As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist and all it has to offer. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e
I think right-handed neutrinos have just temporarily pole shifted... And because we live in either the North or South Pole of the universe one spin is preferred over the other...
One of the biggest problem is having a 3 + 1 system of space-time and why do we observe the relative state or shape of our universe as flat instead of evenly distributed or spherical in manner if we are living in a 3 + 1 system of SpaceTime‽
The reason is because we are not living in a 3 + 1 system of space-time and following the logical progression of the spatial dimensions would have to be able to stack in any size four dimensional existence... This means that a infinite three-dimensional multiverse becomes the norm and the observations of our compressed universe and dark matter and dark energy are results of higher spatial dimensional existence.
Another major problem is how do you solve for black holes emitting non baryonic matter as recently discovered‽ Again it comes down to string theory and string membranes or loops. These 3d membranes or loops can be destroyed by The Singularity of a black hole straightening them out into a state in between two dimensional and three-dimensional... Two-dimensional has absolutely no Mass because there's absolutely no volume... Add two dimensional black holes might exist along with one-dimensional black holes as well... This would make dark energy whereas our three-dimensional black holes make dark matter AKA non baryonic matter....
36:34 WRONG! We have observational proofs for a higher spatial dimension to exist... You can ignore the logic all you want but logical will always beat you if you're illogical...
I really appreciate Prof.Woit's blog "Not even wrong" and his book on representation theory and quantum theory in which he really underlines the math. behind it. I encourage anyone to take a look at It Thanks for the interview
I'm barely grasping any concept in physics but I'm so hooked on curt and his style of interview/ long form presentations. Hes really the best thing on youtube. Keating and weinstien need to take a page from this man's skills in education. Top tier content. 👌
I already enjoyed the first conversation with Peter Woit. When I discovered the second interview here, I was very pleased. Very exciting. Many thanks for producing it.
One of the best interviews I've ever watched. The part 1 summary was excellent. And it's fasinating what Dr. Woit is working on. I hope talking through it helps him with his research.
They’re catching on, a little late,,, but it’s happening. Good job Curt. Your relentless dude. The amount of quality content you put out is astounding! Your brilliant man. Please continue!
The best part was when right and left chirality leading to weak and GR (Ashtekar variables). However all these tells me so much of imaginary time. Perhaps this is what made Attia not understand abstract algebra.
Thank you curt peter is one of the clearest honest peoplein the field who knows the difference between hypotheses and theory. One is speculation the latter predicts. Twisters theory next?
This is a welcome release today. I'm really enjoying the "Rethinking the Foundations" series, and I'm definitely looking forward to listening to this episode.
I remember reading Peter's blog during the ... String Wars ... era. Always found his writing interesting, technical. But most importantly, while he did call people out whenever needed, he always played the ball, not the person.
This was a great watch and great arguments were presented by him. It’s also great that this channel is also doing formal physics talks not just podcasts
Peter Woit, yay! Just finished reading "Not even wrong" just the other month. Interesting read, I would really like to see a second edition updated with the results from the LHC.
Thank you for your talk and your book on Quantum Theory, Groups and Representations. Super inspiring! Indeed irreducible representations have applications in many other linear systems (equipped with a Hilbert space), such as electromagnetic waves. Do you know about the Riemann-Silberstein vector? It is a complexified version of the EM field and it is associated with the irreducible representations (of Poincaré and Euclidean groups) in the case of classical electromagnetic theory. Thank you both for this amazing content 😊
Curt, it's an absolute thrill to witness these brilliant minds becoming rock stars before our eyes. Peter Void is a true genius in physics, and it's a rare privilege to hear him break down his insights for us mere mortals.
Great interview and super interviewer as well, and I really appreciate the historic review by prof Hoit, and the way he does it! Science at its best! Too rare with this type of review though. Will continue to follow prof Hoit's blogg, and the 4d spinor and twistor concept. Think Penrose has some interesting ideas with the unification as well, and his twistor. Will advice my students to follow his blogg and seriously watch this interview. Brilliant!
Great first half, nice/concise breakdown to start…going to catch rest later. 2 Simple Questions: -What will we gain from “unification”, what will we do with it? -Why can’t there be 2 theories? Thank y’all both for the knowledge!✌🏼🤙🏼😊
I am not a physicists and not answering your question. To me, a unified theory seams irrational. I see no reason why there has to be any expression of gravity in Quantum theories.
@@axle.student all ideas are welcome here my friend…I’m kind of on the same page. I’m a user of math/physics and there is a drag on technology. I rely on tangible science to mature at a certain pace, that has stalled and I can only point to the “theorizing” as the culprit. Have a great one Axle!✌🏼😊
@@brandonb5075 Thank you. Take care :) > P.S. I have always followed physics (unindentured) but was recently playing around with time dilation due to velocity in SR graphic. The incorrect idea of a photon experiencing no time kind of kicked me down a rabbit hole with some of the age old edge problems with relativity. I wish I hadn't gone down that rabbit hole as it is scary messy down there lol
@@axle.student ahhh…the photon. A magical thing that has no mass but does have velocity. I still haven’t had that one explained. Ha! The rabbit holes are fun and more of them have “rabbits” than you think. They will suck you in. My best advice would be to learn as much “mainstream” as you can, but with the mindset of, ‘nothing is really solved’. Then once you have a base understanding, start testing YOUR intuition on things you question. Trust your gut and always be the one to ask the question, especially if you think it’s “dumb”. It’s not, someone else is wondering too. 🤙🏼
@@brandonb5075 The photon apparently has a very small mass, but has no "at rest mass". It is "never" at rest. This also leads into the issue of a photon experiencing no time because it is always at 'c', but old Albert made it clear that you can't calculate time dilation on a photon (or other massless particles) as they have no "at rest" state to have dilation to begin with. It was a bit of a "we don't fully understand this massless particle that moves at the speed of light" so my theory of relativity can't help you with that. > My trap was attempting to resolve the definition of Space-Time and the pseudo 4D geometry. The problem I uncovered there is at a whole different level, but I am noticing some physicists beginning to talk about it, so hopefully they will see it soon :)
I was expecting a typical conversation first, then Peter goes into presentation mode. Curt, what you’re doing is so cool! Stay with it! Now I’ma let Peter teach me some math. ( I read his QM books and really loved it) 🍿
This video is wonderful! Dr. Woit provides a physics-respecting, experimentally-aware analysis focused on uncovering the best possible and least complicated mathematical model for what decades of observation establish as solidly reproducible in the lab. As I listened to his deeply insightful exposition on the need for care rather than carelessness when selecting and applying mathematical models to observed reality, this quote came to mind: _The modern quantum theory … forces us to employ a … number of dimensions [that] is not that of previous physics, namely 4, but which has dimensions increasing without limit as the number of the particles constituting the system under examination increases. I cannot help confessing that I myself accord to this interpretation no more than a transitory significance._ - Albert Einstein, 1934, _On the Method of Theoretical Physics._ Thus, you are in excellent company, Dr. Woit. It is refreshing to someone like you doing legitimate physics theory in an ocean of overconfident mathematical generative silliness that inexplicably treats severely oversimplified, physics-indifferent data structures such as Hilbert spaces as "more real" than anything we observe in the physical world.
This is a very interesting interview and discussion. Professor Woit's intuition that complex space time may be critical in advancing fundamental physics is reminiscent of earlier ideas of Einstein in the 1930s. But Einstein's efforts involving complex space time were directed at classical general relativity. He believed that ultimately quantum mechanics and quantum field theory would be derived from classical field theory. This was discussed in his paper "Physics and Reality" published by the Franklin Institute in 1938. His ideas about quantum mechanics seem to be gaining traction today.
I share some values with Woit like the respect for maths and an ambition to understand the foundations in as much depth as possible, e.g. via teaching and writing textbooks, both in physics and in related math fields, keeping an eye on recent developments in pure maths, e.g. by following maths prizes. I have an impression that in English-speaking countries pure maths is sometimes underrated and belittled as a mere tool.
Curt, I only recently discovered your channel and have to say your Rethinking the Foundations of Physics series is excellent. This interview with Peter Woit and the ones with Neil Turok are especially interesting. I'd love to hear an interchange between these two people with Penrose.
Yep, 100%. I enjoy listening to experts talking about subjects they are passionate about, even if I can only understand a little bit. It is a great reminder of how little we know.
Just for clarification: SU(2) is topologically S^3, which is the 3d-surface of a 4d-ball, not S^2, which is the 2d-surface of a 3d-ball like a tennis ball or basket ball
I have never been able to understand why the requirement for this pseudo 2D/3D topology in relativity. What physical object/surface is it relating to? Creating a topology for a real spherical object such as a planet makes sense, but for space-time I can't relate it to anything :( Is it meant to be some spherical topology of the radii of a sphere measured from it's center?
@@LoraHC Well it is along the lines of what I said above. What is the benefit of creating an infinitely thin 2D spherical surface in distance/time? especially when it would appear that there is no direct causal relationship between any of those mapped points on the surface (is this some part of QFT mapped into special relativity? which doesn't make sense.). Or I guess why this type of geometry over directly mapping the radial lines from an object (center of the past/forward sphere). It just feels like it is creating a pseudo (abstract mathematical) geometry that doesn't match well with the reality of nature.
The hard part is actually defining what 4D is. Most take the pseudo 4D geometry for granted. It's more of an observer effect of the illusion of the past.
@@justinpridham7919 there is no time dimension. It depends on the reference frame. The only time that has any reality is the time we experience, i.e. proper time, coordinate time is relative.
@@zemm9003 The problem is: "What is 'proper time'?" When proper time is also a pseudo coordinate time. Where are we finding this "Persistent" concept of time from? We are kind of stuck with 3 dimensions of space-time rather than 4 dimensions xt, yt, zt. Can we really call it 4 dimensional? > Not criticizing your comment, just illuminating some problems with the concept of 4D space-time.
@@axle.student we clearly have 4 dimensions of spacetime. We always had and knew about it, simply it wasn't part of the theory, there was no reason to treat Physical Systems as 4 dimensional since in Classical Mechanics time does play a separate role. This is due to the fact that for the longest time we could only do experiments on Earth where time did not play an important role other than being an arbitrary parameter in the equations. In GR time doesn't even strictly exist, however it is Physically a concept that makes sense from the point of view of the reference frame of the observer, thus we use proper time as the experimental measure of the spacetime interval for the user at rest.
I fell in love with Geometric Algebra. I occasionally run into astonishing connections. See Cohl Furey basically derive the main particles with Clifford Algebra. It's almost as if reality is just mathematics.
when he mentions "objects that square to 1, -1, and 0"; he's talking about Geometric Algebra, aka Clifford Algebra. As soon as you really start using Geometry, things stop commuting; because rotations involve anti-commutativity.
Impressive how langlands, Twistors and Spinors have some interesting connections. It's a impressive connection Prof. Woit do with SU(2). We have some work in automorphic forms in the future.
Brilliant stuff. I'm at 0:52 and this is riveting, don't you agree? Curt's questions are just enough to give me a toe hold. I have been waiting for someone like Woit to lay down the status of the field in an honest way, beyond the low level of Sabine Hossenfelder. Woit does have difficulty bringing things down, understandable given that he operates at such a precise high-level day-to-day. Nevertheless, I grasped the key point: that since 50 years the key idea of "explaining" the standard model (SM) has been embedding it into bigger groups, or higher dimensions ... and that has yielded no testable outcome! (Minor point: while I understood the spinors are a "square root" of vectors, I did not understand how the extenstion to "Lie superalgebras" worked ... I thought spinors were a *result* of using rotation symmetry ... they arise naturally as the irreps on rotation symmetry ... so what does is mean to "extend" physics 'in the spinor direction"? Still, I got the idea, and I can finally research this. To me, Woit seems to be the intellectual successor of Coleman. Thank you Curt. This is one of the few cases where the google algorithm has kicked up something very interesting! I subscribed immediately. Brain rested. I continue! Now at 1:12 ... I mention for those interested, that Dirac mentioned very clearly (IMHO) in the first paragraphs of his 1974 notes "Spinors in Hilbert Space" that: "In a structureless real Hilbert space there are no special linear transformations. All are on the same footing. This is the most suitable basis for a general mathematical theory. The existence of special transformations would complicate the discussion of the fundamental ideas. We shall therefore deal with a real Hilbert space, where the vectors have real coordinates.". Perhaps I am mistaken, but this emphasis on real time, or at least a recognition that real and imaginary time lead to different issues (somewhat hidden in the theory of complex, holomorphic functions) is a big issue. Now at 1.:17 ... Finally we come to Clifford algebras ... this really resonates regarding what I have read in some of David Hestenes work ... Is he still alive ... Curt, can we get him or some others to comment on this remarkable talk? ... I have to finish the talk now ... Now at 1:26 ... what anamazingly humble guy, I get the impression he just wants to advance the science ... a true old school gentlemen-scientist!
