Black holes are an extrapolation of a purely mathematical model. It does not necessarily exist in physical reality, even not if you happen to have a very big mass in the center of the galaxy.
Wrong. What do you think is in our galaxy's center? And how our galaxy is even formed? Just because it's never been seen, that doesn't mean that it is non existent. We know they're out because of physics . The math just shows us the mechanics behind it.
No sir, black holes are a mathematical phenomena that follows from the Schwarzschild solution of the Einstein equations, called Schwarzschild radius. So first there was the mathematics and it is and remains a model.
fsommen And that mathematical model turned out to be an actual *physical* thing that occurs in space. If you ever watch "_The Universe_" on the science channel, you'll know. That is where I mostly got my knowledge in this area. It's a scientific fact that they're out there. Now white holes are a truly theoretical and hypothetical model. I admit that it's never been physically observated, but, it is probable that they are out there. Now, we can say that there are mathematical constructs and physics written out for this.
fsommen Matter that's been compressed to an extreme point can bring forth a black hole. This is demonstrated in a dying star. Black has even been reproduced in the Hadron Collider. Earlier in the thread you said that black holes doesn't exist as an physical entity, but only as an math or physics model. What's been produced in the HC contradicts your statement.
Are you comfortable that Mark, the earliest of the Synoptic gospels to be written, doesn't contain any physical resurrection until the addition of the so-called second ending by a different author (everything past 16:8); and that the gospels that come after it describe the physical resurrection in greater (and different) detail the further they are chronologically from the event?
If you accept that there is only one electron in the universe, and that it can travel in any direction through time; and we also accept that the interaction between particles splitting and recombining is Dark Energy, then could that single electron that is propagating itself throughout space time account for Dark Matter?
Dale Mason if that was true wed use up the 1 electron on 1 molecule of water... dark mater is any material outside of our spectrum, but not created as a void
A+ for the lecture and posting it here! A BIG F* for the majority of comments! Seeing the state of the comment system these days we may just as well abolish it all together......
Modern-Spineless-Leftist: “WAAAHHHH, people are saying/thinking things I DONT LIKE!!, Mommy!!” Sorry, FASCIST, the people WILL have FREE SPEECH/Free commentary If these words and ideas hurt your delicate spineless sensibilities then go do something else.
Its so much worse now. Every other comment seems to take the same format i.e. "Me: Can you make a space car that flies in space? Elon Musk: Yes". And it gets worse, read the comments on any popular vid and its just hordes of kids repeating how cool and awesome it is -there's no intellectual debate anymore, there's no thought provoking questions. If its a mirror of the intellectual capabilities of the emerging generation things look very worrying indeed.
It's a simple matter of intelligent people believing bad data for the wrong reasons. As a physicist, I still don't use god in any of my equations and I don't even have a way to quantify that concept. I have to take the default stance that if there is a god, then it's not effecting the universe in any way we can find. If any god or gods were proven, I think the sheer amount of data it would overturn would warrant a nobel prize, but that hasn't happened yet.
I don't know anything about physics, but I think it is interesting that the first man said that time is what prevents everything in the universe from happening at once, and space is what prevents it from happening in [the same area], and that more mass in one area slows the time in that area like some sort of compensation. I feel like it relates to entropy somehow, like the universe has a set distribution it is trying to reach, and it compensates by slowing time in a massive area, but I don't know why because I don't anything about physics. It's like time is an integral of gravity or something, when you affect gravity it changes time in a way that seem weird, but it isn't.
Not even the slightest hint that there are major problems with string theory, quantum gravity, conceptual problems with multi-dimensional thought, conceptual problems with a "discontinuous Universe at the smallest scale", major conceptual problems with Inflation, ... . This was a presentation that was too slick and almost propagandistic for my taste. There was just way too much flag waving,hand waving, self-congratulatory back slapping. In short I think it was an intellectually dishonest "lecture".
I disagree: self inflation has a few problems not major ones at all. The conceptual problems exist in the difficulty of expression rather than the mathematics -as of even two weeks ago from this date there is huge work in the arena of quanta/self inflation and CoBR.
V K, there is ALWAYS "huge work in the arena of Inflation..."! I am a mathematician. Would you explain how and when mathematics came to be accepted as evidence in science please!
I think he was just sharing some theories that may prove useful one day to find out the truth, weather it be wrong or not, you don't move forward by not thinking about these sorts of things. So stay in the comfort of facts or dream big, you don't have that much time on this earth.
I think you need to move past lectures for the general public, where everything is presented as a story, and up to lectures to college and grad students.
Though Djikgraaf says its very general... he takes us through a journey that's gives you the idea of evolution and need for quantum gravity... Loved the session .. cheers!
why do we consider the representation of space time as a 2D graph sheet which is curved where there is mass, i.e. creating curved space time. If we consider space time as 3D boxes. then the curve in space time, i.e higher dilation in time can be simply represented with smaller cubes, and parts where time dilation is less, it can be considered as larger boxes. If i am not clear enough in the above statement. Consider a point. now consider 3D space. take any 3 perpendicular light waves and let it travel for a unit time, after every unit time that position in space has to be considered as a light source and 3 perpendicular light waves travels through that point. This creates a better visualization of space time curve, and space time isn't a curve here but is actually density. Every box should have same dimensions but it will vary relative to one another as rate of change of time will be different based on the mass. Hence what we perceive as bigger cubes are where time passes slower than Earth's time and where the cube is small than Earth's the time passes quicker when compared to Earth. By this consideration, the question that the resultant space time curve has to be flat with a resultant curvature of absolute 0, so that the future eventually doesn't become past doesn't arise at all.
,However I can see many similarities with his geometry and explanations with what professor Keshe has put into practice at the experimental level.May I ask this simple question?Why is it that Dr Mehram Tavakoli Keshe practical applications of his understanding of the structure of the universe and the matching Math. behind it is not at all mentioned as often as are other physicists interpretations of the same?
