Fascinating subject. I've always asked myself, what if what our times call 'fundamental' or 'elementry' is just as arbitrary as thinking the sun revolves around the earth. Doesn't quantum field theory suggest that it is mereley the greatest common divisor of all complex systems. Thus itself _emerging_ as a top-down phenomena. The Lego Group began manufacturing the interlocking toy bricks in 1949. Coincidence that the Standard Model formed in the decades _after_ 1949? As your previous guest Edward Frenkel hinted at, maybe physical reality is just as much a patchwork as is math.
Do you mean academic pseudo science community, and police state surveillance and social media propaganda? Yes, 100%. The goal = manufacture pseudo science, steal others ideas, and propagate conflict amplification on social media, drive the plebs nuts. Maximizing the most friction against progress, while stepping on human rights to maintain relevant. You have been the king of that process, obscurantism in it's purest form, facilitated by data theft. Dumb social media influencer ape with new A.I and data analytics tools "Ape have new tool, ape bash you on head". Easily predictable. 😂
Turn the panopticon suffering machine on Curt, he thinks it's cool to harvest people's personal data and target his victims. Ape has new tool, and wants to bash his victims, show him the same love he shows his victim.
Given the logical progression of the spatial dimensions and the observations of our universe that align with the logical progression of the spatial dimensions and what would be expected if we are not in a 3 + 1 system of space-time so if a fourth spatial dimension exists the infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into any size four dimensional existence just given the logical progression of the spatial dimensions. With this we must deal with infinities just looking at the set from 0 dimensional to three-dimensional with each progression of the spatial dimensions infinite amounts of the previous dimension can stack into any size version of the next... Therefore it doesn't matter if you say you don't believe in an infinite set because infinite sets are part of our fundamental reality... Therefore coming to terms with it makes more logical sense...
The reason why 1×1=2 in our current mathematical system it's because if we don't do this and we follow the logic of 1×1=2 instead and use the Terrence Howard system then as we approach zero with our calculations you can see how their starts to have a curve which creates a massive disconnect in other words none of our mathematical systems here in our imperfect world can ever truly be perfect. Thus in order to create better mathematical structures we need to use the fundamental set conversion that I created and compare the two different models because where is the Terrence Howard system becomes less accurate when approaching zero it becomes more accurate when approaching in the opposite direction towards Infinity... When we overlay these two systems we can basically calculate the average of the two systems and make a median system that functions more accurately. we can still solve for the square root of two problem because just as multiplication was made to simplify chains of addition, division was made to simplify chains of subtraction so just as we put a plus one on the multiplication side we put a -1 on the division side so the √2 problem is no longer a problem and we maintain a Fibonacci spiral of the same rate. Thus 2÷1.41=1.41 now we subtract one, 1.41-1=0.41... this accounts for the plus one on multiplication side. If you use this Terrence Howard system you will see how it starts to fall apart when approaching zero and you get a massive curve that never really reaches zero... This bit of disconnect is usually repaired with our current mathematical system but instead it falling apart near zero it pushes that failure out towards Infinity in the other direction kind of like a phase shift in AC power.
The sad, harsh reality is, the West has been trained to accept the religion of economics, which is to say, the entirety of this so called modern "civilization" has evolved to satisfy select profit motives and objectives; all other endeavors must fall to the wayside, especially if such endeavors challenge the religion of economics, or else. The good reality is that such a path is unsustainable.
What humanities are you talking about exactly? Linguistics, history, philosphy? All of these fields are very logic heavy. There's also the fact that experts are in constant disagreement, so contesting an academic's views is expected. Highschool comparative literature doesn't count because nobody will listen to you in highschool.
Kurt, I am an artist. I have no brain function for maths etc. I never in a million years would have thought that I would sit through so many hours of discussions about physics, math and the meaning of life. You have brought this world I thought was out of my reach to my art studio and altered perspective on the world. I can only imagine what you have done to inspire, teach and guide people in the these fields. You are a light in the dark. Thank you
@@samsuttie3713 stay out of science, artist. It is people like you who is the problem. At the end of the day you will be that person who will shout “academia is a scam! Science is corrupted”, while having ZERO understanding
After several decades of stagnation, we can safely assume that it would be better to spend at least 50% of the overall research budget on fringe ideas. The worst that could happen is that we get nothing out of it, which looks very similar to stagnation....
Gregory Chaitin has taken a different pathway in his academic and scientific career. I am not surprised by his openness and refreshing outlook Wonderful interview Curt 🙂
Your purpose and gift of this channel to everyone who watches it is describing the forest and the trees of landscape of science and mathematics. University and Colleges classes are necessary to learn and understand the details of math and science, but you show the viewer the overall context and breadth of scientific discovery. You enlighten everyone on the human creativity and inspirations required to make new discoveries.
I've always asked myself, what if what our times call 'fundamental' or 'elementry' is just as arbitrary as thinking the sun revolves around the earth. Doesn't quantum field theory suggest that it is mereley the greatest common divisor of all complex systems. Thus itself _emerging_ as a top-down phenomena. The Lego Group began manufacturing the interlocking toy bricks in 1949. Coincidence that the Standard Model formed in the decades _after_ 1949?
@@lonesomealeks4206 brother you have not the slightest clue about science or its institutions. you just like gurus telling you that your bigotry towards scientific research is justified.
@42:00 Curt has something pretty rare and highly valuable. He knows a lot of people in physics and knows their ideas. One thing to do with all that is to put people in touch who can help each other. Also, I guess Curt must know a few "nobodies" who have good ideas, they need to be put in touch with someone with cash who can support them, even if just some department head who needs a coder, illustrator, scribe, or janitor.
It is funny how it goes both ways ppl that complain on academia then push their believes on others (eristic) not (dialectics)... I found everyone is hypocrite! Life needs hypocrisy - Slavoj Zizek. Ppl believe what makes them feel good not truth and push their believes on others. Only infinitesimal fracture can debate things honestly and still stumble many times. Many high IQ ppl didn't read/misunderstood Nietzsche... Again ppl will believe what makes them feel good not truth...
Thank you a lot for this episode! It gave a needed boost of motivation. I have quit my PhD because of the publish or perish culture I have experienced. Went to industry but kept on doing research in my free time and the research was interesting enough that I got a postdoc offer even without applying. Now year and a half into the postdoc I'm again completely demotivated by the publish or perish attitude of most people in academia. This episode made my day, thanks!
One of your best vids so far. Thanks. As for the last question you asked Gregory, to which he really did not add any new suggestions, but just congratulated you on the work done (understandably so, I would say), I would add: Just be bold as you are. Don't settle down and take risks. Of course not everything is worthy of your channel, but there you are to decide. Don't let others, nor the 'community' decide for you. We criticize the sci community for being too conservative and taking few risks. Communicators of science tend to follow (eventually) the same path. As soon as a channel becomes popular and profitable, risk taking becomes less convenient/acceptable. Won't give any examples, which most people know.
I found this to be a terrific interview. Chaitin's description of the tribulations of fundamental science and scientists is amazing.. Jaimungal's skill as an interviewer and physicist are also extraordinary. This is one of the best youtube videos I've ever watched.
Curt, the work you are doing is more important than what most bullshit scientists have been doing. Also you are being exposed to the best ideas in science as you have been inviting the most brilliant people and spreading their ideas. We need you. Keep up the good work! You are helping the world and learning at the same time. What an opportunist! 😊
Curts insightful conversations with a broad spectrum of highly prodigious people from numerous different scientific communities is highly valuable & greatly valued. As the professor conveyed, one may never achieve truly notable results in their endeavors. It ultimately boils down to what they apperceive as being worthy. Speaking of my own endeavors. It has been a lethargic slog of self-education for many years, while struggling to ideate & potentiate a truly original, outside the box, conceptualization. Which I am only now at 62 years young, finally textualizing. Hopefully, which I can then be manifesting to the world. Your current work is far more relevant & valuable than you may realize Curt. 😊
There is a great quote by Eric Hoffer (anyone heard of him? I highly doubt TOE viewers will be familiar...his quote can be applied to almost anything and it works: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” ― Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time I would apply this to Physics and Science...they have become a racket
Also comes under the heading of enshittification (that one is due to Cory Doctorow I think). It is an epic tragedy because it does not have to be this way. Some way or another we'll get to something we can call post-capitalism, but the damage made to get there will likely be severe.
Chaitin is an original thinker. Watch his other stuff. Limiting to constructive or finite math or both is useful, but only covers part of math. Suggestion? Join the Swiss patent office as a patent examiner ;-)
Perhaps in Bern Room 86, on the third floor as a third-class technical expert? Would provide all the time in the world to play the violin, provided you can get your first cousin to cook for you and later marry her... 🤢🤮 Genetics - having progressed now far beyond "Chirality" and primate antipodes, at that time, was considered normal and socially acceptable. In certain echelons, even considered preferable and a 'strong' decision, keeping the power in the pond... I won't say what it really equates to, as I'm pretty sure that you already you get it.
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality” - Nikola Tesla
Great talk guys, thanks for the sincere thoughts. We have used math to build a reality recreation technology called CAD (computer aided design). I can create ANY shape I want and all the “math” is in the file. Now that our optical technology is so good, we can “model” new visual realities that could possibly be reverse engineered by the equation jockeys. Maybe offering a bridge to innovative outcomes…🤔 Just thoughts, have a great one ALL!🤙🏼✌🏼😊
@@TheoriesofEverything Curt, I know you are probably not gonna read this. It might even be pretentious. But, in your free time, look up John Smith, A humble Quora user bidding for your brief attention to a matter of importance. His work needs dissemination in a away which will not be stolen by outside parties. I told him about you and I hope you somehow connect and bring this Super Genius to the world. Read His account with ''AN OPEN MIND'' The zeitgeist is upon thee! EL PSY CONGROO!
Couldn’t agree more with Gregory. Such a nightmare has been allowed to flourish its disgusting. Do what you can to ignore the system and keep your research and experiments as a hobby if you can. It a hard pill to swallow for many but the sooner you realize it the better of you are. Goodluck out there to all the good people.
