The double copy: a new way to think about gravity - Dr. Christopher White
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- All forces in nature are known to be consequences of four "fundamental forces”. Three of these (electromagnetism, and the strong/weak nuclear forces) are contained in the Standard Model of particle physics, which includes the effects of quantum mechanics. The fourth force, gravity, is described by General Relativity, whose quantum theory remains elusive but apparently necessary to describe black holes and the origin of the universe itself! Recently, a remarkable new relationship has been found between theories like the strong force and gravity. It gives us a potentially new way to think about gravity, as well as being of great practical importance (e.g. for decoding the results of gravitational wave experiments). In this talk, I will introduce the double copy, and describe how research carried out at QMUL has influenced global research in this area.
![MISSING: SLIM SHADY [Expanded Mourner’s Edition Trailer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xh8qgHrOO1g/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey - Luke here (PsiStar's president and supervise of Dr Chris White) and I want to clear some things up I see recurringly said in the comments.
1. This channel is a physics channel not a mathematics channel but the idea that one can approach science of any kind without the usage of empirical data or mathematics is ludicrous.
2. Dr Chris White is not a particle physicist and is an esteemed member of the Centre for Research in String Theory at the School of Physics and Astronomy at Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) so any suggestion that this is a "particle physics hoax" or "misses the entirety of string theory" is nonsense. The use of the graviton (a theorised but certainly not proven or even accepted particle) is used because of the remarkable correspondence between scattering amplitudes and was not just plucked out of thin air. Just like string theory this theory is primarily being used as a tool to view gravity in a new light mathematically and there are already conferences attended between quantum field theorists and gravitational wave specialists so double copy theorems are becoming more and more popular primarily as a mathematical tool.
3. Our production quality isn't high as this was recorded at the height of a pandemic via Teams and was only really intended to be watched by a small audience within QMUL - please do not expect production quality to suddenly increase as we have a very limited budget and the speakers give their time voluntarily so we're lucky to have this content available at all.
4. I apologise if I am unable to respond to your queries as I am quite busy most of the time.
5. Thank you for the tremendous support on this video. For every strange nonsensical comment there are 5 helpful and interesting ones!
(If you'd like to watch my video briefly explaining my 3rd year project "The Classical Double Copy Between Electromagnetism and Gravity" click this link: ruclips.net/video/IlVzkFe3-_4/видео.html&lc=UgxajNQkOjbvt2azuXV4AaABAg.9PEzV7tziv19PciQ9OR8Bs )
I wonder what conclusion physics would come to when the space-time is "zero"? Would such approach lead to universal theory? Is it even a possible task as any number or unit used in calculations are representations of different aspects of space-time? Same problem with tools and experiments used as they are also the products of space-time. This is not just an attempt to look beyond big bang but to understand if there are linking factors between the two: existance "before" the big bang (if there was one) and that existance where laws of space-time has no influence, though space-time is "present". Of course the last is just a theoretical assumption as it is difficult to even grasp can space-time be "present" and have no influence at the same "time"? P.s. Use better words if you can using language, a product of space-time.
Go to my RUclips page, 'DISCUSSION' on the menu, then 'SORT BY', select 'Newest first' to pull up all the entries. (For some reason the YT page does not show all my entries unless one selects 'Newest first'). You will find my theory of everything idea, the potential completion of the periodic table of the elements, spacetime info, etc.
* Note for those with cell phones: Your YT app might not show the 'DISCUSSION' item on your menu options.
@@ksd593 SPACE IS FINITE AND TIME IS INFINITE:
('Space' being energy itself, 'Time' being the flow of energy):
Consider the following, utilizing modern science and logic and reason:
a. Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong.
b. An 'absolute somethingness' cannot come from 'absolute nothingness', 'absolute nothingness' just being a concept from a conscious entity in 'absolute somethingness'. Hence, an 'absolute somethingness' truly eternally existed throughout all of eternity past, exists today, and will most probably exist throughout all of future eternity. That eternally existent 'absolute somethingness' most probably being energy itself.
c. The universe ALWAYS existed in some form and will most probably ALWAYS exist in some form, with no beginning and possibly no end. Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, have been replaced by actual reality.
d. And for me, 'space' is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. And 'time' is the flow of energy. Hence 'spacetime' being 'energy and it's flow'. 'Spacetime' had no beginning and will possibly have no end.
Red Shift: Consider the following:
a. Current narrative: Space itself is expanding. (Even though science does not fully know yet what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand).
b. But consider: The net effect of solar winds, particles and energy pushing outward from galaxies, (even modern science claims 'em' has momentum), continuously, over a prolonged period of time, with other galaxies doing the same, with nothing to stop them from doing so, would tend to push galaxies away from each other and even potentially allow the cosmic web to form between galaxies.
And then, when we here in our galaxy, look at far away galaxies, with other galaxies in between, the net effect of all those galactic interactions would have galaxies furthest from ours move away faster the further those galaxies were from us, including us perceiving a red shift of energy.
c. Now, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? What the current narrative is ('a' above), or 'b' utilizing known physics?
Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way.
a. Imagine a 12 hour clock.
b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions.
c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions.
(The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.)
d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields.
e. Do this with the em fields on and off.
(The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.)
f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects.
(Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.)
(And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.)
(An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.)
'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done.
'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
I wish this happened some years ago, I study QFT as a hobby, and the algebra used was so opaque at the beginning that I almost stopped, until I had the realization that in the end they're just integrations over those fields, nothing much more special about it, then things started to make sense. The introduction just made be truly believe I was understanding it in the right direction. Thanks!
Thank you for sharing your insight moment of clarity.
nanahue said... HAND
@@jcd-k2sif I might try to answer: in one example, there is a rule where when swapping the place of two matrices requires a sign transpose ( or a complex conjugate). These rules are one example of the algebra that is difficult, until you learn where the rules come from, which is the geometric interpretation.
Thanks! It sounds as if we're discovering some fascinating parallels & overlaps between these various theories. I'd call that some tantalizing progress! I've long found it amazing that black holes (having of course, 'no hair') possess only 3 main properties: mass, spin, & charge - quite analogous to a particle. Wonderful! tavi.
Thank you very much for this video. It is wonderful for members of the public to be able to access the research of top scientists. And due to the excellent explanations, first the time I have actually understood how light can be a wave AND a particle!
Love Dr. White's enthusiasm!
Studying the classical double copy theory has been great fun. I'd recommend an MSci review project with Chris White any day!
If you have time to answer a few questions and assess my 'keep it as simple as possible' system premise I'd be well chuffed, its burning a bit of a hole and info on positron experiments is limited and behind a paywall. Good luck with your work.
