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 Timestamps: 00:00 - Intro 01:00 - Wrong Assumptions About Gravity 09:28 - General Relativity 11:43 - Everything is Quantized at the Fundamental Level 13:07 - Quantum Theory and General Relativity 18:35 - ‘The Beauty of Falling’ Book 27:40 - Repulsion vs. Attraction 31:37 - Expansion of the Universe 48:02 - How Did We Not Discover This Earlier? 01:03:53 - Curt Summarizes the Theory 01:07:42 - Ghost Particles 01:14:51 - Claudia’s Background with Ghost Particles 01:29:20 - Advice to Aspiring Scientists 01:32:04 - What Else Does This Theory Solve? 01:35:24 - Higuchi Bound 01:44:12 - Anti-Gravity 01:45:29 - Witten-Weinberg Theorem 01:47:06 - Claudia’s Current Work 01:59:12 - Speed of Light and Causality 02:02:50 - Outro / Support TOE
24:50 you can think of our three-dimensional universe and everything inside of it as a bubble as it expands outwards the nothingness becomes something... There is no emptiness in our bubble... The vacuum of space is full of existence... Therefore the only true emptiness is outside of our universal potentiality and I don't hold this against her because I know English isn't her primary language but emptiness doesn't exist in our bubble of existence.
I disagree that we have more dimensions of space than time... Just because we cannot perceive two-dimensional time does not mean two-dimensional time doesn't exist and just because we cannot perceive one-dimensional time does not mean one-dimensional time doesn't exist and just because we cannot perceive zero-dimensional time does not mean 0 dimensional time doesn't exist... Without time nothing flows. This is where the study of one-dimensional two-dimensional and 0 dimensional black holes might come in handy because without these nothing would flow. Again it is also foolish to think that we can observe and accurately map our entire universe from our singular point in space and time and the fact that we have came up with the idea that we are accelerating in expansion past the speed of light is absolutely absurd... Just as today if someone thinks the Earth is flat we say that's absurd... Again just as today if someone says we are the center of the universe we will say that is obsurd... These were once ideas thought of in the minds of the world's greatest scientists that built the foundations in which we stand on.
Ultimately we recently learned via a released paper that black holes emit non-baryonic matter AKA dark matter. Logically it makes a lot more sense that one-dimensional string membranes are being destroyed by The singularity of a black hole and get converted into a state in between zero and one dimensional... They are then able to escape all different dimensional levels of black holes including one-dimensional black holes. This creates a local area density increase of dark matter and dark energy and thus creates an illusion of accelerating expansion pass the speed of light when in all actuality the universe is actually slowing down and this is the mechanism to hold it all together and slow it down... This makes a whole lot more sense then ANYTHING proposed in this video thus far.
Mark my words when I tell you that the universe is not accelerating in expansion past the speed of light... I've been working on this problem since 2012 after the UNBELIEVABLE issuance of a Nobel prize for a simple observation without explanation to Adam Reisse and collaborators.
If you want to get the difference in Planck energy over distance, this can get you the G differential. If you go out a 100,000 miles from earth, then send a specific wavelength towards earth towards a detector, the increase in that photons momentum is signatory of decrease in the Planck energy, and this will allow you to derive the change in (h) and (c), they are local constants not universal constants. Therefore [[((initial_c*initial_h)^5)/(Initial_PlanckEnergy)] - [((local_c*local_h)^5)/(local_PlanckEnergy)] / distance between Planck delta] * your mass. Simplifying to [(G1 - G2)/D]*Your mass = G force. It's a pushing force. It's not that you have Large G values, it's that you have G differential between 2 different locations, important nuance. Because Planck energy counteracts planck energy, therefore if there is no differential there is no gravity. It's only when you get a differential. Quantum relativism.
Sadly, her take is already disproven in recent experiments. The Wimp and any other gravity subatomic particles have been disproven. Will be a while before all physicists coalesce and start reworking how gravity fits into the model. Personally, I believe gravity is part of the geometry of the universe and does not quite fit where they want it.
I’ve been studying gravity my whole life. The strength of gravity varies proportionately, to how much alcohol one consumes. I have scares to prove this.
They say gravity is weak, how do we stay on the Ball Earth when it is spinning round and round at a thousand miles an hour and we don't get slung off. It is very strong.
Yes I agree 💯,,because one time I was sipping some beer, (a lot) really and the ground jumped up and smacked me in the back of my head,,proving that gravity works in all directions,,yes, mabe I am a scientist after all...
Curt asks the best questions “What is the definition of force “ anyone else probably would have asked “what is the definition of gravity “ I just have so much admiration for him, his interviews are such a pleasure to watch
@@TheoriesofEverything Do you know that Einstein is NOT the author of E=mc^2? Olinto de Pretto published E=mc^2 in 1903. Einstein never published this equation in his works. He published m=L/c^2. Einstein never explained the definition of time. What is the definition of time? What causes the speed of light?
Force is the cause of accelerated motion or reaction to the motion. It's a mathematical concept derived from common experience that moving something requires you muscles to push and a mass you push resists with the same push. Gravitation is a Force puling a body. The body resists and accelerates reluctantly. You can call it curvature but that is in papers in formulas. No formulas in spacetime. You can say the curvature of a bowl causes water drops to slide down the bowl.
I vividly recall the privilege of attending a public lecture at the Perimeter Institute years ago, where I had the opportunity to witness Claudia de Rham speak about gravity. Good stuff.
@quantumkath my advice is to completely wipe it from your memory . Anyone that listens to this nonsense is that much dumber than before . It's more like a spell , or a cult ceremony. Avoid this blasphemy, pseudo science propaganda lies
there's great videos out there explaining Einstein's view of gravity. watch a couple of those, and this stuff will make a lot more sense (theoretically at least) As a starter, Veritasium's "How Gravity Actually Works" would be brilliant!
You don't have to understand this. But when I first began getting into this subject a long time ago it was fascinating but after a while one comes to understanding quantum mechanics. One thing one must remember is that it is weird. But that's the underlying reality of our lives. I find mathematics of QM as some confabulated ideas of math people using math symbols and how they think. So, once you begin looking at these symbols suddenly the picture becomes clear. So, don't be scared of it.
@@dctwright I never claimed that I understood this particular episode of Caludia de Rham talking about gravity. I agree with you; she talks most parts of this as nonsense. The worst thing is that she doesn't back it up by mathematics. So, you are correct; I did not understand it. But some leads are interesting and worth exploring. Just good quantum music to ears with possibility of expansion. So, what is the definition of time? What causes the speed of light?
Wow!!! I am a retired physicist ( PhD's in ElectoOptics/Plasma Physics and Quantum ElectroDynamics ) and studied gravity extensively. That this stunningly beautiful Lady - inside, outside, with a fabulously beautiful personality and has ever so very much more yet - and that she has to be far beyond incredibly brilliant is truly a miracle. In more than 30 years as a Professor at Stanford University and as a Chief Scientist for a 3-Letter American Agency, never did I ever meet any human remotely on her level. Unfortunately, I am much too old to put her amazingly brilliant creative achievements to good use. How I intensely wish that I were 60 years younger but knowing all that I have learned and all that she has learned. I can only now, ever too belatedly, what I was taught many years ago but failed to sufficiently understand and prohibited from pursuing further investigation by real life "men in black" doing the bidding of the damnable Rothschild Cabal. My utmost respect for this incredible Lady is without limit.
If I tried to impress her with a conversation about everything I know of physics, for her it would be like watching a dog bark at passing cars out the window
Whether she is right or wrong, one needs to appreciate those who think out of the box and break the mainstream thesis. That's the way to achieve progress when everything else reaches a dead end.
@theshiled I completely agree. All these people who see things such as extra dimensions or negative mass or ghost particles and dismiss things on the principle that they can't contemplate anything outside of their own tiny frame of reference.. this is what is behind all those theories. Mathematics! When a theory of gravity can extrapolate in full, the equations of electro-magnetism it starts being a little less theoretical..but people still argue against general relativity, now obviously, it isn't complete and there is certainly more to it than just relativity. But it obviously accurately describes many observable aspects of our universe. The way we get the two most successful theories; we as a race have ever produced, to work together; is by prodding and poking at that maths in new ways. Until it completely fits reality.
@owynpham1478 actually no.. that's completely backwards. They are physical, measured quantities that require an explanation because that is exactly what we see in nature.. dark energy is literally vacuum energy.. and we see dark matter everywhere, and provably so. In gravitational lensing where there is no other object visible, which could cause the effect. And in the spiralling of galaxies which spin much faster than they should given the visible mass. In General Relativity , they are an added quantity representative of physical measurable values, which, at the time, had no direct observable cause. And without those values the resulting predictions do not match what we measure in the universe. So then we need to look for a cause that fits because we see the effect. The best candidate for dark matter is weakly interacting massive particles, which we need a collider that can produce much higher energy collisions: to see wimps. So you've demonstrated you are a layman... who knows nothing.
@jasonrodwell5316 That's exactly what I mean dark energy and matter are just baseless assumptions to fill the failings of our best theories. Our theories say galaxies should behave a certain way but differ to actual observations so to make it work we made up non-existent properties of the universe. I'll agree with you when either dark energy or matter are discovered. I have another fundamental question. The expansion of the universe is observed by redshifting of distant galaxies. Although there many anomalous observations of blue shifting and red shifting galaxies seeming close to each other. So the question is does red shifting of light mean things are spreading apart. Or did someone just assume the Doppler effect of sound works the same way as light waves? So the basis of our assumption that everything is spreading apart is this so called red shifting but has it been proven that redshifting of light works as it does with sound. I think there's nothing wrong with questioning our most basic of assumptions upon which everything else is built on.
A few questions: 1. How does massive gravity explain time? Rest of the forces in QM seem to not care about time, so how does the existence of a massive graviton explain time at the micro scale, or is time emergent? From what? 2. Does the graviton have an anti particle? What does it do, gravitationally speaking? 3. How does massive gravity resolve the singularity problem at the center of a black hole? 4. If the graviton's mass indeed decrease over time, does this mean we could detect that from primordial gravitational waves? Thanks.
1. When an object gains mass; it warps the fabric of spacetime; as another object with less mass moves through this warp, it actually experiences more space time, to get to the same point if the object had not moved through the warp… so someone who travels close to a large mass object, will experience more “time” then someone who did not… 2. Gravitons don’t have an Anti- particle that we have observed, nor is their currently any major theories that involve the detection of an anti-particle of the graviton… 3. We don’t know, nor has anyone seen beyond the event horizon of a black hole… There are multi-dimensional theories that involve Black holes being the engines that create matter that is too dense to exist in the third dimension… However, it is possible we will never be able to resolve the singularity problem, As we exist entirely within the 3rd dimension… 4. I’m not entirely sure, while graviton’s energy decreases over time, I’m not sure about the mass… if the mass decreased, in our 3-dimensional universe; the graviton would eventually deconstruct into pure energy; as it gained more and more acceleration from the lowering of overall mass… I’ll add that there is a theory: that all gravity is just a condition of Matter’s effect on space time; it’s even been proposed that sub-atomic spin or interaction; might be a major contributor in the creation of gravitational effect somehow(Example, any object that imbues an on-axis spin; increase it’s gravitational effect, like a Gyroscope). however, i doubt any of that will be proven within our lifetime, nor am I sure it carries any benefit; beyond confirmation; if it does…
I'll add my 2 cents for #2- 2. The spin 2 boson that we call the graviton (which has not been detected) would be it's own antiparticle, just like the photon.
@@aaaaa5272 is gravity an emergent property between the disparity of the relative mass and density of an environment and the relative mass and density of an object occupying said environment? Does this mean gravity is not a fundamental phenomenon of nature? The curvature of spacetime is the curvature of gravity, correct?
you should. ask money back for endless lies they demand to belive. i fell asleep, idk if i want to lissin it again. Felt like archonjargon. These demons can produce imaginable amount of it. Until they say that future already exists (but it is changeable, but changing our actions after on look into the future), i dont belive them. All they do is fk with us. All wolrd wide physics aparatus serves only one gigant neferious plan to keep souls (us, concious agents) locked in here in hellearth. Once you see the future, you know. This realm is not kind and loving. Every they eat your liver and wait it to grow back.