@@williambranch4283 Already a reply?! I have edited my commentary since. I have a great respect for Sabine! [Having said that, I gave her hell for one of her episodes on AI. To her credit, she highlighted my response. :-)]. But you know, the world requires all types. What counts in the scientific spirit of skepticism, which Hossenfelder tries to encourage. And this Woit guy seems to call it as he sees it. (Thanks for informing he was a mathematician. He's more on the physical side, though). One minor point, not mentioned in my (edited) comment to which you responded. Woit was rather dismissive of "crackpots" who questioned Einstein. I make only one points. Einstein himself regarded all his work as "provisional", I believe. As a true scientist should. Indeed, we know he is wrong in some regard. Recently I came across the criticisms of relativity theory from Norman Wildberger. I found that he raised a valid point criticizing the fact that only the forward-backward time of a signal is measurable, not just the outward signal time. He is also a mathematician with many valid points. Look him up. Good night!
@@dylanjayatilaka8533 I am an un-collapsed wave function, so I can be everywhere all at once ;-) You know Wildberger? Now there is an original mind. Exhausted foundational ideas in academia. Check out Graham Priest if you want to question logic, not just infinities ;-)
The minus sign in the Minkowski metric is a consequence of the fact that the Lorentz transformations were derived by setting the wave sphere from a flash of light equal to zero. Ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2-c^2dt^2=0=ds’^2, it’s not mysterious.
54:00 Pauli, RT, paragraph 22, Geometry of the real world,"So far, we have tacitly assumed that the ds^2 shape is a certain shape. This is not the case in the actual space-time world, since ds^2 in normal form has three terms positive and one negative." "This new type of universe in its other properties resembles Einstein's cylindrical world." (A. Friedmann, "On the curvature of space", 1922). 0.Developing Einstein's hypothesis of a cylindrical world, GR "migrates" into phase space: due to this, it is quantized. 1.The Poisson equation can be written as: ∆g(00)=8πGT(00)/c^4, where g(00) is the time component of the metric tensor (for a weakly curved metric the time component of the energy-momentum tensor: T(00)~=pc^2). This equation is true only in the non-relativistic case, but it is applicable to the case of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, when Einstein's equations have only solutions with a time-varying space-time metric. 2.Then the energy density of the gravitational field: g^2/8πG=T(00)=pc^2 [~=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4= =1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (~500 quanta/cm^3)], 3.Where the critical density value determining the nature of the model is: p=(3/8π)H^2/G. Hence it follows: g~πcH. 4.Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space. (a).Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, and we can now talk about the fact that it is possible to generate a gravitational field in a non-inertial frame of reference (|a|=g).That is, finally achieve global (instead of local in GR) compliance with the strong equivalence principle. (b).When according to the strong equivalence principle: g=|a*|=πcH [=r(pl)w(relic)^2], and w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. Thus H=1,72*10^-20sec^-1. {By the way, at t(universe)= πт(pl), w(“relic”) was =w(pl); at 1/”H”= t(universe)=380000 years, w(“relic”)/2π was =3.5*10^14 Hz} 5.Intra-metagalactic gravitational potential: |ф0|=πGmpl/λ(relic)=[Gm(pl)/2c]w(relic), where the constant Gm(pl)/2c is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i) = (½)S(pl)w(pl) = h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction. (a).The basic formula QG of the quantum expression of the Newtonian gravitational potential is: ф(G)=-Ф(i)w, where w is the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational (~ vibrational) field.} (b).“Giving the interval ds the size of time, we will denote it by dт: in this case, the constant k will have the dimension length divided by mass and in CGS units will be equal to 1,87*10^-27", Friedmann, (On the curvature of space, 1922). [The ds, which is assumed to have the dimension of time, we denote by dт; then the constant k has the dimension Length Mass and in CGS-units is equal to 1, 87.10^ ± 27. See Laue, Die Relativitatstheorie, Bd. II, S. 185. Braunschweig 1921.] (c).Apparently, the following expression takes place: μ(0)ε(0)Gi=1, which means that Gi=с^2 where i is inertial constant, i=1,346*10^28[g/cm]; or k°=1/i=7,429*10^-29[cm/g]: k(Friedmann)/k°=8π; where k°=r(pl)/m(pl)=r(G)/2m(0); i=m(pl)/r(pl)=(1/c)m(pl)w(pl), w=[r(G)/r]w(pl). 6.That is ф(G)=-[Gm(pl)/2c]w=-(½)[w/w(pl)]c^2=-(½)(√Għ/c)w=-Ф(i)w.
To add to my previous comments, the internal symmetry would correspond to the closed string whereas the spacetime symmetry corresponds to the open string case. I have a a very old video in which I showed that a right handed coordinates with differential elements of E, H, E^H can be used to derive Maxwell equations whereas a left handed coordinates with the same elements by representing mechanical variables result in the gravito-magnetic equation which is Maxwell for gravity.
@28:15 any young kids reading should at this point learn that the relationship is the other way around in the Clifford algebra. The spinors are scaled rotors, ρR. A reflection in GA is a _geometric product_ sandwich with a unit vector 'n', so a→ a' = −nan. The *_rotors are geometric products of two unit vectors,_* R=nm. A rotation is the sandwich product with a rotor and its reverse, a → a' = (nm)a(mn). I'm not throwing shade on Woit... but actually I am! He gets paid to do this stuff, I don't. It is a tragedy David Hestenes is not going to live to see most new textbooks using GA for QM.
i used to be really into GA - i haven’t fallen out of love with it, but as i have gone on into research it hasn’t really revealed itself as necessary compared to the standard formalism when doing geometry, topology, spin structures etc. it’s a shame, because it is beautiful
Ah, the wonders of using language to obfuscate what you're doing. Very clever. Any kindergartners reading should compare and contrast with the poetry of Lear.
That brought some Neurons out of dormancy. How refreshing it is to hear intelligent chatter. It's like hanging out with your big brother and his friend, listening to them talk and playing video games and having a beer; you know they're way smarter than you but you understand everything they say.
A lot of what I heard reminded me of the writings of David Hestenes on the application of Geometric Algebra to Quantum Mechanics as Real Quantum Mechanics. The brief mention of Clifford Algebra reinforced this but it sounds a bit more primitive than Spacetime Algebra. Hestenes wrote a lot about the Dirac operator as a vector derivative and spinors formed from vectors. I'm not saying any swiping of ideas has taken place but it's generating a familiar resonance. I'm just as interested in the ideas presented here as Cohl Furey's and Anthony Lasenby's ideas about Octonions and the Standard Model.
23:35 weak division suggested bonding shows the permeability of 3 spherical fields that have varied enthalpy/size potential or light but are relatively the same due to conservation information of the immediate or acute field
When groups of same entangled strings attract so it’s generate vibration or spins in ends where we logically tell them particles but it’s end of strings. We are focusing only on particle I mean inside the ends of strings.
Love your podcast Curt, not many quite like it on the internet. Have you looked into Thomas Bearden and quarternions, forgotten Maxwell equations, etc.? Would love to hear your thoughts.
@@gilesmaybery6181 It was a pragmatic decision by Gibb’s generation to avoid the exotic algebraic structures, many more odd than quaternions, if the applications at that time didn’t necessitate using them. KISS. Quaternions made a comeback when they were needed, in dynamic computer graphics … a computer being less annoyed at the weirdness than a Victorian at a blackboard ;-)
@williambranch4283 I kinda gathered something similar. Basically easier to do calculations with, but what if there are insights hidden within that complex math.. Can you suggest any topics to look at? Search terms
So far, Woit has suggested a promising alternative framework for unifying gravity and QM. What I need to hear from him is what predictions come from this framework that we could observe at achievable energies. Will we still need to measure systems at Planck length energies before confirming this symmetry-breaking regime? If so, this is a distinction from SUSY without a difference.
Theoretical physicists want to quantize gravity as a sort of unification, but quantum gravity never address the problem that really drives RG away from QM or QFT.... The fact that the zero point energy never bends spacetime.... QFT says that the vacuum energy/volume should be 10^120 times than the Cosmological Constant (or dark energy). I see no reason for quantization of gravity without addressing this real problem ....
Bringing up the Cosmological Constant in relation to QFT is a good point but the Cosmological Constant literally comes out of Einstein’s field equations which have a foundation of 4-dimensional manifolds whenever he realized his mistake of thinking of the universe in a steady state geometry after evidence of accelerating expansion from Hubble’s discovery, so the real question is do we actually understand the geometrical nature of the observable universe as we think we do?
The thing is not only we need to rethink our foundation but also we need to rethink the thinking process that leads to the foundation in all Branch of science THE DOGMA is a disease. I ❤ you series bro Keep the great work bro.
At about 30:00, the video sadly omitted the *reason* why supersymmetry idea was explored. It greatly simplifies remormalization problem and possibly even gives *non* divergent results where the "usual" theory has a divergence.
Listening to this discussion leads me to believe that my tax dollars are NOT being wasted here. I grasp the concepts but do not have the energy to even want to do the Geometry and Analysis. Really interesting work.
If you have to make time complex, then you have to make energy complex as well. Then you also have to redefine Hilbert space, I guess, with wavefunctions decaying by itself, the way it happens in Laplace space.
A pretty good video. I agree that it looks like a very good summary of the half-century search for GUT, comparable maybe to Roger Penrose’s Road to Reality which also makes such overviews. Maybe it should be cut and released with a different label.
"a lot of people are reluctant to do that because they are worried 'their' ideas will get swiped"... "their" ideas. Does a garden hose own the water that flows through it?
We are seeing 3 things due to the two spins relating to a unified number a 3-manifold set, the tree is a math model, fidelity of native gates are constant.
I am commenting at just about the 9:30 time. Physics, and science in general, is the activity of describing nature. We then can use those descriptions to manipulate nature, if we want. That is really engineering, or the application of science to create things. So, we have a good description with the two main theories of physics, General Relativity and the Standard Model. My sense, and I get this from long association with physics and from following the whole debate about these issues, is that the questions asked about why some parameters, or their ratios, are what they are is really not scientific. The more I read and see or hear the more I am convinced about this. The fact that progress in fundamental physics has stalled for the last half century strengthens this belief. By the way, I started studying physics at university in 1973. I had a job in the High Energy Physics department where I learned to program and learned a lot of statistics. I dropped out and went into computer science. I did a lot of things over my career where I could use those skills and my knowledge of physics to do some really interesting stuff.
@@williambranch4283 Good for you. One of the reasons I did not go back to physics was that while I was at university I saw a situation where it was hard to get tenure. At the university I was at an assistant professor could do two three year contracts and would then have to get tenure or leave. There were four that I knew one year, and only one slot. They all deserved tenure. One of them, who did not get tenure was my professor for the first year, and someone I worked with closely. I really liked and respected him. He went off to head Pfizer's CAT scanner division and the physics and computing departments with that division. He was not hurting. Another interesting indicator was two close friends who were graduate students. One had a wife who had a good job, so he just wanted to get a $5/hour programmer job (that was good money at the time). He went on an interview at a new sonar lab at an aerospace company. They wanted to make him the head of the lab because of his physics PhD. He declined. The other I caught up with on LinkedIn. He ended up working at a prestigious university in the IT department.