--
Why does QCD so deliberately throw out The Positron and Electron as the Up Quark and Down Quark when all atoms and nuclear reactions can be electrically balanced using intrinsic and * new * electron-positron pairs? Is physics really definitely sure all electrons and positrons annihilate when there are energy dependencies that have to be fixed by Electron Neutrinos? I really want to know about positron-positron collisions at different energies. I half expect Protons to be formed and the Antimatter Catastrophe to be solved..
--
We know a Neutron can be described as a Proton and bound electron which can be shared with another Proton, why isn't the same arrangement allowed for 2 positrons and a central electron.. In beta+ decay I see strong light colliding the 2 proton positrons together, forming a new electron-positron pair. In the early universe, the first batch of electron-positron pairs formed, with some positron strongly/weakly colliding, instantly forming a new positron-electron pair, with the electron trapped between two positrons that vibrate in contrary motion a bit, pulled together by the electron, with their +1/2 electric charges repelling both before either can annihilate with the electron..
--
I'm looking at gravity as a macro subspace field effect due to each Positron attracting 1 quanta of -ve subspace charge that close-packs +ve field cells (ball) together.. This is the wave medium.. Knocked free cells form a balancing-overbalancing field vibration radiating out at C - A Positron.. The excess -ve charge 'matter-energy stuff' also pulls in the +ve field cells that overbalances and vibrate.. They have the same phase in time and opposite phase in space..
--
Each has 6 (or maybe 12) 'spin loops' as forming a torus-sphere shape, perhaps with a twist. Electrostatic 'blips' and spin loops vibrate the close-packed subspace field laterally too, with this force, but not the field cells, travelling many times faster than C, linked to gravity (tighter field means more cells have to move out of the way per electrostatic blip / spin loop advance..
--
Gravity is a fairly static subspace -ve charge density gradient but I can visualise a flow model with direct inward force and looping outward force.. Field in voids expands as more matter forms because positrons attract -ve subspace charge that holds the field together..
--
Relativity is interesting in this model. I prefer a constant, absolute clock (Longitudinal force moves from subspace cell to cell in T, no matter how large the cell gap as their force field always touch, lateral force a covers many cells in T(ick)) plus a variable absolute speed of light (that always measures C locally).. Spin-loops / strong force / magnetic circuits cover more subspace cells in higher gravity / acceleration due to conservation of energy so mass and time dilate.. Some of the energy is 'lost' to acceleration of electron and positron focal points - matter is pulled inward.
--
It's all about a simple, quantised system full of imbalances continuously trying to find balance, at C (in time T(ick)). A unifying medium and clock * seems * to make some good sense.
Every time chromodynamics is introduced, it's put as having three charges of red, green, and blue, as opposed to the two charges of + and - in electomagnetism. But it's not long after that when it's discussed that there are also charges of antired, antigreen, and antiblue, which cancel out the corresponding opposites. Isn't this analogous to the behavior of the electric charge? Shouldn't chromodynamics, then, be characterized as having six charges, or alternatively electrodynamics as having just one charge?
Hello - no. It just so happens that electromagnetism is based on a symmetry, U(1), that leads to the one charge, in two versions - plus and minus. Starting a brand new gauge theory from scratch, with a fresh (and more exotic) gauge group -in this case SU(3) - forces one to generalize to the notion of three force carrier "thingies (and their accompanying anti-values). Suggest looking up Greiner and Mueller's excellent QCD primer.
Domenico Barillari
The difference is that you can also cancel a red charge with a combined green and blue (and other corresponding triplets). So you don't have three entirely independent charges as your formulation might suggest. That's why it is usually introduced the other way.
@@Nilpferdschaf ha, too many people have no knowledge of the math in physics and think they know a lot
@@Nilpferdschaf then there'd be a "complex" electric charge based on these chromo combinations and a "bare" charge negatron/positron, and it has to be taken into account that these bare charges themselves have a way of interacting with the combos, or are directly produced from the combos, in neutron decay for ex. where, for some reason, the creation of Protium is favorable (if you concede that it's the lowest possible energy product of the decay, yet statistically, as far as I know, there's usually more energy in the reactant than necessary to yield a neutral atom). I'm not sure if I've seen any useful application of this interpretation, in explaining the "valley of stability" for ex. watch?v=UTOp_2ZVZmM
I've always questioned Bob Lazar's credibility and yet, here I am watching a lecture that draws a relationship between the Strong Force and Gravity... now I don't know what to believe!
Does this video go over bob lazar?
@@valerian6740 listening in chunks and haven't quite finished yet but nothing this far and I doubt there will be a mention of him :P
@@valerian6740 to confirm: no mention of Bob Lazar
Correct! Purely Yang Mills and general relativity.
@@valerian6740 Maybe he's referring to Bob Lazar's claim that a very large quantity of a stable isotope of the transuranium element 115 (Moscovium) can affect gravity, making the link between the strong force within that huge atom and gravity?
If anyone's interested, look at the similarity between a biadjoint scalar tree and a fibonnaci cube (analagous to a hypercube)
Just an idea for a rabbit hole to follow down:
* Single copy (QCD): Any interaction via a gluon exchanges charge.
* Double copy (GR): Any interaction via a graviton exchanges mass/energy.
As the black hole center itself has mass to give from, this can be transferred to its gravitational field, which then can transfer this mass/energy to photons via Hawking radiation.
This might dissolve the region below the classical horizon into a region where "nothing special" happens, i.e. there is no role flip of space and time, but the hole's inner region is more like "frozen" as time dilation there is humongous.
After listening to dozens of lectures, by many different physicists, astronomers, and mathematicians about what gravity is, here's my take on it.
1) It is NOT a fundamental force, it's an emergent force. Why? No mass no gravity. Before reionization there was no accumulation of mass! Only after things cooled down did mater "clump" up and accumulate into stars.
2) There is no "attractive force" between objects except magnetism which is not gravity. What is happening is the distortion of the space a massive object sits in. This distortion is like a shallow 3 dimensional ditch in space that things nearby want to fall into the bottom of! The more mass the bigger the ditch!
3) Space is a physical substance not just an empty place filled by a vacuum. The old term used to describe it was called the "ether" but that was describing a different concept that no longer means the same thing. Space is full of photons, subatomic particles, energy fields, neutrinos, and things we can even detect but we are starting to realize makes up 95% of what space is made of.
4) When gravity waves are detected on earth it's because they have displaced "space" and that wave of displaced space has propagated through that physical media distorting it until it washed over earth and distorted it and the detectors here.