If gravitons are the carriers of gravity and they have mass, even tiny, then wouldn't they be prevented from exiting a black-hole and then how could a black-hole have gravitational effect on outside objects?
I think the issue is that the wave length of the gravition is extremely large. In particular if its larger than the Swartzfield radius then I am not sure the black hole can trap them because they are not definitively inside of the blackhole.
I think that gravity is not actually attraction between masses but repulsion between mass and all points of space. The force is blocked by places full of matter so it appears that the matter is attracted to other matter.
@@wesleyashley99 maybe the universe wants to be empty and it pushes mass together to clear space of mass but that wouldn't account for more massive objects having a greater attraction pulling in more than less massive things
Here's a ChatGPT summary: - Claudia de Rham was initially convinced she made a mistake in her theory. - She questioned the fundamental understanding of gravity, suggesting it might have mass. - De Rham's theory challenges Einstein's principles, proposing gravity can be derived from stability and self-consistency. - She argues that general relativity can be seen as a force, similar to other forces of nature. - Gravitational waves are evidence that gravity acts as a force. - De Rham explains the symmetries in general relativity, emphasizing their philosophical beauty. - She discusses the definition of force, distinguishing between contact forces and fundamental forces like electromagnetism. - Gravity, like electromagnetism, can be represented by a field and a particle (graviton). - De Rham addresses the challenge of reconciling gravity with quantum theory, especially in extreme environments. - She highlights the need for a better framework to understand gravity in these extreme conditions. - De Rham's massive gravity theory, developed in 2010, suggests gravity has a finite range and a very small mass. - This theory aims to address the accelerated expansion of the universe without invoking dark energy. - She explains the concept of vacuum energy and its expected gravitational effects. - De Rham discusses the Higuchi bound, which places limits on the mass of a spin-2 particle in de Sitter space. - She emphasizes the importance of understanding high-energy physics and its implications for low-energy observations. - De Rham's work involves exploring the connections between effective field theories and high-energy physics. - Main message: Claudia de Rham's massive gravity theory challenges traditional views on gravity, suggesting it has mass and a finite range, which could provide new insights into the accelerated expansion of the universe and the nature of gravity itself.
Einstein was referring to "the new aether" back already in the 1920s because empty space had properties. Since "ether" had become unwelcome, he called it "spacetime" which was politically correct. The aether should be considered a perfect fluid. When the RHIC found out the quark-gluon plasma was really a superfluid, everyone should have figure it out. I'll be dead before they do.
I hope Sabine will digest this first and record her impressions soon. Anyway, new ideas by serious people are a good thing. After all, physicists have been arguing about whether anything is real or not!
@garypippenger202 I'm the 4th person to like your comment. I doubt I will be the last. I suspect if, everyone who likes it from this point sends this link to Sabine, the chances of her responding to it will go up.
@@garypippenger202 this is not a new idea- this is the existing side of an approach to gravity that refers to it as emergent instead of fundamental. She is in the camp where she believes quantum is fundamental and gravity is emergent. Without the theory to explain this it’s the same argument that has been pushed for a while ..
@@Skank_and_Gutterboy I wouldn’t call it a garbage theory- it was conceived by a particle physicist who extended that range of concepts to hypothesize why gravity at a certain cosmic scale is less predictable .. Unless you already have the testable and valid explanation you should explain why it’s garbage and not simply a proposal
To me, defining gravity as the curvature of space time is like discribing wind as the bending of trees. It describes the effect but not the route cause.
And it gets worse if you don’t consider the photon to be required as an exchange particle for the EM force. Is it necessary? Is it real? I don’t think it is and thereby a graviton less so.
@@gregorygant4242 - thanks for replying - appreciated. I think though the two do not follow. Yes - the photon model describes how the frequency of a light wave (something we do know exists) is converted to energy in an interaction. But its only a model - Einstein never explained the photoelectric effect - he just accounted for it mathematically in energy terms. Fair enough. I don’t see why it follows though that it is a mediator of the EM force as a ‘particle’ that is ‘exchanged’ for an electron to attract or repel another charged particle. I just don’t ‘feel it’ as being correct - I just don’t think a particle per se is required. Same with gravity - we know it’s a field phenomenon (even if that is a geometric field such as a curvature of space). So I don’t see why a particle is exchanged especially when I’m not convinced with EM and the photon in the first place! For sure I believe in the quantum of energy (my belief predicated on the lowest energy stage of a harmonic oscillator being non-zero hence its a digital system at the fundamental level.) but I don’t need a particle to be mediated. Same with quantum gravity - presumably it’s digital with the lowest level determined by the smallest quantum of mass in the universe (eg neutrino?). So if we build up gravity in neutrino levels it is digital process but I don’t think I need to include a graviton to have one neutrino attracting another with the smallest gravitational pull in the universe? What do you think? - grateful for your input in advance.
@@alwayscurious413 It's has been well documented and verified by countless experiments over like decades by scientists all over the world that the photon exists they have even teleported one over small distances so I don't know what you're talking about. Gravity is definitely not the same as EM there are no carrier particles of any kind ever found to mediate it's effects the graviton is very hypothetical and is just a stab in the dark IMHO.
@@alwayscurious413 Einstein won the nobel prize for his explanation of fotoelectic effect due to the existence of a quantum of energy that later was called photon. By the quantum of light was introduced by Plank to expalin the black body energy distribution.
Whether the theory of massive gravity turns out to be correct or not, prof. de Rham is an amazing teacher: I find especially heartwarming that she feels the urge to explain the concepts embedded in your questions before answering them ❤
Great episode. Was fortunate enough to take a course on QFT from professor de Rham and a course on GR from professor Dowker while I was at Imperial. A bit surreal seeing them here now. Also shout out to my boi Andrew Tolley who has also played a large role in the work on massive gravity.
Today I have listened to two womans, both professors in different fields, biomedical engineer Ronke Olabasi and now Claudia de Rham. I have been so impressed, ofcourse by their knowlegde, but also their delighful spirit and pedagogic flow.
She wasn’t able to answer this elementary question! The general answer is: a force is an interaction between two fermions or complexions of fermions carried by bosons. Gravity doesn’t satisfy this definition. Not only we don’t have the boson (the postulated graviton) we don’t even have the interactive particles or complexions of particles which would interact
Supposedly gravity is not a force and is a kind of an illusion from GR. But forces must be present because that's what keeps the whole Universe together. Matter would not exist without forces. But I believe there are more forces we don't know about. One thing, though, is that physicists foget another aspect of Universe. And that is fields. Fields can exert forces but there are fields that do not display forces and they exist and have importance in fabric of Universe. We'll find out.
@@dankurth4232 > The general answer is: a force is an interaction between two fermions or complexions of fermions carried by bosons. This is not correct. Any interaction with any two quantum fields is a force, neither of them has to be a fermion field. E.g. gluons and weak bosons self-interact. > Gravity doesn’t satisfy this definition. Only Einstein's "classical", non-quantized GR theory does not - just like Maxwell's EM does not. The interaction fields and its quanta appear only after you quantize the "classical" theory, arriving at a different theory. GR can be relatively easily quantized, with graviton field popping out. The resulting theory has two problems: it has little predictive power (it predicts quantum corrections to gravity, similar how QED predicts anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, but they are WAY too small to ever be measured), and it is non-renormalizable. The second problem may be not that big of a deal, if the divergences in quantum theories can be "fixed" by a mechanism different from renormalization. > we don’t even have the interactive particles or complexions of particles which would interact We do. Gravitons (actually any massless spin-2 bosons) couple to stress-energy tensor. It means gravitons must interact with *all* particles, as they all have energy.
To entice academia to study up on CIG Theory, the following are just some of the things that CIG Theory proposes to accomplish with just a single concept, that is, that Matter when it moves, offers up a spatial component that was not there when that matter was idle:
I. THE LIST
1) Solve/resolve the confusion surrounding the Double Slit experiment and place its solution on a firm ground with reality 2) Offers up a new found reality bridging the gap between the Quantum and the Cosmological 3) Quantifies one Atomic Mass Unit of matter to a volume of Space in a new unit termed the CUPI 4) Combines the fundamentals 5) Brings back a cohesive concept of The Law of Conservation of Energy as regards Dark Energy and the accelerating Universe 6) Offer up a new Science of Pressure and Temperature in terms of manifesting new Space 7) Explains Dark Matter 8) Explains Dark Energy 9) Offer a solution to the Horizon Problem 10) Offer a solution to the Core-Cusp problem 11) Offer a solution to the Mott Problem 12) Offer a solution to Quantum Tunneling 13) Offers a coherent explanation of Red Shift anomalies 14) Provides for a Theory of Quantum Gravity 15) Provides for the distinction between the Classical World and the Quantum World 16) Redefines the Correspondence Principle 17) Offers up a quantification of an atomic mass unit and its potential spatial quantity 18) Maintains consistency with the idea of Quantum Decoherence 19) Maintains consistency with the idea of Superposition 20) Explains why the Universe is Accelerating 21) Explains 'Why" E=mc2 22) Explains "why" large things are large 23) Offers up a solution to the Neutrino Mass Problem 24) Provides a solution to the Measurement Problem 25) Expands on the concept of Virtual Particles 26) Provides a new and dynamic view of the Night sky 27) May explain Sonoluminescence 28) Contains and maintains "Black Holes" within the theory 29) May provide insight on Entanglement 30) Contemplates all permutations of all fundamentals in one "Conceptual Equation" 31) Redefines Einstein's Field Equation in terms of the "=" sign, as opposed to a proportionality only 32) Maintains consistency with relativistic theory 33) Is based on sound logic 34) Offers a solution to the Vacuum Catastrophe / Cosmological Constant Problem 35) Integrates the EMS, Weak Force, Strong Force, and Gravity into one Equation: MTS (also incorporates Thermodynamics) 36) Provides a new Definition of Space 37) Provides a new Definition of Matter 38) Offers a new Definition of Time *** work in Progress 39) Explains the Changing of Dark Energy over Time [Explanation of DESI results] 40) All "solutions and re-interpretations of reality" herein are based on a single concept 41) Includes Thermodynamics 42) Contains a "Fourth Law of Motion" 43) Offers a solution to the Hubble Tension 44) Is the Physics behind UAP's (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon) 45) Reinterprets "Energy" in Einstein's Equation E=mc2 in terms of new spatial quantities 46) Offers up a newfound recognition of what the wave function Psi actually is telling us 47) Offers a new concept of the Planck Constant, that being the Rate of Spatial Change 48) Interprets the 10 dimensions of String Theory 49) Offers itself as a Theory of Everything (it may end up being Nothing but please take a look) 50) May explain the reason for a FLAT UNIVERSE 51) Is integral to Quantum Computers via a focused reality behind Superposition 52) Is an explanation of what is going on behind the curtain in Lambda CDM, the Cosmological Non-Constant, and the interplay of Dark Energy 53) Explains how the rate “c” manifests 54) Bridges the Landscape World of Quantum Gravity, String Theory, along with the Swamplands of Effective Field Theories (EFT) in one all-encompassing “CIG High Energy Quantum Gravity Low Energy Quantum Field Theory/EFT Encapsulated in All Time”. This, through the MTS equation. CIG Theory pulls you out of the Swampland and onto Terra Firma. CIG Theory is a Terra Firma Theory. 55) Reduces “Complementarity” to a single state at a time 56) Brings “Certainty” to “Uncertainty” 57) Offers a new insight into Bohr Orbitals 58) Supports Einstein over Bohr in the Einstein-Bohr Debates as CIG finds and exploits new insights into Quantum Mechanics 59) Combines Quantum Mechanics with Gravity and links to the Cosmological Lambda CDM Model via the redefinition of Matter and Space 60) Reveals the long sought after Hidden Dimension to present a sincere and rational Quantum Interpretation 61) Offers an easy explanation of Quantum Tunneling 62) Explains why small things are small 63) Fritz Wicky Eigenstate 64) Fughettaboutit
@12:30 yeah, but she's completely ignoring the the _even more beautiful_ idea that the gauge forces are local spacetime topology, but gravity is not. GR is what supports the other gauge forces. So gravity was already a quantum theory, you do not need to re-quantize gravity, you just need to make it non-classical, by giving up local Minkowski (trivial) topology and admitting a wormhole or other non-trivial topology (maybe twists as well as wormholes, the algebra just has to be su(3)xsu(2)xu(1)/Z6. If gravity with topology gives us this algebra then there is no damn reason to re-quantize gravity, it would be redundant and invite all sorts of pathologies, like non-renormalizability and vacuum energy divergence, etc. Turok & Boyle show that you can cure vacuum and Weyl anomalies with dimension zero Bogoliubov scalars, which are vacuum transforms, so spacetime effects. Not graviton effects.
