that its weight is what keeps us together
0:19 wow, a side-moon-walk! 🙂
I'm just glad that she took the time and energy yo exp in it to us in a condensed format!😅
And that she did it in this online space that the whole world gravitates to.
WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY:
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.)
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!!
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!!
The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@Antonocon WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY:
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.)
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!!
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!!
The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
By Frank DiMeglio
me too i think my brain is expanding.
I love that Sabine’s English accent sometimes veers into Aussie English in this early video. ❤
Thank you. My head hurts in the best way possible. It's fun to think about these universe scale concepts!
I always thought general relitivity was right and the problem was in quantum mechanics. Superposition may be wrong. The Copenhagen interpretation may be wrong as Schrodinger described.
This seems like a much more popular view from what I've seen of current greats in the field
Sabine seems to have a very narrow view that she is right absolutely which I get from most of her videos, when talking about disputed things. She gives some nice general info on physics, but has a pretty poor presentation of the science.
I completely agree. Tim Maudlin puts the point well when he says that quantum mechanics is not a theory but rather a recipe for making calculations. It does not specify a self-consistent ontology for space and time - especially the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. GR is a thing of beauty, precisely because it specifies an ontology so well and so completely. She has unfortunately got the wrong end of the stick on this video.
Superposition has been shown to be extremely accurate, though that doesn't mean it's "right". The Copenhagen interpretation has been basically disproven.
I also see QM as a math tool that describes and predicts what happens to atom-scale objects but I don’t like Coppenhagen interpretation. Very anti intuitive
Have you ever heard of Pilot Wave theory?
@@psychohist :0 how it was disproven? I am interested. Do you have the article?
I find it works well enough to get me from one planet to another. - Klaatu
Sabine is my hero and amongst the people who broke me free of the particle cult!
I'm quite unhappy with the rubbersheet "model" as it's quite useful to visualize _potential_ (and not only gravitational but electric as well) but when it comes to the curvature of spacetime, it *doesn't even lead to the right direction* of understanding what GR means by spacetime being curved.
First: The rubbersheet stands for space rather than spacetime because a heavy body symbolizes a heavy body sitting in one place.
Second: A marble rolling along the sheet will follow what the "down" direction is just as a body in a gravitational field tends to the lower potential regions. If we bent the sheet upwards instead of downwards, the marble would roll _away_ from the center just as an equally charged particle would be repelled. It would *not* follow the sheet's _curvature_ anyway.
*A much better model* for what GR means by curvature of spacetime is - Earth's surface. Let's compare lines along it to world lines, where great circles stand for geodesic world lines, i.e. world lines of inertial bodies.
In a "flat" surface (including a cylinder's mantle which is bent but geometrically flat as well), parallel lines stay parallel, and so do parallel geodesic world lines in a space workout measurable gravity.
Within a positively curved surface or spacetime, even geodesics parallel at some place tend to meet each other, just as the meridians (which are parallel at the equator) do at the poles.
See Quantum Gravity appear to move the host from side to side of the video.
🤣
haha, yes she tried to live out the double slit experiment and be at two places at once., but failed... and thus won't get fringe benefits.
I discovered the quantum theory of gravity yesterday evening in my bathtub, but decided not to publish it. It’s too triggering.
its of electric nature. could lead into that the earth is flat :/
Kind of like Fermat's last theorem.😁
@@ematarkus4121 So 2+2=5? Electrical nature leads to Earth being round. The magnetic field is not flat. Everyone knows that Flat Earthers do not exist. They are bored NASA employees with a predilection for online pranks. We all know that Flat Earth is an obvious aerospace hoax.
you did well hahaha
I know the secret gravity is anti-feminist if you exposed it gravity would be canceled and we would all die
She is so amazing at explaining such deep problems. Sign of someone who truly understands their domain!
Why is general relativity the one that ought not to be quite right, and not quantum mechanics?
Ok, I shut up and calculate, sorry.
Exactly my thought.
Hossenfelder is a Quantum Gravity proponent. Essentially her work argues for this as an alternative to String Theory. I don't take a side as I left physics for CS long ago and was never a theorist.
@mxt mxt they are both wrong when goes 0,00000000000001 accord, people are very close brake that barrier, we have super computers to calculate things einstein could even dream
You can ask the question. Maybe they can both be right, they work well together but the theories does not. So we have a blurred view of their interaction that we can not see. They can be expressions of dark matter of which we can't see.