5) Just like light and energy waves, nothing stops a gravity wave as it travels thru a vacuum in space. Unlike light or energy waves, gravity isn't absorbed by solid objects, it distorts them. Gravity is like a tsunami wave thru "space", moving at the speed of light and only reducing in magnitude as it spreads out over distance.
6) Unlike Newton I do know what gravity is and it's not a fundamental force. It is also not quantum in nature. When you get to the atomic scale you have the 3 fundamental forces at work, strong, weak, electromagnetic. I leave it up to others to decide the math's but I'm sure it's NOT fundamental or an attraction between objects!
Challenges? Art
34:00 is where the the double copy explanation starts, but it's well worth watching the first half too.
it's also where I got completely lost lol
Thanks. Sadly I only saw your comment after watching / skipping the first half hour on my own...
Not to nitpick, but there seems to be a mistake on page/viewgraph 12. The viewgraph has 0
Theory of everything, or how to make the complex simple(r).
1) Intrinsic Space-time has no dimensions. The presence of matter here or there is not a feature of space-time, but information about energy/matter distribution.
2) Matter, and its emergent property mass, are condensates of space-time
OK, quarks are made of space-time, but they have funky combination rules and triplets usually end up disguised as some kind of particle.
3) Gravity.
Space-time is diminished by condensation of matter, this creates a depletion zone or 'gravity well'
Space-time is without dimension, so it doesn't 'flow' to fill the void left by the condensate; much like a P-N junction, a depletion zone is formed.
Truly empty space-time, as seen in vast cosmic bubbles, is not depleted and appears to push matter (galactic filaments and node structures) aside.
Dark matter? An accounting error, due to the accountant not having access to all the records.
4) Mutual attraction of gravity is actually external pressure; space-time is less dense between masses, thereby pushed together by higher outer pressure.
5) Inertia.
The gravity well is always centered on the mass; moving the mass doesn't move all of the gravity well at the same time due to speed of light limiting how fast the 'information' about the movement of matter can travel.
The resistance to acceleration is instantaneous; space-time 'remembers' the quantum location data and where the mass 'should be', not where the applied force is trying to push it!
We call it inertia, but it is really a property of gravity. And we know where that comes from.
6) Quantum entanglement.
When the energy differences or gradients between objects becomes less than some critical threshold; the two become one, from the point of view of space-time.
Spooky action at a distance is possible because space-time sees the entangled objects as one, the 'information' we call relative position isn't relevant to their entanglement.
The 'instant' resistance offered by inertia is due to the native entanglement between the depletion zone and the mass that created it. Double-dipping, as it were.
Spooky action is instant; entangled object A and B are the same, quantum speaking.
Space-time knows no dimensions; instant action in quantum realms is expected!
Teleportation of physical objects might be as simple as telling space-time to update the relative position data of entangled objects.
The biscuit on the sending pad in Seattle isn't there anymore. It is now on the receiving pad in Brighton. Zero time, no 'travel' involved.
7) Electromagnetism, see point 11!
8) Photons are electrons surfing on their own wake-field, jamming to that ever-groovy Lambda beat!
Where do you emit photons? From the valence shell or free electrons.
Where do you reflect photons? From the valence shell.
Where do you detect photons? On the valence shell.
What's on the valence shell? Electrons.
What is a photon? Electrons slick cousin!
9) Speed of light limit.
Speed of light is NOT distance/time = speed, it is the only permissible rate of energy exchange to or from a given point while using photons!
Emitting a photon is analogous to escape-velocity for a space craft; too slow and no emission.
Too fast = more photons, as the energy per photon follows discrete steps.
Ultraviolet catastrophe? Please...the vibration rate of UV has a greater 'escape velocity' than the system can provide at a given energy.
Photons are flitting between states at the rate of their their wavelength, each 'flit' appears to move them farther along their path.
Collapse of wave-function on detection. OK, call it what you wish, same-same.
In reality, they don't 'move' through space-time as much as they appear and disappear (E and M fields) at regular intervals.
Photons interact as they pop in and out of existence, interference and diffusion patterns abound as they crowd each out of that one spot where only one photon can exist at on time; particle/wave dual nature is strongly demonstrated, but not 'real'.
This step-wise motion has a beat (lambda), and each step is the same length.
Denser media sees these steps closer together; light is slower in diamond than in vacuum, but doesn't change color.
10) The Hubble constant is a measure of distance, not relative velocity.
As photons flit in and out of existence, they encounter virtual-photon pairs along the way.
Interactions occur, energy is exchanged and some tiny leakage occurs.
A photon emitted from a distant star is NOT the same photon observed here on Earth!
It has most of the energy and directional information that the original photon did, but the virtual photon 'stunt double' lost some energy, turned red.
Not a lot is lost, just enough to make empty space 'glow' with Cosmic Background Radiation.
Really ancient light, having undergone countless interactions, sees their spectral lines broaden; some researchers about 20 years ago concluded "things were different a long time ago"
Spectral spreading hints at the chaotic aspects to the aging of light.
If it were simple red-shift due to relative velocity, one would expect a clean 'transcription' of spectra to the red, not spreading!
11) Magnetism is 'torsion' in space-time; the interaction of matter and energy gives rise to magnetic fields.
Energy 'pinned' by matter, electric current in a wire, creates a sort of twist within space-time; since matter is condensed space-time, energy gradients in matter = distorted space-time.
Radio waves is space-time 'ringing' like a bell. The energy of the 'ring' doesn't disappear instantly, but propagates.
Electrostatic fields are likened unto 'stretching' of space-time along a direction; particles are strongly accelerated by such a field. Like they were falling in gravity.
Capacitors exploit 'stretch', coils use 'torsion'; together they form a resonator with a set frequency.
Sort of like a photon, E and M fields always exactly out of phase, could run forever if not for energy loss...
12) There was more, mostly about radioactive decay/defective atoms, can't find my class notes.
What I learned in High School physics class.
There was a chapter in the text; 'alternatives to Standard model', that had this and several other (whacky) theories...don't remember much of the others, they were all 'faith based' cosmologies requiring an intelligent, conscious creator.
***
Four forces?
Please; they aint nothing but four blind men, each one describing what they feel as they examine an elephant.
"It's a tree!, I feel the mighty trunk here between my hands!" said the man touching a leg.
"It is a leaf!, I feel the thin and flexible form of leafy-bits in my hands" said the man touching the ear.
"It is a snake!, I feel it curl and twist in my hands!" said the man touching the trunk.
"It is a soft boulder, I feel the swell of large round smoothness." said the man touching the belly.
None of them are right, all of them are right.
The elephant?
He don't care what they are saying, he too busy being elephant.
Is this your theory or is there a source on this?
@@das_it_mane I have an intermittent memory deficit: I think I remember the information, but I am not sure of provenance!