I agree unification has become the cart before the horse idea for way too long. We should examine other possible mechanisms where the end result is an emergent extension of relativity. If it becomes unification; so be it. The idea needs too take a long break. Then, possibly a simpler solution will present it's self.
Hi, what you said at the beginning of this video about String Theory is a failure after 40 years, is not really true. The aim of String theory was to unify Quantum Theory and Gravity, and String theory did just that, but it is all mathematical, there are other issues with it, their theory is also not testable at the moment, etc, etc, ... BUT, the initial aim of unification of previous String theories by Ed Witten in M-Theory, and Quantum-Gravity, in terms of MATH is a Tour-De-Force! It has led into Mathematicians going into research of new Math theories connected to the math CREATED in String Theory! The mathematics that was spawned by String Theory, has created a Bridge between Mathematicians Pure Math and Quantum Mechanics in general. The Langlands program in mathematics is a BIG PROJECT , both Ed Witten and Edward Frenkel contributing to the "Langlands program ". Langlands program has been described by Edward Frenkel as "a kind of grand unified theory of mathematics." So, I just wanted to say that DON"T JUMP THE GUN, and Say that String Theory is a Failure. It maybe doing a slight DETOUR into mathematics, and it may come back in the future with some math that may TRULY Help Physics, later on. So just wanted to say, that it has helped in the field of math in a big way!
Every Quantum particle possesses a Spin state coupling constant and demonstrates 👍Chirality 👍(left, right placement mismatch, the human thumb is possible, worst use for a thumb ever), yet are highly significant. There is a good deal more, explained in detail, why. The S-2 coupling constant of a certain Lepton is currently of high interest to quantum physics, celestial mechanics and cold matter physics or subatomic particle science. Sterile (no electromagnetic/photonic interaction) or the *_*right-handed neutrino_**. Since the discovery of the Heliopause, in 1993 when Voyager crossed the boundary of Sol's maximum influence (Sun), detecting rapid changes to the environment as plasma and supercharged ion-charged winds crash into a magnetic boundary that protects the inner solar system and what makes life possible, came with further detections being reported as "cold neutral atoms". This heavy matter potentially is a candidate for that highly elusive matter defined in the theories of leptogenesis as dark matter, meeting the requirements of the Lambda CDM model. Right-handed spin is uncommon on Earth, it's not non-existent but exists in a minority of all non-baryonic matter (Bode-Einstein condensate -258K cold matter physics), typically produced by stars in processes of stellar nucleosynthesis, or in abundances by Neutron stars maybe even in Pulsars. Heavy leptons, exclusive interaction with Gravity, earned it the title of Heavey Neutral Lepton (HNL) or *_*Neutral Heavy Lepton (NHL)_**, much to the despair of the National 🏒 Hockey League (also the NHL), who have been frosty to remarks of their now being a connection with dark matter, presently accused as one possible cause for the continued accelerating expansion rate of the Universe 🤣. . .(puk puk puk). 🏑 Geometric Quantum Mechanic's novel and prospective approach, is motivated by a belief that our world is ultimately geometrical (🥚shape, not 🌏shape, due to the equator). At the heart of that is a quantity called the "Quantum Geometric Tensor" (or Fubini-Study metric), which is a complex tensor with the real part serving as the Riemannian metric that measures the `quantum distance', and the imaginary part being the Berry curvature. Thermionic energy and Plasma Dynamics, are outside of and are not defined in the Standard Model of Particle Physics or General Relativity. The most "comprehensive" model in existence, does not even define the light from lightbulbs, or the material all stars are made of and ejected into space, during the events of a supernovae 💥 The Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC), formed from 14 --17 Supernovae remnants. This Solar System is contained as a part of, and travels within, as known since 1993, we are protected by the Heliopause, which is now observed as Space Weather and these Supernovae, are the "Big Bang", with a more local origin. LIC has been contained in the Local Bubble 🗯for 15,000,000 years Earth has experienced a very local frame of reference, the central premise of Special Relativity, where frame locality, observer locality is the empirical standard of all points of reference and is where the observation of limitations are exposed in the standard model of particle physics, in addition to absence of 2 fundamental states (Thermionic energy and Plasma Dynamics), that starts to make the model appear more like swiss cheese, than a comprehensive framework, and one that has never been truly complete or fully aligned with the fundamental basis of observable reality. As stated by Sir Roger Penrose, the same is true in Quantum Mechanics where incompleteness is a requirement arising from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, 🔭 observations in quantum systems, any attempt in their measurement, produces Spin modulation or Parity displacement. The waveguide produced in every Photon's path instantly changes state and particle scattering is observed as a form of decoherence and ultimately the reason, why Spin and Angular momentum in quantum systems are of such high significance.
Internal symmetries as tensor products of left handed spinors in Minkowski and external symmetries as tensor products of right handed spinors in Euclidean space? open geometry versus closed geometry? Thanks Professor Woit.
Imagine being a young physicist who circa 1985 went all in on string theory for the next forty years until retirement, and now everyone is saying your lifetime’s work was wasted effort 😂
I think it hurts--they really thought they had the TOE, and now everyone is sick of hearing about it. Theorist are needed for more mundane things, like calculating rates of LHC backgrounds and signals, neutrino physics, getting that g-2 of the muon right, QCD calculations, and ofc astrophysical signals from things like neutron stars.... from formation, to pulsing, to collisions.
1:07:20 So you're going back to LET... Relativistic aether... The Osterwalder-Schrader reflection is just another way to view the fact that there's also time-contraction and length-dilation available in LET that isn't available via Minkowski's debacle. 1:09:30 "You have to break the SO(4) symmetry and pick a time direction" Yeah... you mean you have to have a preferred frame theory... You're almost there. ...And the Dirac operator is also frame dependent you say? 1:18:40 "spacetime is right-handed" ...or perhaps our entire human experience on this planet traversing this galaxy is progressing a certain direction through a preferred frame and gives us handedness. It's too bad none of you studied the - mathematically equivalent - version of relativity called LET enough. Everything would be so much clearer.
It is so frustrating seeing people trying to explain the unexplainable. The winning theory is sent back to construct the universe. The only truth in darwanism is that the last surviving being folds back in time to construct reality in the perpetual loop we exist in.
(/--)/ This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
Btw the standard model forces don't have the same form in euclidian coordinates as you apply a boost. The forces on a moving body are different from the forces on a stationary body, so the theory has to be reformulated quite heavily really to be able to switch cleanly between signature. Its easily done for the classical theories, for qft not so much, but you can entirely dispense with wick rotation, just use real time, then you have this whole basis problem that you solve by generalising such that the two different kinds of basis you can take in terms of lightcones and time coordinates have parameters and extra terms that vanish when they go to 0, and that changes with boosts, and then you can try to build qft on top of that instead of building it on top of special relativity, the result is just that the form is more complicated you habe the simplest form in the rest frame and which frame that is can be rotated akin to normal special relativity and that changes basis in some important way but basically its just a theory that explicitly doesn't make a choice about isotropy of light for any particular frame, you can chose which is isotropic and which ones are not and everything you could think about in special relativity with minkowsky signature fits right in there with real time with no problems. The only sacrifice you have to make is to choose one frame at a time that has isotropic light propagation, that the price you pay for avoiding wick rotation completely. The technical details is hard to convey in a comment, but it is true that yoj cannjust dispense with using imaginary time completely, you don't really need it, but you have to reformulate quite heavily to make it practical to use.
Where the theories we currently have break down explicitly has to do with the part of the probabilities in quantum mechanics that are related to entanglement, the interaction responsible is not described in the current theories, they make predictions that are consistent with instanteous action forming these correlations, this breaks down beyond some velocity, the interactions are not infact instanteous, and that produces different results from standard quantum mechanics, however the interactions proper in the theories as they exist are not like this and the form of those interactions don't change much when you depart from the instanteous limit, we habe done 0 experiments that probe whether the universe behaves like the instanteous limit or like it has a finite speed associated with the correlations in entangled systems with variable dependence. Thats why we haven't seen any dramatic departures, we simple have not done the experiments. You have to something like a bell test with a lot more complicated experimental protocols to probe it to a given resolution, this is because the effects would only be observable in a thin sliver of spacelike separation, most spacelike separated sets of measurements would not come out different from the quantum result, we have to probe a certain set of spacelike separations at the same time in the same place, to probe all the possible regions around different definitions of simultaneity and instantaneous hypersurfaces, the effect would break lorentz symmetry in a subtle way, and so there would be some specific reference frame in which the correlations change if measured simultaneously, we don't know which frame that is, so we have to proba all of them, the issue then is that there are infinitely many reference frames to check, we have to guess at which one it is and instead of checking all of them come up with reasons why it should be a certain reference frame that is more right about simultaneity from the perspective of the local order defined by the local interactions that mediate the effects, then we end up having to probe around that definition of simultaneity with one test per possible spatial coordinate, we can't do infinite tests and so we end up having to do something like testing a range of them, maybe 50 different probes of simultaneity with respect to this effect equally separated. Then we have an issue that the faster the velocity of interaction the narrower the gap between these tests have to be to pick it up, and as i said even if you pick very large steps between each timing you test for you would still need infinitely many tests to cover the entire spacelike set of separations evenly, so we habe two issues, one is resolution and one is coverage, both must be constrained for it to be realistic to search for, however it is a positive result and so if we don't find it, it could be because we guessed wrong about where to look in a perfectly well understood way, or that our resolution is too low. A positive result would suggest there is some local substructure from which the dynamics of elementary particles/fields emerge from, but it doesn't on its own do more than show that the world is not in the instantaneous limit for the effects and that lorentz symmetry is an approximate concept, beyond that the substructure has to be understood on its own grounds so to speak. But yeah, if we imagine that this is true, and the result is that the symmetries of the standard model hold approximately to a very high degree in the average, it is not surprising that we have been stuck for a while, what i'm describing os one way to potentially figure out that there is a mountain top to climb, it is not itself even giving a detailed outline of a route up there, andnit requires both relativity and quantum mechanics to be wrong and only approximate descriptions, and on its own it buys you almost nothing, so for probing the sub lumimal dynamics, there is no implications that the standard model is wrong even if its true, its not going to produce any effects that are easily observable that breaks it, so even if it is true about nature we would expect to be where we are more or less, having a decent and very precise theory of how stuff moving slower than light works, but not having much of an idea of how to move forward, this is because the structures we habe a grip on like the gauge fields and fermions are the entities that emerge together as a sort of scale local material with particle like phenomena, radiation and so on living on it, but the substructure itself doesn't easily show its face in other ways than to produce the familiar dynamics when probed by stuff made out of these regularities, it manifests as certain kinds of randomness, potentials, and more subtle influences, if thats all it really does, then we would need to understand sucj substructures and the principles that make them tick to then probe them first indirectly like with my simultaneity and superluminal locality test, and then if we are lucky it has additional observables we could understand and utilise to probe further, i think that is quite plausible, but it will be quite subtle going at first, thats my thinking anyways. This is just a story, but i feel its quite natural that we somewhat stalled out at this point, because it is kind of like the difference between studying old classical material science like the study of thermodynamics without atomic theory, and studying statistical mechanics, one thing requires stuff like a thermometer and the other requires microscopes to even get close to seeing the effects of the substructure, and to study the behaviour of the atoms themselves and how they give rise to material properties is a different ball game entirely. except that this time its a more difficult problem, and the kind of emergence going on is much richer and requires more intricate mechanisms and more sophisticated mathematics to describe, again if true, but it is the largest paradigm shift in scientific history if it is real, not because the ideas are so alien, they are to some degree in detail, but its more so because the empirical and conceptual and empirical gap between todays understand and what this would entail is much larger than anything that has come before. Directly probing such a substructure is absurd given todays tech and understanding, at least in more direct ways than what i mentioned about using the bell test type experiment in a more complicated form to probe the substructure. I think we can do it eventually, if it is real, the experiment is very simple, it can be done yesterday the complicated bit comes from the problems i mentioned earlier, but if you knew how to set it up properly, and calculate at what separation the discrepancies happen then one test run in that orientation is sufficient to show the positive results, it is theoretically difficult, not practically. However more direct experiments i think are just too difficult technologically to do, and they involve very high energy physics on one side, and very subtle tecbnologies taking advantage of a positive result in this kind of experiment to produce means of probing further, subtle subject, don't have much to say about it at this point, but the story i tell myself when nobody is around is that we probably won't be able to do much of anything this side of the century, maybe not this century at all, beyond quite crude probes like the one i outlined and a few others. But you never know, at any rate for any of it to matter the experiment should be done properly, the issue is ofc, that you require a theory of the substructure to be able to calculate how to probe for it, if not the best you can do is essentially just randomly scan for the faliure of the quantum mechanical results in different spacelike orientations without any theory to guide you. However i can tell you right away, that i have bits and pieces of the theory we need, not in full detail, but enough to say that if you do an experiment on Earth in a lab, with detectors at the same elevation, and ypu try to use a lab frame and you place the timing right down as close to simultaneity in that frame as possible, then it will see nothing, it will not pick up the deviations even if they are real, that is clear from what i have already, but there are some theoretical complications and so its still gonna be a little while before i would attempt the experiment myself, i want to be more reassured that the whole thing makes sense and works first, such that a positive result is well supported by theory that is rigorously built up and tested theoretically, if thats not the case, the importance of the results would make it really difficult to accept, it has to be right and to make sense in the context of a larger whole in my opinion, not to cause a silly ruckus for no reason.