The very space-time concept, on which theories of relativity are founded, has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally proved as baseless and openly challenged on the basis of published scientific articles; see it on World Science Database in my profile. Gravity has been shown to be an electromagnetic force as foreseen by Maxwell in the published article 'Revised Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things' (at vixra, General Science Journal in my profile).
Darn you., sir, in the politest way I can access. I was planning on auditing this lecture while I attended to other matters. Instead, I am riveted to your presentation. You must understand that I have no especial talent for-or confidence in-mathematics, making my admission all the more painful. Go on then and do your worst. I shall attend, gazing idly out the window at nonfractal scenery, as your Math Train chugs along.
1. Time is a perpetual sequence future taking over present. 2. Space is physical manifestation of time. If, for whatever reason, time stops, space disappears. 3. Time that clock tells is a numerical reference of earth’s position relative to the sun. The same is true with other planets. Therefore, time is personal and local. Earthly time does not apply to other bodies in space. 4. Size is a matter of number. Increase in the number of atomic particles consequently increases size. What separates an atom from a planet, galaxy and universe is size. 5. Time is a function of atomic vibration. Atomic vibration proceeds in a single direction, it does not change direction. It does not slow down to re-start from one direction to another. 6. Atom is a compounded matter. Atom is not the basic building block but the atomic particles that make up atom. The atom, therefore, is subject to decay. One atomic vibration, from expansion to contraction or vice-versa, is one life-cycle. 7. Atomic vibration is a process of equalization of density. 8. The time we have on earth is a consequence of earth’s existence. Once earth dies, earthly time ends and earthly space disappears. josepharellano.blogspot.com/ push and pull of equilibrium
+Joseph Arellano Some agreed points, but to get to fundamentals: time ceases w/out change. Time = change. Changeless = timeless = stasis. Atomic & other clocks ticking are not real time, since they are mere repetitions & directionless. Real time is unidirectional, driven by the changes imposed by creation. Real time CAN be reversed by the changes of destruction. Eg., human history can be progress or regress. ONLY humans can recognize real time, since they are both the creative agents of change, & its medium. They have free will. They have the divine gift of creating what never existed before. Moral responsibility for consequences, & mortality, are the price.
boxer, but I assume you did, but you still can't explain the mystery of time? I take that as a firm disinsentive to devote years to number-juggling. Enumerating the ticks of an atomic clock does not confer an iota of reality. Ticks like that are mere reiterations, cycles, repetitions. They are not 'time'. Time is events/changes, & an event is human-dependent, or it does not exist. Ergo, time is not a uniform 'dimension'. Its speed varies. Only human illusions (of a mathematical kind, usually) confer false 'objectivity'.
Events are not human-dependent. Again, learn higher level mathematics/logic before doing this. Looking at your vocabulary, I'm sure you have the propensity to learn the information.
boxer, events are ENTIRELY human-dependent. Unless they are observed/recorded, we cannot even think about them. Further, space & its 'coordinates' are meaningless, devoid of a relativistic 'observer'.
Well, he does have a point. What is an "atomic atom"? And also: 1. The spin exceed light speed, is that on the "outer shell" or near the center of this "inner atom"? 2. What plains of existence are you using, when referencing "it exist at 50 million volts"? 3. Where would one need to generate this "voltage level" in order to monitor communications between planets? 4. What is "communication between planets"? 5. What is Hyper Jump Light Speed?
"Think" is the key word. We still have the Hebrew and Greek text and the Hebrew fits well with the dead sea scrolls so we are not worried about the text. Dr. James Strong printed a concordance to the King James Translation so we can look up any word and get the definitions in English so we are not that much worried about the translation. I hope this helps.
upper left hand corner I can see an MU or maybe an MC... so if there's an SH in there that I can't unsee anymore, I'm sure there's plenty of other abstract shapes that my pattern-seeking brain wants to see.
Brilliant lecture! actually showed a new way to understand gravity and space-time. I always felt quantum phenomena were more fundamental than space-time simple by their nature... after all gravity increases as a mass increases, so gravitation depends on the amalgamation of particles, or quanta which must have a property that creates the force of gravity... and that entropy theory put everything in a new light
Here's a question I've always had in mind...Do photons need a universal fabric to travel along our universe? And, does the universal expansion mean that our atoms at a certain point will be expanding size>>>since they collapse at black hole gravitational pull...???
@36:30 If the surface of any black hole holographically contains all of the information about a universe - can't that information be 'read' by using a powerful enough scanner/microscope? thus gaining access to all information in the universe?
I didn't say quantum mechanics is hard to understand, though I think that the requirement of studying a few years worth of mathematics to be able to even read the language in which quantum mechanical theory is written is an indication that it is by no means easy. I'm not sure why you wanted to rephrase the second part of my post but I completely agree with what you and I said.
Question : When empty space contains (zero-point) energy, how can Space expand; where does that new energy come from ? Or does the zero-point energy of space decrease slowly in time ?
I've been wondering, is it possible to measure the speed of time? To be specific, an object moving very fast will experience time slower than an object sitting on your desk. So is it possible to measure time relative to yourself if you were moving very very fast through space compared to the time of a person standing at sea level on earth?
loved this lecture, learned a little, loved the way he illustrated some stuff - helped me understand some concepts better that i wasn't so clear on, kinda lost me near the end though, which is great, gives me something more to chew over. Well worth the watch all in all.
So that was my question from the beginning. It is assumed that space curves because of mass. We are unable to bend the space around us. If we so we can teleport ourselves easily. Does that mean it requires tremendous amount of mass to bend space? It obviously means space is a thing, so what is space made up of?
Bravo, i have watched , re watched shared shared & studied some more Bravo, Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf, You sir are one brilliant mind & great teacher.Salutations from Southeast Texas
I believe that what the professor means by "the end of space and time" is that there is a theoretical limit to how small a piece of space-time can be and still meaningfully participate in supporting phenomena. That is, a piece of space-time the size of one Planc "bit" cannot store a whole particle, it can only store information that "such and such particle goes here" and the phenomenon exists because ultimately all of space-time is the expression of what is stored in Planc data. IE: at some point you get beyond the monsters fighting on the computer's monitor where we live to the program (bits and bytes) that define the hologram that we experience as reality. I *think* that is what he means.