My brain tells me "Oh, this is from High-School Physics!", but no way any text at the High School level had this kind of material as a foot-note in 1975!
Conclusion:
I guess it's mine, since I can't blame it on anyone else!
I don't have the math or supporting experiments and cannot show where I may have learned this, so it can't be considered valid.
Any appearance of this stuff 'being real' is more likely due to persuasive writing than any factual supporting information.
I am pretty sure that discoveries in physics don't show up as 'random shower thoughts' in the minds of folks with no formal education in the field.
Motion of particles in a viewpoint of dimension is the meaning of time, though still a viewpoint's consideration.
Please note tha as the metric signature in GR is (-1 1 1 1), the time term becomes immaginary. That says the gravity waves are imaginary and not propagating. This is resulting from changine f,xx+f,yy+f,zz+f,tt=0, which is elliptic laplace and non propagating to f,xx+f,yy+f,zz=f,tt, which is the hyperbolic propagating wave equation. The minus sing is for the time square meaning imaginar. Like in the solution u=f(x+cy)+f(x-cy) for a wave uxx=utt, changing to become non propagating in u=f(x-ict)+f(x+ict) solution for uxx+uct=0.
To understand which theories are copyable and why would it help to look at the inverse? Which are not copyable and why?
Very interesting that the strong force would have a special relationship to gravity, since the weak force has a special relationship to electromagnetism (having previously been unified as the electroweak force). I always wondered if that might be the case, but I don’t know enough about QCD that I would’ve been able to infer it!
The statement is that gravity is a double-copy of gauge-theory, which was discovered in the 1980s by Kawai, Lewellen, and Tye. The REASON is that gravity is closed strings and gauge theory is open strings. It is a mathematical identity of one-loop string amplitudes which relates the N=4 supersymmetric gauge theory to the N=8 supergravity. The presentation doesn't mention the string theoretic origin of all this.
Hello there. Having studied under Chris White (and being the President of this channel too!) I can let you know that there exists a link between the strong and electromagnetic forces via Yang Mills theory (an advanced QFT) and there are other theories that link electromagnetism and the weak force so this merely attempts to link gravity with the strong force and by doing this you also link directly to EM and indirectly to the weak force (although the link to the weak force indeed depends on string theory which is untestable).
@@LukeHaslerMusic You're untestable. String theory is not.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Haha
@@LukeHaslerMusic It's not funny. This is a lecture on the relation between gauge and gravity amplitudes which is effectively PLAGIARIZING the original string-theory authors, because it neglects to mention their names or their work.
E=MC2 IS F=ma, as time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This explains the term c4 from Einstein's field equations. Time dilation ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Balance and completeness go hand in hand. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense.
By Frank DiMeglio
I have a degree in English Lit. I never managed to pass calculus. But I was able to follow along at a very rudimentary level, and it sounds incredibly exciting. Well done, Sir!
The speed of speaking of this man is near the speed of light, LOL
i started watching and had to check whether the playback speed was on 2x.
But not *at* the speed of light, because that would require infinite energy.
I wonder if he sped it up post-process to keep it a certain duration, because at 0.75 speed it sounds completely normal
He'll fit in just fine in New York....
Really? I sped it up to 1.5 and was considering 2x 🤔🤷♂️
GRAVITY EXPLAINED
The universe is made of minute cells once contained in a universal
shell that was broken or rotated by an external force.
this produced expansion creating a true void that must not exist,
leaving the cells to expand or split,I believe the destruction or
splitting of cells is where all matter originates,
therefore matter must be the end state of all our universe
until the universal matter will disperse or be contained
by an outer external force or medium.
The cells must penetrate matter to a degree becoming harder the denser the matter until it is so dense it is impossible thus the push back is multiplied infinitely
causing corresponding gravity push.
As far as so-called gravity it is plain to see that there is no attraction only an external push
forcing matter together .
Imagine an oil filled rubber ball each molecule of oil must have the same force upon it.
Then introduce a foreign particle of the same size and density then each molecule will have slightly
higher pressure upon it nothing will coalesce
then add a larger or denser body with larger or harder surface to be pushed upon by the other molecules
all the molecules will feel a small amount more push but the nearer the large body cells will get pushed harder.
[this energy really comes from the constant push from the ball membrane or that exists outside it]
then introduce a smaller dense body in the vicinity of the harder pushed cells.
if the number of hard pushed cells behind this body is higher than the ones between it and the large body then gravity is achieved.
Without resistance to these cells energy would not be forced to navigate a wave pattern,
the cells would not become excited and light as we know it would not exist .
Energy waves passing through harder pushed cell formations will deviate around
the reason they are pushed.
Hard pushed cells may be deformed from a sphere into an ovoid making it harder to rotate,
also making energy travel differently
The universe itself may be such an ovoid thus the reason for expansion.
Magnets must rearrange the cells making the rearranging object harder or easier to navigate between depending the manufactured configuration.
As far as Quantum physics goes we do not have any real data so mathematical
physics is applied and comes up with sometimes fanciful answers to fit a paradox.
Understanding a data lacking subject has always failed people already in this
field would do best just striving for accurate observation as some early astronomers did.
An understanding will develop with detection instruments and supercomputing enhancements ,
seeing it first hand. some bright spark will discover the bleeding obvious and mathematise it.
We must determine the size and density of each cell by measuring each light wave
in relation to one another ,and the number of cells between each crest
and finding the correlation that would fit all known energy waves if this can be achieved, the next
step must be to create
corresponding energy waves before a moving object creating an air in sand effect thus help said object closer to the preceding wave speed
Initial measurements should be simple two dimensional with known wave patterns overlaid on the same plane and begin with spherical solid cells filling the voids between the crests of all waves.
First, hoping all the energy waves respect the integrity of each cell, if not some types of energy waves
may penetrate part of the cell, as do they penetrate some matter.
black holes are remnant void bubbles still trying to eliminate the space where cells are absent,destroying surrounding cells and creating matter and drawing existing
matter to fill the void .billions may have succeeded leaving small super dense spheres but most can't keep up with the constant universe expansion and will take all
their surrounding galaxy and more.
No matter how beautiful and pleasant maths is , since the mid 60's, it has blinded physicists
before then a physical notion was envisaged then came out the ruler to see if it would stack up.
These are some answers to how things unfolded but surely the harder question is why.
Why has life evolved to a stage that we can pose these questions?
Surely non existence would be the easier option ,without struggle without knowing about
your inevitable destruction personally and universally this question is the real puzzle.
This is why the emergence of conscience coincided with a genetic predisposition towards
a god culture everywhere on earth ,a genetic valium so to speak.
which must be ameliorated not railed against by atheist dissenters ,as it just a part of
our bodies .