Entanglement is very simple. Everything in existence is entangled from the very first moment it begins to coalesce out of nothingness, as nothingness is a Unity, and so is the first symmetry or duality which is completed Infinity that manifests as an infinite density or a singularity, which carries the seed or the potential for all other infinities within it but cannot achieve multiplicity and differentiation as a Unity . Luckily and infinite density carries within it the potential for an infinite multiplicity amongst other types of Infiniti as well because every type of Infiniti there is is contained within an infinite density so there is another Duality and this is the duality of nothingness and something or number or multiplicity and it is our growing and expanding and multiplicity physical universe. For differentiation to occur there must be a place where this could happen and that's what time and space are for and so is form and subjectivity and many other things as they all work together to record the information about reality upon itself so it can create itself. This is an instantaneous process although from our perspective within time and space it seems like it'll take eternity but from eternities perspective it's already happened and is happening all at the same time and everything there is within existence not just within the physical universe but everything is connected on a one-to-one basis with everything else because the very first thing that arises after differentiation start is subjectivity or the self and the not self and here the self can be assigned to anything not just an awareness but anything that has a subjective framework has a self. In this fashion everything is quantumly entangled with everything else across time and space at all times and its position information about its velocity its size and all other things are constantly updated in relationship to every other thing there is an existence and this is how quantum entanglement is achieved. The universe does not need to transfer this information through time and space because it's information is part of the universe itself and that would be like a human swallowing his wallet and pooping in his back pocket when I only needed to do is just reach back there and put it in his pocket.
Instantaneous is a finite speed because you're still moving a finite distance it only infinite when it breaks causality because it moves faster than time. Another word you would be going backwards in time by moving that fast but not backwards in the space-time Continuum you'd be going backwards in causality and Breaking the Chain. Infinite velocity is one of the only Infinities that's not achievable in any condition the reality and that's reflected by the speed of light which literally shows you what the speed of causality is and that's literally the speed that the universe is expanding at the edge of the observable portion with the acceleration added to it of course but we don't see that we feel it as gravity
Just curious, has anyone developed a physics theory that has incorporated dark matter and dark energy? Or is DM and DE not included in any significant theory like string theory, LQG, etc.? PS: Thanks for all the great videos! 😊
It's circle and 2 triangles, not square. Just finished the whole talk, it reminds me the problem of torus and sphere topologically not equalent and can't transform one into another. The point on the wick rotation is just a matter to breaking the symmetry, involve the yukawa coupling. Originally, the vacuum state is a true ground state, but when you look at the topology issue, you see the vacuum has multiple ground states . It's a fascinating topic nevertheless. Good talk 👍
Holy moly, this one goes over my head. So he is attempting to formulate a method to preserve aspects of spinor geometry that get clobbered by the Wick rotation calculations done when computing quantum systems? Can't say I really understand the implications of such a method; is it meant to provide a non-perturbative formulation of the weak force? I believe at some point he said the lack thereof is one of his motivating factors. If true, I don't understand mathematically why such rotations are not also a limit for performing QED and QCD computations non-perturbatively, as those are done in the lab regularly. Any experts around to fill me in?
Treatment of spacetime where all dimensions i.e. 3 space and 1 time dimensions are treated as qualitatively same kinds of dimensions has always been bothersome. I think treating time dimension as space dimension is a mistake. Tim Maudlin also makes this case. For one you cannot go back in time. The original incorrect use of the word forward flow of time's direction of flow misleads us to think backward flow of time is meaningful physical concept. It is like asking where is Up in deep space. Sure one could say where my head is relative to the feet. But if you change your orientation does the up change. Well that is absurd question - you will agree. And what if you are a spherical object, then where will the up be (except if you are spinning there are two direction along the spin axis - for nit pickers). The negative sign in the Minkowsky metric is another indication that time is not like space. There is also a small (because of the relative units of space and time we use) sliver of space time through which you must go from future light cone to past light cone. I think of this sliver as a split line of simultaneity, into narrow wedges between future light cone and the past light cone. I guess it is kind of like to go from positive side of number line to the negative side of the number line you have to rotate thru the complex plane - one component of which is imaginary numbers i.e. complex plane is possible because of the imaginary numbers. So what I am saying is, I think Peter and Tim are saying as well is - stop thinking of time to be qualitatively same as space dimension. And in fact Tim is building a discrete spacetime geometry which assume that distinction and assumes time to be an intrinsically directed (or one directional) dimension. Interestingly, in Stephen Wolfram's Physics project, time is not even a dimension, but a successive tic of computation - which only occurs inexorably one direction. So in a nutshell it is time to breakdown spacetime as a 4D object but think of it as a 3 space D+1 time D object fundamentally and build physics from there, and Peter and Tim seem to be on that track.
Yes. Time is a "dimension" in the sense that it is another characteristic with a range of values. We could just as well call color or frequency a dimension, or spin or charge or any number of other nonspatial characteristics. Of course, there are a few parallels helpful to think about; that's fine. But better to just call time "A" dimension, not THE fourth, thus leaving room for additional spatial/geometric dimensions.
@@tedwalford7615 Agree. The word dimension in physics simply means a orthogonal or independent variable. So for example a temperature map of a room, there will be four dimensions at each point, three space coordinates and on temperature coordinate. I think lay people equate dimension to mean spatial dimensions as in 3D movies. But scientists need to be more careful and not treat time as a spatial dimension.
When are scientists going to figure out that the changes in the measures of time and distance due to the amount of gravity in the vicinity change the speed of light relative to our measures of time and distance where we are? Scientists can’t seem to figure out that where gravity changes time and distance it changes the speed of light. Space is not flat in the measures of time and distance on larger scales just like the Earth is not flat on larger scales. Light MUST indeed *always* travel 186,000 miles an hour at the speed of light C. When distance is stretched from having less gravity, light must still complete traveling that distance in the time determined by C. That means the light is traveling faster as perceived by us in a more contracted frame of reference where there is more gravity. Add to that the fact that a second passes by faster away from the center of mass which increases the speed light MUST travel even more. It’s really not complicated. It’s so simple. It’s the very reason things appear to be moving faster than the speed of light moving away from the center of the galaxy because they are moving faster away from the center of the galaxy yet without exceeding the speed of light. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand. There are three rates to consider. 1. The diminishing effect or draw of gravity away from the center of mass. 2. The increasing rate of time away from the center of mass. 3. The increasing measure of distance away from the center of mass. Speed is measured by time and distance which both change and that changes the speed of light and causation. Things happen faster. Distance gets longer without gravity and time goes by faster, both of which combine to speed up causation. The light has to arrive at a farther distance faster when distance is stretched *and* time also goes by faster. *Then* there is the first thing to consider and that is the diminishing draw of gravity the farther away it is from the center of the galaxy which means things eventually slow down the farther away they are from the center mass of a galaxy. (It's not complicated.) 😎 Redshift happens when light leaves a galaxy. Blueshift happens as light enters a galaxy. All things being equal, the light will be redshifted as it leaves a galaxy and then blueshifted back again as it enters our galaxy. Except we already know galaxies are different sizes. The distant galaxies that we can see are very large and the distances between here and there is excessive causing more redshift than our small galaxy can blueshift back to its original spectrum. The more distant a galaxy is the more accumulated gravity there is from nearby masses causing more redshift.
Covariant change in distance and duration in SR. GR causes change of direction of light cone, not the length of the 4-vector in the light cone. Also no gravitational Doppler shift. This Einstein solution was minimalist change to SR.
@@williambranch4283 Light is indeed redshifted as it leaves a galaxy and it is blueshifted as as it enters a galaxy. GR also does dilate time and distance. The result is that we see changes in the rate of causation in superluminal motion seven times the speed of light and in the movements of clouds of matter after a violent explosion as well as in the movements of the outer spiral arms of galaxies.
@@williambranch4283 Every redshift has a measurable amount. In physics and general relativity, gravitational redshift is that phenomenon in which electromagnetic waves or photons travelling out of a gravitational well lose energy.
So, we start again with algebra and end again in string theories and again apply cancel culture and again explain to Gödel, which part of his systemic statement he did not understand.
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist and all it has to offer. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe
Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e
I think right-handed neutrinos have just temporarily pole shifted... And because we live in either the North or South Pole of the universe one spin is preferred over the other...
One of the biggest problem is having a 3 + 1 system of space-time and why do we observe the relative state or shape of our universe as flat instead of evenly distributed or spherical in manner if we are living in a 3 + 1 system of SpaceTime‽
The reason is because we are not living in a 3 + 1 system of space-time and following the logical progression of the spatial dimensions would have to be able to stack in any size four dimensional existence... This means that a infinite three-dimensional multiverse becomes the norm and the observations of our compressed universe and dark matter and dark energy are results of higher spatial dimensional existence.
Another major problem is how do you solve for black holes emitting non baryonic matter as recently discovered‽ Again it comes down to string theory and string membranes or loops. These 3d membranes or loops can be destroyed by The Singularity of a black hole straightening them out into a state in between two dimensional and three-dimensional... Two-dimensional has absolutely no Mass because there's absolutely no volume... Add two dimensional black holes might exist along with one-dimensional black holes as well... This would make dark energy whereas our three-dimensional black holes make dark matter AKA non baryonic matter....
36:34 WRONG! We have observational proofs for a higher spatial dimension to exist... You can ignore the logic all you want but logical will always beat you if you're illogical...
I really appreciate Prof.Woit's blog "Not even wrong" and his book on representation theory and quantum theory in which he really underlines the math. behind it. I encourage anyone to take a look at It
Thanks for the interview
Yes.
I'm barely grasping any concept in physics but I'm so hooked on curt and his style of interview/ long form presentations. Hes really the best thing on youtube. Keating and weinstien need to take a page from this man's skills in education. Top tier content. 👌
Couldn't agree more...
Really high quality content. It's like I am attending a seminar in person
As a quick overview of the last century of physics, this was fantastic.
I already enjoyed the first conversation with Peter Woit. When I discovered the second interview here, I was very pleased. Very exciting. Many thanks for producing it.
Glad you enjoyed :)
Some of the best descriptions of all this I personally have ever seen. Thanks for that
Turning into one of my best science podcasts, if not, the best
One of the best interviews I've ever watched. The part 1 summary was excellent. And it's fasinating what Dr. Woit is working on. I hope talking through it helps him with his research.
They’re catching on, a little late,,, but it’s happening. Good job Curt. Your relentless dude. The amount of quality content you put out is astounding! Your brilliant man. Please continue!
You're, Not "your"! Jesus!
@@josephcambron7060so tell me Joe is it “your a knob” or is it “you’re a knob” one of them is surely correct?