I don't know anything about math or physics. But I'm good at logic in general. And I saw your other comments. It's good that you've got some nice attitude of a true scientist. I subscribed to your channel. But don't every say "9:00 no! I bet all my money on that". That's not how things work. What if you are wrong? Just saying. But you are some cool fella.
SU(2)xU(1) is covered by the 3-sphere, S3, which is one of the 3 FLRW solutions. SU(3) is harder to fully grasp, but it probably has to do with the 7-sphere (albeit SU(3) is a fiber bundle of S3 over S5, not S4), as it is the only other parallelizable sphere, its points are a sub-group of octonions, the only division algebra left, and it is a natural embedding of the lie group E8. We might be living in a 7-sphere.
Hm… She seems to ramble.. She says things like: “everything is quanta, especially gravity, because it connects to everything, eg electrons, so it has to be quanta” - most physicists would laugh at this statement. I know what she means by this, ie that the “graviton field” could interact with the electronagnetic field - but there is exactly 0 proof for this. And saying it as a statement, as truth, is unscientific. Also, this is not a novel idea, many people in theoretical physics tried to quantize gravity, but no one could produce a testable and consistent theory. She doesn’t seem to have either, certainly not by adding mass to the graviton. There should be another theoretical physicist in such a discussion to have some level of a debate and sense check of bs.
Oh and Dirac and Penrose both believe(d) gravity won't be quantized. So for her to postulate that gravity HAS to be quantized, she's making a claim that isn't confirmed by the very criteria ALL science is confirmed by. Oh and any replacement for GR HAS to reproduce everything GR produces (the Newtonian limit etc) AND predict things (or explain things) that GR doesn't/can't predict or explain. Her conjecture that EVERYTHING is quantized is actually silly because gravity clearly "behaves" differently than every other "force," and it would presuppose that gravity is PROBABILISTIC. This strikes me as pseudoscience rather than anything real, testable and falsifiable. String theory at least produced some nice useful mathematics. Her theory strikes me as nonsense. Ironically, Lee Smolin doesn't believe quantum mechanics is internally consistent but yet she seems to believe everything is quantized (again, no proof of this assertion for gravity).
I don't mind people rambling as long as it's based in reality, but the problem is, the graviton has never been detected or measured. It's still a theory. We can continue to develop theories, but at some point we need to measure reality to make sure the theory matches reality.
I'm going to assume that since a question was asked if everything we know about gravity is wrong. The answer is no. Because every time someone asked a question like that, the answer is no.
I just stopped the video after I heard those words, "everything we thought we knew...." The use of that kind of wording lets me know I can't trust the host well enough to have thought insightfully about the subject.
@@DavidsonTroy I wouldn't discount the host. I've seen his other interviews and he does actually have a background in physics and does understand the concepts being presented.
Another explanation for what she is describing is that Black holes , as we understand them currently, do not exist . Or rather the event horizon doesn't complete fully as described. Then everything works again. What she may have discovered is that light has some none zero mass ?
I love this channel because of the interviewer! who is asking the right questions, and is ready for the talk! I wish I can add 1mln likes :) Please continue doing this amazing work.
Looking forward to finishing this one, thank you both! What is the “probability” that we are wasting our time guessing at singularities in black holes, when we could just use the geometry of an exploding/imploding “tiny bubble” under different PRESSURES? That is science we have and are testing in low energy fusion devices…it’s cliche these days, but As Above, So Below seems a consistent statement for humans throughout time. 🤙🏼✌🏼😊
100% i guess. As below, So above. Psychos down here, Psychos up there. My guess is they know absolutley everything. They are just messing with ppl to stay in control. If you are a scientist or a math nerd or what ever - wanna talk? I once happend to go above. So some channels were left open. Now I can detect lies and provide instantanous solutions. (what if i tell you that their wordsplell black magic is so strong, they lie straight to your face and ppl wont solve the most simplest things because of fear of being ashamed or just arrogance --- like im gonna claim you can solve collatz conjecture in one minute or less). There must be some impotant ahaa moments why they actively remove every truth i have found, incl collatz, that i left here just as a proof and for you to have good laugh - yes, they can pull off these kind if massive lies. Some other dude also solved it. Cucadema did what? "Go away. You are not us."
It makes no sense that van den Waals (vdW) works at short distances but not with larger masses and distances. If two masses with equal masses on both sides does not experience any gravity, then the van den Waals are equal. Thus, gravity may actually be a larger effect of vdW and is still effective for any larger body. The BS of dark matter and dark energy is an untested extrapolation of physics that should be completely ignored. We need to address the Universe using things we know and not what has been exprapolabe from abused mathematics. A static unic=verese does not require any spurious dark physics.
Thanks for bringing Claudia on the show Curt - She is exceptional and I am seriously considering making a marriage proposal! She is so good at explaining things and is so personable. She puts everyone at ease listening to her. I have watched other lectures and videos of her and they are always great.
I asked a girl to spend a little time with me, she said she wanted to put more space between us. I theorize I repulse her. That’s what attraction looks like in my dimension.
What you should have said, was (something along the lines of) "if you play your cards right, you might get to go on a date with me." You should also make a long list of questions to ask her, to assess, whether she would be interesting to you, or not.
Ha. I was skipping around trying to find just that. No luck. There is no explanation of the actual theory in this video. It all just gibberish about nothing.
Gravity can’t have mass according to most physicists because it’s a massless spin-2 boson. But ok, this is a fringe theory. The intro acts like Miss Einstein has arrived!
It's the fundamental problem of all scientific reporting. Most scientific theories are going to be wrong but we make progress if 1 in 10,000 is correct. A promising new theory in fundamental physics might be one that has a 1 in 1,000 chance of being correct. But it's really hard for journalists or RUclipsrs -- who want readers to read and be excited -- to convey both "this is almost certainly wrong" while simultaneously saying "this is an interesting new proposal which is advancing science"
Interesting!! The photon also doesn’t have mass, but since it has energy it does carry momentum…. Hmm… you bring up a really interesting way to think about it! 👍🏻
well, the mass of the graviton can be so low, that we may not have instruments sensitive enough to detect the difference. I don't know the real answer, just theorizing but you bring a valid question and I was wondering the same thing. My bet is on the "too low mass" to measure with current technology.
💡At the time 42:55 The equivalence principle (between acceleration and gravity or free fall and floating in empty space) is seen as a principle precisely because we don't have a direct access to gravitons (*1), but if we could detect gravitons in free fall the equivalence principle would not completely hold anymore, leaving the possibility for a realistic update of the general relativity encompassing a massive graviton while forgetting a complete equivalence between acceleration and gravity, and it's much more logical because when you are in an Earth free fall you still have the gravity acting on all atoms of your body, but when you are floating in intergalactic space you don't (in fact negligible micro-gravity at the scale of a human being), and the same sort of reasoning can be applied for a human inside a rocket. (*1) By the way it's not because we don't have a direct individual access to gravitons that they don't exists or don't have a mass.
It seems gravity is analogous to water and water without oxygen is hydrogen. It may even be a derivative of water. Excellent speaker! Thank you for sharing!
I have a couple of scientist friends (physicist and a cosmologist) who both idolize this woman. They don't necessarily agree with her, but hold her up as an example of why they love science.
Take a running grinder and try and hold it a 1/8 of an inch away from a surface. Why does the grinder become so heavy. It seems hard if not impossible to keep it off the surface.
It sounds like she is saying that for every equation in physics, there must be an equation that equaly and accurately describes its quantum nature. Emphises on equeal. So where you have the equation f=ma, there is another quantum equation reading f=ma= (quantum formula). 13:11
If there is a Planck length, does it not make sense that there is a Planck curvature? This would prevent black hole singularities which would rescue GR. You cannot fold space, just curve it very tightly.
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 Sure according to modern quantum mechanics but I think current QM needs further development to know if that's really the smallest length possible. I suspect it isn't.
Wow, man. You are the first science journalist I've seen on Youtuve that can actually follow what the interviewee says and ask good questions. I do not know if you have a physics background but great job!
"The woman who broke gravity" was a your mom joke written in collaboration by Bob Saget and Norm Macdonald. It's 15 minutes long and takes a cast of 7 to tell.
Thank you, Claudia de Rahm. Gravity is material and its particle is the graviton. The graviton exerts an attracting force on protons (matter) in the direction of the center of the mass where the proton is located; the more matter, the more gravitational attracting force. The particle graviton is orders of magnitude smaller than electrons, neutrinos. The gravitons form lines or strings originating from the center of the mass object outwards and connect to strings of gravitons of nearby bodies of mass. The connections are few on the atomic level, but on the planetary level between Earth and the Moon, they are massive. During its movement the graviton strings between the center of the Earth connected with the strings of gravitons centered in the Moon are reconnecting because to most opportunists, the string is constantly changing due to the movement of the Moon and to some extent that of the movement of the Earth. Every quadrillion of graviton strings strives for the shortest conception, a straight line. But because the bodies are moving the lines of the strings of gravitons are bent and the strings exert force on the corresponding string to become straight ... or disconnect and reconnect to the next most opportunist string. This is where the force of gravity comes about. When a person is standing on the surface of the Earth, the atoms of the ground prohibit the person from falling deeper into the Earth unless it is water or quicksand. But when the person jumps upward the connected lines of the person with the surrounding air molecules are way in the minority with the connected strings of gravitons between the person and the earth. The Earth wants to have straight lines and forces the person to decent until the connected strings are straight lines again and the atoms on the surface of the Earth become an obstacle again to this straightening and attracting process between the Earth and the person
Actually, I've figured it out, and I will tell you. Only problem is, my replies on YT are getting deleted, particularly ones relating to gravity and physics. I will be releasing videos about it later this year, on my Dual-Medium Physics channel. In the meantime, I can answer questions on imgur chat, same username.
This quote is often attributed to Einstein, but there's no evidence he actually said it. In fact, Einstein admitted the opposite when he said he couldn't explain relativity in a manner that was comprehensible to the general educated public, for the 1921 Prussian contest. Hope this helps clarify, Shawn! Take care. - Curt
According to Google the quote was from Einstein; furthermore, I learned that quote before there even was an internet / Google and was told it was from Einstein, so . . .
@@tedwalford7615 now that's a good question--gravitational waves are in the linear region, so ofc they go at c, but at some point the amplitude gets into the non-linear regime (and spacetime becomes self gravitating)...then is there dispersion? I'd guess: yes. The extreme case is a blackhole, it's a soliton that can't move at c.
I was also gotten by that! After her mumbling and trying to explain with "examples", what is basically 7-8 words of definition.. and failing again to produce any meaningful answer.. She disappoint me deeply, and couldn't continue watching the rest.
How would you define it (force)? I mean, F=m*a (for example), defines just how we can recognize that a force is exerted, and only by a forced extent we can say this is a definition of force. The ”pressure” thing, irrespective the kind of interaction, looks like a somewhat closer definition of a force. In fact, the existence of forces seems to imply that the fields in wich some forces are manifested are somewhat... flowing, like for example photons. Given the fact that gravity (wich is an interaction) exerts a force, and it is somehow associated with space, this seems to show there is in fact a flowing (of somewhat) present there. Maybe of space itself? For time seems more intuitive, as you can say the time flyes, but no for space, unless you consider that the time makes possiblle for the space to change, so the space flows through the flows of time... I mean, this is philosophy, right, but then, (even) philosophically: what is a force?