The answer can only be chemistry ,all life is simply a chemical reaction , the same as the
stars react with each other ,no matter how complicated its components become it must rely
on the basic building blocks to exist ,my thoughts while writing this are governed by
a chemical reaction and the lightning created by reaction.
Therefore if matter has no will and the meeting of different types of matter will react
differently then the meaning of life has the same weight as mixing paint ,life and death is
eventually inevitable wherever matter coalesces .
Very promising, finally something that ties gravity to the other forces in nature.
The idea that charge can convert to mass sounds a lot like matter/anti-matter annihilation releasing energy. Is there any sense that double copy and CPT symmetry can be spoken about in the same language? The relationship between gravity and time doesn't seem as apparent in this approach to gravity.
> The idea that charge can convert to mass
My god, did you even listen to the presentation??? Charge isn't physically "converted" to mass, the formulas change when symbol of charge is replaced by symbols for mass and momenta...
Thank you.
Talking about electric fields as a combination of the electric potential and the magnetic vector potential reminds me that the Aharonov-Bohm effect implies that the magnetic vector potential field is what is actually REAL in physics, not the magnetic field. I would like to see more descriptions of how magnetic and electric fields act that include the magnetic vector potential or perhaps this 4 vector instead of in terms of magnetic and electric fields.
Fascinating, I've long suspected there's a way to express the electromagnetic field in terms of quaternions.
@@aaronsmith6632 sure, fractal woman quantum chromodynamics
m.ruclips.net/video/-Cc4rTt-TF4/видео.html
Planck's Constant and the Nature of Light Revisited
your going to have to do the work ,give her credit, accept & expand on a form of loren's *'Modified Unit Analisis'* & expanding MUA principals etc & integrate it...to actually check the old formula -dogma- for correctness, rather than badly assume.
ruclips.net/video/Z1h7xQx-iKE/видео.html
Complex numbers, Quaternions, Implementation and the Mandelbrot Set
"In this video, I show you how I implement the 2x2 matrix version of complex numbers and the 4x4 matrix version of the quaternion in computer code. I also show how to implement the quaternion version of the Mandelbrot Set as I have been promising. "
@@aaronsmith6632 I'm sure you could do it, but expressing the EM field as quaternions would be difficult. Remember, those 4-vectors are 4 _complex_ numbers, meaning they're 8 real values and a quaternion only contains 4 real values. So to represent the same state as a 4-vector of complex numbers you would need to somehow glue two quaternions together (mathematically) and I suspect that would get real messy real quick.
Hey there. The magnetic vector potential is used frequently in the double copy - in fact we don't particularly use the magnetic field in calculations. If you would like to see how that is done you could watch my project presentation for the classical double copy via the following link: ruclips.net/video/IlVzkFe3-_4/видео.html&lc=UgxajNQkOjbvt2azuXV4AaABAg.9PEzV7tziv19PciQ9OR8Bs
Awsome video, you make it so much easier to understand. Thanks alot for making this.
I must have slept somewhere along the way, because they don't explain how gravity emerged mathematically from the double copy. They give you a model, then they wave a wand and then they tell you that a single charge turns into a black hole. There was, as far as I can tell, not even the slightest attempt of an explanation of how that happens, was there?
Does the double copy in any way relate to - or seem similar to - ADS/CFT correspondence? Asking as a layperson with very little maths background.
It's simpler than that, it's the relationship between open strings and closed strings called the "KLT relation", it is an amplitude identity 'caused' by the fact that closed strings are like two open strings sewn together to make a tube.
Not that I know. Ads/CFT is a different kind of duality. It doesn't involve gauge theories, but rather conformal field theories in lower dimension.
@@Ricocossa1 The CFT in AdS/CFT is (for the standard examples) a nonabelian gauge theory. In other cases it is a topological gauge theory (M2 brane--- Chern Simons theory) or a weird string theory without gravity that nobody understands very well (M5 branes--- little string theory).
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Non-abelian gauge theories are CFTs, true! I shouldn't have said that “it doesn't involve gauge theories.” But to me, the most obvious reason why the two don't seem related is that the gauge theory in the double-copy would be in d dimensions, the one in AdS/CFT would be in d-1.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 By the way, and I'm saying this with all the respect in the world, I'm questioning whether it's a good idea to answer a layperson's question, on AdS/CFT and double-copy, by referring to string theory jargon.
I have to confess I know close to nothing about string theory, but I don't think it's needed in order to have a basic grasp of either AdS/CFT or double-copy.
Your explanation sounds like a pretty picture of what's hidden beneath the double-copy, but I don't know what open and closed strings represent and why, nor what happens to the scattering amplitude when I stick two strings together by their ends.
I hope this wasn't too out of line. Just wanted to point out how this looks, from a layperson's perspective, pedagogicaly.
Three aspects of gravity.
Pulling towards a body.
Moving parallel to a body
Pushing away from a body.
(Just conjecture)
Gravity does not pull or push... it merely instructs. Matter is self propelled.
Why do we fall after we jump up? Is Earth “telling” us to come back? An alternative notion I have is that macroscopic mass presence causes quantum field to hold an inbound traveling wave with the field as the medium. When you are within the area outside the earths mass horizon (you cannot get closer), the wave draws us back in. Masses will attract given enough time, unless other forces say otherwise. Just imagineering here.
I believe there could be some kind of particles locked up in spacetime itself other than virtual. If gravitational waves of sufficient energy could be produced perhaps spacetime itself would radiate some type of unknown and particles. Maybe even gravitons or particles of time or spacetime. Imagine a spacetime particle. What properties would it have? If you want to find the graviton I believe it's going to be locked in spacetime and very "deeply hidden".
When you say hidden particles, do you mean excited states in a quantum field; as in quantum field theory?
@Adam L comments like these are why I like reading the comments on fun science videos. I was thinking something similar :)
@@thersten No not really. I mean spacetime itself as a field which like any other field in nature, has particles locked up within. Like photons within electromagnetic fields. I guess if I'm right it would mean spacetime is quantized?
What a fascinating idea!
53:00 the first thing the ring down reminds me of is an electron hopping down a shell and emitting a photon. As in thats where the wave loses its amplitude and thats where the electron loses (if it was in orbit) would lose its amplitude.
If we replace the "color" component (QCD) with the "kinematic" component (Gravity) then, doesn't this mean that it's possible that that there simply is no such thing as "gravity"? In other words, the effects of quantum matter and QUANTUM energy are themselves responsible for this thing we call gravity. The ripples in spacetime are just exactly that...not "gravity". I may be misunderstanding the point but this was how I interpreted GR when it eventually (after several books and lectures) clicked for me some years ago...knowing very little about QCD at the time. Maybe someone understands my point and can help guide me (book?, lecture?) on why this isn't the case.