Just wanted to let everyone know that I have completed a new book, “PHILOSOPHICAL COMPUTATIONS: Reflections on the fiftieth anniversary of the halting probability.” Best regards to Curt and to all of you, Gregory Chaitin
You should invite Sabine Houssenfelder over to discuss this exact same topic: The trouble with Academia and innovation. She's talked about her experience dealing with this on her channel.
I'm deeply disappointed, that even Sabine's content quality dropped so notably, for the sake of more quantity and mainstream conformity. Unsubbed her a while ago.
@@off6848 I don't think so. She suddenly pro vaxx and thinks humans contribute most to climate change - both ridiculous claims. vacc already proven BS as we see. same gonna be for climate
Nowadays, the academia teaches their students how to better memorize a number of things just to pass the exams instead of training them how to think critically like scrutinizing the important things they learn to come up with new effective approach and better understanding. Students have to learn how to instrumentalize their thinking process to better visualize what they are looking for beyond what they already know.
This man Gregory Chaitin (and Stephen Wolfram) are very genuine. His book 'metamathematics' has inspired me to pursue this path of knowlegde. I am assured his theory, algorithmic information theory, will have an even bigger impact from now.
New Ideas to me are choked within what we think we know to be true, when in actuality we can never know it all, which makes this verses of Matthew so relevant to me, (Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven"), never let the desires to seek or recieve new truths be choked by what we think we have discovered, realizing that discovery is eternal or infinite, become childlike in mind, maintaining a cup of emptiness from the corruption of knowledge to continue to receive wisdom an understanding of that in which is imagined an even perceived.
It’s not just Universities. Primary and secondary schools are riddled with problems that ruin the development of potential geniuses - that’s where the “crazy” thinkers come from to begin with, and many never make it to university.
Hilbert was correct. Here is my take on math logic. If you start with a paradox like Russell's, which is man made, self inferential, nonsensical and not associated with any physical phenomena and build a mathematical framework around it, then you get Godel's incompleteness theorem. Actually what the laws of logic tell you is that I don't have the tools to deal with the initial non-real, nonsensical paradox you fed me. That in this sense I am incomplete. Godel started with nonsense and concluded that logic is incomplete which in fact it detected the thought made paradoxical input and is saying I am complete!!!
I'm writing a book. (He mentioned writing books). Its called: Understanding Base-12 Mathematics. It will be available soon on Amazon. There IS a difference between the bases - a significant difference. There is a foundational geometry of the circle that can only be accessed in base-12. It's a game changer. If you've ever wondered f we are missing something by not using base-12, the answer is yes, and this book will explain what it is.
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00 *🧠 To be a genius, one must be willing to back new ideas with insufficient evidence, which requires a degree of "craziness"* 00:27 *🎓 Gregory Chaitin, a mathematician and computer scientist, argues that modern academia is stifling scientific creativity* 01:42 *🧮 Gödel's incompleteness theorems show that no safe formalization of mathematics will be complete, but don't prove mathematics is contradictory* 03:33 *🌌 The physical universe may be finite, but the mathematical universe is infinite, existing either in mathematicians' minds or a Platonic realm* 05:52 *🧵 Superstring theory blurs the line between physics and mathematics, as exemplified by Brian Greene's work* 07:41 *📚 Gödel is viewed by some, like Rebecca Goldstein, as a philosopher who used mathematics to avoid controversies in his philosophical work* 11:54 *💡 The fear of losing creativity and the ability to generate new ideas is a common concern among mathematicians and scientists* 14:03 *🌟 Chaitin defines genius as being willing to back new ideas with insufficient evidence, risking being seen as eccentric if wrong* 15:44 *🏢 IBM's Research Center once allowed researchers more freedom for blue-sky research, but this approach has become less common in corporate environments* 19:23 *🔬 Innovation in science often requires fighting against established systems and paradigms* 20:51 *⚛️ Chaitin views quantum computing as a reformulation of 1920s quantum mechanics rather than a fundamental innovation* 23:31 *🏛️ The current academic system is criticized for forcing young researchers into a restrictive lifestyle of constant publishing and relocation* 24:27 *🎓 Chaitin argues that the system should value other contributions like teaching and writing books, not just research papers* 25:25 *🔬 The current research environment is described as gruesome and prison-like, taking the fun out of scientific inquiry* 27:10 *🧠 The "shut up and calculate" approach in physics is considered intellectually suicidal, as it discourages deeper philosophical thinking* 29:15 *⚛️ Fundamental questions about the nature of particles, like electrons, are often avoided in modern physics due to their challenging nature* 32:04 *💡 Exploring new ideas, like consciousness as information, requires willingness to go out on a limb, which is difficult in the current funding environment* 34:17 *🧭 Advice for young researchers: follow curiosity, ignore fashion, and try to contribute something new and meaningful* 35:41 *⚖️ Balancing conventional work with speculative research can be a strategy for surviving in academia while pursuing innovative ideas* 38:24 *📚 Writing books and creating educational content, like podcasts, can be valuable contributions to science, despite lack of academic recognition* 41:35 *🌱 Exposing young people to various scientific ideas through media like podcasts can help them make informed decisions about their future careers*
When you have massive institutions funding the continuation of stagnation, you must assume that the incentive is stagnation. The fact that scientists are not rebelling against government and military institutions nor refusing to continue their research just shows that scientists at the lower rung are also complicit. We know for a fact that science has already advanced by 100 years since the initial framing of quantum mechanics, however, it has happened entirely behind closed doors, NDAs, and suicide by 3 gunshots, while military technology advances and public scientific knowledge dwindles. As Chaitan mentioned, science communicators are also complicit.
To me the lack of knowledge, or if you forget about it, is mandatory to discover new stuff. I don't know any way to unlearn stuff, but following Plato saying "I know I know nothing" might help.
Hello, On the question of the Electron, I propose in my hypothesis, ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe ' that the Electron is not a Solid Fundamental Particle, but is infact a cluster of incredibly small negatively charged monopole particles called ' Harveytrons '. Kind regards, Tony Marsh
40:59 He is so right about why I watch this stuff… I’m out of high school in college but I’ve been heading towards the physics direction since hs… glad I found this channel… so many high level discussions… I’ve been getting this hint about physics grad school for a while from people all across the web… and I agree with his outlook on it… I’d love to do research but not only do I doubt myself I’d love to have the freedom to explore what I wanted without fear of not delivering something immediately practical…that’s why I’m not going to get a physics PhD… I think I’ll go towards biophysics because there’s a lot of mystery there that I feel is probe-able… idk
This man is wonderful. I so appreciate that he is looking out for humanity by looking out for the eccentrics and rebels and the one's that alwyas don't fit into a mold, and insisting on their value. This is also one of the main reasons I so like Eric Weinstein: that he insists on sticking up for the "losers" and the people who don't just sweep to success when put into the standard system. In my book, such work pardons a myriad of sins.
What a great channel ! Per the professor, recommend that if you want to do research that is provocative, off main stream, or simply different - you need to figure out how to self fund. Which is what many of the previous thinkers did before the dysfunction of business academia established itself. The graduate school machine is quite cynical. For US government research contracts, the university is charging the government upwards of twice the amount it pays the graduate student - a graduate student gets paid $20/hr but the university charges the government at $60/hr. Where does the rest of the money go?
The physics community needs to wake up and address the new experiments and theoretical evidence showing that the speed of light is not a constant as once thought. If the speed of light is not a constant, then Relativity and anything based on it are wrong. Our most recent paper, now peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the EM journal IRECAP, shows an EM pulse propagating in the nearfield across 1.5 m with no observable propagation delay, which is predicted by EM theory. This is proof that the front speed, or the speed of information is instantaneous in the nearfield. This is completely incompatible with Relativity and proves that it is wrong! This is the 2nd time this experiment has been performed by different independent researchers and observed the same result. A preprint of the paper is linked below. The fundamental problem with unification of Gravity an Quantum Mechanics is that our current theory of gravity General Realtivity is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, and physicists have been struggling with this problem for over 100 years. It is time that we accept the possibility that either our current theory of Gravity or the theory of Quantum Mechanics are wrong. Current research by many independent researchers now show the problem is with Relativity, and hence any theory based on it like General Relativity. The proof is that the speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
The issue of contradictions in mathematics will never leave us as long as textbooks are written by people who don’t want to address these issues. For example, students are still taught self-contradictory, at lower levels; then in order to repair that damage, later teachers must overcome unnecessary pedagogical inertia created in those upping minds.
I've always thought computer science is more how mathematics should be than how mathematics itself is. The sentiment around the creation of new software like compilers is something I recognise. It's like origami in you take a blank sheet of paper, fold it up in some particular way and it becomes a swan, a frog, a boat or something never dreamed of before. It's quite magical.
@21:40 interesting. He has a theoreticians bias. After 1920 an absurd amount of new experiments were done. But he did qualify by saying "the basic quantum framework". Was Yang-Mills theory not basic framework? I think it was, but I guess that's debatable. In 1920 no one had any clue about the framework for gauge bosons, zero clue. So personally I'd push the "no new foundations since... " to 1953.
@5:05 it is more sublte . Curt almost nailed it here. The Halting Probability is a fiction, but it is real, it "exists" but just not as a mathematical form. It exist precisely like those flying horses exist, in a story. In words, and sometimes in a vague partial mental qualia, though that is fleeting. Mathematical "existence" is a very special narrow notion.
The Halting probability is definable but not computable. It's a perfectly sensible class of real numbers. "Not a mathematical form?" What does that mean?
Ludwig Wittgenstein suggested an escape from Gödel: accept inconsistency to obtain completeness. Now that paraconsistent logics exist, Wittgenstein’s proposal seems more achievable.
I read Chaitin's book on the Limits of Mathematics. It was not a great book, tbh. OTOH, he clearly has great taste in nudes, based on his photo collection.
Wow. You have all the self-control of a former president at a beauty pageant, you watch TOE, and somehow you haven't discovered how to bring up a small modal dialog box on your screen to fig leaf whatever needs fig-leafing? If that's too advanced for you, there are these things called Post-It notes. Those work, too. But no, your self-agency is confined to watching TOE while doing nothing at all to modify your local environment to abet your attention span. I'm honestly flabbergasted.