None of them are wrong. Both are probably incomplete. General relativity is easier to modify without blowing up the universe.
Well - that was outstanding! Thank you!
you got to love the information density in this video. very informative and interesting video
As a Physicist I appreciate Ur presentation style..
By the same logic, we also know quantum theory can't be completely correct.
jmcsquared. I’d love to see Quantum Mechanics wrong and General Relativity right.
But maybe there’s something she didn’t explain that and makes her, or them, think otherwise.
@@desiderata8811 I actually think both theories will need to give a little bit before a quantum theory of gravity emerges. One that doesn't just presuppose the supremacy of either theory. In fact, recent research (see Susskind, Maldacena) suggests that the two theories are actually related in many ways.
I was thinking the same thing. Quantum Theory doesn't match General Relatively, so General Relativity must be wrong, says the particle physicist.
I wouldn't say not correct, more "incomplete".
jmcsquared. Both being incomplete but related is exactly what makes physicists nuts, and drives them to search a new theory to unify them.
From what I’ve seen String Theory is almost out of the game. It seems we are far from achieving something new.
Wait, I know this woman.
> Sprints to shelf
Oh yeah, that Book.
Read "Lost in Math". It's basically her dunking on her colleagues for 250 pages.
Love learning from polemicists :P that’s what made Lenin so awesome, he was keenly aware of what others were saying and thinking, and was always eager for debate
@@SameerGuptacatchymango wha-
Nerd
KLFHvuhwn0B(uvI***@*20djjjJ(JJCA)BOhijoks
@@SameerGuptacatchymango WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY:
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.)
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!!
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!!
The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
By Frank DiMeglio
Glad to have found this channel. It's been added to my list of physics channels!
I, however, wish that the flat sheet representing matter's effects on spacetime were replaced by the more accurate 3D models we can create now, which show matter pulling in spacetime and not pushing it down.
They should say space becomes compressed and time rarefied, space attracted and time repelled. People understand the atmosphere becomes more compressed closer to the earth and more rarefied further way, they also understand that aircraft fly faster further from the earth where the air is thin for less energy. If we think of space as atmosphere and inhibition to motion in an atmosphere as "time dilation" the basic idea will be understood in day to day terms.
its a good one I will suscribe she is a figure kind of laddy.
how about since all is light and light behaves as water dont we see it as a cicle and whene comes as rain is the one that makes the push¡?
This is such an incredible channel
Fantastic! I love the way Sabine explains highly complex concepts simply and with authority. Flaxen Saxon.
I love the way you pronounce "Einstein"
Another clear and lucid explanation that makes this fairly easy to understand.
Great channel, your delivery is calm, your voice easy to listen to, Thank You.
Sir Einstein was so great that still his theories can't be replaced😁❤️🙏
This video is absolute nonsense. According to Fields Medal winner and the greatest living mathematical physicist, Ed Witten, somebody whose physics acumen far exceeds Sabinr Hossfelder, General Relativity is the ONLY theory ever invented - before or since - that can account for WHY gravity obeys an inverse square law. Newton's theory couldn't do that. This was a HUGE clue to actual geniuses like Dirac and Witten, not this clown Hossfelder, that General Relativity must be true. This aspect of General Relativity, which she CONVENIENTLY omits in this post-hoc riddled video, gives it universal credibility amongst REAL physicists even as we look for a Theory of Everything.
General Relativity is 100% CORRECT for the observational scope we have. She might as well titled this video "How we Know Quantum Mechanics is Not Quite Right" seeing as there as just as many open, unsolved questions in Quantum Mechanics (if not more) than there are in General Relativity. And thus far not one single theory of quantum gravity has any scientific consensus unless you count String Theory.
This has to be the worst video Sabine has ever made. 100% Click Bait Trash, it gives the impression that General Relativity has been falsified and it has NEVER BEEN FALSIFIED. Any problems with the theory are very abstract and non-empirical. I repeat, Quantum Mechanics has just as many problems, if not more, than General Relativity.
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 you are so free man
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 How can space bend or shrink? Only if it is a thing, but if it is a thing, then it is somewhere, there is a boundary between a thing and the place it occupies, the place that things occupy is called space, which shows that what the Theory of Relativity calls space is not space. If he is not a thing, then he cannot bend or shrink, for he has no properties or limits, he is simply Nothing. Space is not a thing, but the absence of things, and it is precisely because it is the absence that things can occupy it. Time is not a thing either, it is just a measure of the movement of things. The fact that there is gravity, an invisible thing that bends and shrinks doesn't prove it's space, it could very well be unknown matter (perhaps dark matter?).