A comparison can be made to the "universe" inside of our skulls. I think I look and I see words and images on a screen but in reality I receive only electronic impulses through my neurons from my senses and my wonderful brain builds the universe in my imagination. All I think I "see" I am actually creating in my mind in response to stimuli. The universe likewise "creates" phenomena based on the digital data that lies in Planc form once you finally get to the edge of the universe. There only actually exists the edge and the Planc information, the rest is only as real as the monsters on my monitor are real.
question. If we built a line of super fans 2 km high from the north pole to the south and blew the air in the opposite direction to earth's rotation what if anything would happen
I don't think it wrong. It explains nicely the "Inflation" process of our early Universe; no Singularity, it started at the size of the original Black Hole. Does the size of our Universe fit within the Schwartzschild Radius of its mass ? That needs a computation: 1. How Large is the Mass of the Universe ? 2. What is the Schwartzschild radius of that Mass in light years ? 3. What is the Radius of the Universe in Light years ? 4. Does the Universe fit within its Schwartzschild Radius ?
You can measure the difference in time measurements from different reference frames. Note that in your second sentence you want to be careful: In your reference frame time always runs normal for you even if your reference frame (and you) are moving with respect to a clock on your desk. So you will think the clock on your desk runs slow as it flies past you and someone at rest with your clock will think your watch runs slow as you fly by.
If you can't get smaller structures does this mean that the universe is pushed in one direction ? I mean there is no side to the universe , but if it can only be observed in the same way in one direction then it doesn't have another direction , is it possible that 1 particle exests in 2 universes at the same time for them to exist if the big bang pushed everything like a sphere , but we can't get to the other end of the sfere ?
Mark, that is also how I understand the process to be occurring. However, it seems like there is a 50/50 possiblity of a matter or anti-matter particle being captured by the black hole. Thus, the sum effect should be negligible since there is just as much matter as anti-matter that enters the black hole. So, I still don't understand why the black hole evaporates from Hawking radiation.
Dense with what? no idea, if something can be bent, it obviously ought to have some density. You can bent an entity in space but if space itself can be bent it ought to be a thing and it ought to have some density. If that is the case, it contradicts our movement from Drawing room to the Kitchen. Correct?
That's very nice of you to answer me back at least to one question. I would like to know who you are better since you have such knowledge. I am a Mechatronics Engineer from Egypt. Nice knowing you. ^_^
That's a good question. Because of E=mc^2, Einstein postulated that even light is bent by gravity. And this has been proven true by experiment. So, how can we measure distances without using light or some kind of radiation? If the radiation we are using to measure the distance and directions of objects is bending due to gravity, then is it not simpler to view space as curved and the radiation as following geodesic lines through curved space? 'reality' becomes a philosophical question.
Is/are there any real evidence to support the "one electron" theory? It sounds well... sound, but I have never heard of it before and would like to know if there is any real mathematical/observational proof, or if it has been disproven.
Well, I had a stab at both questions. The first and more difficult question as to whether photons 'need' some sort of field is thought unlikely amongst main-stream physicists. For many decades, it was thought that such a field was required (as sound needs air) but the early Michelson/Morley experiments showed this was not so. No experimental data has refuted this. As to myself, I am a retired physicist with wide interests. What is 'Mechatronics'? Thanks.
Think of spacetime as a big sheet of fabric. If you put something on top of it, it curves down into a bowl shape around it. This is how gravity works, only in three dimensions rather than four. Heavy objects create sharper curves and thus smaller objects are attracted to them. But, we are walking ON the fabric, not THROUGH it, so the density of the fabric is irrelevant. The elasticity of it, however, matters.
I love some of the little lies-to-children we inherit. Like models of the atom, the rubber-sheet analogy is another. It only shows the effects of gravity in one dimension. In fact, gravity acts in all directions, so the picture we are given is incomplete (if useful for some applications) Time for a rethink of this aspect.
QFT is a "Tangential" idea that applies at the BH boundary (?) ..or at the nuclionic boundary where the electron is oscillating in and out of existence, because the definition of a tangent geometrically follows the continuous line of the function.
i wonder if the force pushing things apart could be related to the force that pushes fish food flakes apart when you tip them in the same spot on to the pond water ?
to clarify, the reason the 100m will have expanded to 110m is this: cut the 100m up into 100 sections of 1m each. now we know that we saw 1m expand to 1.1m in time t, so every one of these 100 sections goes from 1m to 1.1m. so the total goes from 100*(1m) = 100m to 100*(1.1m) = 110 m. hope that helps
Andrew Wiles proved the modularity theorem for semistable elliptic curves, which was enough to imply Fermat's last theorem, and Christophe Breuil, Brian Conrad, Fred Diamond, and Richard Taylor extended his techniques to prove the full modularity theorem in 2001 - so I'm not going to argue with that! As far as Black Holes are concerned, we know so little about gravity, that what actually goes on inside is really conjectural.
I like your questions. Your second question about expansion is easier to answer. The forces which hold atoms together are very powerful and operate at close range. Gravity and other forces are quite insignificant in comparison. So, no - It is not expected that atoms will themselves expand given time. It's true that the incredible forces inherent in black holes will crush anything, but the two scenarios are not related in this way (as far as we can tell!)
All particles are entropic distortions of spacetime, a way to describe indivisible particles is the modular theorem of semistable elliptic curves. We observe particles with particles, the large hadron collider is made of particles like we are. Some particles can be manipulated easier with the ones we have some others not. Particles are probabilistic formations.