If anything, I'd prefer criticism on this idea rather than support without speculation. Anyone that understands it more then me is welcomed to pull this theory apart, or point out any basic understanding of the topic I might not understand. Also it might not make sense because its difficult to describe, but anyway..
[1]
How is expansion thought to be when it comes to the growing Universe? I was thinking about it last night, i always thought the expansion only happens on the edge of the universe like a tidal current. Then it got me thinking about the mysterious push on the universe.
What if every area of space in the universe is expanding all at the same rate? This includes things of mass. Either way a planck length is so small something on that space probably wouldn't even be aware of stuff that is mass and what is not.
I suggest that every possible measurement is expanding, but if they all expand at the same rate, does it really matter? ( I lol'd at that one) Everything, from the space between Planck lengthx2, to a meter or a light year, if all space is expanding equally then one particle of mass will never become noticeably bigger or smaller then another single particle of mass, or massless areas.
And gravity helps shape the reality we perceive. And we know what happens when gravity acts up, creating stuff like black holes. Doing something to the constant push on the universe.
I would imagine the creation of a black hole is sort of turning positive numbers into negatives. The constant expansion of space in every spacial area area the black hole completely flips. Instead of an infinite expansion outwards, it does he opposite.
I remember hearing somewhere that math breaks down at such small lengths. That when measurements near 0, there is never really a point where all sides meet in a measurement like that. There's also a theory that any mass can be turned into a black hole if enough pressure is applied.
By the sound of it, it seems that every square planck length of an area, anywhere around you, through you or the size of the galaxy, to the universe, everything is full of seemingly infinite holes that is causing the (maybe even the illusion of) expansion. Because of the constant effect of this expansion, whether its a positive charge or a negative like a black hole, everything really remains their respective size at the same rate everywhere.
There's a lot more i will add on later….
I will comment once you add a lot more later.
I think this video was sped up, because if i watch it at 0.75x, it sounds so natural!
Thanks a lot. Made this video watchable for me.
A body moving at high speed around the sun should develope a gravity field automatically ...
Gravity "A" occurs naturally..like on a planet surface. "Gravity B" is known as artificially created gravity...but can occur naturally after travelling at super high speeds through space, or around a star .
I've always felt that the answer to the true reality will never be discovered. And if it is, it will be simplicity in some form or another.
Thank you and congratulations, Finally was told when two photons create entaglement it is not just ent...they created their spin lock, spin network, and space between them is real space created by their connections and we live in this space. Because geometry of experienced space looks flat...we can search deeper, why...
We can create other spaces created by spin network-spacetimes of other particles...it can bring confirmations of other worlds just here/paralell/ with spacetime created by different spin network. And there is more , same way as mind first imagine road to shop and body then go to shop. Nature with space created by spin network allow to simulate next step before it is done physical measurable way...
I sometimes imagine gravity to be an interatomic set of traveling waves in the quantum field that is created by oscillations of massive particles. On a microscopic scale, it would be scarcely noticeable, but with enough aggregated mass the waves would start noticeable interactions with other mass objects. If my thoughts were correct, there should always be a point between any two massive particles or macroscalar mass objects where the waves cancel out, creating a null point. I’m not very good with mathematics so I’m just imagineering here, please don’t beat me up. Also, since gluon fields comprise the bulk of nuclear mass, they ought to be the primary cause? Perhaps gluon fields have a measurable frequency that could link up?
Wow! absolutely mind-blowing the amount of words needed to say nothing.
ditto
Don’t apologize about not answering people in the comments section. They don’t deserve responses just because they decide to say something
Why don't you answer for him? ;-)
Thank you for this video, I found it wonderful and had good dreams after watching it.... 😊
His voice and tempo remind me of the guy that dated Amy in big bang that idolized Sheldon
I'm curious: if this warping of space time is based on position does that mean it's possible to so accurately measure something's position without actually interacting with it by observing how exactly it warped spacetime, thus bypassing Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?
Just a thought.
At some point (when relaxing, probably after retirement) as a hobby try to see if the "big bang" could have been not from a small point but from a "sleeping" perfect line and circle at the same time.
Some might call it a quiet/sleeping ocean as in ancient non religious scripture.
Now think of that calm ocean all AT ONCE being moved just a tiny fraction. Yet it being so vast as lets say 160 billion light years in vastness.
That motion is from the universe's spirit being awakened.
The original outward growth what I call positive clear matter energy of ~80 billion light years to reach
its fall back curve. That voyage is the universes soul.
Then the fall back oblate curve is when the universe "gives birth" to physics or its "self" as in g-mountains to g-canyons, g-hills to g-valleys g-etc to g-cte (etc bkwards)...and more including the positive plateau and the negative plateau, the g = gravity.
So the "self" is what modern science has determined to be where the physical universe is at right now at 15(official) to 19 to 20(I say) in billions light years.
The end would be the quietest largest crunch.
Just a thought.
Thank You for your time in posting this theory and sharing your knowledge.
Has this been sped up 25%?
and what about p0,1,2,3 in the weak force?
There are no neutrons. They are Positron-electron pairs, according to SAM. (Structured Atomic Model.)
This has the advantage of eliminating the need for the Strong force. (Physics should be about simplification not a proliferation of arbitrary forces.)
Huh? I thought neutrons were triple quark structures with udd definition. How can you you get the neutron mass from a positron-electron pair?
Can color charges be described by wavelet or curvelet basis functions?
Until all the measurements performed inside the Sun gravital lense, there won't be a progress in the gravity theory much
GRAVITY EXPLAINED, universe is made of minute cells once contained in a universal
shell that was broken or deformed by an external force.
this produced expansion creating a true void that must not exist,
leaving the cells to expand or split,I believe the destruction or
splitting of cells is where all matter originates,
therefore all the contents of this universe will become matter
and the universal matter will disperse or be contained
by an outer external force or medium.
The cells must penetrate already created matter to a degree, becoming harder the denser it is, until it is so dense it is impossible. thus the push back is multiplied infinitely
causing corresponding gravity push...
As far as so-called gravity it is plain to see that there is no attraction, only an external push
forcing matter together .
Imagine an oil filled rubber ball each molecule of oil must have the same force upon it.
Then introduce a foreign particle of the same size and density then each molecule will have slightly
higher pressure upon it nothing will coalesce
then add a larger or denser body with larger or harder surface to be pushed upon by the other molecules
all the molecules will feel a small amount more push but the nearer the large body cells will get pushed harder.