@@aquanano1 It's not a force , gravity ,a force would require a virtual paricle exchange in this case the graviton which is hypothetical and never been found anywhere. So gravity is not a force what it is exactly scientists don't even know we only see and feel the effects of it.
This was amazing. Your questions and contributions are always on point and it really helps us get the most out of conversations with brilliant guests who don't always know just where the limits of mortals lie. Great work!
Wow, this presentation is amazing, your guest is very well at her explanations, although i will have to rewatch this a few times for better understanding. Definitely buy her book. What does she mean with quantum corrections ?
I've always held the hypothesis that gravity is not a pulling force but a pushing one brought about by the expansion of the universe. If dark matter is pushing everything apart what if that means is pushing everything close to each other Together. Like how debris in the ocean somehow manages to cluster together in the currents
Dirac always stated that Beauty was most important. To quote, "it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment" AND "A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data."
Is there Beauty in the MTS Equation? Is it even an Equation? What then is it? Does it have balance?
What about an ugly equation that doesn't fit the experimental data?
As a secondary student and a engineering student (initial) l have always had a problem with idea that gravity been a gravity 'WELL' in the fabric of space and time. That problem resulted from the 'proof' being the Observation that light of a distance star was observed to suffer a Red/blue shift when passing near our sun. The conclusion been that 'Shift' must be caused by the space in which the light is travelling as it passes the sun must be curved so therefore gravity is the cause of the curved path therefore gravity is reflection of that curvature. The problem being that after leaving uni due to 'yes sir no sir' don't question just accept attitude of the lectures, and studying radar tech in a tech college, the theory on how a single appature radar antenna works gave me a another excuse for the light shift mentioned above, and it had nothing to do with gravity wells and everything to do with magnetism caused by the sun. So listening to this interview l never realised gravity was considered not to have mass. As far as l remembered things to be 'effected by gravity' a body required mass therefore l always thought gravity has mass because without a mass gravity cannot exist. Apparently l missed a fundamental point which this professor apparently say doesn't exist, and so l was correct in my assumption. For me, the professor is stating perfect sense.
She helps me to understand re-normalization of quantum effects. Like VZD effects on limits due to quantum effects and voids filled with the Higgs field. It also explains why galaxies spin equally no matter where the star is located.
Energy produce gravity. Gravity produce energy. Why we need both of them? Why we need other entities if we have a gravitational waves. Why any particle could not be a such wave?
If the hypothesized graviton is massive, but not discoverable, could this be replaced by a massive photon, perhaps with variable velocities proportional to wavelengths? There are plenty of those, and they are everywhere. And could this mean that gravity is a feature of light-propagating entities, like suns and galaxies? If this were true it may imply that gravity is inconsistent and confrontational at the cosmic scale, as galaxies interact in more-or-less Newtonian ways. Perhaps we should also use the atmosphere of Jupiter as a template for the cosmos, considering each of the many 'whirlpools' to be a galactic analog. This may also, in some sense, explain black holes if you see them as the regions in which all the 'inwardly-propagating' gravity-producing light (EM waves) collides, creating what seems to be very high gravity.
The comparison with magnetic force is very interesting. Some materials are attracted by magnets without being magnetic themselves. So there must be a difference between the active magnet and the passive material that's attracted nevertheless.
When I was little there was no such thing as gravity it was great. But as I grew older reality sunk in! Now I ' m stuck here. ( I do love your show it is very informative ) continuing to unravel these mysteries is our duty as humans
It is assumed that more and more space-dispersing energy is pushed inside the space-expanding quarks, so that all the expanding quarks that circulate the space-dispersed energy are exactly the same. Their density and volume in relation to each other can be changed when their speed is accelerated in particle accelerators. When moving in groups, they experience the change in a different way, according to which of them pushes forward and which of them pushes in the background of the first one or the first ones. That is, they encounter expanding energy pushing against them, which affects them differently according to the order in which they encounter the energy pushing against them. And it affects how they recycle this energy that is scattered in space. Naturally, energy also plays a big role, which accelerates their pace. That too changes the density and volume of quarks expanding in space. The speed of internal movement / time. Internal pressure. Well, when the expanding nuclei are collided, it’s no wonder that in the collisions, energy is dispersed/expanded into space in such a way that physicists interpret from this information that there are different quarks in the nuclei. And yes, the density and volume of quarks expanding during collisions are different. Even so much different that one of the quarks is so dense and small compared to the others that no information is obtained from it in collisions. I understand that some parties assume that protons and neutrons are made up of zillions of separate quarks. Well, here’s another time. Nowadays it is taught that protons and neutrons consist of three quarks that are different from each other. The three quarks form a kite, as it were. In my opinion, four would form a much more logical and stable entity. The pyramid. Tetrahedron. Ok, when the expanding quarks are at rest relative to us, they would already be much more congested regions of expanding energy with the same density and volume Of course, their density and volume live somewhat all the time. While the situation lives on all the time, they come to control each other’s density and volume while circulating with all other expanding quarks this space-dispersing energy of which they themselves are composed. So that it completely changes over time. When someone momentarily expands a little faster than others, its ability to absorb the space-dispersing energy pushing through itself into itself is worse due to the fact that its density is lower than that of expanding quarks with a smaller volume at that moment. Of course, more energy dispersing into space pushes through it, because it is bigger at that moment. The situation will recover as the recycling of energy dispersed into space continues. The ability to recycle energy that dissipates into space is faster because its internal movement / time is faster at that moment. It seems strange that no one before me has been able to consider that perhaps the so-called the atom is completely different from what physicists have assumed. Perhaps the volume of matter is also relative. Perhaps it is the case that time is not only relative. Maybe here we have the key to the theory of everything in physics🙂 #Google #Savorinen #Read #How #Universe #Really #Works #HelloJimCarrey #八 ❤️
Just touching something at the beginning, I’ve never learned gravity as being anything other than a force. Nearly 30 years ago in college, I learned of it as a force. Back then, it was even being proposed that gravity may be a singular, permeating force that bleeds across dimensions of space.
English is not my mother language. But i have sort of seeings since i'm 6 years old. I'm 58 now, and i would love to discuss "my ideas". I do know it would need calibers like you or claudia; guys who don't babble stuff they learned and repeat it without love for the subject. I hope this dream comes true. Gerrit
Now that we have said that gravitiy is not a force and while there is a gravitational effect that causes acceleration, what is it that induces a mass to accelerate? I can see how a 'bent' space time can apparently bend a trajectory but this still does not describe how masses change their velocity unless there is a force involved.
VII. CIG AS A QUANTUM INTERPRETATION From Copenhagen to Many Worlds to Bohm to GRW to my favorite QBISM ... now comes CIG: Here are my thoughts about CIG Theory in the context of the table in WIKI of Quantum Interpretations. I am hoping that one day CIG Theory will be adopted as a contender for reality and appear on the WIKI page (Quantum Interpretations) along with all the other interpretations. Deterministic: YES Ontic Wave Function: YES Unique History: YES Hidden Variables: YES *1 Collapsing Wave Function: YES Observer Role: No * 2 Local Dynamics: YES Counterfactual Definiteness: YES *3 Extant Universal Wave Function: YES *4
*1 Found *2 Any Introduction that changes the rate of motion of the particle will collapse (or expand) the wave function. *3 If all known parameters are defined in advance (i.e. there is no spontaneous collapse as in GRW) *4 Everything is everything else - as such a Universal Wave Function Exists (Many Worlds exist only over infinite time, not in the same Universe unless that Universe is infinite)
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
Timestamps:
00:00 - Intro
01:00 - Wrong Assumptions About Gravity
09:28 - General Relativity
11:43 - Everything is Quantized at the Fundamental Level
13:07 - Quantum Theory and General Relativity
18:35 - ‘The Beauty of Falling’ Book
27:40 - Repulsion vs. Attraction
31:37 - Expansion of the Universe
48:02 - How Did We Not Discover This Earlier?
01:03:53 - Curt Summarizes the Theory
01:07:42 - Ghost Particles
01:14:51 - Claudia’s Background with Ghost Particles
01:29:20 - Advice to Aspiring Scientists
01:32:04 - What Else Does This Theory Solve?
01:35:24 - Higuchi Bound
01:44:12 - Anti-Gravity
01:45:29 - Witten-Weinberg Theorem
01:47:06 - Claudia’s Current Work
01:59:12 - Speed of Light and Causality
02:02:50 - Outro / Support TOE
24:50 you can think of our three-dimensional universe and everything inside of it as a bubble as it expands outwards the nothingness becomes something... There is no emptiness in our bubble... The vacuum of space is full of existence... Therefore the only true emptiness is outside of our universal potentiality and I don't hold this against her because I know English isn't her primary language but emptiness doesn't exist in our bubble of existence.
I disagree that we have more dimensions of space than time... Just because we cannot perceive two-dimensional time does not mean two-dimensional time doesn't exist and just because we cannot perceive one-dimensional time does not mean one-dimensional time doesn't exist and just because we cannot perceive zero-dimensional time does not mean 0 dimensional time doesn't exist... Without time nothing flows. This is where the study of one-dimensional two-dimensional and 0 dimensional black holes might come in handy because without these nothing would flow. Again it is also foolish to think that we can observe and accurately map our entire universe from our singular point in space and time and the fact that we have came up with the idea that we are accelerating in expansion past the speed of light is absolutely absurd... Just as today if someone thinks the Earth is flat we say that's absurd... Again just as today if someone says we are the center of the universe we will say that is obsurd... These were once ideas thought of in the minds of the world's greatest scientists that built the foundations in which we stand on.
Gravitational waves are the product of a vibrating mass?
Ultimately we recently learned via a released paper that black holes emit non-baryonic matter AKA dark matter. Logically it makes a lot more sense that one-dimensional string membranes are being destroyed by The singularity of a black hole and get converted into a state in between zero and one dimensional... They are then able to escape all different dimensional levels of black holes including one-dimensional black holes. This creates a local area density increase of dark matter and dark energy and thus creates an illusion of accelerating expansion pass the speed of light when in all actuality the universe is actually slowing down and this is the mechanism to hold it all together and slow it down... This makes a whole lot more sense then ANYTHING proposed in this video thus far.
Mark my words when I tell you that the universe is not accelerating in expansion past the speed of light... I've been working on this problem since 2012 after the UNBELIEVABLE issuance of a Nobel prize for a simple observation without explanation to Adam Reisse and collaborators.
Pls don’t break gravity, I was using that
I know it's going to be difficult at first, but I think you'll find that it was just keeping you down anyways.
If you want to get the difference in Planck energy over distance, this can get you the G differential. If you go out a 100,000 miles from earth, then send a specific wavelength towards earth towards a detector, the increase in that photons momentum is signatory of decrease in the Planck energy, and this will allow you to derive the change in (h) and (c), they are local constants not universal constants. Therefore [[((initial_c*initial_h)^5)/(Initial_PlanckEnergy)] - [((local_c*local_h)^5)/(local_PlanckEnergy)] / distance between Planck delta] * your mass. Simplifying to [(G1 - G2)/D]*Your mass = G force. It's a pushing force. It's not that you have Large G values, it's that you have G differential between 2 different locations, important nuance. Because Planck energy counteracts planck energy, therefore if there is no differential there is no gravity. It's only when you get a differential. Quantum relativism.
Gravity sucks bro
Does this mean I can fly now?
@@daileydriven 🤣🤣👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 You win the comments section for me 🏆😎✌🏼
I don't know what it more impressive, How smart this woman is, or the skill it takes to interview her.
Being she's using the mythical graviton and graviole I'm going to assume she's a troll!
she is not smart ... she is a lier
@@stephenhurd1489absolutely
Are you serious?I never heard a bunch of nonsense more nonsensical than this
Sadly, her take is already disproven in recent experiments. The Wimp and any other gravity subatomic particles have been disproven. Will be a while before all physicists coalesce and start reworking how gravity fits into the model. Personally, I believe gravity is part of the geometry of the universe and does not quite fit where they want it.