Entropy is not information! It is just another way to measuring the uncertainty about some stochastic events. Information can be measured as the uncertainty variation between a "before" and an "after" events. In other words, the measurement of how much information is found inside a black hole only makes sense if we compute the entropy difference between our current (or some) measurement and the entropy from some previous specific event in time.
Awesome. In the true definition of that word. You explain your content well. I've been looking to fill in the gaps of my understanding and have found myself with more than enough to consider (I in fact grasped my hair more than once) . This video I will watch again. Congradulations.
because the Hubble constant has units of (km/s)/parsec or whatever, ie, velocity/length. why is that? well, because every region of space is expanding. so, if I choose to look at 1 meter of space, it will expand some amount per unit of time t. The actual expansion is quite slow, but let's just say I wait long enough so that the 1 meter expands to 1.1 meters, a 10% increase. Now choose instead to look at 100 meters of space. in the same time t, what will it have expanded to? Will it have
An interesting comment. I suppose you are right that, to a greater or lesser degree, 'belief' is part of the human equation. What is surprising, though is that the nature of 'reality' has long been the subject of scientific curiosity; and increasingly so. This inevitably leads to the study of consciousness and what it actually is. What is real to one is not real to another. I would be interested to know what aspect of mental health you are referring to. Thanks.
Daja-vue happened to me one time in Barcelona Spain. I knew what was around the corner before I turned the corner.. Really strange... Good point Yousef.
Well, not everyone believes in the big bang. Einstein, for one, disliked the idea of a universe which was either expanding or contracting. He even created the 'cosmological constant' to keep the universe in a steady state. I appreciate your comment about scientists building theory upon theory. There is a kind of limiting factor, which is that we seem to go on knowing more and more about less and less! Saying 'I don't know' is important. Richard Feynman always pointed this out to his students.
If a tree falls in a forest and and no one is there to hear it..... it does make a sound but it is irrelevant if it wasn't heard or recorded in memory by a concious observer. In other words....the sound itself can only be speculated until an observer actually hears another tree fall and the sound it makes. which technically means until an observer can make a verifiable comparison or be given information of a similar event by another observer, we can't prove that that tree made any sound.
i heard one theory of a gr8 phylosopher, physicist, mathematician, biologist, chemist and astronom which says that time also goes upwards not only forward and humans might be able to adapt living on upward time. he also said the humans lapse in this condition all the time for a part of a second or few seconds. its somekind condition of a trance
if the essence was an entirely planned outcome, then the existence was designed with parameters such that only that outcome could exist. Even disregarding the infinite recursion we have just introduced by claiming a designer, we by definition establish the lack of purpose prior to design; therefore, the first design has no purpose. Furthermore, since the first design is purposeless, all subsequent designs are seen to be arbitrary.
2) Black holes are not just emit radiance, they are preprocessors and constructors. So what it mean. Because time is reverted in black hole, black hole already "knows" what happened in real world, and it just sending information to post-produce reality. 3) Black holes are processors, but the Space-Time is a computer bus which is connected to every object in the universe. Sorry for my english.
Well, I agree. There is something about us which looks for a way to visualise difficult things to try to understand them better. To get a really good understanding in this kind of area though, you need a good grounding in math, and at least some physics also. Not too many people are able or have an inclination to be like this. It was one of Richard Feynman's laments that some just wanted the big picture and couldn't (or wouldn't) use math. I'm optimistic that we will make progress though.
I don't understand. If space is merely a concept, then dimensions too is a concept? Which means the world doesn't exist without an observer? and the world exists within one's mind? is that it?
Excellent lecture! It's one thing to be great scientist and another to be a great lecturer...I mean just try to watch Nima Arkhani Hamed's lectures or that of Roger Penrose :P And then compare them to lectures of Krauss, Green or Carroll. Well Dijkgraaf is on my watch list now.
If nothing is moving then there is no time, yes, but until a living breathing creature exists the mesurement of time is irrelevant. would you agree? movement dictates the passing of time, distance dictates the rate of that passing, and observers translate that information into a measurement of time. I can't make it much more simple that that.
Robbert Dijkgraaf can explain it in a way 99 % of you will not understand it.
Be grateful he does it in a simple way instead of having critic.
Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf is GREAT!!!
Thanks for uploading!!!
: )
Black holes are an extrapolation of a purely mathematical model. It does not necessarily exist in physical reality, even not if you happen to have a very big mass in the center of the galaxy.
Wrong. What do you think is in our galaxy's center? And how our galaxy is even formed? Just because it's never been seen, that doesn't mean that it is non existent. We know they're out because of physics . The math just shows us the mechanics behind it.
No sir, black holes are a mathematical phenomena that follows from the Schwarzschild solution of the Einstein equations, called Schwarzschild radius.
So first there was the mathematics and it is and remains a model.
fsommen And that mathematical model turned out to be an actual *physical* thing that occurs in space. If you ever watch "_The Universe_" on the science channel, you'll know. That is where I mostly got my knowledge in this area. It's a scientific fact that they're out there. Now white holes are a truly theoretical and hypothetical model. I admit that it's never been physically observated, but, it is probable that they are out there. Now, we can say that there are mathematical constructs and physics written out for this.
Of course very dense matter can be mathematically approximated by the black hole model, but it is and remains just a model.
fsommen Matter that's been compressed to an extreme point can bring forth a black hole. This is demonstrated in a dying star.
Black has even been reproduced in the Hadron Collider. Earlier in the thread you said that black holes doesn't exist as an physical entity, but only as an math or physics model.
What's been produced in the HC contradicts your statement.
Are you comfortable that Mark, the earliest of the Synoptic gospels to be written, doesn't contain any physical resurrection until the addition of the so-called second ending by a different author (everything past 16:8); and that the gospels that come after it describe the physical resurrection in greater (and different) detail the further they are chronologically from the event?
skip to 5:39 befor that is useless talk
Thank you!
Thank you !!!
Useless? Excuse me? Getting a feel for the background of the speaker is an incredibly important part of a lecture.
agreed
Yeah it's because you are thick put up your own You-tube Video LMAO
a great lecture. probably the first time I have had someone kind of pull everything together in an understandable way.