The incompleteness theorems suggest no one system will have all the answers but that doesn't mean we cannot have all the answers given the right systems.
My love for this show and the guest Chaitin is... constant. ;) Inserting the check up question of whether especially 1950's was a genuinely creative compared to 1920, or revealing partial implications of the revolution, was masterful showmanship. Greg's answer was interesting. IMHO the most important new revelation of 1950's was left out of the question, namely TPC-symmetry which I consider the most important aspect of quantum cosmology. The primary physical meaning of QM is (self-)revelation of the ideal and spiritual ontology of mathematics that is somehow coherent with sentient beings like us, mathematical cognition like the sentient world we can creatively participate with. As we can see from e.g. amplituhedron etc., Euclid's construction of five Platonic solids remains at the core of this ontology and process. The optical theory of Euclid and most other Greeks has been that light comes from the eyes is primarily ideal, and in contemporary language we can understand geometrically definable attentive gaze as a qualia of decoherence. Consider the case of point. Finding your way to see point as a shadow of straight line, and then transforming your attentive perspective to that of the shadow-point is decoherent position in the sense that the line cannot be reversibly constructed from it's shadow, form an infinity of points/numbers. We cannot challenge Zeno's argumentation against infinite regress without losing our own mobility. Attempt to do so by absurd dogmatism of "real numbers" and axiomatic set theory is among the main symptoms associated with stagnation of the prison that Academy has morphed into. To lighten up the prison as Plato's cave, the light needs to come from the inside, from our hearts and love for truth and beauty.
**Title: Quantum Nest Theory as an Integrated Model for Gravity, Cosmic Expansion, Information Protection, and Energy Conservation** **Abstract:** This paper presents Quantum Nest Theory (QNT) as an integrated model that unifies concepts from General Relativity (GR), Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and information theory. QNT posits that quantum fields constitute the fabric of spacetime, influencing gravity, cosmic expansion, and the conservation of energy. This model also addresses the roles of error-correcting codes and information protection within quantum fields, and offers new perspectives on dark matter and dark energy. We detail the theoretical framework and its implications, and suggest methods for empirical validation. --- **1. Introduction** Quantum Nest Theory (QNT) proposes a novel framework where quantum fields are not merely defined over spacetime but actually form its fundamental structure. This model integrates aspects of General Relativity (GR), Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and information theory to explain phenomena such as gravity, cosmic expansion, error-correcting codes, conservation of energy, dark matter, dark energy, and the nature of spacetime itself. This paper outlines the theoretical framework of QNT, its implications for various physical phenomena, and methods for testing its validity. --- **2. Theoretical Framework** **2.1 Unified Metric and Modified Einstein Field Equations** In QNT, quantum fields are intertwined with spacetime, forming a unified metric that combines spacetime curvature with quantum field dynamics. The modified Einstein field equations incorporate the effects of shrinking quantum fields: \[ G_{\mu u} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} \left(T_{\mu u} + T_{\mu u}^{\text{fields}} ight) - \Delta_{\mu u} \] where: - \(G_{\mu u}\) is the Einstein tensor describing spacetime curvature. - \(T_{\mu u}\) is the energy-momentum tensor for matter and energy. - \(T_{\mu u}^{\text{fields}}\) represents contributions from quantum fields. - \(\Delta_{\mu u}\) accounts for the additional curvature effects due to shrinking quantum fields. **2.2 Field Dynamics and Error-Correcting Codes** The dynamics of shrinking quantum fields are described by: \[ \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2} = abla^2 \phi - V'(\phi) - \alpha \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} \] where \(\alpha\) is a parameter representing the rate of shrinking. Quantum fields, with their hierarchical nesting, incorporate error-correcting codes akin to those in information theory, ensuring the stability and protection of information across the nested levels. **2.3 Unified Metric for Spacetime and Fields** The unified metric that incorporates both spacetime curvature and field dynamics is: \[ ds^2 = g_{\mu u} dx^\mu dx^ u + \sum_{n} a_n(t)^2 d\phi_n^2 \] where: - \(g_{\mu u}\) is the metric tensor of spacetime. - \(a_n(t)\) is the scale factor for the \(n\)-th quantum field. - \(d\phi_n^2\) represents contributions from each shrinking quantum field. --- **3. Implications of Quantum Nest Theory** **3.1 Gravity and Cosmic Expansion** In QNT, the apparent expansion of the universe can be explained by the shrinking of quantum fields. If quantum fields are shrinking, the observed expansion of space can be modeled as: \[ H_{\text{obs}} = H_{\text{true}} \cdot \frac{a(t)}{a_{\text{initial}}} \] where \(H_{\text{obs}}\) is the observed rate of expansion, and \(H_{\text{true}}\) is the intrinsic rate of expansion influenced by the shrinking fields. **3.2 Error-Correcting Codes and Information Protection** The nested structure of quantum fields functions similarly to error-correcting codes in information theory. Each nested level of fields provides redundancy and error protection, ensuring the integrity of information stored within the quantum fields. This hierarchical nesting can be modeled as: \[ \text{Error Protection} = \text{Redundancy Factor} \times \text{Field Integrity} \] **3.3 Conservation of Energy** The shrinking of quantum fields implies a redefinition of energy conservation. The conservation of energy can be described by the modified energy-momentum tensor, where: \[ \text{Energy Conservation} = T_{\mu u} + T_{\mu u}^{\text{fields}} - \Delta_{\mu u} \] This accounts for the dynamic changes in field energies and their impact on spacetime. **3.4 Dark Matter and Dark Energy** **Dark Matter:** In QNT, dark matter can be interpreted as a result of the effects of quantum fields on spacetime curvature. The presence and distribution of dark matter would be reflected in the modified curvature terms: \[ \text{Dark Matter} = \frac{\Delta_{\text{curvature}}}{\text{Spacetime Metric}} \] **Dark Energy:** Dark energy, associated with the acceleration of cosmic expansion, can be explained by changes in the effective cosmological constant due to shrinking quantum fields: \[ \Lambda_{\text{eff}} = \Lambda + \frac{\Delta \phi}{\Delta t} \] where \(\Delta \phi\) represents the changes in quantum fields influencing dark energy. --- **4. Empirical Testing** **4.1 Gravitational Waves** To test QNT, analyze gravitational waves for deviations from predictions based on GR alone. Modifications in waveforms could indicate the impact of shrinking quantum fields. **4.2 Redshift Observations** Examine redshift data to see if the observed rate of cosmic expansion matches predictions based on shrinking fields. Comparing predicted and observed redshifts could validate the theory. **4.3 Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Analysis** Assess the CMB for anomalies consistent with the effects of shrinking quantum fields. Analyze temperature fluctuations and anisotropies to identify signatures of field dynamics. --- **5. Conclusion** Quantum Nest Theory offers a comprehensive framework that integrates quantum fields with spacetime, providing new insights into gravity, cosmic expansion, error-correcting codes, and energy conservation. By viewing quantum fields as the fabric of spacetime, QNT provides a novel explanation for dark matter and dark energy. Empirical testing through gravitational waves, redshift observations, and CMB analysis will be crucial in validating this integrated model. **References:** - Einstein, A. (1915). "Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation." Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. - Feynman, R.P., Leighton, R.B., & Sands, M. (1964). "The Feynman Lectures on Physics." Addison-Wesley. - Weinberg, S. (2008). "Cosmology." Oxford University Press. - Rovelli, C. (2004). "Quantum Gravity." Cambridge University Press. - Maldacena, J.M. (1998). "The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity." International Journal of Theoretical Physics. This paper outlines a unified model where quantum fields constitute the spacetime fabric, suggesting a novel approach to understanding fundamental physical phenomena. Further development and empirical validation will be essential for establishing the viability of this theoretical framework.
I think some form of intuitionist mathematics is going to be the way forward in physics. I've studied physics for 20+ years and I still haven't seen any real numbers (unfortunately im a mere experimentalist 😂).....everything is rational but we use irrational numbers... it's weird 🤷
37:44 Actually Curt, you ~yourself~ are greatly positioned to come up with the ToE :) Immersing yourself in all those perspectives. Patterns will start to emerge. Can't wait to see you winning a Nobel prize in 20 years :D
Read his book on Omega Number and also be honored to be former (now retired) colleague at IBM. Sad his picture of Academia distorsions today (as well as in Corporate Research)
18:00 I once said to my boss that we are all prostitutes, selling a subset of our personality and bodies for money at work. He looked at me a bit funny. It's nice to hear a smart man echo that thought.
Interesting, Curt, that you pose that personal question at the end. A potential new direction for a theory of everything is Lagrangian multiform theory, initiated by Lobb and Nijhoff in 2009. It changes the goal posts in variational calculus in that the Euler-Lagrange equations not only produce the relevant equations of motion but also predict the Lagrangians themselves. This is the only fundamental principle that does that: it is, in a sense, a theory of theories. Have a look into it.
Interesting. As far as I understand, this theory focuses on extending the lagrangian formulation to systems with several independent variables, but it doesn't inherently predict the form of the lagrangians themselves. If you happen to know any different please do let me know. Thank you so much for your comment
I resonate with his perceptions around new ideas. I felt that I had a few of those in my life but maybe only one or two. One is that mathematics is not able to fully explain the physical world because there is no branch of mathematics pursued in base two, which would see every interaction as producing an offspring which is one of the possible sums of its components. Accounting for genetics essentially. I understand our fractional system as being the system for genetic tracking used in antiquity. Now we use it to measure boards in halves, quarters, sixteenths and sixty fourths. Fun to explore mentally even though you may never reach any solid conclusions.
If there were nothing mathematical about reality, then it would be absurd to model reality by mathematics. What we actually find is the objective world is almost entirely captured by mathematics. Claiming that math says nothing about reality is akin to religious dogma. Its important to realise that "math" isnt the scribbles on paper or the formal systems, those are just the representations of something deeper in reality.