I’ve been studying gravity my whole life.
The strength of gravity varies proportionately, to how much alcohol one consumes.
I have scares to prove this.
They say gravity is weak, how do we stay on the Ball Earth when it is spinning round and round at a thousand miles an hour and we don't get slung off. It is very strong.
Yes I agree 💯,,because one time I was sipping some beer, (a lot) really and the ground jumped up and smacked me in the back of my head,,proving that gravity works in all directions,,yes, mabe I am a scientist after all...
@@ricksorensen9480
WOW!
That’s almost like reverse gravity!
I need to study that!
As you get the older not only does gravity become stronger, but the floor also gets further away..
@@petermainwaringsx Gravity finally pulls us all down in the end.
No one hosts scientists like Curt, always kind and clear. He is a window on the unknown landscape. Thanks.
Curt asks the best questions “What is the definition of force “ anyone else probably would have asked “what is the definition of gravity “ I just have so much admiration for him, his interviews are such a pleasure to watch
You’re too kind. Glad you’re enjoying Mike!
Should have asked for the definition of "space" in spacetime too. And the definition of "field", while on it.
What is the definition of time? What causes the speed of light?
@@TheoriesofEverything Do you know that Einstein is NOT the author of E=mc^2? Olinto de Pretto published E=mc^2 in 1903. Einstein never published this equation in his works. He published m=L/c^2. Einstein never explained the definition of time.
What is the definition of time? What causes the speed of light?
Force is the cause of accelerated motion or reaction to the motion. It's a mathematical concept derived from common experience that moving something requires you muscles to push and a mass you push resists with the same push.
Gravitation is a Force puling a body. The body resists and accelerates reluctantly. You can call it curvature but that is in papers in formulas. No formulas in spacetime. You can say the curvature of a bowl causes water drops to slide down the bowl.
I vividly recall the privilege of attending a public lecture at the Perimeter Institute years ago, where I had the opportunity to witness Claudia de Rham speak about gravity. Good stuff.
I watched a presentation of the professor at the Perimeter Institute earlier today.
envious!
@@quantumkath it's garbage ....
@quantumkath my advice is to completely wipe it from your memory . Anyone that listens to this nonsense is that much dumber than before . It's more like a spell , or a cult ceremony. Avoid this blasphemy, pseudo science propaganda lies
@ghettocowboy993 it's recyclable....
I watch without understanding, but admire those that do
there's great videos out there explaining Einstein's view of gravity. watch a couple of those, and this stuff will make a lot more sense (theoretically at least) As a starter, Veritasium's "How Gravity Actually Works" would be brilliant!
You don't have to understand this. But when I first began getting into this subject a long time ago it was fascinating but after a while one comes to understanding quantum mechanics. One thing one must remember is that it is weird. But that's the underlying reality of our lives. I find mathematics of QM as some confabulated ideas of math people using math symbols and how they think. So, once you begin looking at these symbols suddenly the picture becomes clear. So, don't be scared of it.
@@user-ky5dy5hl4d
Except you didn't understand this at all.
It's nonsense.
@@dctwright I never claimed that I understood this particular episode of Caludia de Rham talking about gravity. I agree with you; she talks most parts of this as nonsense. The worst thing is that she doesn't back it up by mathematics. So, you are correct; I did not understand it. But some leads are interesting and worth exploring. Just good quantum music to ears with possibility of expansion. So, what is the definition of time? What causes the speed of light?
Only she understands. This is way to technical.
She is a phenomenal teacher She makes everything so understandable
Wow!!! I am a retired physicist ( PhD's in ElectoOptics/Plasma Physics and Quantum ElectroDynamics ) and studied gravity extensively. That this stunningly beautiful Lady - inside, outside, with a fabulously beautiful personality and has ever so very much more yet - and that she has to be far beyond incredibly brilliant is truly a miracle. In more than 30 years as a Professor at Stanford University and as a Chief Scientist for a 3-Letter American Agency, never did I ever meet any human remotely on her level.
Unfortunately, I am much too old to put her amazingly brilliant creative achievements to good use. How I intensely wish that I were 60 years younger but knowing all that I have learned and all that she has learned. I can only now, ever too belatedly, what I was taught many years ago but failed to sufficiently understand and prohibited from pursuing further investigation by real life "men in black" doing the bidding of the damnable Rothschild Cabal.
My utmost respect for this incredible Lady is without limit.
ok, Sir, but she is still wrong and confused.
Weird to comment on her looks like that. Creepy professor
Creepy, old man.
How about learning CIG theory and teaching it to your students.
If I tried to impress her with a conversation about everything I know of physics, for her it would be like watching a dog bark at passing cars out the window
Whether she is right or wrong, one needs to appreciate those who think out of the box and break the mainstream thesis. That's the way to achieve progress when everything else reaches a dead end.
I agree totally.
@theshiled I completely agree. All these people who see things such as extra dimensions or negative mass or ghost particles and dismiss things on the principle that they can't contemplate anything outside of their own tiny frame of reference.. this is what is behind all those theories. Mathematics! When a theory of gravity can extrapolate in full, the equations of electro-magnetism it starts being a little less theoretical..but people still argue against general relativity, now obviously, it isn't complete and there is certainly more to it than just relativity. But it obviously accurately describes many observable aspects of our universe. The way we get the two most successful theories; we as a race have ever produced, to work together; is by prodding and poking at that maths in new ways. Until it completely fits reality.
As a total layman even I know dark energy and dark matter are figments of Einstein's incomplete theories.
@owynpham1478 actually no.. that's completely backwards. They are physical, measured quantities that require an explanation because that is exactly what we see in nature.. dark energy is literally vacuum energy.. and we see dark matter everywhere, and provably so. In gravitational lensing where there is no other object visible, which could cause the effect. And in the spiralling of galaxies which spin much faster than they should given the visible mass.
In General Relativity , they are an added quantity representative of physical measurable values, which, at the time, had no direct observable cause. And without those values the resulting predictions do not match what we measure in the universe. So then we need to look for a cause that fits because we see the effect. The best candidate for dark matter is weakly interacting massive particles, which we need a collider that can produce much higher energy collisions: to see wimps.
So you've demonstrated you are a layman... who knows nothing.
@jasonrodwell5316 That's exactly what I mean dark energy and matter are just baseless assumptions to fill the failings of our best theories. Our theories say galaxies should behave a certain way but differ to actual observations so to make it work we made up non-existent properties of the universe. I'll agree with you when either dark energy or matter are discovered.
I have another fundamental question. The expansion of the universe is observed by redshifting of distant galaxies. Although there many anomalous observations of blue shifting and red shifting galaxies seeming close to each other. So the question is does red shifting of light mean things are spreading apart. Or did someone just assume the Doppler effect of sound works the same way as light waves? So the basis of our assumption that everything is spreading apart is this so called red shifting but has it been proven that redshifting of light works as it does with sound. I think there's nothing wrong with questioning our most basic of assumptions upon which everything else is built on.
A few questions:
1. How does massive gravity explain time? Rest of the forces in QM seem to not care about time, so how does the existence of a massive graviton explain time at the micro scale, or is time emergent? From what?
2. Does the graviton have an anti particle? What does it do, gravitationally speaking?
3. How does massive gravity resolve the singularity problem at the center of a black hole?
4. If the graviton's mass indeed decrease over time, does this mean we could detect that from primordial gravitational waves?
Thanks.
1. When an object gains mass; it warps the fabric of spacetime; as another object with less mass moves through this warp, it actually experiences more space time, to get to the same point if the object had not moved through the warp… so someone who travels close to a large mass object, will experience more “time” then someone who did not…
2. Gravitons don’t have an Anti- particle that we have observed, nor is their currently any major theories that involve the detection of an anti-particle of the graviton…
3. We don’t know, nor has anyone seen beyond the event horizon of a black hole… There are multi-dimensional theories that involve Black holes being the engines that create matter that is too dense to exist in the third dimension… However, it is possible we will never be able to resolve the singularity problem, As we exist entirely within the 3rd dimension…
4. I’m not entirely sure, while graviton’s energy decreases over time, I’m not sure about the mass… if the mass decreased, in our 3-dimensional universe; the graviton would eventually deconstruct into pure energy; as it gained more and more acceleration from the lowering of overall mass…
I’ll add that there is a theory: that all gravity is just a condition of Matter’s effect on space time; it’s even been proposed that sub-atomic spin or interaction; might be a major contributor in the creation of gravitational effect somehow(Example, any object that imbues an on-axis spin; increase it’s gravitational effect, like a Gyroscope). however, i doubt any of that will be proven within our lifetime, nor am I sure it carries any benefit; beyond confirmation; if it does…
I'll add my 2 cents for #2-
2. The spin 2 boson that we call the graviton (which has not been detected) would be it's own antiparticle, just like the photon.
Creation is NOW. That process is what we perceive as Time. The Double Slit Experiment proves this... you're welcome:)
Light, anti light😂
@@BenWard29 this... ty
Sorry, I don't understand her explanations. (Btw., I have a master in physics, perhaps I should return my degree)
👍👍
if you can get a refund.
@@aaaaa5272 is gravity an emergent property between the disparity of the relative mass and density of an environment and the relative mass and density of an object occupying said environment? Does this mean gravity is not a fundamental phenomenon of nature? The curvature of spacetime is the curvature of gravity, correct?
12:20 would you agree with me that the symbol for velocity needs to be in E=mc'2?
you should. ask money back for endless lies they demand to belive. i fell asleep, idk if i want to lissin it again. Felt like archonjargon. These demons can produce imaginable amount of it. Until they say that future already exists (but it is changeable, but changing our actions after on look into the future), i dont belive them. All they do is fk with us. All wolrd wide physics aparatus serves only one gigant neferious plan to keep souls (us, concious agents) locked in here in hellearth. Once you see the future, you know. This realm is not kind and loving. Every they eat your liver and wait it to grow back.
If gravitons are the carriers of gravity and they have mass, even tiny, then wouldn't they be prevented from exiting a black-hole and then how could a black-hole have gravitational effect on outside objects?
very good question.
Gravity is DIFFERENT.
Dirac and Penrose both believed GR wouldn't be "replaced"
I think the issue is that the wave length of the gravition is extremely large. In particular if its larger than the Swartzfield radius then I am not sure the black hole can trap them because they are not definitively inside of the blackhole.
I think that gravity is not actually attraction between masses but repulsion between mass and all points of space. The force is blocked by places full of matter so it appears that the matter is attracted to other matter.
@@wesleyashley99 maybe the universe wants to be empty and it pushes mass together to clear space of mass but that wouldn't account for more massive objects having a greater attraction pulling in more than less massive things
Here's a ChatGPT summary:
- Claudia de Rham was initially convinced she made a mistake in her theory.
- She questioned the fundamental understanding of gravity, suggesting it might have mass.
- De Rham's theory challenges Einstein's principles, proposing gravity can be derived from stability and self-consistency.
- She argues that general relativity can be seen as a force, similar to other forces of nature.
- Gravitational waves are evidence that gravity acts as a force.
- De Rham explains the symmetries in general relativity, emphasizing their philosophical beauty.
- She discusses the definition of force, distinguishing between contact forces and fundamental forces like electromagnetism.
- Gravity, like electromagnetism, can be represented by a field and a particle (graviton).
- De Rham addresses the challenge of reconciling gravity with quantum theory, especially in extreme environments.
- She highlights the need for a better framework to understand gravity in these extreme conditions.
- De Rham's massive gravity theory, developed in 2010, suggests gravity has a finite range and a very small mass.
- This theory aims to address the accelerated expansion of the universe without invoking dark energy.
- She explains the concept of vacuum energy and its expected gravitational effects.
- De Rham discusses the Higuchi bound, which places limits on the mass of a spin-2 particle in de Sitter space.
- She emphasizes the importance of understanding high-energy physics and its implications for low-energy observations.
- De Rham's work involves exploring the connections between effective field theories and high-energy physics.
- Main message: Claudia de Rham's massive gravity theory challenges traditional views on gravity, suggesting it has mass and a finite range, which could provide new insights into the accelerated expansion of the universe and the nature of gravity itself.