If you accept that there is only one electron in the universe, and that it can travel in any direction through time; and we also accept that the interaction between particles splitting and recombining is Dark Energy, then could that single electron that is propagating itself throughout space time account for Dark Matter?
I hope Monsanto doesn't mess with our only electron.
Dale Mason if that was true wed use up the 1 electron on 1 molecule of water... dark mater is any material outside of our spectrum, but not created as a void
thank you for being here for us
A+ for the lecture and posting it here!
A BIG F* for the majority of comments!
Seeing the state of the comment system these days we may just as well abolish it all together......
I totally agree, brother.
Mind the rings around Uranus !
Modern-Spineless-Leftist: “WAAAHHHH, people are saying/thinking things I DONT LIKE!!, Mommy!!”
Sorry, FASCIST, the people WILL have FREE SPEECH/Free commentary
If these words and ideas hurt your delicate spineless sensibilities then go do something else.
Being spiteful or a madonna does not help
Its so much worse now. Every other comment seems to take the same format i.e. "Me: Can you make a space car that flies in space? Elon Musk: Yes". And it gets worse, read the comments on any popular vid and its just hordes of kids repeating how cool and awesome it is -there's no intellectual debate anymore, there's no thought provoking questions.
If its a mirror of the intellectual capabilities of the emerging generation things look very worrying indeed.
It's a simple matter of intelligent people believing bad data for the wrong reasons.
As a physicist, I still don't use god in any of my equations and I don't even have a way to quantify that concept. I have to take the default stance that if there is a god, then it's not effecting the universe in any way we can find.
If any god or gods were proven, I think the sheer amount of data it would overturn would warrant a nobel prize, but that hasn't happened yet.
in the beginning was the word... data..
I don't know anything about physics, but I think it is interesting that the first man said that time is what prevents everything in the universe from happening at once, and space is what prevents it from happening in [the same area], and that more mass in one area slows the time in that area like some sort of compensation. I feel like it relates to entropy somehow, like the universe has a set distribution it is trying to reach, and it compensates by slowing time in a massive area, but I don't know why because I don't anything about physics. It's like time is an integral of gravity or something, when you affect gravity it changes time in a way that seem weird, but it isn't.
Superb lecture. Absolutely superb.
Thanks for posting GreshamCollege. Wonderful lecture!
Not even the slightest hint that there are major problems with string theory, quantum gravity, conceptual problems with multi-dimensional thought, conceptual problems with a "discontinuous Universe at the smallest scale", major conceptual problems with Inflation, ... . This was a presentation that was too slick and almost propagandistic for my taste. There was just way too much flag waving,hand waving, self-congratulatory back slapping. In short I think it was an intellectually dishonest "lecture".
I disagree: self inflation has a few problems not major ones at all. The conceptual problems exist in the difficulty of expression rather than the mathematics -as of even two weeks ago from this date there is huge work in the arena of quanta/self inflation and CoBR.
V K, there is ALWAYS "huge work in the arena of Inflation..."!
I am a mathematician. Would you explain how and when mathematics came to be accepted as evidence in science please!
I think he was just sharing some theories that may prove useful one day to find out the truth, weather it be wrong or not, you don't move forward by not thinking about these sorts of things. So stay in the comfort of facts or dream big, you don't have that much time on this earth.
I think you need to move past lectures for the general public, where everything is presented as a story, and up to lectures to college and grad students.
e.g., Susskind in a Stanford lecture, "Is it important to consider theories where the photon has no mass? Yeah, because the photon has no mass!"
Though Djikgraaf says its very general... he takes us through a journey that's gives you the idea of evolution and need for quantum gravity... Loved the session .. cheers!
3:19 for lecture
I am honored to have met you...^_^ Thanks again for answering my questions in such a brief matter.
so what he was trying to say with that? inconsistent talk
I think he was saying that scientific complacency is ill-considered when we don't understand 96% of everything.
That even ppl like you never die.......
Perhaps this is a rare time when the ''dislikers'' are more acquainted then the ''likers''.
My first words spoken as a baby were "data" and "matter".
mine was ball XD
Mine was crack
why do we consider the representation of space time as a 2D graph sheet which is curved where there is mass, i.e. creating curved space time. If we consider space time as 3D boxes. then the curve in space time, i.e higher dilation in time can be simply represented with smaller cubes, and parts where time dilation is less, it can be considered as larger boxes.
If i am not clear enough in the above statement.
Consider a point. now consider 3D space. take any 3 perpendicular light waves and let it travel for a unit time, after every unit time that position in space has to be considered as a light source and 3 perpendicular light waves travels through that point.
This creates a better visualization of space time curve, and space time isn't a curve here but is actually density. Every box should have same dimensions but it will vary relative to one another as rate of change of time will be different based on the mass. Hence what we perceive as bigger cubes are where time passes slower than Earth's time and where the cube is small than Earth's the time passes quicker when compared to Earth.
By this consideration, the question that the resultant space time curve has to be flat with a resultant curvature of absolute 0, so that the future eventually doesn't become past doesn't arise at all.
MIND BLOWN !
,However I can see many similarities with his geometry and explanations with what professor Keshe has put into practice at the experimental level.May I ask this simple question?Why is it that Dr Mehram Tavakoli Keshe practical applications of his understanding of the structure of the universe and the matching Math. behind it is not at all mentioned as often as are other physicists interpretations of the same?
The very space-time concept, on which theories of relativity are founded, has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally proved as baseless and openly challenged on the basis of published scientific articles; see it on World Science Database in my profile. Gravity has been shown to be an electromagnetic force as foreseen by Maxwell in the published article 'Revised Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things' (at vixra, General Science Journal in my profile).
Darn you., sir, in the politest way I can access.
I was planning on auditing this lecture while I attended to other matters. Instead, I am riveted to your presentation. You must understand that I have no especial talent for-or confidence in-mathematics, making my admission all the more painful.