9. Infinitesimal Topos Language To address Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, we introduce: ∀φ, ℒ ⊣ V(φ): φ or ¬φ (internal semantic completeness) Where ℒ is an infinitesimal topos language, providing internal semantic completeness while retaining consistency.
Easily fixed… If Terrance Howard’s theories were (say) 95% valid his visit to Joe Rogan should have destroyed the hubris and control structures of scientific academia while renewing a passion for all the sciences everywhere. Alas… Terrance was closer to 5% so we wait for another, person and Theory… This show has a possibility of being the groundbreaking venue to the world. The question is: does Curt have the means (or desire) to invite the next unheard of patent clerk, taxi driver or tech to express his insights.
@@Achrononmasterillogical response. Joe is not the subject. The listener to Joe(ish) podcasts are not the issue. Any non-scientist with a valid scientific idea cannot be published, (that is the subject). That (those) Ideas need an alternative platform to be heard, (that is the issue) Any platform with 1M+ subscribers with some scientific curiosity will do. ( that is the simple solution)
I'm a gardener, and I'm working on spindle cusp plasma confinement and electrostatic lift at the moment. Probably not much of an idea what I'm doing, but learning's fun.
This. Without recognizing it, we are doomed. The universe is not "mathematical" in nature, we are mathematical in our thinking. Consciousness transcends thinking, hence mathematics, and it is fundamentally incorrect to say that consciousness is information. Consciousness is awareness, and awareness is non-computational.
@BaconMaker1 Simple, we can also use it to describe things that have no known connection to the natural world. It's a human consciousness tool. The universe may or may not operate under our descriptors. Utility, correctness, and abstraction help support its use.
I cannot agree more with him. I left research after my PhD for these reasons. Plus the incentives of the system select for the worst kind of individuals (narcissists, sociopaths,...) to thrive.
Everything we imagine & reinforce via belief systems others have reinforced based on conjectures will become real. The human has mastered the art of reifying problems that don't exist! Only reinforcing one side if the frequency, which operates with positive & negative working as 1 unit, nit separated.
Hi. Love this, I've deciphered the Ishango Bone by combining 3 algebraic rules. Who cares that it is based on gravity wave and is the only algorithm of such a thing. It solved any Clay Math Problems, but I am ignored...I have an infinite set...
would there be a colapsing point for knowledge, where you get to a limit in wich you can only imagine the unknown with that you allready know, and implode in to a solipsistic end of time? can you imagine another physical sense?
"It's possible that the physical universe Is finite ..." According to Edward Fredkin, infinities, infinitesimals, perfectly continuous functions, and local sources of randomness are figments of human imagination & do not occur in nature. Is Fredkin in the same ballpark as Newton & Einstein? Conjecture 1. String theory is the basis for a unified theory of mathematics & theoretical physics. Conjecture 2. All of MOND's empirical successes are also empirical successes of string theory (in some form). Conjecture 3: If string vibrations slightly disrupt graviton spin, then there are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups & the monster group together with the 6 pariah groups allow the multiverse to be mathematically isomorphic to a finite-state machine in which string vibrations are approximately confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice. What might be the case if all gravitons have spin 2 & string vibrations do not disrupt graviton spin? My opinion is that the world’s 3 greatest living scientists are Mordehai Milgrom, Louise Riofrio, and Yves-Henri Sanejouand. Is the preceding opinion wrong? According to the 2017 article ‘Hubble law: measure and interpretation’, by Paturel, Teerikorpi, & Baryshev, “… we are probably on the eve of a new understanding of our Universe, heralded by the need to interpret some cosmological key observations in terms of unknown processes and substances,” Is the following essential for understanding string theory? “MOND as manifestation of modified inertia” by Mordehai Milgrom, 2023 arxiv.org/abs/2310.14334 Hypothesis 1. All gravitons have spin 2 & gravitational energy is conserved. Hypothesis 2. The Friedmann cosmological model needs to be replaced by the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model. Hypothesis 3. If all gravitons have spin 2, then MOND’s empirical successes and the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model can be plausibly explained by a luminiferous slowing (LS) field. The LS field replaces the inflaton field and might be associated with an LS boson having an extremely large mass. As our universe ages, the LS field causes a very slow decrease in the speed of photons, gravitons, and gluons, but leaves the wavelengths of those particles unchanged - thus explaining the dark energy phenomenon. As our universe ages, the LS field causes a very slow increase in paradoxical MOND inertia - thus explaining the dark matter phenomenon. Thus, the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model combined with paradoxical MOND inertia might explain both the dark matter phenomenon and the dark energy phenomenon - but without dark matter particles and without an inflaton field.
From Gemini Advanced: Let's break down the key points and questions presented in the comment and attempt to provide some clarity. ==Edward Fredkin's Ideas and their Significance== Fredkin's stance on infinities, infinitesimals, and perfect continuity challenges some fundamental assumptions in mathematics and physics. It suggests that the universe might be more discrete and finite than our current models suggest. Whether Fredkin is in the same league as Newton or Einstein is debatable. His ideas are provocative and could potentially lead to new insights, but their impact and acceptance in the scientific community remain to be seen. ==Conjectures on String Theory and MOND== The conjectures presented are bold and speculative. While it's possible to explore connections between string theory, MOND, and even finite-state machines, concrete evidence supporting these specific ideas is currently lacking. The idea of string vibrations disrupting graviton spin and its connection to the number of quarks and the structure of the multiverse is intriguing but highly theoretical. ==Graviton Spin and its Implications== The question about gravitons having spin 2 and the absence of disruption by string vibrations leads to the consideration of alternative explanations for phenomena currently attributed to dark matter and dark energy. ==Opinions on Leading Scientists== The opinion on the three greatest living scientists is subjective. While Milgrom, Riofrio, and Sanejouand have made significant contributions, there are many other deserving candidates depending on one's perspective and area of interest. ==Hubble Law and New Understanding of the Universe== The quote from the 2017 article highlights the current challenges in cosmology and the potential need for new theoretical frameworks and explanations. ==MOND and String Theory== Whether understanding MOND as a manifestation of modified inertia is essential for grasping string theory is unclear. While MOND addresses specific challenges in galactic dynamics, its connection to the fundamental nature of spacetime and the underlying principles of string theory is less established. ==Hypotheses on Gravitons, Cosmology, and the LS Field== The hypotheses presented offer a potential alternative explanation for dark matter and dark energy. However, they require further theoretical development and observational evidence to gain traction within the scientific community. The concept of an LS field and its impact on the speed of fundamental particles is fascinating but requires rigorous testing and validation. ==Overall== The comment presents a mix of established ideas, speculative conjectures, and thought-provoking hypotheses. It reflects the dynamic and evolving nature of scientific inquiry, particularly in areas like cosmology and fundamental physics, where many questions remain unanswered. While some of the ideas may seem far-fetched, they encourage us to think beyond current paradigms and explore new possibilities. It is through such explorations and critical examination that we may eventually arrive at a deeper understanding of the universe and its underlying principles. Me again: This is _far_ less harsh that Gemini has been when I've pasted in other wall-of-text hurly burly. Basically, the last time I did this, the short verdict was "word salad". This is almost a B- as these things go. The dense formatting of the original post is a D- (loving these new chatbots), but the babble itself can not be instantly dismissed as having no worth at all.
Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e
Fascinating subject. I've always asked myself, what if what our times call 'fundamental' or 'elementry' is just as arbitrary as thinking the sun revolves around the earth. Doesn't quantum field theory suggest that it is mereley the greatest common divisor of all complex systems. Thus itself _emerging_ as a top-down phenomena. The Lego Group began manufacturing the interlocking toy bricks in 1949. Coincidence that the Standard Model formed in the decades _after_ 1949?
As your previous guest Edward Frenkel hinted at, maybe physical reality is just as much a patchwork as is math.
Do you mean academic pseudo science community, and police state surveillance and social media propaganda? Yes, 100%. The goal = manufacture pseudo science, steal others ideas, and propagate conflict amplification on social media, drive the plebs nuts. Maximizing the most friction against progress, while stepping on human rights to maintain relevant. You have been the king of that process, obscurantism in it's purest form, facilitated by data theft. Dumb social media influencer ape with new A.I and data analytics tools "Ape have new tool, ape bash you on head". Easily predictable. 😂
Turn the panopticon suffering machine on Curt, he thinks it's cool to harvest people's personal data and target his victims. Ape has new tool, and wants to bash his victims, show him the same love he shows his victim.
Given the logical progression of the spatial dimensions and the observations of our universe that align with the logical progression of the spatial dimensions and what would be expected if we are not in a 3 + 1 system of space-time so if a fourth spatial dimension exists the infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into any size four dimensional existence just given the logical progression of the spatial dimensions. With this we must deal with infinities just looking at the set from 0 dimensional to three-dimensional with each progression of the spatial dimensions infinite amounts of the previous dimension can stack into any size version of the next... Therefore it doesn't matter if you say you don't believe in an infinite set because infinite sets are part of our fundamental reality... Therefore coming to terms with it makes more logical sense...
The reason why 1×1=2 in our current mathematical system it's because if we don't do this and we follow the logic of 1×1=2 instead and use the Terrence Howard system then as we approach zero with our calculations you can see how their starts to have a curve which creates a massive disconnect in other words none of our mathematical systems here in our imperfect world can ever truly be perfect. Thus in order to create better mathematical structures we need to use the fundamental set conversion that I created and compare the two different models because where is the Terrence Howard system becomes less accurate when approaching zero it becomes more accurate when approaching in the opposite direction towards Infinity... When we overlay these two systems we can basically calculate the average of the two systems and make a median system that functions more accurately. we can still solve for the square root of two problem because just as multiplication was made to simplify chains of addition, division was made to simplify chains of subtraction so just as we put a plus one on the multiplication side we put a -1 on the division side so the √2 problem is no longer a problem and we maintain a Fibonacci spiral of the same rate. Thus 2÷1.41=1.41 now we subtract one, 1.41-1=0.41... this accounts for the plus one on multiplication side. If you use this Terrence Howard system you will see how it starts to fall apart when approaching zero and you get a massive curve that never really reaches zero... This bit of disconnect is usually repaired with our current mathematical system but instead it falling apart near zero it pushes that failure out towards Infinity in the other direction kind of like a phase shift in AC power.