Higgs bath... Cmon man... Just call it the aether.
whitewashing.
My thoughts exactly. The aether is necessary to transmit any waves in space. Empty Space is not nothing.
There really isn't any mass. All just waves on the aether. Some trapped, some free.
Oh yes, the behavior of all those "theoretical physicists" that almost religously oppose to use the very word "ether" is remarkable.
Einstein was referring to "the new aether" back already in the 1920s because empty space had properties. Since "ether" had become unwelcome, he called it "spacetime" which was politically correct. The aether should be considered a perfect fluid. When the RHIC found out the quark-gluon plasma was really a superfluid, everyone should have figure it out. I'll be dead before they do.
I hope Sabine will digest this first and record her impressions soon. Anyway, new ideas by serious people are a good thing. After all, physicists have been arguing about whether anything is real or not!
@garypippenger202 I'm the 4th person to like your comment. I doubt I will be the last. I suspect if, everyone who likes it from this point sends this link to Sabine, the chances of her responding to it will go up.
@@garypippenger202 this is not a new idea- this is the existing side of an approach to gravity that refers to it as emergent instead of fundamental. She is in the camp where she believes quantum is fundamental and gravity is emergent. Without the theory to explain this it’s the same argument that has been pushed for a while ..
Garbage theories like dark matter prove that there's not much sense in the field these days.
@@Skank_and_Gutterboy I wouldn’t call it a garbage theory- it was conceived by a particle physicist who extended that range of concepts to hypothesize why gravity at a certain cosmic scale is less predictable .. Unless you already have the testable and valid explanation you should explain why it’s garbage and not simply a proposal
Sabine will hate it because this woman thinks that "It's beautiful," is an explanation.
To me, defining gravity as the curvature of space time is like discribing wind as the bending of trees. It describes the effect but not the route cause.
This young lady is clever, bright and refreshing. Well done. Interesting and convincing.
At this moment the graviton has never been observed and not much is known about what it should look like. It is a hypothetical particle.
And it gets worse if you don’t consider the photon to be required as an exchange particle for the EM force. Is it necessary? Is it real? I don’t think it is and thereby a graviton less so.
@@alwayscurious413 Um, no ,the photon is real has been measured and detected unlike the graviton.
So it is considered the mediator of the EM force.
@@gregorygant4242 - thanks for replying - appreciated. I think though the two do not follow. Yes - the photon model describes how the frequency of a light wave (something we do know exists) is converted to energy in an interaction. But its only a model - Einstein never explained the photoelectric effect - he just accounted for it mathematically in energy terms. Fair enough. I don’t see why it follows though that it is a mediator of the EM force as a ‘particle’ that is ‘exchanged’ for an electron to attract or repel another charged particle. I just don’t ‘feel it’ as being correct - I just don’t think a particle per se is required. Same with gravity - we know it’s a field phenomenon (even if that is a geometric field such as a curvature of space). So I don’t see why a particle is exchanged especially when I’m not convinced with EM and the photon in the first place! For sure I believe in the quantum of energy (my belief predicated on the lowest energy stage of a harmonic oscillator being non-zero hence its a digital system at the fundamental level.) but I don’t need a particle to be mediated. Same with quantum gravity - presumably it’s digital with the lowest level determined by the smallest quantum of mass in the universe (eg neutrino?). So if we build up gravity in neutrino levels it is digital process but I don’t think I need to include a graviton to have one neutrino attracting another with the smallest gravitational pull in the universe? What do you think? - grateful for your input in advance.
@@alwayscurious413 It's has been well documented and verified by countless experiments over like decades by scientists all over the world that the photon
exists they have even teleported one over small distances so I don't know what you're talking about.
Gravity is definitely not the same as EM there are no carrier particles of any kind ever found to mediate it's effects the graviton is very hypothetical and is just
a stab in the dark IMHO.
@@alwayscurious413 Einstein won the nobel prize for his explanation of fotoelectic effect due to the existence of a quantum of energy that later was called photon. By the quantum of light was introduced by Plank to expalin the black body energy distribution.
You should put her name on the title of the video, just like you did for Niel Turok, that is how I got to know him and remember his name.
@@ricardop2458 they now did, awesome!
If a virtual particle emerges in the void, and no physicist is there to measure it, is it or does it really matter?
Yeah, it does. That's called realism.
What an awesome guest! So much easier to understand and most thorough in explanation!
Whether the theory of massive gravity turns out to be correct or not, prof. de Rham is an amazing teacher: I find especially heartwarming that she feels the urge to explain the concepts embedded in your questions before answering them ❤
Great episode. Was fortunate enough to take a course on QFT from professor de Rham and a course on GR from professor Dowker while I was at Imperial. A bit surreal seeing them here now. Also shout out to my boi Andrew Tolley who has also played a large role in the work on massive gravity.
Today I have listened to two womans, both professors in different fields, biomedical engineer Ronke Olabasi and now Claudia de Rham. I have been so impressed, ofcourse by their knowlegde, but also their delighful spirit and pedagogic flow.
Gravity is not just a good idea. It's the law!
gravity is the law of the land
In my 70 years of life...THAT...is one of the MOST asinine statements I have encountered !
Simply put......NO IT'S NOT !!!
Soooo what is a force?
get out of my way
come to me
She wasn’t able to answer this elementary question! The general answer is: a force is an interaction between two fermions or complexions of fermions carried by bosons. Gravity doesn’t satisfy this definition. Not only we don’t have the boson (the postulated graviton) we don’t even have the interactive particles or complexions of particles which would interact
Supposedly gravity is not a force and is a kind of an illusion from GR. But forces must be present because that's what keeps the whole Universe together. Matter would not exist without forces. But I believe there are more forces we don't know about. One thing, though, is that physicists foget another aspect of Universe. And that is fields. Fields can exert forces but there are fields that do not display forces and they exist and have importance in fabric of Universe. We'll find out.
@@dankurth4232 > The general answer is: a force is an interaction between two fermions or complexions of fermions carried by bosons.
This is not correct. Any interaction with any two quantum fields is a force, neither of them has to be a fermion field. E.g. gluons and weak bosons self-interact.
> Gravity doesn’t satisfy this definition.
Only Einstein's "classical", non-quantized GR theory does not - just like Maxwell's EM does not. The interaction fields and its quanta appear only after you quantize the "classical" theory, arriving at a different theory.
GR can be relatively easily quantized, with graviton field popping out.
The resulting theory has two problems: it has little predictive power (it predicts quantum corrections to gravity, similar how QED predicts anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, but they are WAY too small to ever be measured), and it is non-renormalizable. The second problem may be not that big of a deal, if the divergences in quantum theories can be "fixed" by a mechanism different from renormalization.
> we don’t even have the interactive particles or complexions of particles which would interact
We do. Gravitons (actually any massless spin-2 bosons) couple to stress-energy tensor. It means gravitons must interact with *all* particles, as they all have energy.
Force is what makes masses accelerate.
To entice academia to study up on CIG Theory, the following are just some of the things that CIG Theory proposes to accomplish with just a single concept, that is, that Matter when it moves, offers up a spatial component that was not there when that matter was idle:
I. THE LIST
1) Solve/resolve the confusion surrounding the Double Slit experiment and place its solution on a firm ground with reality
2) Offers up a new found reality bridging the gap between the Quantum and the Cosmological
3) Quantifies one Atomic Mass Unit of matter to a volume of Space in a new unit termed the CUPI
4) Combines the fundamentals
5) Brings back a cohesive concept of The Law of Conservation of Energy as regards Dark Energy and the accelerating Universe
6) Offer up a new Science of Pressure and Temperature in terms of manifesting new Space
7) Explains Dark Matter
8) Explains Dark Energy
9) Offer a solution to the Horizon Problem
10) Offer a solution to the Core-Cusp problem
11) Offer a solution to the Mott Problem
12) Offer a solution to Quantum Tunneling
13) Offers a coherent explanation of Red Shift anomalies
14) Provides for a Theory of Quantum Gravity
15) Provides for the distinction between the Classical World and the Quantum World
16) Redefines the Correspondence Principle
17) Offers up a quantification of an atomic mass unit and its potential spatial quantity
18) Maintains consistency with the idea of Quantum Decoherence
19) Maintains consistency with the idea of Superposition
20) Explains why the Universe is Accelerating
21) Explains 'Why" E=mc2
22) Explains "why" large things are large
23) Offers up a solution to the Neutrino Mass Problem
24) Provides a solution to the Measurement Problem
25) Expands on the concept of Virtual Particles
26) Provides a new and dynamic view of the Night sky
27) May explain Sonoluminescence
28) Contains and maintains "Black Holes" within the theory
29) May provide insight on Entanglement
30) Contemplates all permutations of all fundamentals in one "Conceptual Equation"
31) Redefines Einstein's Field Equation in terms of the "=" sign, as opposed to a proportionality only
32) Maintains consistency with relativistic theory
33) Is based on sound logic
34) Offers a solution to the Vacuum Catastrophe / Cosmological Constant Problem
35) Integrates the EMS, Weak Force, Strong Force, and Gravity into one Equation: MTS (also incorporates Thermodynamics)
36) Provides a new Definition of Space
37) Provides a new Definition of Matter
38) Offers a new Definition of Time *** work in Progress
39) Explains the Changing of Dark Energy over Time [Explanation of DESI results]
40) All "solutions and re-interpretations of reality" herein are based on a single concept
41) Includes Thermodynamics
42) Contains a "Fourth Law of Motion"
43) Offers a solution to the Hubble Tension
44) Is the Physics behind UAP's (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon)
45) Reinterprets "Energy" in Einstein's Equation E=mc2 in terms of new spatial quantities
46) Offers up a newfound recognition of what the wave function Psi actually is telling us
47) Offers a new concept of the Planck Constant, that being the Rate of Spatial Change
48) Interprets the 10 dimensions of String Theory
49) Offers itself as a Theory of Everything (it may end up being Nothing but please take a look)
50) May explain the reason for a FLAT UNIVERSE
51) Is integral to Quantum Computers via a focused reality behind Superposition
52) Is an explanation of what is going on behind the curtain in Lambda CDM, the Cosmological Non-Constant, and the interplay of Dark Energy
53) Explains how the rate “c” manifests
54) Bridges the Landscape World of Quantum Gravity, String Theory, along with the Swamplands of Effective Field Theories (EFT) in one all-encompassing “CIG High Energy Quantum Gravity Low Energy Quantum Field Theory/EFT Encapsulated in All Time”. This, through the MTS equation. CIG Theory pulls you out of the Swampland and onto Terra Firma. CIG Theory is a Terra Firma Theory.
55) Reduces “Complementarity” to a single state at a time
56) Brings “Certainty” to “Uncertainty”
57) Offers a new insight into Bohr Orbitals
58) Supports Einstein over Bohr in the Einstein-Bohr Debates as CIG finds and exploits new insights into Quantum Mechanics
59) Combines Quantum Mechanics with Gravity and links to the Cosmological Lambda CDM Model via the redefinition of Matter and Space
60) Reveals the long sought after Hidden Dimension to present a sincere and rational Quantum Interpretation
61) Offers an easy explanation of Quantum Tunneling
62) Explains why small things are small
63) Fritz Wicky Eigenstate
64) Fughettaboutit
@12:30 yeah, but she's completely ignoring the the _even more beautiful_ idea that the gauge forces are local spacetime topology, but gravity is not. GR is what supports the other gauge forces. So gravity was already a quantum theory, you do not need to re-quantize gravity, you just need to make it non-classical, by giving up local Minkowski (trivial) topology and admitting a wormhole or other non-trivial topology (maybe twists as well as wormholes, the algebra just has to be su(3)xsu(2)xu(1)/Z6. If gravity with topology gives us this algebra then there is no damn reason to re-quantize gravity, it would be redundant and invite all sorts of pathologies, like non-renormalizability and vacuum energy divergence, etc. Turok & Boyle show that you can cure vacuum and Weyl anomalies with dimension zero Bogoliubov scalars, which are vacuum transforms, so spacetime effects. Not graviton effects.
you lost me at Bogoliubov.