Go on then and do your worst. I shall attend, gazing idly out the window at nonfractal scenery, as your Math Train chugs along.
Well spoken sir , you made me smile . Much appreciated between all them morons in this section . Thanx !
1. Time is a perpetual sequence future taking over present.
2. Space is physical manifestation of time. If, for whatever reason, time stops, space disappears.
3. Time that clock tells is a numerical reference of earth’s position relative to the sun. The same is true with other planets. Therefore, time is personal and local. Earthly time does not apply to other bodies in space.
4. Size is a matter of number. Increase in the number of atomic particles consequently increases size. What separates an atom from a planet, galaxy and universe is size.
5. Time is a function of atomic vibration. Atomic vibration proceeds in a single direction, it does not change direction. It does not slow down to re-start from one direction to another.
6. Atom is a compounded matter. Atom is not the basic building block but the atomic particles that make up atom. The atom, therefore, is subject to decay. One atomic vibration, from expansion to contraction or vice-versa, is one life-cycle.
7. Atomic vibration is a process of equalization of density.
8. The time we have on earth is a consequence of earth’s existence. Once earth dies, earthly time ends and earthly space disappears.
josepharellano.blogspot.com/ push and pull of equilibrium
+Joseph Arellano
Some agreed points, but to get to fundamentals: time ceases w/out change. Time = change. Changeless = timeless = stasis. Atomic & other clocks ticking are not real time, since they are mere repetitions & directionless. Real time is unidirectional, driven by the changes imposed by creation. Real time CAN be reversed by the changes of destruction. Eg., human history can be progress or regress. ONLY humans can recognize real time, since they are both the creative agents of change, & its medium. They have free will. They have the divine gift of creating what never existed before. Moral responsibility for consequences, & mortality, are the price.
Learn Linear Algebra and Partial Differential Equations
boxer,
but I assume you did, but you still can't explain the mystery of time? I take that as a firm disinsentive to devote years to number-juggling.
Enumerating the ticks of an atomic clock does not confer an iota of reality. Ticks like that are mere reiterations, cycles, repetitions. They are not 'time'. Time is events/changes, & an event is human-dependent, or it does not exist.
Ergo, time is not a uniform 'dimension'. Its speed varies. Only human illusions (of a mathematical kind, usually) confer false 'objectivity'.
Events are not human-dependent. Again, learn higher level mathematics/logic before doing this. Looking at your vocabulary, I'm sure you have the propensity to learn the information.
boxer,
events are ENTIRELY human-dependent. Unless they are observed/recorded, we cannot even think about them. Further, space & its 'coordinates' are meaningless, devoid of a relativistic 'observer'.
Well, he does have a point. What is an "atomic atom"? And also:
1. The spin exceed light speed, is that on the "outer shell" or near the center of this "inner atom"?
2. What plains of existence are you using, when referencing "it exist at 50 million volts"?
3. Where would one need to generate this "voltage level" in order to monitor communications between planets?
4. What is "communication between planets"?
5. What is Hyper Jump Light Speed?
"Think" is the key word. We still have the Hebrew and Greek text and the Hebrew fits well with the dead sea scrolls so we are not worried about the text. Dr. James Strong printed a concordance to the King James Translation so we can look up any word and get the definitions in English so we are not that much worried about the translation. I hope this helps.
where's your model of the atom? just wondering since you don't use the typical one.
upper left hand corner I can see an MU or maybe an MC... so if there's an SH in there that I can't unsee anymore, I'm sure there's plenty of other abstract shapes that my pattern-seeking brain wants to see.
Why is it called spacetime and not timespace? What is the difference between the direction of the two
Extraordinary presentation, both speech and illustrations.
is this singularity smaller than a plank length? is this plank length squared or cubed?
Exceptional presentation. So much to appreciate in this work.
Brilliant lecture! actually showed a new way to understand gravity and space-time. I always felt quantum phenomena were more fundamental than space-time simple by their nature... after all gravity increases as a mass increases, so gravitation depends on the amalgamation of particles, or quanta which must have a property that creates the force of gravity... and that entropy theory put everything in a new light
Here's a question I've always had in mind...Do photons need a universal fabric to travel along our universe? And, does the universal expansion mean that our atoms at a certain point will be expanding size>>>since they collapse at black hole gravitational pull...???
Thanks for the info. That is what is puzzling, if large mass is required to bend space, then how is that we are freely able to move in space?
@36:30 If the surface of any black hole holographically contains all of the information about a universe - can't that information be 'read' by using a powerful enough scanner/microscope? thus gaining access to all information in the universe?
I didn't say quantum mechanics is hard to understand, though I think that the requirement of studying a few years worth of mathematics to be able to even read the language in which quantum mechanical theory is written is an indication that it is by no means easy.
I'm not sure why you wanted to rephrase the second part of my post but I completely agree with what you and I said.
Question : When empty space contains (zero-point) energy, how can Space expand; where does that new energy come from ? Or does the zero-point energy of space decrease slowly in time ?
I've been wondering, is it possible to measure the speed of time? To be specific, an object moving very fast will experience time slower than an object sitting on your desk.
So is it possible to measure time relative to yourself if you were moving very very fast through space compared to the time of a person standing at sea level on earth?
How can any person describe a black hole in depth?
loved this lecture, learned a little, loved the way he illustrated some stuff - helped me understand some concepts better that i wasn't so clear on, kinda lost me near the end though, which is great, gives me something more to chew over.
Well worth the watch all in all.
So that was my question from the beginning.
It is assumed that space curves because of mass.
We are unable to bend the space around us. If we so we can teleport ourselves easily.
Does that mean it requires tremendous amount of mass to bend space?
It obviously means space is a thing, so what is space made up of?
A gret amount of mass is required to bend space correct? so it means space is extremely dense?