The sad, harsh reality is, the West has been trained to accept the religion of economics, which is to say, the entirety of this so called modern "civilization" has evolved to satisfy select profit motives and objectives; all other endeavors must fall to the wayside, especially if such endeavors challenge the religion of economics, or else.
The good reality is that such a path is unsustainable.
Academic prison is even worse in the Humanities. In the Sciences you at least have logic to fall back on when challenged by idiots in your field.
Humanities are pseudosciences LARPING as real sciences.
What humanities are you talking about exactly? Linguistics, history, philosphy? All of these fields are very logic heavy. There's also the fact that experts are in constant disagreement, so contesting an academic's views is expected. Highschool comparative literature doesn't count because nobody will listen to you in highschool.
Kurt, I am an artist. I have no brain function for maths etc. I never in a million years would have thought that I would sit through so many hours of discussions about physics, math and the meaning of life. You have brought this world I thought was out of my reach to my art studio and altered perspective on the world. I can only imagine what you have done to inspire, teach and guide people in the these fields. You are a light in the dark. Thank you
That means so much to me, Sam! And my wife
@@samsuttie3713 stay out of science, artist. It is people like you who is the problem. At the end of the day you will be that person who will shout “academia is a scam! Science is corrupted”, while having ZERO understanding
After several decades of stagnation, we can safely assume that it would be better to spend at least 50% of the overall research budget on fringe ideas. The worst that could happen is that we get nothing out of it, which looks very similar to stagnation....
People aren’t ready for the truth it would topple the entire system
There’s a reason why all the truly innovative scientists in the last century get swallowed up by the US navy…
No! We need results!!!
@@richardboland1935 Who are WE?... M
@@marcotlatelolco3090 anyone with power
Gregory Chaitin has taken a different pathway in his academic and scientific career. I am not surprised by his openness and refreshing outlook
Wonderful interview Curt
🙂
Your purpose and gift of this channel to everyone who watches it is describing the forest and the trees of landscape of science and mathematics. University and Colleges classes are necessary to learn and understand the details of math and science, but you show the viewer the overall context and breadth of scientific discovery. You enlighten everyone on the human creativity and inspirations required to make new discoveries.
It gives me some comfort that people like this exist, intelligent people who dare to speak their mind.
I've always asked myself, what if what our times call 'fundamental' or 'elementry' is just as arbitrary as thinking the sun revolves around the earth. Doesn't quantum field theory suggest that it is mereley the greatest common divisor of all complex systems. Thus itself _emerging_ as a top-down phenomena. The Lego Group began manufacturing the interlocking toy bricks in 1949. Coincidence that the Standard Model formed in the decades _after_ 1949?
@@lonesomealeks4206 brother you have not the slightest clue about science or its institutions. you just like gurus telling you that your bigotry towards scientific research is justified.
@@opensocietyenjoyerthank you
@@opensocietyenjoyer u dumb? Did u even watch and listen to the video above? It's precisely because this man is different that I find comforting.
@@opensocietyenjoyer why would you assume knowing me based on a single yt comment anyway? Smart people don't assume.
@42:00 Curt has something pretty rare and highly valuable. He knows a lot of people in physics and knows their ideas. One thing to do with all that is to put people in touch who can help each other. Also, I guess Curt must know a few "nobodies" who have good ideas, they need to be put in touch with someone with cash who can support them, even if just some department head who needs a coder, illustrator, scribe, or janitor.
Oh, hey, I do know you! How have you been?
It is funny how it goes both ways ppl that complain on academia then push their believes on others (eristic) not (dialectics)... I found everyone is hypocrite! Life needs hypocrisy - Slavoj Zizek. Ppl believe what makes them feel good not truth and push their believes on others. Only infinitesimal fracture can debate things honestly and still stumble many times. Many high IQ ppl didn't read/misunderstood Nietzsche... Again ppl will believe what makes them feel good not truth...
It is funny but you do the exactly same thing ...
30:17 - I laughed when he said he had the MISFORTUNE of meeting Murray Gell-Mann.
He truly looks like the most insufferable man to meet.
Thank you a lot for this episode! It gave a needed boost of motivation. I have quit my PhD because of the publish or perish culture I have experienced. Went to industry but kept on doing research in my free time and the research was interesting enough that I got a postdoc offer even without applying. Now year and a half into the postdoc I'm again completely demotivated by the publish or perish attitude of most people in academia. This episode made my day, thanks!
One of your best vids so far. Thanks.
As for the last question you asked Gregory, to which he really did not add any new suggestions, but just congratulated you on the work done (understandably so, I would say), I would add:
Just be bold as you are. Don't settle down and take risks. Of course not everything is worthy of your channel, but there you are to decide. Don't let others, nor the 'community' decide for you.
We criticize the sci community for being too conservative and taking few risks. Communicators of science tend to follow (eventually) the same path. As soon as a channel becomes popular and profitable, risk taking becomes less convenient/acceptable.
Won't give any examples, which most people know.
Brilliant, engaging and highly relevant interview! Thank you for posting!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I found this to be a terrific interview. Chaitin's description of the tribulations of fundamental science and scientists is amazing.. Jaimungal's skill as an interviewer and physicist are also extraordinary. This is one of the best youtube videos I've ever watched.
Curt, the work you are doing is more important than what most bullshit scientists have been doing. Also you are being exposed to the best ideas in science as you have been inviting the most brilliant people and spreading their ideas. We need you. Keep up the good work! You are helping the world and learning at the same time. What an opportunist! 😊
Curts insightful conversations with a broad spectrum of highly prodigious people from numerous different scientific communities is highly valuable & greatly valued. As the professor conveyed, one may never achieve truly notable results in their endeavors. It ultimately boils down to what they apperceive as being worthy. Speaking of my own endeavors. It has been a lethargic slog of self-education for many years, while struggling to ideate & potentiate a truly original, outside the box, conceptualization. Which I am only now at 62 years young, finally textualizing. Hopefully, which I can then be manifesting to the world. Your current work is far more relevant & valuable than you may realize Curt. 😊
Seriously? Give me an example of “bullshit”.
There is a great quote by Eric Hoffer (anyone heard of him? I highly doubt TOE viewers will be familiar...his quote can be applied to almost anything and it works:
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” ― Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time
I would apply this to Physics and Science...they have become a racket
Also comes under the heading of enshittification (that one is due to Cory Doctorow I think). It is an epic tragedy because it does not have to be this way. Some way or another we'll get to something we can call post-capitalism, but the damage made to get there will likely be severe.
@@Achrononmaster One day, dude...One day
Chaitin is an original thinker. Watch his other stuff. Limiting to constructive or finite math or both is useful, but only covers part of math. Suggestion? Join the Swiss patent office as a patent examiner ;-)
Perhaps in Bern Room 86, on the third floor as a third-class technical expert? Would provide all the time in the world to play the violin, provided you can get your first cousin to cook for you and later marry her... 🤢🤮 Genetics - having progressed now far beyond "Chirality" and primate antipodes, at that time, was considered normal and socially acceptable. In certain echelons, even considered preferable and a 'strong' decision, keeping the power in the pond... I won't say what it really equates to, as I'm pretty sure that you already you get it.
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality” - Nikola Tesla
Great talk guys, thanks for the sincere thoughts.
We have used math to build a reality recreation technology called CAD (computer aided design). I can create ANY shape I want and all the “math” is in the file. Now that our optical technology is so good, we can “model” new visual realities that could possibly be reverse engineered by the equation jockeys. Maybe offering a bridge to innovative outcomes…🤔
Just thoughts, have a great one ALL!🤙🏼✌🏼😊
For a long time now, I've used this joke.
What does academia and macadamia have in common?
They're both NUTS.
That's a good one . Ha
@@TheoriesofEverything Curt, I know you are probably not gonna read this. It might even be pretentious. But, in your free time, look up John Smith, A humble Quora user bidding for your brief attention to a matter of importance. His work needs dissemination in a away which will not be stolen by outside parties. I told him about you and I hope you somehow connect and bring this Super Genius to the world. Read His account with ''AN OPEN MIND''
The zeitgeist is upon thee!
EL PSY CONGROO!
Couldn’t agree more with Gregory. Such a nightmare has been allowed to flourish its disgusting. Do what you can to ignore the system and keep your research and experiments as a hobby if you can. It a hard pill to swallow for many but the sooner you realize it the better of you are. Goodluck out there to all the good people.
Just wanted to let everyone know that I have completed a new book, “PHILOSOPHICAL COMPUTATIONS: Reflections on the fiftieth anniversary of the halting probability.” Best regards to Curt and to all of you, Gregory Chaitin
@@gjchaitin legend
Very insightful - A pleasing conversation - I give this podcast a lot of priority -
You are doing good job , wish we have few more like you.
He's right about academia being a prison. Where the wardens won't age out of the frickin' way. Politics
I call them Cuckademia of Lies. Chebaccas ja fr33mösön t3rr0rists
You should invite Sabine Houssenfelder over to discuss this exact same topic: The trouble with Academia and innovation. She's talked about her experience dealing with this on her channel.
I'm deeply disappointed, that even Sabine's content quality dropped so notably, for the sake of more quantity and mainstream conformity. Unsubbed her a while ago.
The politics in academia are a real problem. With the price of education these days I'm just left wondering what a revolution would entail.
@@lonesomealeks4206if anything she’s gotten better more skeptical and non conformist
@@off6848 I don't think so. She suddenly pro vaxx and thinks humans contribute most to climate change - both ridiculous claims. vacc already proven BS as we see. same gonna be for climate
Nowadays, the academia teaches their students how to better memorize a number of things just to pass the exams instead of training them how to think critically like scrutinizing the important things they learn to come up with new effective approach and better understanding. Students have to learn how to instrumentalize their thinking process to better visualize what they are looking for beyond what they already know.