[this energy really comes from the constant push from the ball membrane or what exists outside it]
then introduce a smaller dense body in the vicinity of the harder pushed cells.
if the number of hard pushed cells behind this body is higher than the ones between it and the large body then gravity is achieved,,,unless the pull from the expanding universe shell is greater..
Without resistance to these cells energy would not be forced to navigate a wave pattern,
the cells would not become excited and light as we know it would not exist .
Energy waves passing through harder pushed cell formations will deviate around
the reason they are pushed.
Hard pushed cells may be deformed from a sphere into an ovoid making it harder to rotate,
also making energy travel differently
The universe itself may be such an ovoid thus the reason for expansion.
Magnets must electronically rearrange the cells shape and alignment making the rearranging object harder or easier to navigate between depending the manufactured configuration.
As far as Quantum physics goes we do not have any real data so mathematical
physics is applied and comes up with sometimes fanciful answers to fit a paradox.
Understanding a data lacking subject has always failed people already in this
field would do best just striving for accurate observation as some early astronomers did.
An understanding will develop with detection instruments and supercomputing enhancements ,
seeing it first hand. some bright spark will discover the bleeding obvious and mathematise it.
We must determine the size and density of each cell by measuring each light wave
in relation to one another ,and the number of cells between each crest
and finding the correlation that would fit all known energy waves if this can be achieved, the next
step must be to create
corresponding energy waves before a moving object creating an air in sand effect thus help said object closer to the preceding wave speed
Initial measurements should be simple two dimensional with known wave patterns overlaid on the same plane and begin with spherical solid cells filling the voids between the crests of all waves.
First, hoping all the energy waves respect the integrity of each cell, if not some types of energy waves
may penetrate part of the cell, as do they penetrate some matter.
black holes are remnant void bubbles still trying to eliminate the space where cells are absent,destroying surrounding cells and creating matter and drawing existing
matter to fill the void .billions may have succeeded leaving small super dense spheres but most can't keep up with the constant universe expansion and will take all
their surrounding galaxy and more.
No matter how beautiful and pleasant maths is , since the mid 60's, it has blinded physicists
before then a physical notion was envisaged then came out the ruler to see if it would stack up.
These are some answers to how things unfolded but surely the harder question is why.
Why has life evolved to a stage that we can pose these questions?
Surely non existence would be the easier option ,without struggle without knowing about
your inevitable destruction personally and universally this question is the real puzzle.
This is why the emergence of conscience coincided with a genetic predisposition towards
a god culture everywhere on earth ,a genetic valium so to speak.
which must be ameliorated not railed against by atheist dissenters , its just DNA evolved a part of
our bodies to believe so as to survive longer.
The answer can only be chemistry ,all life is simply a chemical reaction , the same as the
stars react with each other ,no matter how complicated its components become it must rely
on the basic building blocks to exist ,my thoughts while writing this are governed by
a chemical reaction and the lightning created by the reaction.
Therefore if matter has no will and the meeting of different types of matter will react
differently then the meaning of life has the same weight as mixing paint ,life and death is
eventually inevitable wherever matter coalesces .,,j
Absolutely brilliant!
Can they turn classical EM/YM field into gravity?
Yes the theory has been used with Newtonian gravity (eg Newtonian gravity can form a double copy with Coulomb's Law I've been told)
@@LukeHaslerMusic em - gravity double copy ruclips.net/video/IlVzkFe3-_4/видео.html
@@LukeHaslerMusic That's what prof. Einstein wanted.
@@frun Hey that's me in the video haha. Yeah I'm glad you've enjoyed my talk!
@@LukeHaslerMusic :D ouch
Question: The relatively new idea that the weak force and the electromagnetic force are inter-connected ("Electro-Weak Theory") implies that the weak force is involved here too in some way, so ALL of the known forces are mixed up in this combination of formulae technique. Since the weak force is a kind of bookkeeping force that sorts out what kinds of nuclear decay products and the like occur, does this mean that it might be possible through the weak force involvement to change one kind of force, in effect, into another kind of force in some manner? Such an expansion of the weak force effects would have profound implications to all sorts of phenomena.
Yes, that is known as GUT. Were you even born in 1974 when it was first proposed?
@@schmetterling4477 I am 72 years old and graduated from UCLA with a Math and Physics combined degree. This concept being talked about here is rather new and not the original GUT concept. This proposal does not seem to consider the Weak Nuclear Force at all, as given here. That is why I brought it up. If it does include that other nuclear force, how?
Amazing talk
If there are only 8 types of gluons and not 9, how come on the slide around 19:25, it had 0
I thought of the same thing but i think one of them would be a null solution where the gluon would cancel itself out so would .. not "be" in a non mathematical sense.. hence 8 possibilities of existance and one of non existance.. or in other words think of a nine matrix square of three , the diagonals would sum up to a full rotation of 8 possible diagonals 4in one direction and 4 in the other for a full rotation. if that makes sense , so for a gluon to be defined it would be a diagonal on a matrix rotating around the square. The colour actually were used as an analogy because the sum must be always colourless : hence summing to white.. I think , or i drank too much coffee and it is way too late. :D
There are 8 gluon types because color force is induced by SU(3) gauge symmetry, not by U(3) one. Adjoint representation of SU(3) has 8 generators, U(3) has 9. There is no linear combination of SU(3) generators which is equal to rr_bar + gg_bar + bb_bar, which makes baryons (which have r+g+b color charge) to not interact via gluons (the gluon color they would need for this is the "missing" one).
The double copy results are reminiscent of the dualities in string theory in which a result in one regime can give insight to a result in its dual.
Did he speed up his audio recording to shorten the length of the video?
When it comes to the main mysteries of gravity, why can’t we start looking at all the current mathematical models and turn them 180 degrees on its head and redo the math. I prefer to think of gravitational forces ( all fundamental particles ) act in an Omni transmittal manner that is directional from any and all sources of energy in form of waves and particles right down to the quantum level that is shared within all the fundamental forces.
As I walk this planet I inVision myself being pressed to the ground by force partial transmission energy [ not ] pulled to it like a magnet. In other words, I’m receiving gravitational transmission forces all around me keeping me upright whiles the planet is blocking and absorbing the gravity forces from directly below and opposite me therefore I stick.
Suppose x = {y, z}, where y is the subset of "reference frames' where Newton's second law, F = ma, or force is the product of mass and acceleration, can be corroborated, implying that y is subject to the law of non-contradiction : nothing is it's opposite, therefore, z = y = x, because as the complement of y in x, z is not subject to the law of non-contradiction, so z can be y and if it is y and z , then it's also x, making it technically impossible to corroborate any claim in either y, or z, form ; it's also unclear how an event with coordinates, (- √-1, 0, 0, 0) = (time, 3 spatial coordinates), can be corroborated, given that our temporal convention has a greatest lower bound of zero.