Im confused, if there is + there is -, matter antimatter, if there is time there should have anti-time also negative charge is this make sense
Bravo, i have watched , re watched shared shared & studied some more Bravo, Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf, You sir are one brilliant mind & great teacher.Salutations from Southeast Texas
But how do we know we are on top or middle or bottom of it?
I don't understand your question: I don't refer to any particular model. How can you say 'The typical one'?
Nice animation depicting time as the fourth dimension. Much easier to visualize the concept now.
is it possible that there are pressure waves in space-time itself ? would this move galaxies in waves like a cold front on earth?
Dijkgraaf holds a lot of lectures here in the Netherlands, needless to say, they are always stunning
I believe that what the professor means by "the end of space and time" is that there is a theoretical limit to how small a piece of space-time can be and still meaningfully participate in supporting phenomena. That is, a piece of space-time the size of one Planc "bit" cannot store a whole particle, it can only store information that "such and such particle goes here" and the phenomenon exists because ultimately all of space-time is the expression of what is stored in Planc data. IE: at some point you get beyond the monsters fighting on the computer's monitor where we live to the program (bits and bytes) that define the hologram that we experience as reality. I *think* that is what he means.
A comparison can be made to the "universe" inside of our skulls. I think I look and I see words and images on a screen but in reality I receive only electronic impulses through my neurons from my senses and my wonderful brain builds the universe in my imagination. All I think I "see" I am actually creating in my mind in response to stimuli. The universe likewise "creates" phenomena based on the digital data that lies in Planc form once you finally get to the edge of the universe. There only actually exists the edge and the Planc information, the rest is only as real as the monsters on my monitor are real.
question. If we built a line of super fans 2 km high from the north pole to the south and blew the air in the opposite direction to earth's rotation what if anything would happen
I don't think it wrong. It explains nicely the "Inflation" process of our early Universe; no Singularity, it started at the size of the original Black Hole.
Does the size of our Universe fit within the Schwartzschild Radius of its mass ?
That needs a computation:
1. How Large is the Mass of the Universe ?
2. What is the Schwartzschild radius of that Mass in light years ?
3. What is the Radius of the Universe in Light years ?
4. Does the Universe fit within its Schwartzschild Radius ?
You can measure the difference in time measurements from different reference frames. Note that in your second sentence you want to be careful: In your reference frame time always runs normal for you even if your reference frame (and you) are moving with respect to a clock on your desk.
So you will think the clock on your desk runs slow as it flies past you and someone at rest with your clock will think your watch runs slow as you fly by.
If you can't get smaller structures does this mean that the universe is pushed in one direction ? I mean there is no side to the universe , but if it can only be observed in the same way in one direction then it doesn't have another direction , is it possible that 1 particle exests in 2 universes at the same time for them to exist if the big bang pushed everything like a sphere , but we can't get to the other end of the sfere ?
Mark, that is also how I understand the process to be occurring. However, it seems like there is a 50/50 possiblity of a matter or anti-matter particle being captured by the black hole. Thus, the sum effect should be negligible since there is just as much matter as anti-matter that enters the black hole. So, I still don't understand why the black hole evaporates from Hawking radiation.
the picture is in dutch, as is the one preceding it.. standaardmodel is dutch for standard model
i never would have guessed ;o)
Dense with what? no idea, if something can be bent, it obviously ought to have some density. You can bent an entity in space but if space itself can be bent it ought to be a thing and it ought to have some density. If that is the case, it contradicts our movement from Drawing room to the Kitchen. Correct?
has it been determined where the center of the universe is?
There is no center of the universe
+david shuller - Yes, right where you are.
+david shuller earth
Breda Jake - You're saying the center of the universe is in New Jersey? Naw, if anywhere it's in Wall Street.
earth
My question was, what is the amount of mass required to bend space?
whats the difference between wrong and quite wrong?
That's very nice of you to answer me back at least to one question. I would like to know who you are better since you have such knowledge. I am a Mechatronics Engineer from Egypt. Nice knowing you. ^_^
That's a good question. Because of E=mc^2, Einstein postulated that even light is bent by gravity. And this has been proven true by experiment. So, how can we measure distances without using light or some kind of radiation? If the radiation we are using to measure the distance and directions of objects is bending due to gravity, then is it not simpler to view space as curved and the radiation as following geodesic lines through curved space? 'reality' becomes a philosophical question.
Is/are there any real evidence to support the "one electron" theory? It sounds well... sound, but I have never heard of it before and would like to know if there is any real mathematical/observational proof, or if it has been disproven.
I don't know much about quantum physics and mathematics, but I still found this interesting!
Well, I had a stab at both questions. The first and more difficult question as to whether photons 'need' some sort of field is thought unlikely amongst main-stream physicists. For many decades, it was thought that such a field was required (as sound needs air) but the early Michelson/Morley experiments showed this was not so. No experimental data has refuted this. As to myself, I am a retired physicist with wide interests. What is 'Mechatronics'? Thanks.
Think of spacetime as a big sheet of fabric. If you put something on top of it, it curves down into a bowl shape around it. This is how gravity works, only in three dimensions rather than four. Heavy objects create sharper curves and thus smaller objects are attracted to them. But, we are walking ON the fabric, not THROUGH it, so the density of the fabric is irrelevant. The elasticity of it, however, matters.
I love some of the little lies-to-children we inherit. Like models of the atom, the rubber-sheet analogy is another. It only shows the effects of gravity in one dimension. In fact, gravity acts in all directions, so the picture we are given is incomplete (if useful for some applications) Time for a rethink of this aspect.
This is a very good presentation, but remember it's "theoretical physics"... but it does give great insight of where the future of physics lies
QFT is a "Tangential" idea that applies at the BH boundary (?) ..or at the nuclionic boundary where the electron is oscillating in and out of existence, because the definition of a tangent geometrically follows the continuous line of the function.