Are you upset that you don’t know the answer?
The best part was when right and left chirality leading to weak and GR (Ashtekar variables). However all these tells me so much of imaginary time. Perhaps this is what made Attia not understand abstract algebra.
Yeah, they will eventually catch uo what many of us knew years and years ago.
Thank you curt peter is one of the clearest honest peoplein the field who knows the difference between hypotheses and theory. One is speculation the latter predicts. Twisters theory next?
This is a welcome release today. I'm really enjoying the "Rethinking the Foundations" series, and I'm definitely looking forward to listening to this episode.
Happy to hear you’re enjoying :)
I remember reading Peter's blog during the ... String Wars ... era. Always found his writing interesting, technical. But most importantly, while he did call people out whenever needed, he always played the ball, not the person.
This was a great watch and great arguments were presented by him. It’s also great that this channel is also doing formal physics talks not just podcasts
Peter Woit, yay!
Just finished reading "Not even wrong" just the other month. Interesting read, I would really like to see a second edition updated with the results from the LHC.
Hi, have you checked his blog? He updates it quite regularly
There are literally no noteworthy updates from the LHC. A big part of the problem actually
@@nanashiboyz Need bigger smasher ;-)
I loved Not Even Wrong, great book. Great Interview.
Thank you for your talk and your book on Quantum Theory, Groups and Representations. Super inspiring!
Indeed irreducible representations have applications in many other linear systems (equipped with a Hilbert space), such as electromagnetic waves. Do you know about the Riemann-Silberstein vector? It is a complexified version of the EM field and it is associated with the irreducible representations (of Poincaré and Euclidean groups) in the case of classical electromagnetic theory.
Thank you both for this amazing content 😊
👏👏👏
So excellent lecture.
Thank you, Professor.
and
With luck and more power to you.
hoping for more videos.
Curt, it's an absolute thrill to witness these brilliant minds becoming rock stars before our eyes. Peter Void is a true genius in physics, and it's a rare privilege to hear him break down his insights for us mere mortals.
Great interview and super interviewer as well, and I really appreciate the historic review by prof Hoit, and the way he does it! Science at its best! Too rare with this type of review though. Will continue to follow prof Hoit's blogg, and the 4d spinor and twistor concept. Think Penrose has some interesting ideas with the unification as well, and his twistor. Will advice my students to follow his blogg and seriously watch this interview. Brilliant!
Awesome. I'll look for videos where you explain how you visualize and imagine our reality. You've got something 🏆
Thank you so much, Mike! - Curt
This is quickly becoming my favorite channel!! 🎉
Great first half, nice/concise breakdown to start…going to catch rest later.
2 Simple Questions:
-What will we gain from “unification”, what will we do with it?
-Why can’t there be 2 theories?
Thank y’all both for the knowledge!✌🏼🤙🏼😊
I am not a physicists and not answering your question.
To me, a unified theory seams irrational. I see no reason why there has to be any expression of gravity in Quantum theories.
@@axle.student all ideas are welcome here my friend…I’m kind of on the same page. I’m a user of math/physics and there is a drag on technology. I rely on tangible science to mature at a certain pace, that has stalled and I can only point to the “theorizing” as the culprit.
Have a great one Axle!✌🏼😊
@@brandonb5075 Thank you. Take care :)
>
P.S. I have always followed physics (unindentured) but was recently playing around with time dilation due to velocity in SR graphic. The incorrect idea of a photon experiencing no time kind of kicked me down a rabbit hole with some of the age old edge problems with relativity.
I wish I hadn't gone down that rabbit hole as it is scary messy down there lol
@@axle.student ahhh…the photon. A magical thing that has no mass but does have velocity. I still haven’t had that one explained. Ha!
The rabbit holes are fun and more of them have “rabbits” than you think. They will suck you in.
My best advice would be to learn as much “mainstream” as you can, but with the mindset of, ‘nothing is really solved’. Then once you have a base understanding, start testing YOUR intuition on things you question. Trust your gut and always be the one to ask the question, especially if you think it’s “dumb”. It’s not, someone else is wondering too. 🤙🏼
@@brandonb5075 The photon apparently has a very small mass, but has no "at rest mass". It is "never" at rest. This also leads into the issue of a photon experiencing no time because it is always at 'c', but old Albert made it clear that you can't calculate time dilation on a photon (or other massless particles) as they have no "at rest" state to have dilation to begin with. It was a bit of a "we don't fully understand this massless particle that moves at the speed of light" so my theory of relativity can't help you with that.
>
My trap was attempting to resolve the definition of Space-Time and the pseudo 4D geometry. The problem I uncovered there is at a whole different level, but I am noticing some physicists beginning to talk about it, so hopefully they will see it soon :)
I was expecting a typical conversation first, then Peter goes into presentation mode.
Curt, what you’re doing is so cool! Stay with it!
Now I’ma let Peter teach me some math. ( I read his QM books and really loved it)
🍿
Wow. What a marvelous picture of watching a genius work. Thanks to both of you.
This video is wonderful! Dr. Woit provides a physics-respecting, experimentally-aware analysis focused on uncovering the best possible and least complicated mathematical model for what decades of observation establish as solidly reproducible in the lab.
As I listened to his deeply insightful exposition on the need for care rather than carelessness when selecting and applying mathematical models to observed reality, this quote came to mind:
_The modern quantum theory … forces us to employ a … number of dimensions [that] is not that of previous physics, namely 4, but which has dimensions increasing without limit as the number of the particles constituting the system under examination increases. I cannot help confessing that I myself accord to this interpretation no more than a transitory significance._
- Albert Einstein, 1934, _On the Method of Theoretical Physics._
Thus, you are in excellent company, Dr. Woit. It is refreshing to someone like you doing legitimate physics theory in an ocean of overconfident mathematical generative silliness that inexplicably treats severely oversimplified, physics-indifferent data structures such as Hilbert spaces as "more real" than anything we observe in the physical world.
This is a very interesting interview and discussion. Professor Woit's intuition that complex space time may be critical in advancing fundamental physics is reminiscent of earlier ideas of Einstein in the 1930s. But Einstein's efforts involving complex space time were directed at classical general relativity. He believed that ultimately quantum mechanics and quantum field theory would be derived from classical field theory. This was discussed in his paper "Physics and Reality" published by the Franklin Institute in 1938. His ideas about quantum mechanics seem to be gaining traction today.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Let's be honest, string theory was always hanging by a thread...
Do you know what the poincaire group, or are you talking our of your ass?
I would needle you about that line, but it strikes a cord.
Even the thread was a bit shaky
LOL!
A knotty topic, to be sure
I share some values with Woit like the respect for maths and an ambition to understand the foundations in as much depth as possible, e.g. via teaching and writing textbooks, both in physics and in related math fields, keeping an eye on recent developments in pure maths, e.g. by following maths prizes. I have an impression that in English-speaking countries pure maths is sometimes underrated and belittled as a mere tool.
Curt, I only recently discovered your channel and have to say your Rethinking the Foundations of Physics series is excellent. This interview with Peter Woit and the ones with Neil Turok are especially interesting. I'd love to hear an interchange between these two people with Penrose.
Welcome aboard and thank you so much Mike. - Curt
@@TheoriesofEverything at first time I'd see a future in the automorphic forms and langlands
Really good talk. Thanks.
Thanks Curt!
Wow thank you so much!
Great show!
What a great summary of all these theories and why they don't work.
Simply, because they are Wrong! The fundamental assumptions are incorrect.
After an hour of abstruse discussions about geometry and symmetries 59:57 "This starts to get a bit technical" 💀
Skill issue
Yep, 100%. I enjoy listening to experts talking about subjects they are passionate about, even if I can only understand a little bit. It is a great reminder of how little we know.
Just for clarification: SU(2) is topologically S^3, which is the 3d-surface of a 4d-ball, not S^2, which is the 2d-surface of a 3d-ball like a tennis ball or basket ball
I have never been able to understand why the requirement for this pseudo 2D/3D topology in relativity. What physical object/surface is it relating to?
Creating a topology for a real spherical object such as a planet makes sense, but for space-time I can't relate it to anything :(
Is it meant to be some spherical topology of the radii of a sphere measured from it's center?
@@axle.student "why the requirement for this pseudo 2D/3D topology in relativity"
I'm not sure what you mean? What confuses you?
@@LoraHC Well it is along the lines of what I said above. What is the benefit of creating an infinitely thin 2D spherical surface in distance/time? especially when it would appear that there is no direct causal relationship between any of those mapped points on the surface (is this some part of QFT mapped into special relativity? which doesn't make sense.).
Or I guess why this type of geometry over directly mapping the radial lines from an object (center of the past/forward sphere).
It just feels like it is creating a pseudo (abstract mathematical) geometry that doesn't match well with the reality of nature.
@@axle.student Topology limits symmetry, and symmetry matches law per Noether.
@@axle.student Related to Langlands being pragmatic or not in maths.
4D seems much more related to our reality, I'm thrilled he is giving it an honest effort.
The hard part is actually defining what 4D is. Most take the pseudo 4D geometry for granted. It's more of an observer effect of the illusion of the past.
@@axle.student For the math's sake they treat the dimension of time as though it is a spatial dimension, I think?
@@justinpridham7919 there is no time dimension. It depends on the reference frame. The only time that has any reality is the time we experience, i.e. proper time, coordinate time is relative.
@@zemm9003 The problem is: "What is 'proper time'?" When proper time is also a pseudo coordinate time. Where are we finding this "Persistent" concept of time from?
We are kind of stuck with 3 dimensions of space-time rather than 4 dimensions
xt, yt, zt. Can we really call it 4 dimensional?
>
Not criticizing your comment, just illuminating some problems with the concept of 4D space-time.
@@axle.student we clearly have 4 dimensions of spacetime. We always had and knew about it, simply it wasn't part of the theory, there was no reason to treat Physical Systems as 4 dimensional since in Classical Mechanics time does play a separate role. This is due to the fact that for the longest time we could only do experiments on Earth where time did not play an important role other than being an arbitrary parameter in the equations. In GR time doesn't even strictly exist, however it is Physically a concept that makes sense from the point of view of the reference frame of the observer, thus we use proper time as the experimental measure of the spacetime interval for the user at rest.
This channel has a lot of click bait but this interview is truly wonderful 👍.
I fell in love with Geometric Algebra. I occasionally run into astonishing connections. See Cohl Furey basically derive the main particles with Clifford Algebra. It's almost as if reality is just mathematics.
when he mentions "objects that square to 1, -1, and 0"; he's talking about Geometric Algebra, aka Clifford Algebra. As soon as you really start using Geometry, things stop commuting; because rotations involve anti-commutativity.
Woit is so damned sensible I can't believe he's a physicist!
Impressive how langlands, Twistors and Spinors have some interesting connections. It's a impressive connection Prof. Woit do with SU(2). We have some work in automorphic forms in the future.
Brilliant stuff. I'm at 0:52 and this is riveting, don't you agree? Curt's questions are just enough to give me a toe hold. I have been waiting for someone like Woit to lay down the status of the field in an honest way, beyond the low level of Sabine Hossenfelder. Woit does have difficulty bringing things down, understandable given that he operates at such a precise high-level day-to-day. Nevertheless, I grasped the key point: that since 50 years the key idea of "explaining" the standard model (SM) has been embedding it into bigger groups, or higher dimensions ... and that has yielded no testable outcome! (Minor point: while I understood the spinors are a "square root" of vectors, I did not understand how the extenstion to "Lie superalgebras" worked ... I thought spinors were a *result* of using rotation symmetry ... they arise naturally as the irreps on rotation symmetry ... so what does is mean to "extend" physics 'in the spinor direction"? Still, I got the idea, and I can finally research this. To me, Woit seems to be the intellectual successor of Coleman. Thank you Curt. This is one of the few cases where the google algorithm has kicked up something very interesting! I subscribed immediately. Brain rested. I continue! Now at 1:12 ... I mention for those interested, that Dirac mentioned very clearly (IMHO) in the first paragraphs of his 1974 notes "Spinors in Hilbert Space" that: "In a structureless real Hilbert space there are no special linear transformations. All are on the same footing. This is the most suitable basis for a general mathematical theory. The existence of special transformations would complicate the discussion of the fundamental ideas. We shall therefore deal with a real Hilbert space, where the vectors have real coordinates.". Perhaps I am mistaken, but this emphasis on real time, or at least a recognition that real and imaginary time lead to different issues (somewhat hidden in the theory of complex, holomorphic functions) is a big issue. Now at 1.:17 ... Finally we come to Clifford algebras ... this really resonates regarding what I have read in some of David Hestenes work ... Is he still alive ... Curt, can we get him or some others to comment on this remarkable talk? ... I have to finish the talk now ... Now at 1:26 ... what anamazingly humble guy, I get the impression he just wants to advance the science ... a true old school gentlemen-scientist!