How does gravity curve space and time... I mean spacetime? Also can spacematter curve spacetime? How about darkmatter? Can space-energy curve time-matter? Can time-matter curve space-energy, and can space-time curve time-energy? If the conscious mind is so curved, than why does a ruler appear so straight??? 🤔... Just kidding. Man science is cool. I like Albert Einstien, in his time, he was a decent, smart-guy. He also believed in Jesus of Nazareth, that's pretty cool of him. 😇
@@williamandrewshermenegildo6886 This may be the most vague comment here my friend. The fact you said "thing" 11 times muddies the water extremely, the way I try to visualize it is space is a superfluous field, not anything (in the literal sense) "particular' (having or being a particle). I don't think GR postulates that spacetime is an object the way you describe it at all. An objects mass acts as a perturbation in the field, I agree its very hard to grasp, we can hardly even discuss this without a PHD and even then, no one knows what spacetime really IS, we just know how it acts. I can dimly see your point here. However I could say light is not a "thing" but the absence of "dark things", but it doesn't get us any closer to understanding its functionality its just trickery of language , you have to run with what you have an build from there, and right now bent spacetime is the closest thing we have to understanding its function in the universe.
Compared to the other forces of nature, gravitation is extremely weak. When you pick up a nail with a magnet, the magnetic force of that small magnet overcomes the gravitational force of the entire Earth. Interaction of gravity with other forces is therefore extremely hard to measure. It is possible to measure the gravitational field of something heavy, like lead spheres of the Cavendish experiment, but it's impossible to measure gravitational field of a quantum particle. And, if there are no reliable measurements, there can be no reliable theory.
That's why a huge and expensive experiment like LHC had to be built in order to prove the existence of Higgs Boson, for example. The road towards reconciliation of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics will be a hard & expensive one, I'm afraid, but, IMHO, this goal is definitively worth pursuing.
The same could be said for any scientist.
Bro depends on the density of the object. Try using magnetic force on the surface of a black hole lmao
@@peternguyen3645 Might be interesting indeed, especially around magnetar like black hole.
Not just smart as hell, my girl got style, too!
Thank you so much for the content, Dr. Hossenfelder! 💙 You make me smarter and the Universe just a wee bit clearer.
Surely, proof that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are inconsistent is not proof that General Relativity must be replaced, but rather proof that either QM or GR or both must be replaced.
Excellent - well done. Perhaps You are planning a similar review on why quantum mechanics like GR can't be quite right.
Also a big bang cosmology that depends on 4 % actual evidence and 96% on missing ("dark") evidence
@@billwesley Why would they care if there is evidence or not? Their salary doesn't depend on anything they say being related to the real world.
@@DinarAndFriends sadly apparently so. Its always about the good old boys club, especially where there are no good old girls we know there is something amiss.
All physical theories work in certain circumstances but become less accurate in others. This is because they are models. Each model captures a set of relationships of interest in one context, but there may be other contexts in which different sets of relationships, or dimensions become important.
"All physical theories work in certain circumstances but become less accurate in others. " - the semantic content of that is null - you have said exactly nothing.
@@JamesJoyce12 It's meaning is quite clear to anyone familiar with basic physics. Typically I am talking about scale. For example if you want to fire a bullet at a target Newton's law of gravitation is adequate to do it accurately. If you want to predict the orbit of Mercury then because of the intensity of the gravitational field you have to use Einstein's Theory. A flat Earth theory is ok for surveyors to plan a housing estate, but it is no good to calculate the fuel requirement or plot a course for a trans-Atlantic flight. Most people with a physics background would be familiar with this situation. The main point though is that no theory is universal, because there may be other dimensions to a situation being modelled which are not included in one theory. Any model focuses on certain features of interest, but leaves out others. Under other circumstances these features may prove important and you need to use a different model. Any model is a simplification of something not the thing itself. This is of course an advantage of a model as well as an imperfection.