I don't know anything about math or physics. But I'm good at logic in general. And I saw your other comments. It's good that you've got some nice attitude of a true scientist.
I subscribed to your channel.
But don't every say "9:00 no! I bet all my money on that". That's not how things work. What if you are wrong? Just saying. But you are some cool fella.
🔥🔥🔥
Excellent commentary.
SU(2)xU(1) is covered by the 3-sphere, S3, which is one of the 3 FLRW solutions. SU(3) is harder to fully grasp, but it probably has to do with the 7-sphere (albeit SU(3) is a fiber bundle of S3 over S5, not S4), as it is the only other parallelizable sphere, its points are a sub-group of octonions, the only division algebra left, and it is a natural embedding of the lie group E8. We might be living in a 7-sphere.
Hm… She seems to ramble.. She says things like: “everything is quanta, especially gravity, because it connects to everything, eg electrons, so it has to be quanta” - most physicists would laugh at this statement. I know what she means by this, ie that the “graviton field” could interact with the electronagnetic field - but there is exactly 0 proof for this. And saying it as a statement, as truth, is unscientific.
Also, this is not a novel idea, many people in theoretical physics tried to quantize gravity, but no one could produce a testable and consistent theory. She doesn’t seem to have either, certainly not by adding mass to the graviton.
There should be another theoretical physicist in such a discussion to have some level of a debate and sense check of bs.
THANK YOU.
I was going to write this but you beat me to it.
She's just another physicist putting out untestable drivel 🙄
Oh and Dirac and Penrose both believe(d) gravity won't be quantized.
So for her to postulate that gravity HAS to be quantized, she's making a claim that isn't confirmed by the very criteria ALL science is confirmed by.
Oh and any replacement for GR HAS to reproduce everything GR produces (the Newtonian limit etc) AND predict things (or explain things) that GR doesn't/can't predict or explain.
Her conjecture that EVERYTHING is quantized is actually silly because gravity clearly "behaves" differently than every other "force," and it would presuppose that gravity is PROBABILISTIC.
This strikes me as pseudoscience rather than anything real, testable and falsifiable.
String theory at least produced some nice useful mathematics. Her theory strikes me as nonsense.
Ironically, Lee Smolin doesn't believe quantum mechanics is internally consistent but yet she seems to believe everything is quantized (again, no proof of this assertion for gravity).
My thoughts exactly. I'm all for questioning the status quo of things, but she's literally doing the opposite, imposing a status quo on speculations.
She’s rambling
I don't mind people rambling as long as it's based in reality, but the problem is, the graviton has never been detected or measured. It's still a theory. We can continue to develop theories, but at some point we need to measure reality to make sure the theory matches reality.
I'm going to assume that since a question was asked if everything we know about gravity is wrong. The answer is no. Because every time someone asked a question like that, the answer is no.
I just stopped the video after I heard those words, "everything we thought we knew...." The use of that kind of wording lets me know I can't trust the host well enough to have thought insightfully about the subject.
It’s just scary to even imagine it
It’s no secret that we don’t understand what gravity is
The good thing is that we know nothing about gravity besides its effects.
@@DavidsonTroy I wouldn't discount the host. I've seen his other interviews and he does actually have a background in physics and does understand the concepts being presented.
Another explanation for what she is describing is that Black holes , as we understand them currently, do not exist . Or rather the event horizon doesn't complete fully as described. Then everything works again. What she may have discovered is that light has some none zero mass ?
I love this channel because of the interviewer!
who is asking the right questions, and is ready for the talk!
I wish I can add 1mln likes :)
Please continue doing this amazing work.
Looking forward to finishing this one, thank you both!
What is the “probability” that we are wasting our time guessing at singularities in black holes, when we could just use the geometry of an exploding/imploding “tiny bubble” under different PRESSURES?
That is science we have and are testing in low energy fusion devices…it’s cliche these days, but As Above, So Below seems a consistent statement for humans throughout time.
🤙🏼✌🏼😊
100% i guess. As below, So above. Psychos down here, Psychos up there. My guess is they know absolutley everything. They are just messing with ppl to stay in control. If you are a scientist or a math nerd or what ever - wanna talk? I once happend to go above. So some channels were left open. Now I can detect lies and provide instantanous solutions. (what if i tell you that their wordsplell black magic is so strong, they lie straight to your face and ppl wont solve the most simplest things because of fear of being ashamed or just arrogance --- like im gonna claim you can solve collatz conjecture in one minute or less). There must be some impotant ahaa moments why they actively remove every truth i have found, incl collatz, that i left here just as a proof and for you to have good laugh - yes, they can pull off these kind if massive lies. Some other dude also solved it. Cucadema did what? "Go away. You are not us."
Us humans are funny creatures...The more we learn...the less we know
@@bigron7009 On the contrary, the more we learn the more we know, but we also discover new things to learn.
@sjzara I think you might miss my point about the pursuit of knowledge. You must of heard of that Maxim before lol
@@bigron7009 I have heard it and it’s rather silly. We clearly know more the more we learn.
@@sjzara 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Reality is funny
Terrance Howard has entered the chat.
😂😂😂absolutely. An equally rich pile of.nonsesnse.
Lol
The wave conjugations of the Platonic solids when I opened the flower of life
@@mrjimmbo Didn't he say this very same thing??
Lol nice
It makes no sense that van den Waals (vdW) works at short distances but not with larger masses and distances. If two masses with equal masses on both sides does not experience any gravity, then the van den Waals are equal.
Thus, gravity may actually be a larger effect of vdW and is still effective for any larger body.
The BS of dark matter and dark energy is an untested extrapolation of physics that should be completely ignored. We need to address the Universe using things we know and not what has been exprapolabe from abused mathematics. A static unic=verese does not require any spurious dark physics.
Thanks for bringing Claudia on the show Curt - She is exceptional and I am seriously considering making a marriage proposal! She is so good at explaining things and is so personable. She puts everyone at ease listening to her. I have watched other lectures and videos of her and they are always great.
You would propose marriage to someone you haven't met, to someone who doesn't even know of your existence? Yikes.
@@razeezar Relax, it was a joke and a compliment! However, ...
It must be such a great feeling when the interviewee compliments you on your amazing questions. Great job, man!
I asked a girl to spend a little time with me, she said she wanted to put more space between us. I theorize I repulse her. That’s what attraction looks like in my dimension.
What you should have said, was (something along the lines of) "if you play your cards right, you might get to go on a date with me." You should also make a long list of questions to ask her, to assess, whether she would be interesting to you, or not.
I went to her excellent talk at the royal institution, looking forward to this.
Mr. Jaimungal's question are quite pertinent. A valiant attempt to limit circumlocution.
Exactly what I was trying to explain to my physics Professor in 1970.
Gravity is not doing my face any favors, thank you lady! 👏
@@GymAndSun then you should stay out of it.
We should move to mars. Only 1/3 of earth's gravity
@@irasthewarrior And half the calories!
Wow she is fantastic, and has this natural happy glow, bet she is an amazing professor and great with her students and colleagues!😀
Can someone put up a timestamp of when she starts explaining her radical theory of gravity? Thanks
Ha. I was skipping around trying to find just that. No luck. There is no explanation of the actual theory in this video. It all just gibberish about nothing.
I really enjoyed this talk. Great questions and Claudia is a great explainer and communicator.
Gravity can’t have mass according to most physicists because it’s a massless spin-2 boson. But ok, this is a fringe theory. The intro acts like Miss Einstein has arrived!
Correct but that would make it a graviton which is hypothetical and never been observed.
At one time, all science was fringe.
@@Mike-sv2nu Then it got a hair cut.
It's the fundamental problem of all scientific reporting. Most scientific theories are going to be wrong but we make progress if 1 in 10,000 is correct. A promising new theory in fundamental physics might be one that has a 1 in 1,000 chance of being correct.
But it's really hard for journalists or RUclipsrs -- who want readers to read and be excited -- to convey both "this is almost certainly wrong" while simultaneously saying "this is an interesting new proposal which is advancing science"
True such intros are a sign of bs
The reason gravity can't have mass is that it propagates at the speed of light.
Interesting!! The photon also doesn’t have mass, but since it has energy it does carry momentum…. Hmm… you bring up a really interesting way to think about it! 👍🏻
well, the mass of the graviton can be so low, that we may not have instruments sensitive enough to detect the difference. I don't know the real answer, just theorizing but you bring a valid question and I was wondering the same thing. My bet is on the "too low mass" to measure with current technology.
the speed of light is relative
Time is not a "thing". Time only is way of comparing the state of the universe at one instance and the state of the universe at another instance.
💡At the time 42:55 The equivalence principle (between acceleration and gravity or free fall and floating in empty space) is seen as a principle precisely because we don't have a direct access to gravitons (*1), but if we could detect gravitons in free fall the equivalence principle would not completely hold anymore, leaving the possibility for a realistic update of the general relativity encompassing a massive graviton while forgetting a complete equivalence between acceleration and gravity, and it's much more logical because when you are in an Earth free fall you still have the gravity acting on all atoms of your body, but when you are floating in intergalactic space you don't (in fact negligible micro-gravity at the scale of a human being), and the same sort of reasoning can be applied for a human inside a rocket. (*1) By the way it's not because we don't have a direct individual access to gravitons that they don't exists or don't have a mass.
Interesting so you can say truly that less is more I love it! Thank you all for your input very awesome!
Just finished listening to Professor De Rham's Perimeter Talk. Great timing! ^.^
Perfect! Welcome, Memes
All hail the algorithm.
Same thing here, and I glad I did
My favorite individual show under the TOE series. A stunning inquiry.
It seems gravity is analogous to water and water without oxygen is hydrogen. It may even be a derivative of water.
Excellent speaker! Thank you for sharing!
Does the expansion of the universe exceed the speed of light. And if so, would or could that create the black holes
I have a couple of scientist friends (physicist and a cosmologist) who both idolize this woman. They don't necessarily agree with her, but hold her up as an example of why they love science.
Take a running grinder and try and hold it a 1/8 of an inch away from a surface. Why does the grinder become so heavy. It seems hard if not impossible to keep it off the surface.
It sounds like she is saying that for every equation in physics, there must be an equation that equaly and accurately describes its quantum nature. Emphises on equeal. So where you have the equation f=ma, there is another quantum equation reading f=ma= (quantum formula). 13:11
If there is a Planck length, does it not make sense that there is a Planck curvature? This would prevent black hole singularities which would rescue GR.
You cannot fold space, just curve it very tightly.
Your idea sucks! How could we create wormholes if we can't fold space?! 😂
The planck length is literally the smallest "thing" possible so it stands to reason that it CANNOT be curved.
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 Sure according to modern quantum mechanics but I think current QM needs further development to know if that's really the smallest length possible.
I suspect it isn't.
Wow, man. You are the first science journalist I've seen on Youtuve that can actually follow what the interviewee says and ask good questions. I do not know if you have a physics background but great job!
If you ever happen to get lost you will probably regret asking this woman for directions.
Relevant. ruclips.net/video/WKLHsJyhTYs/видео.html
"The woman who broke gravity" was a your mom joke written in collaboration by Bob Saget and Norm Macdonald. It's 15 minutes long and takes a cast of 7 to tell.
🤣
Thank you, Claudia de Rahm. Gravity is material and its particle is the graviton.
The graviton exerts an attracting force on protons (matter) in the direction of the center of the mass where the proton is located; the more matter, the more gravitational attracting force.
The particle graviton is orders of magnitude smaller than electrons, neutrinos.
The gravitons form lines or strings originating from the center of the mass object outwards and connect to strings of gravitons of nearby bodies of mass.
The connections are few on the atomic level, but on the planetary level between Earth and the Moon, they are massive.
During its movement the graviton strings between the center of the Earth connected with the strings of gravitons centered in the Moon are reconnecting because to most opportunists, the string is constantly changing due to the movement of the Moon and to some extent that of the movement of the Earth.
Every quadrillion of graviton strings strives for the shortest conception, a straight line.