Sabine means well, but she is an early retired dark matter theoretician Peter is an actual mathematician ;-)
@@williambranch4283 Already a reply?! I have edited my commentary since. I have a great respect for Sabine! [Having said that, I gave her hell for one of her episodes on AI. To her credit, she highlighted my response. :-)]. But you know, the world requires all types. What counts in the scientific spirit of skepticism, which Hossenfelder tries to encourage. And this Woit guy seems to call it as he sees it. (Thanks for informing he was a mathematician. He's more on the physical side, though). One minor point, not mentioned in my (edited) comment to which you responded. Woit was rather dismissive of "crackpots" who questioned Einstein. I make only one points. Einstein himself regarded all his work as "provisional", I believe. As a true scientist should. Indeed, we know he is wrong in some regard. Recently I came across the criticisms of relativity theory from Norman Wildberger. I found that he raised a valid point criticizing the fact that only the forward-backward time of a signal is measurable, not just the outward signal time. He is also a mathematician with many valid points. Look him up. Good night!
@@dylanjayatilaka8533 I am an un-collapsed wave function, so I can be everywhere all at once ;-) You know Wildberger? Now there is an original mind. Exhausted foundational ideas in academia. Check out Graham Priest if you want to question logic, not just infinities ;-)
Appreciate ya. Thanks for sharing.
Our lack of understanding of the universe, the shallowness of certain concepts, cannot be compensated for by complicating things.
The universe works on simple processes.
The minus sign in the Minkowski metric is a consequence of the fact that the Lorentz transformations were derived by setting the wave sphere from a flash of light equal to zero. Ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2-c^2dt^2=0=ds’^2, it’s not mysterious.
Nope
54:00 Pauli, RT, paragraph 22, Geometry of the real world,"So far, we have tacitly assumed that the ds^2 shape is a certain shape. This is not the case in the actual space-time world, since ds^2 in normal form has three terms positive and one negative."
"This new type of universe in its other properties resembles Einstein's cylindrical world." (A. Friedmann, "On the curvature of space", 1922).
0.Developing Einstein's hypothesis of a cylindrical world, GR "migrates" into phase space: due to this, it is quantized.
1.The Poisson equation can be written as: ∆g(00)=8πGT(00)/c^4, where g(00) is the time component of the metric tensor (for a weakly curved metric the time component of the energy-momentum tensor: T(00)~=pc^2).
This equation is true only in the non-relativistic case, but it is applicable to the case of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, when Einstein's equations have only solutions with a time-varying space-time metric.
2.Then the energy density of the gravitational field: g^2/8πG=T(00)=pc^2 [~=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4=
=1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (~500 quanta/cm^3)],
3.Where the critical density value determining the nature of the model is: p=(3/8π)H^2/G. Hence it follows: g~πcH.
4.Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space.
(a).Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, and we can now talk about the fact that it is possible to generate a gravitational field in a non-inertial frame of reference (|a|=g).That is, finally achieve global (instead of local in GR) compliance with the strong equivalence principle.
(b).When according to the strong equivalence principle: g=|a*|=πcH [=r(pl)w(relic)^2], and
w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. Thus H=1,72*10^-20sec^-1.
{By the way, at t(universe)= πт(pl), w(“relic”) was =w(pl); at 1/”H”= t(universe)=380000 years, w(“relic”)/2π was =3.5*10^14 Hz}
5.Intra-metagalactic gravitational potential:
|ф0|=πGmpl/λ(relic)=[Gm(pl)/2c]w(relic), where the constant Gm(pl)/2c is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i) = (½)S(pl)w(pl) = h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction.
(a).The basic formula QG of the quantum expression of the Newtonian gravitational potential is: ф(G)=-Ф(i)w, where w is the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational (~ vibrational) field.}
(b).“Giving the interval ds the size of time, we will denote it by dт: in this case, the constant k will have the dimension length divided by mass and in CGS units will be equal to 1,87*10^-27", Friedmann, (On the curvature of space, 1922).
[The ds, which is assumed to have the dimension of time, we denote by dт; then the constant k has the dimension Length Mass and in CGS-units is equal to 1, 87.10^ ± 27. See Laue, Die Relativitatstheorie, Bd. II, S. 185. Braunschweig 1921.]
(c).Apparently, the following expression takes place: μ(0)ε(0)Gi=1, which means that Gi=с^2 where i is inertial constant, i=1,346*10^28[g/cm]; or k°=1/i=7,429*10^-29[cm/g]:
k(Friedmann)/k°=8π; where k°=r(pl)/m(pl)=r(G)/2m(0);
i=m(pl)/r(pl)=(1/c)m(pl)w(pl), w=[r(G)/r]w(pl).
6.That is ф(G)=-[Gm(pl)/2c]w=-(½)[w/w(pl)]c^2=-(½)(√Għ/c)w=-Ф(i)w.
To add to my previous comments, the internal symmetry would correspond to the closed string whereas the spacetime symmetry corresponds to the open string case. I have a a very old video in which I showed that a right handed coordinates with differential elements of E, H, E^H can be used to derive Maxwell equations whereas a left handed coordinates with the same elements by representing mechanical variables result in the gravito-magnetic equation which is Maxwell for gravity.
Thanks!
Thank you so much Ron!
@28:15 any young kids reading should at this point learn that the relationship is the other way around in the Clifford algebra. The spinors are scaled rotors, ρR. A reflection in GA is a _geometric product_ sandwich with a unit vector 'n', so a→ a' = −nan. The *_rotors are geometric products of two unit vectors,_* R=nm. A rotation is the sandwich product with a rotor and its reverse, a → a' = (nm)a(mn). I'm not throwing shade on Woit... but actually I am! He gets paid to do this stuff, I don't. It is a tragedy David Hestenes is not going to live to see most new textbooks using GA for QM.
i used to be really into GA - i haven’t fallen out of love with it, but as i have gone on into research it hasn’t really revealed itself as necessary compared to the standard formalism when doing geometry, topology, spin structures etc. it’s a shame, because it is beautiful
Ah, the wonders of using language to obfuscate what you're doing. Very clever. Any kindergartners reading should compare and contrast with the poetry of Lear.
I see the good progress here. 😮
I have no idea what he's saying and i love it
That brought some Neurons out of dormancy. How refreshing it is to hear intelligent chatter. It's like hanging out with your big brother and his friend, listening to them talk and playing video games and having a beer; you know they're way smarter than you but you understand everything they say.
Breath of fresh oxygen, huge thanks!
A lot of what I heard reminded me of the writings of David Hestenes on the application of Geometric Algebra to Quantum Mechanics as Real Quantum Mechanics. The brief mention of Clifford Algebra reinforced this but it sounds a bit more primitive than Spacetime Algebra. Hestenes wrote a lot about the Dirac operator as a vector derivative and spinors formed from vectors. I'm not saying any swiping of ideas has taken place but it's generating a familiar resonance. I'm just as interested in the ideas presented here as Cohl Furey's and Anthony Lasenby's ideas about Octonions and the Standard Model.
Have to say, listening to this episode right after the recent Penrose episode is teaching me a lot.
Great stuff, thanks for sharing
23:35 weak division suggested bonding shows the permeability of 3 spherical fields that have varied enthalpy/size potential or light but are relatively the same due to conservation information of the immediate or acute field
When groups of same entangled strings attract so it’s generate vibration or spins in ends where we logically tell them particles but it’s end of strings. We are focusing only on particle I mean inside the ends of strings.
Love your podcast Curt, not many quite like it on the internet.
Have you looked into Thomas Bearden and quarternions, forgotten Maxwell equations, etc.?
Would love to hear your thoughts.
Quaternion Wars. Gibbs won, and with vectors, everything is a nail ;-)
@@williambranch4283 Share your knowledge please good Sir, what should I be looking at :P
@@gilesmaybery6181 It was a pragmatic decision by Gibb’s generation to avoid the exotic algebraic structures, many more odd than quaternions, if the applications at that time didn’t necessitate using them. KISS. Quaternions made a comeback when they were needed, in dynamic computer graphics … a computer being less annoyed at the weirdness than a Victorian at a blackboard ;-)
@williambranch4283 I kinda gathered something similar. Basically easier to do calculations with, but what if there are insights hidden within that complex math..
Can you suggest any topics to look at? Search terms
@@gilesmaybery6181 Look up Hopf Fibrations ... Very interesting ;-)
So far, Woit has suggested a promising alternative framework for unifying gravity and QM. What I need to hear from him is what predictions come from this framework that we could observe at achievable energies. Will we still need to measure systems at Planck length energies before confirming this symmetry-breaking regime? If so, this is a distinction from SUSY without a difference.
Just because a concept can be described on a blackboard doesn't mean something represents reality.
Theoretical physicists want to quantize gravity as a sort of unification, but quantum gravity never address the problem that really drives RG away from QM or QFT.... The fact that the zero point energy never bends spacetime.... QFT says that the vacuum energy/volume should be 10^120 times than the Cosmological Constant (or dark energy). I see no reason for quantization of gravity without addressing this real problem ....
Bringing up the Cosmological Constant in relation to QFT is a good point but the Cosmological Constant literally comes out of Einstein’s field equations which have a foundation of 4-dimensional manifolds whenever he realized his mistake of thinking of the universe in a steady state geometry after evidence of accelerating expansion from Hubble’s discovery, so the real question is do we actually understand the geometrical nature of the observable universe as we think we do?
Good question ;-) Ties to Measurement Problem.
The thing is not only we need to rethink our foundation but also we need to rethink the thinking process that leads to the foundation in all Branch of science
THE DOGMA is a disease.
I ❤ you series bro
Keep the great work bro.
At about 30:00, the video sadly omitted the *reason* why supersymmetry idea was explored. It greatly simplifies remormalization problem and possibly even gives *non* divergent results where the "usual" theory has a divergence.
Listening to this discussion leads me to believe that my tax dollars are NOT being wasted here. I grasp the concepts but do not have the energy to even want to do the Geometry and Analysis. Really interesting work.
If you have to make time complex, then you have to make energy complex as well. Then you also have to redefine Hilbert space, I guess, with wavefunctions decaying by itself, the way it happens in Laplace space.
This might also help solving infinite energy problem.
A pretty good video. I agree that it looks like a very good summary of the half-century search for GUT, comparable maybe to Roger Penrose’s Road to Reality which also makes such overviews. Maybe it should be cut and released with a different label.
"a lot of people are reluctant to do that because they are worried 'their' ideas will get swiped"... "their" ideas. Does a garden hose own the water that flows through it?
I'm unsure how much of people stopping 'work' on unification vs there was a reduction in funding sources.
Listening to this guy makes me feel crazy
We are seeing 3 things due to the two spins relating to a unified number a 3-manifold set, the tree is a math model, fidelity of native gates are constant.
I am commenting at just about the 9:30 time.
Physics, and science in general, is the activity of describing nature. We then can use those descriptions to manipulate nature, if we want. That is really engineering, or the application of science to create things.
So, we have a good description with the two main theories of physics, General Relativity and the Standard Model. My sense, and I get this from long association with physics and from following the whole debate about these issues, is that the questions asked about why some parameters, or their ratios, are what they are is really not scientific. The more I read and see or hear the more I am convinced about this. The fact that progress in fundamental physics has stalled for the last half century strengthens this belief.