@@JamesJoyce12 The semantic content of the first sentence may be null, but the whole quote is perfectly clear to me. Newton's laws of motion and gravity were perfectly adequate for his time and place, only becoming less accurate when people started to move faster than the speed of a horse, or steam locomotive. Or to communicate via telegraph or radio. Einstein's laws/theories provide a much better model when we start to deal with satellite communications, GPS and the universe on the large scale. However, the model breaks down at the interface between the very small and very large. One day it will be shown that Einstein's theories are just a better approximation to reality than Newton's, but neither is the final word. The important thing here is that all are models.
@@bhangrafan4480 You need to understand what a 'theory' is - my theory says that it will be 22.4 C outside - inevitably - at some time - it will be 22.4 C and it also fulfills your definition of a 'physical theory' but we would both agree it is not a theory - right?
@@JamesJoyce12 I don't really know what you are talking about. A theory is more than one point observation it is a set of relations between measurable quantities which have to be held up over a range of different measurements. Anyway the criterion of interest is falsification. If the the theory is proved FALSE on one occasion it is incorrect. Have you studied Karl Popper?
Wow! This scholar explains so much so well and so succinctly.
And she has no Nobel prize in here closet!
PLEASE make a post on the relation between DIV GRAD at finite density charge sources and the relation of this to gravitational curvature for finite density mass distributions. For zero charge density DIV GRAD X=0, while for mass the mass on a rubber sheet model suggests negative (Gaussian) curvature in the surrounding vacuum, suggesting DIV g
Wow, this just has put so many things into perspective for me regarding general relatively and such. I feel like it will never all fit together and in fact it’ll probably fit together even less the more we learn about quantum physics because regular physics is a projection of quantum physics which isn’t in the realm of time and space which is beyond the natural form of cause and effect in the way we know it. This is just my view though in my very limited understanding.
A singer and a researcher in quantum gravity, just perfect.
So glad I found this channel. Love your content.
I've known many of these informations but it's nice to find all informations in one video. We know that Einstein was in some things wrong. On the other hand, history of physics teaches us that we need a better theory. Thank you for clear explanation.😊❤
I love the way she says „generelativity“
U goof ball !!!
@@kenelliott8944 WHATCHU JUST CALL ME U BITCH
@@jarnovanderzee2469 Bye felicitia
I thought in quantum mechanics that, in the electron example, the electron isn’t actually in two places at once but rather our tools to observe at the quantum level are insufficient thus the best science can do is calculate all the possibilities of the movement of the electron in wave. And when we finally observe the actual placement of the electron it fits alongside one of the many possibilities calculated. Hopefully I’ve said this correctly.
From my limited knowledge there isn’t a consensus. Some argue we don’t know how to measure yet, others that it’s impossible because it’s inherently random.
No, it is inherently traveling through both. A single électron will Interfere with itself, which only happens when going through both slits.
The problem arises from people who are from older school of thought who still consider there to be things as "particles". It's all waves. There are no real "particles" as we tend to think of them. This is where people have trouble reconciling the double slit experiment. But what they mistake as a "particle" is simple a property of a larger wave pattern. Example for clarity, if you're standing in the ocean, you are in a larger body of water, but you also can detect what we colloquially call a "wave", a condensed portion of the water moving together, in that larger body of water. That "wave" is essentially what we think of as a "particle". It's a property of the larger body of matter. In the example, the larger body is the entire ocean, i.e. the electromagnetic field, and the "wave" is the electron moving in that field.
The double slit is not at odds with anything. It's all waves. Another reference for clarity is to consider "particles" as the harmonics, or standing waves, of larger EM field. The electrons are harmonic standing tones in a larger fluidic body that is the electromagnetic field. So in the double slit, the wave is going through both slits every time. It's just people tend to forget the rest of the electromagnetic field is there and they overfocus on the "particle", on the electron.
@@phoenixamaranth taking this further, does this allow us to consider the inevitable existence of a single wave function at very large distance and hence there is no spookiness in actions at large distance and that it will happen instantly ?.... the wave and other waves are 'already there'
It is true, that Hossenfelder might say that quantum physics is the wrong part. But Hossenfelder's approach is more than "theory of relativity vs. quantum physics". She doubts many concepts of the mainstream.
After nearly a century of failing to unify both columns of modern physics, doubts might be correct.
Me after watching PBS Spacetime: I have no idea what this means. I wonder if someone could explain it in layman's terms for a sad brain like mine.
Me after watching Sabine: Why yes, I do now understand the practical application of quantum mechanics. *adjusts monocle*