This man Gregory Chaitin (and Stephen Wolfram) are very genuine. His book 'metamathematics' has inspired me to pursue this path of knowlegde. I am assured his theory, algorithmic information theory, will have an even bigger impact from now.
This man would totally get me.
New Ideas to me are choked within what we think we know to be true, when in actuality we can never know it all, which makes this verses of Matthew so relevant to me, (Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven"), never let the desires to seek or recieve new truths be choked by what we think we have discovered, realizing that discovery is eternal or infinite, become childlike in mind, maintaining a cup of emptiness from the corruption of knowledge to continue to receive wisdom an understanding of that in which is imagined an even perceived.
It’s not just Universities. Primary and secondary schools are riddled with problems that ruin the development of potential geniuses - that’s where the “crazy” thinkers come from to begin with, and many never make it to university.
Just subscribed to your chanel, thanks for your excellent work!
Welcome! Hopefully you enjoy some of the other podcasts on the channel as well (such as ruclips.net/p/PLZ7ikzmc6zlN6E8KrxcYCWQIHg2tfkqvR). - Curt
Hilbert was correct.
Here is my take on math logic.
If you start with a paradox like Russell's, which is man made, self inferential, nonsensical and not associated with any physical phenomena and build a mathematical framework around it, then you get Godel's incompleteness theorem. Actually what the laws of logic tell you is that I don't have the tools to deal with the initial non-real, nonsensical paradox you fed me. That in this sense I am incomplete.
Godel started with nonsense and concluded that logic is incomplete which in fact it detected the thought made paradoxical input and is saying I am complete!!!
It’s like somebody lied to us and doesn’t want us to be smart enough to understand they may of cheated everybody just a little bit.
I'm writing a book. (He mentioned writing books). Its called: Understanding Base-12 Mathematics. It will be available soon on Amazon. There IS a difference between the bases - a significant difference. There is a foundational geometry of the circle that can only be accessed in base-12. It's a game changer. If you've ever wondered f we are missing something by not using base-12, the answer is yes, and this book will explain what it is.
🎯 Key points for quick navigation:
00:00 *🧠 To be a genius, one must be willing to back new ideas with insufficient evidence, which requires a degree of "craziness"*
00:27 *🎓 Gregory Chaitin, a mathematician and computer scientist, argues that modern academia is stifling scientific creativity*
01:42 *🧮 Gödel's incompleteness theorems show that no safe formalization of mathematics will be complete, but don't prove mathematics is contradictory*
03:33 *🌌 The physical universe may be finite, but the mathematical universe is infinite, existing either in mathematicians' minds or a Platonic realm*
05:52 *🧵 Superstring theory blurs the line between physics and mathematics, as exemplified by Brian Greene's work*
07:41 *📚 Gödel is viewed by some, like Rebecca Goldstein, as a philosopher who used mathematics to avoid controversies in his philosophical work*
11:54 *💡 The fear of losing creativity and the ability to generate new ideas is a common concern among mathematicians and scientists*
14:03 *🌟 Chaitin defines genius as being willing to back new ideas with insufficient evidence, risking being seen as eccentric if wrong*
15:44 *🏢 IBM's Research Center once allowed researchers more freedom for blue-sky research, but this approach has become less common in corporate environments*
19:23 *🔬 Innovation in science often requires fighting against established systems and paradigms*
20:51 *⚛️ Chaitin views quantum computing as a reformulation of 1920s quantum mechanics rather than a fundamental innovation*
23:31 *🏛️ The current academic system is criticized for forcing young researchers into a restrictive lifestyle of constant publishing and relocation*
24:27 *🎓 Chaitin argues that the system should value other contributions like teaching and writing books, not just research papers*
25:25 *🔬 The current research environment is described as gruesome and prison-like, taking the fun out of scientific inquiry*
27:10 *🧠 The "shut up and calculate" approach in physics is considered intellectually suicidal, as it discourages deeper philosophical thinking*
29:15 *⚛️ Fundamental questions about the nature of particles, like electrons, are often avoided in modern physics due to their challenging nature*
32:04 *💡 Exploring new ideas, like consciousness as information, requires willingness to go out on a limb, which is difficult in the current funding environment*
34:17 *🧭 Advice for young researchers: follow curiosity, ignore fashion, and try to contribute something new and meaningful*
35:41 *⚖️ Balancing conventional work with speculative research can be a strategy for surviving in academia while pursuing innovative ideas*
38:24 *📚 Writing books and creating educational content, like podcasts, can be valuable contributions to science, despite lack of academic recognition*
41:35 *🌱 Exposing young people to various scientific ideas through media like podcasts can help them make informed decisions about their future careers*
Every one of these trees insist they aren’t a part of the forest.
It is a shame that one must first confront the lie that is status quo prior to unseating it.
When you have massive institutions funding the continuation of stagnation, you must assume that the incentive is stagnation. The fact that scientists are not rebelling against government and military institutions nor refusing to continue their research just shows that scientists at the lower rung are also complicit.
We know for a fact that science has already advanced by 100 years since the initial framing of quantum mechanics, however, it has happened entirely behind closed doors, NDAs, and suicide by 3 gunshots, while military technology advances and public scientific knowledge dwindles. As Chaitan mentioned, science communicators are also complicit.
To me the lack of knowledge, or if you forget about it, is mandatory to discover new stuff. I don't know any way to unlearn stuff, but following Plato saying "I know I know nothing" might help.
Hello,
On the question of the Electron, I propose in my hypothesis, ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe ' that the Electron is not a Solid Fundamental Particle, but is infact a cluster of incredibly small negatively charged monopole particles called ' Harveytrons '. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh
40:59 He is so right about why I watch this stuff… I’m out of high school in college but I’ve been heading towards the physics direction since hs… glad I found this channel… so many high level discussions… I’ve been getting this hint about physics grad school for a while from people all across the web… and I agree with his outlook on it… I’d love to do research but not only do I doubt myself I’d love to have the freedom to explore what I wanted without fear of not delivering something immediately practical…that’s why I’m not going to get a physics PhD… I think I’ll go towards biophysics because there’s a lot of mystery there that I feel is probe-able… idk
Please follow biophysics :)
Would love to hang out with Greg over a beer 🔥🤘
This man is wonderful. I so appreciate that he is looking out for humanity by looking out for the eccentrics and rebels and the one's that alwyas don't fit into a mold, and insisting on their value.
This is also one of the main reasons I so like Eric Weinstein: that he insists on sticking up for the "losers" and the people who don't just sweep to success when put into the standard system. In my book, such work pardons a myriad of sins.
What a great channel ! Per the professor, recommend that if you want to do research that is provocative, off main stream, or simply different - you need to figure out how to self fund.
Which is what many of the previous thinkers did before the dysfunction of business academia established itself.
The graduate school machine is quite cynical. For US government research contracts, the university is charging the government upwards of twice the amount it pays the graduate student - a graduate student gets paid $20/hr but the university charges the government at $60/hr.
Where does the rest of the money go?
I like this man right of the rip. Thanks kurt ❤
The physics community needs to wake up and address the new experiments and theoretical evidence showing that the speed of light is not a constant as once thought. If the speed of light is not a constant, then Relativity and anything based on it are wrong. Our most recent paper, now peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the EM journal IRECAP, shows an EM pulse propagating in the nearfield across 1.5 m with no observable propagation delay, which is predicted by EM theory. This is proof that the front speed, or the speed of information is instantaneous in the nearfield. This is completely incompatible with Relativity and proves that it is wrong! This is the 2nd time this experiment has been performed by different independent researchers and observed the same result. A preprint of the paper is linked below.
The fundamental problem with unification of Gravity an Quantum Mechanics is that our current theory of gravity General Realtivity is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, and physicists have been struggling with this problem for over 100 years. It is time that we accept the possibility that either our current theory of Gravity or the theory of Quantum Mechanics are wrong. Current research by many independent researchers now show the problem is with Relativity, and hence any theory based on it like General Relativity. The proof is that the speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
The issue of contradictions in mathematics will never leave us as long as textbooks are written by people who don’t want to address these issues.
For example, students are still taught self-contradictory, at lower levels; then in order to repair that damage, later teachers must overcome unnecessary pedagogical inertia created in those upping minds.
This life's not for living, it's for fighting and for wars. No matter what the truth is, hold on to what is yours!
I've always thought computer science is more how mathematics should be than how mathematics itself is.
The sentiment around the creation of new software like compilers is something I recognise. It's like origami in you take a blank sheet of paper, fold it up in some particular way and it becomes a swan, a frog, a boat or something never dreamed of before. It's quite magical.
@21:40 interesting. He has a theoreticians bias. After 1920 an absurd amount of new experiments were done. But he did qualify by saying "the basic quantum framework". Was Yang-Mills theory not basic framework? I think it was, but I guess that's debatable. In 1920 no one had any clue about the framework for gauge bosons, zero clue. So personally I'd push the "no new foundations since... " to 1953.
What a great interview! What a great mind! I couldn't agree more.
Curt you are one of a kind my friend! You bridge the gap of physics and philosophy
@5:05 it is more sublte . Curt almost nailed it here. The Halting Probability is a fiction, but it is real, it "exists" but just not as a mathematical form. It exist precisely like those flying horses exist, in a story. In words, and sometimes in a vague partial mental qualia, though that is fleeting. Mathematical "existence" is a very special narrow notion.
The Halting probability is definable but not computable. It's a perfectly sensible class of real numbers. "Not a mathematical form?" What does that mean?
A great elucidation of Talebs conception of the 'soviet Harvard' model.
And this is physics. So many other fields are even worse off.
Ludwig Wittgenstein suggested an escape from Gödel: accept inconsistency to obtain completeness. Now that paraconsistent logics exist, Wittgenstein’s proposal seems more achievable.
end Cult of Personality in science would be a start
how about plain lies and not accepting solutions. i need my million dollars.
I read Chaitin's book on the Limits of Mathematics. It was not a great book, tbh. OTOH, he clearly has great taste in nudes, based on his photo collection.
Forgive me for being human, but the art in the background is extremely distracting.