By the way, I started studying physics at university in 1973. I had a job in the High Energy Physics department where I learned to program and learned a lot of statistics. I dropped out and went into computer science. I did a lot of things over my career where I could use those skills and my knowledge of physics to do some really interesting stuff.
Applied physics major in 1974. Graduated to engineering and programming eventually ;-)
@@williambranch4283 Good for you.
One of the reasons I did not go back to physics was that while I was at university I saw a situation where it was hard to get tenure. At the university I was at an assistant professor could do two three year contracts and would then have to get tenure or leave. There were four that I knew one year, and only one slot. They all deserved tenure. One of them, who did not get tenure was my professor for the first year, and someone I worked with closely. I really liked and respected him. He went off to head Pfizer's CAT scanner division and the physics and computing departments with that division. He was not hurting.
Another interesting indicator was two close friends who were graduate students. One had a wife who had a good job, so he just wanted to get a $5/hour programmer job (that was good money at the time). He went on an interview at a new sonar lab at an aerospace company. They wanted to make him the head of the lab because of his physics PhD. He declined. The other I caught up with on LinkedIn. He ended up working at a prestigious university in the IT department.
I agree unification has become the cart before the horse idea for way too long. We should examine other possible mechanisms where the end result is an emergent extension of relativity. If it becomes unification; so be it. The idea needs too take a long break. Then, possibly a simpler solution will present it's self.
Wow! This was great!
Hi, what you said at the beginning of this video about String Theory is a failure after 40 years, is not really true. The aim of String theory was to unify Quantum Theory and Gravity, and String theory did just that, but it is all mathematical, there are other issues with it, their theory is also not testable at the moment, etc, etc, ... BUT, the initial aim of unification of previous String theories by Ed Witten in M-Theory, and Quantum-Gravity, in terms of MATH is a Tour-De-Force! It has led into Mathematicians going into research of new Math theories connected to the math CREATED in String Theory! The mathematics that was spawned by String Theory, has created a Bridge between Mathematicians Pure Math and Quantum Mechanics in general. The Langlands program in mathematics is a BIG PROJECT , both Ed Witten and Edward Frenkel contributing to the "Langlands program ". Langlands program has been described by Edward Frenkel as "a kind of grand unified theory of mathematics." So, I just wanted to say that DON"T JUMP THE GUN, and Say that String Theory is a Failure. It maybe doing a slight DETOUR into mathematics, and it may come back in the future with some math that may TRULY Help Physics, later on. So just wanted to say, that it has helped in the field of math in a big way!
Every Quantum particle possesses a Spin state coupling constant and demonstrates 👍Chirality 👍(left, right placement mismatch, the human thumb is possible, worst use for a thumb ever), yet are highly significant. There is a good deal more, explained in detail, why. The S-2 coupling constant of a certain Lepton is currently of high interest to quantum physics, celestial mechanics and cold matter physics or subatomic particle science. Sterile (no electromagnetic/photonic interaction) or the *_*right-handed neutrino_**. Since the discovery of the Heliopause, in 1993 when Voyager crossed the boundary of Sol's maximum influence (Sun), detecting rapid changes to the environment as plasma and supercharged ion-charged winds crash into a magnetic boundary that protects the inner solar system and what makes life possible, came with further detections being reported as "cold neutral atoms". This heavy matter potentially is a candidate for that highly elusive matter defined in the theories of leptogenesis as dark matter, meeting the requirements of the Lambda CDM model.
Right-handed spin is uncommon on Earth, it's not non-existent but exists in a minority of all non-baryonic matter (Bode-Einstein condensate -258K cold matter physics), typically produced by stars in processes of stellar nucleosynthesis, or in abundances by Neutron stars maybe even in Pulsars. Heavy leptons, exclusive interaction with Gravity, earned it the title of Heavey Neutral Lepton (HNL) or *_*Neutral Heavy Lepton (NHL)_**, much to the despair of the National 🏒 Hockey League (also the NHL), who have been frosty to remarks of their now being a connection with dark matter, presently accused as one possible cause for the continued accelerating expansion rate of the Universe 🤣. . .(puk puk puk). 🏑
Geometric Quantum Mechanic's novel and prospective approach, is motivated by a belief that our world is ultimately geometrical (🥚shape, not 🌏shape, due to the equator). At the heart of that is a quantity called the "Quantum Geometric Tensor" (or Fubini-Study metric), which is a complex tensor with the real part serving as the Riemannian metric that measures the `quantum distance', and the imaginary part being the Berry curvature. Thermionic energy and Plasma Dynamics, are outside of and are not defined in the Standard Model of Particle Physics or General Relativity. The most "comprehensive" model in existence, does not even define the light from lightbulbs, or the material all stars are made of and ejected into space, during the events of a supernovae 💥
The Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC), formed from 14 --17 Supernovae remnants. This Solar System is contained as a part of, and travels within, as known since 1993, we are protected by the Heliopause, which is now observed as Space Weather and these Supernovae, are the "Big Bang", with a more local origin. LIC has been contained in the Local Bubble 🗯for 15,000,000 years Earth has experienced a very local frame of reference, the central premise of Special Relativity, where frame locality, observer locality is the empirical standard of all points of reference and is where the observation of limitations are exposed in the standard model of particle physics, in addition to absence of 2 fundamental states (Thermionic energy and Plasma Dynamics), that starts to make the model appear more like swiss cheese, than a comprehensive framework, and one that has never been truly complete or fully aligned with the fundamental basis of observable reality.
As stated by Sir Roger Penrose, the same is true in Quantum Mechanics where incompleteness is a requirement arising from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, 🔭 observations in quantum systems, any attempt in their measurement, produces Spin modulation or Parity displacement. The waveguide produced in every Photon's path instantly changes state and particle scattering is observed as a form of decoherence and ultimately the reason, why Spin and Angular momentum in quantum systems are of such high significance.
Jamming together "sciency words" does not make you a scientist. "spin state coupling constant" is word salad.
Internal symmetries as tensor products of left handed spinors in Minkowski and external symmetries as tensor products of right handed spinors in Euclidean space? open geometry versus closed geometry? Thanks Professor Woit.
Imagine being a young physicist who circa 1985 went all in on string theory for the next forty years until retirement, and now everyone is saying your lifetime’s work was wasted effort 😂
Far from wasted effort lmao
Yeah I don’t get the trend of people who know absolutely nothing about string theory, or physics in general, saying that it’s wrong
Theyre fine they got paid
I think it hurts--they really thought they had the TOE, and now everyone is sick of hearing about it. Theorist are needed for more mundane things, like calculating rates of LHC backgrounds and signals, neutrino physics, getting that g-2 of the muon right, QCD calculations, and ofc astrophysical signals from things like neutron stars.... from formation, to pulsing, to collisions.
That’s not all. So many things are going to change. In so many fields. ❤
1:07:20 So you're going back to LET... Relativistic aether... The Osterwalder-Schrader reflection is just another way to view the fact that there's also time-contraction and length-dilation available in LET that isn't available via Minkowski's debacle.
1:09:30 "You have to break the SO(4) symmetry and pick a time direction" Yeah... you mean you have to have a preferred frame theory... You're almost there.
...And the Dirac operator is also frame dependent you say?
1:18:40 "spacetime is right-handed" ...or perhaps our entire human experience on this planet traversing this galaxy is progressing a certain direction through a preferred frame and gives us handedness.
It's too bad none of you studied the - mathematically equivalent - version of relativity called LET enough. Everything would be so much clearer.
Gravity is a preferred frame. Try to fall sideways ;-) Covariance was a limited trick.
It is so frustrating seeing people trying to explain the unexplainable. The winning theory is sent back to construct the universe. The only truth in darwanism is that the last surviving being folds back in time to construct reality in the perpetual loop we exist in.
(/--)/ This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
Making a dimension "complex" makes it into two dimensions. Complex plane is 2D, guys.
Brings in new math. Complex numbers are not a 2-vector.
Btw the standard model forces don't have the same form in euclidian coordinates as you apply a boost. The forces on a moving body are different from the forces on a stationary body, so the theory has to be reformulated quite heavily really to be able to switch cleanly between signature. Its easily done for the classical theories, for qft not so much, but you can entirely dispense with wick rotation, just use real time, then you have this whole basis problem that you solve by generalising such that the two different kinds of basis you can take in terms of lightcones and time coordinates have parameters and extra terms that vanish when they go to 0, and that changes with boosts, and then you can try to build qft on top of that instead of building it on top of special relativity, the result is just that the form is more complicated you habe the simplest form in the rest frame and which frame that is can be rotated akin to normal special relativity and that changes basis in some important way but basically its just a theory that explicitly doesn't make a choice about isotropy of light for any particular frame, you can chose which is isotropic and which ones are not and everything you could think about in special relativity with minkowsky signature fits right in there with real time with no problems. The only sacrifice you have to make is to choose one frame at a time that has isotropic light propagation, that the price you pay for avoiding wick rotation completely. The technical details is hard to convey in a comment, but it is true that yoj cannjust dispense with using imaginary time completely, you don't really need it, but you have to reformulate quite heavily to make it practical to use.
I'm supposing that by the reference, in the captions, to "vial spinors" is meant Weyl spinors.