Very good, give a good understanding of actual theories frontier to non mathematical versed public
i wonder if the force pushing things apart could be related to the force that pushes fish food flakes apart when you tip them in the same spot on to the pond water ?
to clarify, the reason the 100m will have expanded to 110m is this: cut the 100m up into 100 sections of 1m each. now we know that we saw 1m expand to 1.1m in time t, so every one of these 100 sections goes from 1m to 1.1m. so the total goes from 100*(1m) = 100m to 100*(1.1m) = 110 m. hope that helps
I dont have time to watch the whole video can someone summarize it for me?
Thanks for the tip, I'll never know how I got through life all these years without that advice. Why don't you get a show like Dr. Phill?
Interesting...reading all the sceptics assures me that there is something right about this lecture
Andrew Wiles proved the modularity theorem for semistable elliptic curves, which was enough to imply Fermat's last theorem, and Christophe Breuil, Brian Conrad, Fred Diamond, and Richard Taylor extended his techniques to prove the full modularity theorem in 2001 - so I'm not going to argue with that! As far as Black Holes are concerned, we know so little about gravity, that what actually goes on inside is really conjectural.
So are you saying space is merely a concept and not real?
So why is space compared to a mesh?
Please explain more, what am I missing here.
I like your questions. Your second question about expansion is easier to answer. The forces which hold atoms together are very powerful and operate at close range. Gravity and other forces are quite insignificant in comparison. So, no - It is not expected that atoms will themselves expand given time. It's true that the incredible forces inherent in black holes will crush anything, but the two scenarios are not related in this way (as far as we can tell!)
All particles are entropic distortions of spacetime, a way to describe indivisible particles is the modular theorem of semistable elliptic curves. We observe particles with particles, the large hadron collider is made of particles like we are. Some particles can be manipulated easier with the ones we have some others not. Particles are probabilistic formations.
Entropy is not information! It is just another way to measuring the uncertainty about some stochastic events. Information can be measured as the uncertainty variation between a "before" and an "after" events. In other words, the measurement of how much information is found inside a black hole only makes sense if we compute the entropy difference between our current (or some) measurement and the entropy from some previous specific event in time.
I think it's a sacrilege to philosophize about creation, yet it's interesting fun to watch these guys talk about this stuff.
Awesome. In the true definition of that word. You explain your content well. I've been looking to fill in the gaps of my understanding and have found myself with more than enough to consider (I in fact grasped my hair more than once) . This video I will watch again. Congradulations.
because the Hubble constant has units of (km/s)/parsec or whatever, ie, velocity/length. why is that? well, because every region of space is expanding. so, if I choose to look at 1 meter of space, it will expand some amount per unit of time t. The actual expansion is quite slow, but let's just say I wait long enough so that the 1 meter expands to 1.1 meters, a 10% increase. Now choose instead to look at 100 meters of space. in the same time t, what will it have expanded to? Will it have
An interesting comment. I suppose you are right that, to a greater or lesser degree, 'belief' is part of the human equation. What is surprising, though is that the nature of 'reality' has long been the subject of scientific curiosity; and increasingly so. This inevitably leads to the study of consciousness and what it actually is. What is real to one is not real to another. I would be interested to know what aspect of mental health you are referring to. Thanks.
Daja-vue happened to me one time in Barcelona Spain. I knew what was around the corner before I turned the corner.. Really strange... Good point Yousef.
Well, not everyone believes in the big bang. Einstein, for one, disliked the idea of a universe which was either expanding or contracting. He even created the 'cosmological constant' to keep the universe in a steady state. I appreciate your comment about scientists building theory upon theory. There is a kind of limiting factor, which is that we seem to go on knowing more and more about less and less! Saying 'I don't know' is important. Richard Feynman always pointed this out to his students.
Absolutely well done and definitely keep it up!!! 👍👍👍👍👍
If a tree falls in a forest and and no one is there to hear it..... it does make a sound but it is irrelevant if it wasn't heard or recorded in memory by a concious observer. In other words....the sound itself can only be speculated until an observer actually hears another tree fall and the sound it makes. which technically means until an observer can make a verifiable comparison or be given information of a similar event by another observer, we can't prove that that tree made any sound.
i heard one theory of a gr8 phylosopher, physicist, mathematician, biologist, chemist and astronom which says that time also goes upwards not only forward and humans might be able to adapt living on upward time. he also said the humans lapse in this condition all the time for a part of a second or few seconds. its somekind condition of a trance
if the essence was an entirely planned outcome, then the existence was designed with parameters such that only that outcome could exist. Even disregarding the infinite recursion we have just introduced by claiming a designer, we by definition establish the lack of purpose prior to design; therefore, the first design has no purpose. Furthermore, since the first design is purposeless, all subsequent designs are seen to be arbitrary.
2) Black holes are not just emit radiance, they are preprocessors and constructors. So what it mean. Because time is reverted in black hole, black hole already "knows" what happened in real world, and it just sending information to post-produce reality.
3) Black holes are processors, but the Space-Time is a computer bus which is connected to every object in the universe.
Sorry for my english.
Well, I agree. There is something about us which looks for a way to visualise difficult things to try to understand them better. To get a really good understanding in this kind of area though, you need a good grounding in math, and at least some physics also. Not too many people are able or have an inclination to be like this.
It was one of Richard Feynman's laments that some just wanted the big picture and couldn't (or wouldn't) use math. I'm optimistic that we will make progress though.
I don't understand. If space is merely a concept, then dimensions too is a concept? Which means the world doesn't exist without an observer? and the world exists within one's mind? is that it?
Wow what a great teacher
Excellent lecture! It's one thing to be great scientist and another to be a great lecturer...I mean just try to watch Nima Arkhani Hamed's lectures or that of Roger Penrose :P And then compare them to lectures of Krauss, Green or Carroll. Well Dijkgraaf is on my watch list now.
If nothing is moving then there is no time, yes, but until a living breathing creature exists the mesurement of time is irrelevant. would you agree? movement dictates the passing of time, distance dictates the rate of that passing, and observers translate that information into a measurement of time. I can't make it much more simple that that.