Wow. You have all the self-control of a former president at a beauty pageant, you watch TOE, and somehow you haven't discovered how to bring up a small modal dialog box on your screen to fig leaf whatever needs fig-leafing? If that's too advanced for you, there are these things called Post-It notes. Those work, too. But no, your self-agency is confined to watching TOE while doing nothing at all to modify your local environment to abet your attention span. I'm honestly flabbergasted.
@@afterthesmash Damn dude, you'd be a blast at any party! Can I just ask...are you autistic? lol
She's a babe! Shwing!
Try closing your eyes?
The incompleteness theorems suggest no one system will have all the answers but that doesn't mean we cannot have all the answers given the right systems.
One of the greatests interviews I've seen in my life, thank you for sharing.
So many opportunities to make innocent jokes. ‘She had a nice, little…..synopsis’ I love little synopsis
Great interwiew!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
My love for this show and the guest Chaitin is... constant. ;)
Inserting the check up question of whether especially 1950's was a genuinely creative compared to 1920, or revealing partial implications of the revolution, was masterful showmanship.
Greg's answer was interesting. IMHO the most important new revelation of 1950's was left out of the question, namely TPC-symmetry which I consider the most important aspect of quantum cosmology.
The primary physical meaning of QM is (self-)revelation of the ideal and spiritual ontology of mathematics that is somehow coherent with sentient beings like us, mathematical cognition like the sentient world we can creatively participate with. As we can see from e.g. amplituhedron etc., Euclid's construction of five Platonic solids remains at the core of this ontology and process.
The optical theory of Euclid and most other Greeks has been that light comes from the eyes is primarily ideal, and in contemporary language we can understand geometrically definable attentive gaze as a qualia of decoherence. Consider the case of point. Finding your way to see point as a shadow of straight line, and then transforming your attentive perspective to that of the shadow-point is decoherent position in the sense that the line cannot be reversibly constructed from it's shadow, form an infinity of points/numbers.
We cannot challenge Zeno's argumentation against infinite regress without losing our own mobility. Attempt to do so by absurd dogmatism of "real numbers" and axiomatic set theory is among the main symptoms associated with stagnation of the prison that Academy has morphed into. To lighten up the prison as Plato's cave, the light needs to come from the inside, from our hearts and love for truth and beauty.
**Title: Quantum Nest Theory as an Integrated Model for Gravity, Cosmic Expansion, Information Protection, and Energy Conservation**
**Abstract:**
This paper presents Quantum Nest Theory (QNT) as an integrated model that unifies concepts from General Relativity (GR), Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and information theory. QNT posits that quantum fields constitute the fabric of spacetime, influencing gravity, cosmic expansion, and the conservation of energy. This model also addresses the roles of error-correcting codes and information protection within quantum fields, and offers new perspectives on dark matter and dark energy. We detail the theoretical framework and its implications, and suggest methods for empirical validation.
---
**1. Introduction**
Quantum Nest Theory (QNT) proposes a novel framework where quantum fields are not merely defined over spacetime but actually form its fundamental structure. This model integrates aspects of General Relativity (GR), Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and information theory to explain phenomena such as gravity, cosmic expansion, error-correcting codes, conservation of energy, dark matter, dark energy, and the nature of spacetime itself. This paper outlines the theoretical framework of QNT, its implications for various physical phenomena, and methods for testing its validity.
---
**2. Theoretical Framework**
**2.1 Unified Metric and Modified Einstein Field Equations**
In QNT, quantum fields are intertwined with spacetime, forming a unified metric that combines spacetime curvature with quantum field dynamics. The modified Einstein field equations incorporate the effects of shrinking quantum fields:
\[
G_{\mu
u} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} \left(T_{\mu
u} + T_{\mu
u}^{\text{fields}}
ight) - \Delta_{\mu
u}
\]
where:
- \(G_{\mu
u}\) is the Einstein tensor describing spacetime curvature.
- \(T_{\mu
u}\) is the energy-momentum tensor for matter and energy.
- \(T_{\mu
u}^{\text{fields}}\) represents contributions from quantum fields.
- \(\Delta_{\mu
u}\) accounts for the additional curvature effects due to shrinking quantum fields.
**2.2 Field Dynamics and Error-Correcting Codes**
The dynamics of shrinking quantum fields are described by:
\[
\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2} =
abla^2 \phi - V'(\phi) - \alpha \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}
\]
where \(\alpha\) is a parameter representing the rate of shrinking. Quantum fields, with their hierarchical nesting, incorporate error-correcting codes akin to those in information theory, ensuring the stability and protection of information across the nested levels.
**2.3 Unified Metric for Spacetime and Fields**
The unified metric that incorporates both spacetime curvature and field dynamics is:
\[
ds^2 = g_{\mu
u} dx^\mu dx^
u + \sum_{n} a_n(t)^2 d\phi_n^2
\]
where:
- \(g_{\mu
u}\) is the metric tensor of spacetime.
- \(a_n(t)\) is the scale factor for the \(n\)-th quantum field.
- \(d\phi_n^2\) represents contributions from each shrinking quantum field.
---
**3. Implications of Quantum Nest Theory**
**3.1 Gravity and Cosmic Expansion**
In QNT, the apparent expansion of the universe can be explained by the shrinking of quantum fields. If quantum fields are shrinking, the observed expansion of space can be modeled as:
\[
H_{\text{obs}} = H_{\text{true}} \cdot \frac{a(t)}{a_{\text{initial}}}
\]
where \(H_{\text{obs}}\) is the observed rate of expansion, and \(H_{\text{true}}\) is the intrinsic rate of expansion influenced by the shrinking fields.
**3.2 Error-Correcting Codes and Information Protection**
The nested structure of quantum fields functions similarly to error-correcting codes in information theory. Each nested level of fields provides redundancy and error protection, ensuring the integrity of information stored within the quantum fields. This hierarchical nesting can be modeled as:
\[
\text{Error Protection} = \text{Redundancy Factor} \times \text{Field Integrity}
\]
**3.3 Conservation of Energy**
The shrinking of quantum fields implies a redefinition of energy conservation. The conservation of energy can be described by the modified energy-momentum tensor, where:
\[
\text{Energy Conservation} = T_{\mu
u} + T_{\mu
u}^{\text{fields}} - \Delta_{\mu
u}
\]
This accounts for the dynamic changes in field energies and their impact on spacetime.
**3.4 Dark Matter and Dark Energy**
**Dark Matter:**
In QNT, dark matter can be interpreted as a result of the effects of quantum fields on spacetime curvature. The presence and distribution of dark matter would be reflected in the modified curvature terms:
\[
\text{Dark Matter} = \frac{\Delta_{\text{curvature}}}{\text{Spacetime Metric}}
\]
**Dark Energy:**
Dark energy, associated with the acceleration of cosmic expansion, can be explained by changes in the effective cosmological constant due to shrinking quantum fields:
\[
\Lambda_{\text{eff}} = \Lambda + \frac{\Delta \phi}{\Delta t}
\]
where \(\Delta \phi\) represents the changes in quantum fields influencing dark energy.
---
**4. Empirical Testing**
**4.1 Gravitational Waves**
To test QNT, analyze gravitational waves for deviations from predictions based on GR alone. Modifications in waveforms could indicate the impact of shrinking quantum fields.
**4.2 Redshift Observations**
Examine redshift data to see if the observed rate of cosmic expansion matches predictions based on shrinking fields. Comparing predicted and observed redshifts could validate the theory.
**4.3 Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Analysis**
Assess the CMB for anomalies consistent with the effects of shrinking quantum fields. Analyze temperature fluctuations and anisotropies to identify signatures of field dynamics.
---
**5. Conclusion**
Quantum Nest Theory offers a comprehensive framework that integrates quantum fields with spacetime, providing new insights into gravity, cosmic expansion, error-correcting codes, and energy conservation. By viewing quantum fields as the fabric of spacetime, QNT provides a novel explanation for dark matter and dark energy. Empirical testing through gravitational waves, redshift observations, and CMB analysis will be crucial in validating this integrated model.
**References:**
- Einstein, A. (1915). "Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation." Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
- Feynman, R.P., Leighton, R.B., & Sands, M. (1964). "The Feynman Lectures on Physics." Addison-Wesley.
- Weinberg, S. (2008). "Cosmology." Oxford University Press.
- Rovelli, C. (2004). "Quantum Gravity." Cambridge University Press.
- Maldacena, J.M. (1998). "The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity." International Journal of Theoretical Physics.
This paper outlines a unified model where quantum fields constitute the spacetime fabric, suggesting a novel approach to understanding fundamental physical phenomena. Further development and empirical validation will be essential for establishing the viability of this theoretical framework.
23:17 I wish you asked him what it was like in his era and what changes caused the issues he’s discussing
I think some form of intuitionist mathematics is going to be the way forward in physics. I've studied physics for 20+ years and I still haven't seen any real numbers (unfortunately im a mere experimentalist 😂).....everything is rational but we use irrational numbers... it's weird 🤷
37:44 Actually Curt, you ~yourself~ are greatly positioned to come up with the ToE :) Immersing yourself in all those perspectives. Patterns will start to emerge. Can't wait to see you winning a Nobel prize in 20 years :D
Read his book on Omega Number and also be honored to be former (now retired) colleague at IBM. Sad his picture of Academia distorsions today (as well as in Corporate Research)
18:00 I once said to my boss that we are all prostitutes, selling a subset of our personality and bodies for money at work. He looked at me a bit funny. It's nice to hear a smart man echo that thought.
Interesting, Curt, that you pose that personal question at the end. A potential new direction for a theory of everything is Lagrangian multiform theory, initiated by Lobb and Nijhoff in 2009. It changes the goal posts in variational calculus in that the Euler-Lagrange equations not only produce the relevant equations of motion but also predict the Lagrangians themselves. This is the only fundamental principle that does that: it is, in a sense, a theory of theories. Have a look into it.
Interesting. As far as I understand, this theory focuses on extending the lagrangian formulation to systems with several independent variables, but it doesn't inherently predict the form of the lagrangians themselves. If you happen to know any different please do let me know. Thank you so much for your comment
I resonate with his perceptions around new ideas. I felt that I had a few of those in my life but maybe only one or two.