Thank you for notifying me . I will fix this
Clear as mud
Where the theories we currently have break down explicitly has to do with the part of the probabilities in quantum mechanics that are related to entanglement, the interaction responsible is not described in the current theories, they make predictions that are consistent with instanteous action forming these correlations, this breaks down beyond some velocity, the interactions are not infact instanteous, and that produces different results from standard quantum mechanics, however the interactions proper in the theories as they exist are not like this and the form of those interactions don't change much when you depart from the instanteous limit, we habe done 0 experiments that probe whether the universe behaves like the instanteous limit or like it has a finite speed associated with the correlations in entangled systems with variable dependence. Thats why we haven't seen any dramatic departures, we simple have not done the experiments. You have to something like a bell test with a lot more complicated experimental protocols to probe it to a given resolution, this is because the effects would only be observable in a thin sliver of spacelike separation, most spacelike separated sets of measurements would not come out different from the quantum result, we have to probe a certain set of spacelike separations at the same time in the same place, to probe all the possible regions around different definitions of simultaneity and instantaneous hypersurfaces, the effect would break lorentz symmetry in a subtle way, and so there would be some specific reference frame in which the correlations change if measured simultaneously, we don't know which frame that is, so we have to proba all of them, the issue then is that there are infinitely many reference frames to check, we have to guess at which one it is and instead of checking all of them come up with reasons why it should be a certain reference frame that is more right about simultaneity from the perspective of the local order defined by the local interactions that mediate the effects, then we end up having to probe around that definition of simultaneity with one test per possible spatial coordinate, we can't do infinite tests and so we end up having to do something like testing a range of them, maybe 50 different probes of simultaneity with respect to this effect equally separated. Then we have an issue that the faster the velocity of interaction the narrower the gap between these tests have to be to pick it up, and as i said even if you pick very large steps between each timing you test for you would still need infinitely many tests to cover the entire spacelike set of separations evenly, so we habe two issues, one is resolution and one is coverage, both must be constrained for it to be realistic to search for, however it is a positive result and so if we don't find it, it could be because we guessed wrong about where to look in a perfectly well understood way, or that our resolution is too low. A positive result would suggest there is some local substructure from which the dynamics of elementary particles/fields emerge from, but it doesn't on its own do more than show that the world is not in the instantaneous limit for the effects and that lorentz symmetry is an approximate concept, beyond that the substructure has to be understood on its own grounds so to speak. But yeah, if we imagine that this is true, and the result is that the symmetries of the standard model hold approximately to a very high degree in the average, it is not surprising that we have been stuck for a while, what i'm describing os one way to potentially figure out that there is a mountain top to climb, it is not itself even giving a detailed outline of a route up there, andnit requires both relativity and quantum mechanics to be wrong and only approximate descriptions, and on its own it buys you almost nothing, so for probing the sub lumimal dynamics, there is no implications that the standard model is wrong even if its true, its not going to produce any effects that are easily observable that breaks it, so even if it is true about nature we would expect to be where we are more or less, having a decent and very precise theory of how stuff moving slower than light works, but not having much of an idea of how to move forward, this is because the structures we habe a grip on like the gauge fields and fermions are the entities that emerge together as a sort of scale local material with particle like phenomena, radiation and so on living on it, but the substructure itself doesn't easily show its face in other ways than to produce the familiar dynamics when probed by stuff made out of these regularities, it manifests as certain kinds of randomness, potentials, and more subtle influences, if thats all it really does, then we would need to understand sucj substructures and the principles that make them tick to then probe them first indirectly like with my simultaneity and superluminal locality test, and then if we are lucky it has additional observables we could understand and utilise to probe further, i think that is quite plausible, but it will be quite subtle going at first, thats my thinking anyways. This is just a story, but i feel its quite natural that we somewhat stalled out at this point, because it is kind of like the difference between studying old classical material science like the study of thermodynamics without atomic theory, and studying statistical mechanics, one thing requires stuff like a thermometer and the other requires microscopes to even get close to seeing the effects of the substructure, and to study the behaviour of the atoms themselves and how they give rise to material properties is a different ball game entirely. except that this time its a more difficult problem, and the kind of emergence going on is much richer and requires more intricate mechanisms and more sophisticated mathematics to describe, again if true, but it is the largest paradigm shift in scientific history if it is real, not because the ideas are so alien, they are to some degree in detail, but its more so because the empirical and conceptual and empirical gap between todays understand and what this would entail is much larger than anything that has come before. Directly probing such a substructure is absurd given todays tech and understanding, at least in more direct ways than what i mentioned about using the bell test type experiment in a more complicated form to probe the substructure. I think we can do it eventually, if it is real, the experiment is very simple, it can be done yesterday the complicated bit comes from the problems i mentioned earlier, but if you knew how to set it up properly, and calculate at what separation the discrepancies happen then one test run in that orientation is sufficient to show the positive results, it is theoretically difficult, not practically. However more direct experiments i think are just too difficult technologically to do, and they involve very high energy physics on one side, and very subtle tecbnologies taking advantage of a positive result in this kind of experiment to produce means of probing further, subtle subject, don't have much to say about it at this point, but the story i tell myself when nobody is around is that we probably won't be able to do much of anything this side of the century, maybe not this century at all, beyond quite crude probes like the one i outlined and a few others. But you never know, at any rate for any of it to matter the experiment should be done properly, the issue is ofc, that you require a theory of the substructure to be able to calculate how to probe for it, if not the best you can do is essentially just randomly scan for the faliure of the quantum mechanical results in different spacelike orientations without any theory to guide you. However i can tell you right away, that i have bits and pieces of the theory we need, not in full detail, but enough to say that if you do an experiment on Earth in a lab, with detectors at the same elevation, and ypu try to use a lab frame and you place the timing right down as close to simultaneity in that frame as possible, then it will see nothing, it will not pick up the deviations even if they are real, that is clear from what i have already, but there are some theoretical complications and so its still gonna be a little while before i would attempt the experiment myself, i want to be more reassured that the whole thing makes sense and works first, such that a positive result is well supported by theory that is rigorously built up and tested theoretically, if thats not the case, the importance of the results would make it really difficult to accept, it has to be right and to make sense in the context of a larger whole in my opinion, not to cause a silly ruckus for no reason.
Entanglement is very simple. Everything in existence is entangled from the very first moment it begins to coalesce out of nothingness, as nothingness is a Unity, and so is the first symmetry or duality which is completed Infinity that manifests as an infinite density or a singularity, which carries the seed or the potential for all other infinities within it but cannot achieve multiplicity and differentiation as a Unity . Luckily and infinite density carries within it the potential for an infinite multiplicity amongst other types of Infiniti as well because every type of Infiniti there is is contained within an infinite density so there is another Duality and this is the duality of nothingness and something or number or multiplicity and it is our growing and expanding and multiplicity physical universe. For differentiation to occur there must be a place where this could happen and that's what time and space are for and so is form and subjectivity and many other things as they all work together to record the information about reality upon itself so it can create itself. This is an instantaneous process although from our perspective within time and space it seems like it'll take eternity but from eternities perspective it's already happened and is happening all at the same time and everything there is within existence not just within the physical universe but everything is connected on a one-to-one basis with everything else because the very first thing that arises after differentiation start is subjectivity or the self and the not self and here the self can be assigned to anything not just an awareness but anything that has a subjective framework has a self. In this fashion everything is quantumly entangled with everything else across time and space at all times and its position information about its velocity its size and all other things are constantly updated in relationship to every other thing there is an existence and this is how quantum entanglement is achieved. The universe does not need to transfer this information through time and space because it's information is part of the universe itself and that would be like a human swallowing his wallet and pooping in his back pocket when I only needed to do is just reach back there and put it in his pocket.
Instantaneous is a finite speed because you're still moving a finite distance it only infinite when it breaks causality because it moves faster than time. Another word you would be going backwards in time by moving that fast but not backwards in the space-time Continuum you'd be going backwards in causality and Breaking the Chain. Infinite velocity is one of the only Infinities that's not achievable in any condition the reality and that's reflected by the speed of light which literally shows you what the speed of causality is and that's literally the speed that the universe is expanding at the edge of the observable portion with the acceleration added to it of course but we don't see that we feel it as gravity
Does Woit share his novel physical principles, postulates, equations, predictions, and proofs? Where can we read them?
Just curious, has anyone developed a physics theory that has incorporated dark matter and dark energy? Or is DM and DE not included in any significant theory like string theory, LQG, etc.? PS: Thanks for all the great videos! 😊
Amazing insight. So 100 more years till we get to single dimmension theory?
It's circle and 2 triangles, not square. Just finished the whole talk, it reminds me the problem of torus and sphere topologically not equalent and can't transform one into another. The point on the wick rotation is just a matter to breaking the symmetry, involve the yukawa coupling. Originally, the vacuum state is a true ground state, but when you look at the topology issue, you see the vacuum has multiple ground states . It's a fascinating topic nevertheless. Good talk 👍
This is cool, even though I only understand 0,001% of what he’s talking about
Holy moly, this one goes over my head. So he is attempting to formulate a method to preserve aspects of spinor geometry that get clobbered by the Wick rotation calculations done when computing quantum systems? Can't say I really understand the implications of such a method; is it meant to provide a non-perturbative formulation of the weak force? I believe at some point he said the lack thereof is one of his motivating factors. If true, I don't understand mathematically why such rotations are not also a limit for performing QED and QCD computations non-perturbatively, as those are done in the lab regularly. Any experts around to fill me in?
Treatment of spacetime where all dimensions i.e. 3 space and 1 time dimensions are treated as qualitatively same kinds of dimensions has always been bothersome. I think treating time dimension as space dimension is a mistake. Tim Maudlin also makes this case. For one you cannot go back in time. The original incorrect use of the word forward flow of time's direction of flow misleads us to think backward flow of time is meaningful physical concept. It is like asking where is Up in deep space. Sure one could say where my head is relative to the feet. But if you change your orientation does the up change. Well that is absurd question - you will agree. And what if you are a spherical object, then where will the up be (except if you are spinning there are two direction along the spin axis - for nit pickers). The negative sign in the Minkowsky metric is another indication that time is not like space. There is also a small (because of the relative units of space and time we use) sliver of space time through which you must go from future light cone to past light cone. I think of this sliver as a split line of simultaneity, into narrow wedges between future light cone and the past light cone. I guess it is kind of like to go from positive side of number line to the negative side of the number line you have to rotate thru the complex plane - one component of which is imaginary numbers i.e. complex plane is possible because of the imaginary numbers. So what I am saying is, I think Peter and Tim are saying as well is - stop thinking of time to be qualitatively same as space dimension. And in fact Tim is building a discrete spacetime geometry which assume that distinction and assumes time to be an intrinsically directed (or one directional) dimension. Interestingly, in Stephen Wolfram's Physics project, time is not even a dimension, but a successive tic of computation - which only occurs inexorably one direction. So in a nutshell it is time to breakdown spacetime as a 4D object but think of it as a 3 space D+1 time D object fundamentally and build physics from there, and Peter and Tim seem to be on that track.
Yes. Time is a "dimension" in the sense that it is another characteristic with a range of values. We could just as well call color or frequency a dimension, or spin or charge or any number of other nonspatial characteristics. Of course, there are a few parallels helpful to think about; that's fine. But better to just call time "A" dimension, not THE fourth, thus leaving room for additional spatial/geometric dimensions.
@@tedwalford7615 Agree. The word dimension in physics simply means a orthogonal or independent variable. So for example a temperature map of a room, there will be four dimensions at each point, three space coordinates and on temperature coordinate. I think lay people equate dimension to mean spatial dimensions as in 3D movies. But scientists need to be more careful and not treat time as a spatial dimension.
The entire pseudo 4D construct appears problematic right from it's inception to me.
When are scientists going to figure out that the changes in the measures of time and distance due to the amount of gravity in the vicinity change the speed of light relative to our measures of time and distance where we are? Scientists can’t seem to figure out that where gravity changes time and distance it changes the speed of light.
Space is not flat in the measures of time and distance on larger scales just like the Earth is not flat on larger scales. Light MUST indeed *always* travel 186,000 miles an hour at the speed of light C. When distance is stretched from having less gravity, light must still complete traveling that distance in the time determined by C. That means the light is traveling faster as perceived by us in a more contracted frame of reference where there is more gravity. Add to that the fact that a second passes by faster away from the center of mass which increases the speed light MUST travel even more.
It’s really not complicated. It’s so simple. It’s the very reason things appear to be moving faster than the speed of light moving away from the center of the galaxy because they are moving faster away from the center of the galaxy yet without exceeding the speed of light. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand.
There are three rates to consider. 1. The diminishing effect or draw of gravity away from the center of mass. 2. The increasing rate of time away from the center of mass. 3. The increasing measure of distance away from the center of mass.
Speed is measured by time and distance which both change and that changes the speed of light and causation. Things happen faster. Distance gets longer without gravity and time goes by faster, both of which combine to speed up causation. The light has to arrive at a farther distance faster when distance is stretched *and* time also goes by faster. *Then* there is the first thing to consider and that is the diminishing draw of gravity the farther away it is from the center of the galaxy which means things eventually slow down the farther away they are from the center mass of a galaxy. (It's not complicated.) 😎
Redshift happens when light leaves a galaxy. Blueshift happens as light enters a galaxy. All things being equal, the light will be redshifted as it leaves a galaxy and then blueshifted back again as it enters our galaxy. Except we already know galaxies are different sizes. The distant galaxies that we can see are very large and the distances between here and there is excessive causing more redshift than our small galaxy can blueshift back to its original spectrum. The more distant a galaxy is the more accumulated gravity there is from nearby masses causing more redshift.
Covariant change in distance and duration in SR. GR causes change of direction of light cone, not the length of the 4-vector in the light cone. Also no gravitational Doppler shift. This Einstein solution was minimalist change to SR.
@@williambranch4283 Light is indeed redshifted as it leaves a galaxy and it is blueshifted as as it enters a galaxy. GR also does dilate time and distance. The result is that we see changes in the rate of causation in superluminal motion seven times the speed of light and in the movements of clouds of matter after a violent explosion as well as in the movements of the outer spiral arms of galaxies.
@@JungleJargon Is there an analog to the index of refraction in empty space in the presence of strong gravity?
@@williambranch4283 Every redshift has a measurable amount. In physics and general relativity, gravitational redshift is that phenomenon in which electromagnetic waves or photons travelling out of a gravitational well lose energy.
So, we start again with algebra and end again in string theories and again apply cancel culture and again explain to Gödel, which part of his systemic statement he did not understand.
Can you do a video and explain and breakdown Dr. John Brandenburg presentation on Gravity Modification by EM fields through GEM Unification Theory?
They won't admit failure because they will lose their grant funding... period!
We can't explain the "fine structure constant" - Feynman
Tarrence Howard needs to team up with this man no joke
Liked and commented cool channel bro