But because the bodies are moving the lines of the strings of gravitons are bent and the strings exert force on the corresponding string to become straight ... or disconnect and reconnect to the next most opportunist string.
This is where the force of gravity comes about.
When a person is standing on the surface of the Earth, the atoms of the ground prohibit the person from falling deeper into the Earth unless it is water or quicksand.
But when the person jumps upward the connected lines of the person with the surrounding air molecules are way in the minority with the connected strings of gravitons between the person and the earth.
The Earth wants to have straight lines and forces the person to decent until the connected strings are straight lines again and the atoms on the surface of the Earth become an obstacle again to this straightening and attracting process between the Earth and the person
This is GREAT! Gravity needs to be understood. We know SO LITTLE!
Well, we can launch a probe from earth and land it on a comet so we can make a lot of accurate predictions based on what we do know of Gravity.
Actually, I've figured it out, and I will tell you. Only problem is, my replies on YT are getting deleted, particularly ones relating to gravity and physics.
I will be releasing videos about it later this year, on my Dual-Medium Physics channel.
In the meantime, I can answer questions on imgur chat, same username.
I am " *FORCED* " to quote Einstein here. " If you can't explain it simply, you understand it well enough ".
This quote is often attributed to Einstein, but there's no evidence he actually said it. In fact, Einstein admitted the opposite when he said he couldn't explain relativity in a manner that was comprehensible to the general educated public, for the 1921 Prussian contest. Hope this helps clarify, Shawn! Take care. - Curt
That was Richard Feynman
According to Google the quote was from Einstein; furthermore, I learned that quote before there even was an internet / Google and was told it was from Einstein, so . . .
@@ShawnRitch So . . . . hearsay then 🤷🏼♂️
@@GuyHindle It's a good philosophy regardless who said it.
Offtopic : the Ghostbusters soundtracks was a ripped off of The song "I need a new drug"
You're killin' it Curt. Great content man.
Great focus with your analysis approach. I am enjoying your process.
Gravity itself has mass?! 😮
yes
If so, how does it propagate at light speed?
@@tedwalford7615 now that's a good question--gravitational waves are in the linear region, so ofc they go at c, but at some point the amplitude gets into the non-linear regime (and spacetime becomes self gravitating)...then is there dispersion? I'd guess: yes. The extreme case is a blackhole, it's a soliton that can't move at c.
Electricity is a natural candidate for the accelerated expansion of the universe.
@@АндрейДенькевичwhy?
Thought i'd point out her last name is Rham, not Rahm,
Someone who struggles to define 'force' has no right presenting a theory of gravity.
Because gravity isn't a force that's why some scientists don't even get that !
I was also gotten by that!
After her mumbling and trying to explain with "examples", what is basically 7-8 words of definition..
and failing again to produce any meaningful answer..
She disappoint me deeply, and couldn't continue watching the rest.
How would you define it (force)? I mean, F=m*a (for example), defines just how we can recognize that a force is exerted, and only by a forced extent we can say this is a definition of force. The ”pressure” thing, irrespective the kind of interaction, looks like a somewhat closer definition of a force. In fact, the existence of forces seems to imply that the fields in wich some forces are manifested are somewhat... flowing, like for example photons. Given the fact that gravity (wich is an interaction) exerts a force, and it is somehow associated with space, this seems to show there is in fact a flowing (of somewhat) present there. Maybe of space itself? For time seems more intuitive, as you can say the time flyes, but no for space, unless you consider that the time makes possiblle for the space to change, so the space flows through the flows of time... I mean, this is philosophy, right, but then, (even) philosophically: what is a force?
@@aquanano1 It's not a force , gravity ,a force would require a virtual paricle exchange in this case the graviton which is hypothetical and never been found anywhere.
So gravity is not a force what it is exactly scientists don't even know we only see and feel the effects of it.
Define it
This was amazing. Your questions and contributions are always on point and it really helps us get the most out of conversations with brilliant guests who don't always know just where the limits of mortals lie. Great work!
Thank you so much! Glad you enjoyed :)
If you're living in Twilight there's no such thing as Day.
Wow, this presentation is amazing, your guest is very well at her explanations, although i will have to rewatch this a few times for better understanding. Definitely buy her book. What does she mean with quantum corrections ?
First
I've always held the hypothesis that gravity is not a pulling force but a pushing one brought about by the expansion of the universe. If dark matter is pushing everything apart what if that means is pushing everything close to each other Together. Like how debris in the ocean somehow manages to cluster together in the currents
Just bought her book. Thank you!!
XXIII ON BEAUTY
Dirac always stated that Beauty was most important. To quote, "it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment" AND "A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data."
Is there Beauty in the MTS Equation? Is it even an Equation? What then is it? Does it have balance?
What about an ugly equation that doesn't fit the experimental data?
As a secondary student and a engineering student (initial) l have always had a problem with idea that gravity been a gravity 'WELL' in the fabric of space and time.
That problem resulted from the 'proof' being the Observation that light of a distance star was observed to suffer a Red/blue shift when passing near our sun. The conclusion been that 'Shift' must be caused by the space in which the light is travelling as it passes the sun must be curved so therefore gravity is the cause of the curved path therefore gravity is reflection of that curvature.
The problem being that after leaving uni due to 'yes sir no sir' don't question just accept attitude of the lectures, and studying radar tech in a tech college, the theory on how a single appature radar antenna works gave me a another excuse for the light shift mentioned above, and it had nothing to do with gravity wells and everything to do with magnetism caused by the sun.
So listening to this interview l never realised gravity was considered not to have mass.
As far as l remembered things to be 'effected by gravity' a body required mass therefore l always thought gravity has mass because without a mass gravity cannot exist.
Apparently l missed a fundamental point which this professor apparently say doesn't exist, and so l was correct in my assumption.
For me, the professor is stating perfect sense.
She helps me to understand re-normalization of quantum effects. Like VZD effects on limits due to quantum effects and voids filled with the Higgs field. It also explains why galaxies spin equally no matter where the star is located.
I could listen to this woman forever
What an amazing scientist Claudia is, whew !
Energy produce gravity. Gravity produce energy. Why we need both of them? Why we need other entities if we have a gravitational waves. Why any particle could not be a such wave?
If the hypothesized graviton is massive, but not discoverable, could this be replaced by a massive photon, perhaps with variable velocities proportional to wavelengths? There are plenty of those, and they are everywhere. And could this mean that gravity is a feature of light-propagating entities, like suns and galaxies? If this were true it may imply that gravity is inconsistent and confrontational at the cosmic scale, as galaxies interact in more-or-less Newtonian ways. Perhaps we should also use the atmosphere of Jupiter as a template for the cosmos, considering each of the many 'whirlpools' to be a galactic analog.
This may also, in some sense, explain black holes if you see them as the regions in which all the 'inwardly-propagating' gravity-producing light (EM waves) collides, creating what seems to be very high gravity.
The comparison with magnetic force is very interesting. Some materials are attracted by magnets without being magnetic themselves. So there must be a difference between the active magnet and the passive material that's attracted nevertheless.
Another amazing episode Curt!
Have we ever observed a “graviton”? I’m skeptical.
No, it hasn't been observed. The name "graviton" is just a placeholder for if and when we ever detect a force carrying particle for gravity.
When I was little there was no such thing as gravity it was great. But as I grew older reality sunk in! Now I ' m stuck here. ( I do love your show it is very informative ) continuing to unravel these mysteries is our duty as humans
Excellent and a great interview. I really enjoyed your very good questions and the simple explanations of Claudia de Rham
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you Curt for this excellent interview. First time to hear and know Prof Claudia de Rham
Absolutely fascinating conversation.
It is assumed that more and more space-dispersing energy is pushed inside the space-expanding quarks, so that all the expanding quarks that circulate the space-dispersed energy are exactly the same.
Their density and volume in relation to each other can be changed when their speed is accelerated in particle accelerators.
When moving in groups, they experience the change in a different way, according to which of them pushes forward and which of them pushes in the background of the first one or the first ones.
That is, they encounter expanding energy pushing against them, which affects them differently according to the order in which they encounter the energy pushing against them.
And it affects how they recycle this energy that is scattered in space.
Naturally, energy also plays a big role, which accelerates their pace.
That too changes the density and volume of quarks expanding in space. The speed of internal movement / time. Internal pressure.
Well, when the expanding nuclei are collided, it’s no wonder that in the collisions, energy is dispersed/expanded into space in such a way that physicists interpret from this information that there are different quarks in the nuclei.
And yes, the density and volume of quarks expanding during collisions are different.
Even so much different that one of the quarks is so dense and small compared to the others that no information is obtained from it in collisions.
I understand that some parties assume that protons and neutrons are made up of zillions of separate quarks. Well, here’s another time.
Nowadays it is taught that protons and neutrons consist of three quarks that are different from each other.
The three quarks form a kite, as it were. In my opinion, four would form a much more logical and stable entity. The pyramid. Tetrahedron.
Ok, when the expanding quarks are at rest relative to us, they would already be much more congested regions of expanding energy with the same density and volume
Of course, their density and volume live somewhat all the time.
While the situation lives on all the time, they come to control each other’s density and volume while circulating with all other expanding quarks this space-dispersing energy of which they themselves are composed. So that it completely changes over time.
When someone momentarily expands a little faster than others, its ability to absorb the space-dispersing energy pushing through itself into itself is worse due to the fact that its density is lower than that of expanding quarks with a smaller volume at that moment.
Of course, more energy dispersing into space pushes through it, because it is bigger at that moment. The situation will recover as the recycling of energy dispersed into space continues.
The ability to recycle energy that dissipates into space is faster because its internal movement / time is faster at that moment.
It seems strange that no one before me has been able to consider that perhaps the so-called the atom is completely different from what physicists have assumed.
Perhaps the volume of matter is also relative.
Perhaps it is the case that time is not only relative.
Maybe here we have the key to the theory of everything in physics🙂
#Google #Savorinen #Read #How #Universe #Really #Works #HelloJimCarrey #八
❤️
Just touching something at the beginning, I’ve never learned gravity as being anything other than a force. Nearly 30 years ago in college, I learned of it as a force. Back then, it was even being proposed that gravity may be a singular, permeating force that bleeds across dimensions of space.
English is not my mother language.
But i have sort of seeings since i'm 6 years old.
I'm 58 now, and i would love to discuss "my ideas".
I do know it would need calibers like you or claudia; guys who don't babble stuff they learned and repeat it without love for the subject.
I hope this dream comes true.
Gerrit
Now that we have said that gravitiy is not a force and while there is a gravitational effect that causes acceleration, what is it that induces a mass to accelerate? I can see how a 'bent' space time can apparently bend a trajectory but this still does not describe how masses change their velocity unless there is a force involved.
So, what she's saying is gravity is like piezoelectric effect. The more you squeeze space, the more gravity you get.
VII. CIG AS A QUANTUM INTERPRETATION
From Copenhagen to Many Worlds to Bohm to GRW to my favorite QBISM ... now comes CIG:
Here are my thoughts about CIG Theory in the context of the table in WIKI of Quantum Interpretations.
I am hoping that one day CIG Theory will be adopted as a contender for reality and appear on the WIKI page (Quantum Interpretations) along with all the other interpretations.
Deterministic: YES
Ontic Wave Function: YES
Unique History: YES
Hidden Variables: YES *1
Collapsing Wave Function: YES
Observer Role: No * 2
Local Dynamics: YES
Counterfactual Definiteness: YES *3
Extant Universal Wave Function: YES *4
*1 Found
*2 Any Introduction that changes the rate of motion of the particle will collapse (or expand) the wave function.
*3 If all known parameters are defined in advance (i.e. there is no spontaneous collapse as in GRW)
*4 Everything is everything else - as such a Universal Wave Function Exists (Many Worlds exist only over infinite time, not in the same Universe unless that Universe is infinite)
Wow. She’s fabulous. That was terrific!
Letting the guest talk without consantly interrupting them and trusting the viewer might understand what they're saying
Bob lazar was correct, we can modify gravity through element 115. Brilliant light power will eventually lead us to discover this.
Thank you.
Good "interview", good questions. Good vibes.