One is that mathematics is not able to fully explain the physical world because there is no branch of mathematics pursued in base two, which would see every interaction as producing an offspring which is one of the possible sums of its components.
Accounting for genetics essentially. I understand our fractional system as being the system for genetic tracking used in antiquity. Now we use it to measure boards in halves, quarters, sixteenths and sixty fourths. Fun to explore mentally even though you may never reach any solid conclusions.
If there were nothing mathematical about reality, then it would be absurd to model reality by mathematics. What we actually find is the objective world is almost entirely captured by mathematics. Claiming that math says nothing about reality is akin to religious dogma.
Its important to realise that "math" isnt the scribbles on paper or the formal systems, those are just the representations of something deeper in reality.
Like taxes.
9. Infinitesimal Topos Language
To address Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, we introduce:
∀φ, ℒ ⊣ V(φ): φ or ¬φ (internal semantic completeness)
Where ℒ is an infinitesimal topos language, providing internal semantic completeness while retaining consistency.
Easily fixed…
If Terrance Howard’s theories were (say) 95% valid his visit to Joe Rogan should have destroyed the hubris and control structures of scientific academia while renewing a passion for all the sciences everywhere.
Alas… Terrance was closer to 5% so we wait for another, person and Theory…
This show has a possibility of being the groundbreaking venue to the world.
The question is: does Curt have the means (or desire) to invite the next unheard of patent clerk, taxi driver or tech to express his insights.
LOL. No one watching Joe Rogan is ever going to lift a single finger to change the world for the better. Hope you can prove me wrong.
@@Achrononmasterillogical response.
Joe is not the subject.
The listener to Joe(ish) podcasts are not the issue.
Any non-scientist with a valid scientific idea cannot be published, (that is the subject).
That (those) Ideas need an alternative platform to be heard, (that is the issue)
Any platform with 1M+ subscribers with some scientific curiosity will do. ( that is the simple solution)
He’s so right about academic work being like being in a prison.
I read his Quest for Omega book a while back and absolutely loved it
I'm a gardener, and I'm working on spindle cusp plasma confinement and electrostatic lift at the moment.
Probably not much of an idea what I'm doing, but learning's fun.
Plasma is the future of science.
The main problem is that ordinary people don't believe in science, so there's not enough funding available.
Math is a human language that we use to try and describe the world we find ourselves in.
I have heared saying on other videos that math is a language. As learned math it is true
If math is a purely human construct, how do you explain the unreasonable effectiveness of it when describing natural phenomenon?
This. Without recognizing it, we are doomed.
The universe is not "mathematical" in nature, we are mathematical in our thinking.
Consciousness transcends thinking, hence mathematics, and it is fundamentally incorrect to say that consciousness is information. Consciousness is awareness, and awareness is non-computational.
@@ZedOhZed What is unreasonable about it's effectiveness?
@BaconMaker1 Simple, we can also use it to describe things that have no known connection to the natural world. It's a human consciousness tool. The universe may or may not operate under our descriptors. Utility, correctness, and abstraction help support its use.
Gotta love that pic on the wall, what food for thoughts
"I agree with everything he says about Academia as well as Tech Corporations."
I cannot agree more with him. I left research after my PhD for these reasons. Plus the incentives of the system select for the worst kind of individuals (narcissists, sociopaths,...) to thrive.
The Earth is the Centre of the Universe.
This is an unthinkable idea, not an unprovable one
Thumbnail POV: you're working at Krispy Kreme and watching the guy pick out what he wants.
Everything we imagine & reinforce via belief systems others have reinforced based on conjectures will become real. The human has mastered the art of reifying problems that don't exist! Only reinforcing one side if the frequency, which operates with positive & negative working as 1 unit, nit separated.
Exactly!
Excuse typos
Hi. Love this, I've deciphered the Ishango Bone by combining 3 algebraic rules. Who cares that it is based on gravity wave and is the only algorithm of such a thing. It solved any Clay Math Problems, but I am ignored...I have an infinite set...
I 100% agree with him when he said academia is like a prison. Thats why I left academia.
Abstraction is the quantization of infinity, and infinity can't be quantized, and yet, here we are.
@27:55 Just being good at doing meaningless calculations, I mean, yes, that's a good talent,...😂
Follow your curiosity and amass personal wealth. Got it.
Did Gregory say, "Believe in Dharma"? Would be really interesting to hear his views on Dharma.
All you have to do is examine john gabriels new calculus and the answer to your leading question is 'yes'.
Would he support D Deutsch's vision and epistemology and his effort on the Constructor Theory?
T h i s !
This all began to happen once womyn started to enter academia via DEI programs. Much to ponder.
I wonder did he apply Gödels Theorem to the woman in the picture behind him.
would there be a colapsing point for knowledge, where you get to a limit in wich you can only imagine the unknown with that you allready know, and implode in to a solipsistic end of time? can you imagine another physical sense?
"It's possible that the physical universe Is finite ..." According to Edward Fredkin, infinities, infinitesimals, perfectly continuous functions, and local sources of randomness are figments of human imagination & do not occur in nature. Is Fredkin in the same ballpark as Newton & Einstein? Conjecture 1. String theory is the basis for a unified theory of mathematics & theoretical physics. Conjecture 2. All of MOND's empirical successes are also empirical successes of string theory (in some form). Conjecture 3: If string vibrations slightly disrupt graviton spin, then there are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups & the monster group together with the 6 pariah groups allow the multiverse to be mathematically isomorphic to a finite-state machine in which string vibrations are approximately confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice. What might be the case if all gravitons have spin 2 & string vibrations do not disrupt graviton spin?
My opinion is that the world’s 3 greatest living scientists are Mordehai Milgrom, Louise Riofrio, and Yves-Henri Sanejouand. Is the preceding opinion wrong? According to the 2017 article ‘Hubble law: measure and interpretation’, by Paturel, Teerikorpi, & Baryshev, “… we are probably on the eve of a new understanding of our Universe, heralded by the need to interpret some cosmological key observations in terms of unknown processes and substances,”
Is the following essential for understanding string theory? “MOND as manifestation of modified inertia” by Mordehai Milgrom, 2023
arxiv.org/abs/2310.14334
Hypothesis 1. All gravitons have spin 2 & gravitational energy is conserved. Hypothesis 2. The Friedmann cosmological model needs to be replaced by the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model. Hypothesis 3. If all gravitons have spin 2, then MOND’s empirical successes and the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model can be plausibly explained by a luminiferous slowing (LS) field. The LS field replaces the inflaton field and might be associated with an LS boson having an extremely large mass. As our universe ages, the LS field causes a very slow decrease in the speed of photons, gravitons, and gluons, but leaves the wavelengths of those particles unchanged - thus explaining the dark energy phenomenon. As our universe ages, the LS field causes a very slow increase in paradoxical MOND inertia - thus explaining the dark matter phenomenon. Thus, the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model combined with paradoxical MOND inertia might explain both the dark matter phenomenon and the dark energy phenomenon - but without dark matter particles and without an inflaton field.
Mumbo jubmo Hodor Groot, wambo mitzubishi, Chuck Norris.
Yup, this is the impression i got, trying to read your "comment". It's Utter nonsense.
From Gemini Advanced:
Let's break down the key points and questions presented in the comment and attempt to provide some clarity.
==Edward Fredkin's Ideas and their Significance==
Fredkin's stance on infinities, infinitesimals, and perfect continuity challenges some fundamental assumptions in mathematics and physics. It suggests that the universe might be more discrete and finite than our current models suggest.
Whether Fredkin is in the same league as Newton or Einstein is debatable. His ideas are provocative and could potentially lead to new insights, but their impact and acceptance in the scientific community remain to be seen.
==Conjectures on String Theory and MOND==
The conjectures presented are bold and speculative. While it's possible to explore connections between string theory, MOND, and even finite-state machines, concrete evidence supporting these specific ideas is currently lacking.
The idea of string vibrations disrupting graviton spin and its connection to the number of quarks and the structure of the multiverse is intriguing but highly theoretical.
==Graviton Spin and its Implications==
The question about gravitons having spin 2 and the absence of disruption by string vibrations leads to the consideration of alternative explanations for phenomena currently attributed to dark matter and dark energy.
==Opinions on Leading Scientists==
The opinion on the three greatest living scientists is subjective. While Milgrom, Riofrio, and Sanejouand have made significant contributions, there are many other deserving candidates depending on one's perspective and area of interest.
==Hubble Law and New Understanding of the Universe==
The quote from the 2017 article highlights the current challenges in cosmology and the potential need for new theoretical frameworks and explanations.
==MOND and String Theory==
Whether understanding MOND as a manifestation of modified inertia is essential for grasping string theory is unclear. While MOND addresses specific challenges in galactic dynamics, its connection to the fundamental nature of spacetime and the underlying principles of string theory is less established.
==Hypotheses on Gravitons, Cosmology, and the LS Field==
The hypotheses presented offer a potential alternative explanation for dark matter and dark energy. However, they require further theoretical development and observational evidence to gain traction within the scientific community.
The concept of an LS field and its impact on the speed of fundamental particles is fascinating but requires rigorous testing and validation.
==Overall==
The comment presents a mix of established ideas, speculative conjectures, and thought-provoking hypotheses. It reflects the dynamic and evolving nature of scientific inquiry, particularly in areas like cosmology and fundamental physics, where many questions remain unanswered.
While some of the ideas may seem far-fetched, they encourage us to think beyond current paradigms and explore new possibilities. It is through such explorations and critical examination that we may eventually arrive at a deeper understanding of the universe and its underlying principles.
Me again:
This is _far_ less harsh that Gemini has been when I've pasted in other wall-of-text hurly burly. Basically, the last time I did this, the short verdict was "word salad".
This is almost a B- as these things go. The dense formatting of the original post is a D- (loving these new chatbots), but the babble itself can not be instantly dismissed as having no worth at all.
010 I.S. (Information System) the G.U.T. of mathematics
Algorithmic information theory is a really difficult book to read I mean you must think while reading each sentence or equation