Huh? This sounds like a long-winded example of Godel's theorem but I'm not entirely sure..?
Did I hear well, that black holes seem to not catch everything without it being the Hawking radiation?
Thank you!
31:11 start here to go from the old to the new (just my bookmark if I ever come back to this) (nothing really new before that point)
I guessing you get scattering patterns of the affine connection of spacetime tensors, if gravitons exist, of 2 colliding gravitons or holes. Maybe to math see it in calculus , the Feynman diagrams must have ' interiors'. ie one is quantum bending the bending of space time in a sense. Help. Its a good summary video simply put.
Fascinating but my problem is you invent a fictional force carrier, the graviton. It is assigned Feynman type interactions like the other particles and surprise the math looks similar. So we have fictional particle, fictional maths, Gravity is still a mystery, we are not there yet and some say Gravity is not a force. We are still clueless, babes in the woods. Find the Graviton and I am a Believer and on that journey pick up some dark matter too.
The concept of "charge" was established for 100 years before the Strong force was invented. That way, "charge" could stay the same as it ever was and wouldn't have to change due to being crammed into a nucleus at nuclear energies. If you never second-guess any paradigms for being so, we are doomed to goofy analogies.
A charge is simply a conserved quantity. In mathematical terms that makes a charge a generator of a symmetry group. There is no reason to overthink this in historical terms.
@@schmetterling4477 The whole concept of "conserved quantities" is just establishing constants and describing them mathematically as soon as you can, and then refusing to second guess them. You think calculating the right numbers consistently means that you understand it. I don't think so. It just has to be analogous, then you will never see it for what it is. With that scientific method, we are doomed to never know. I can prove that math can lie to you by calculating the perfect numbers and totally miss causality, but no one will publish it, so would you call that a scientific method or a social network protecting a belief in math? The gyro is a toy described mathematically, and your understanding of cause came after the math. I promise you it's wrong. The contemporary math comes after a "right-hand rule", and this is a mnemonic device with NO HINT of an actual cause. Laws are not causal either, even though they are "conserved quantities". They are more like folklore than understanding. The causal mechanism of the gyro is way more beautiful than a conservation law, and I cannot understand why people can't see it. I am only recently convincing some, so there is some hope. This is not my only argument either. In order to prove Special Relativity, you must change ALL of the numbers in an experiment except for light velocity using "TRANSFORM EQUATIONS". In the experiment, light does not look constant, but AFTER the transformation of length, mass, and time, then it starts to fit. It is COMPLETELY IGNORED that there is still a non-transformed reality left behind! That does not sound smart, no matter how you frame it. There is only one theory when I just gave you TWO realities, and our one single theory had to first change the numbers in order to fit. I could go on and on, but it is either heard or not, if I'm not already blocked from comments.
@@jnhrtmn If something doesn't change much, then something doesn't change much. You are welcome to mount a new precision search for electric charge non-conservation. Ranting doesn't buy any credits with me, I am afraid. Take care.
@@schmetterling4477 So any unseen physics finer than "It always does that" is lost forever. I can only hope this grows on you, at least to point of realizing that math does not dictate reality. An understanding should be described mathematically, but modern science has it backward.
@@jnhrtmn Why lost forever? It's only lost until somebody gets funding for a sensitive enough experiment to detect an existing symmetry violation. It shows that you have never done any form of physical research. DK is in full effect. :-)
be cool to apply a fractal transform to the feyman stuff, like 3 trees tops together, instead of a y diagram
Quantum microspaces are The future of physics. With interchenging of energons and gons, like 1 and 0.We are some ping pong player between microspaces, we all The Time teleportate, with 10 to 44 frames per second.
What is energy? Why is there a speed limit to causality? Why is there a fine structure constant? What is time?
Consider the Structured Atom Model. No neurons. A neutron is a proton-electron pair.
Consider the idea that the sun and the earth do in fact exist in the same Reality, and do not have their own relativistic coordinate system.
Consider the fact that light from the limb of the sun is red- shifted to the outer edge of the observable universe, and then realize that light passing through an ionized gas and contemplate what that means to an expanding cosmos.
This talk cannot get off the ground
I must object to using the word "object" when referring to a black hole !
Quark plasma?
Hellifino what it is, but I certainly wouldn't call it an object... that term is abjectly objectionable !
pretty cool information, but how do i use this to take over the world again?
I think from time to time something relevant to one thing can just be applied to something else, like particles upon the photoelectric problem. It would not surprise me if there was a somehow connected multi-dimensionality that made the forces curvature of separate force layers.
Mathematical descriptions of the interactions and observations of the elementary particles do not describe what a particle is or how its fields propagates from its center to the point at which it is measured. Instead of deducing the particles' nature from its interactions and observations, Physicists are stuck in the mathematics of the descriptions of the interactions and observations themselves. Static fields are archaic concepts that do not fit into GR because they don't exist in space-time. For a field to exist in spacetime, it must _communicate_ from one point in spacetime to another. This communication can only be done if spacetime itself is reactive to the particle's field and the particle oscillates in spacetime, and not only in space. When fields from opposite particles get cancelled, they do not just "disappear" just because their total measured value is zero. This can be proven by the fact that the speed of light through glass is slower than through a vacuum. Think about it: none of the photons of light get absorbed by the glass particles, atoms or electrons, since the frequency of light is too small for glass atoms. Similarly, the cancellation of magnetic fields in spacetime creates a region where time ticks slower than where the field has a positive value/direction. In fact, both electric and magnetic fields are waves because the electron itself is a wave, and so are all the elementary particles, including the quarks in the nucleus. While this is obvious from equations of QM, what is not obvious is that it is the oscillations of the field of the particles in spacetime that result in the electromagnetic and gravitational fields that are observed, and that the wave function is not just a concept to calculate probabilities, but are actual oscillations in spacetime. This is, in fact, what results in the interference patterns in the double-slit experiment. However, the "probability" is not because the movement of the electron wave is random, but that it is impossible to calculate the position of the electrons in the photographic film to where the electron in the double slit experiment is approaching, and that is what results in the "probability wave". Cool atoms to single-digit Kelvin temperatures and you get particles that get into the BEC state where the oscillations synchronize to a point where magnetic field vectors cannot exist (like point between 2 north-poles of 2 bar magnets pointing at each other), creating a macroscopic quantum link between electromagnetism and gravity. Spinning the particles in the BEC state results in a macroscopic magnetically neutral field where time moves faster inside the circle, and slower outside, allowing FTL travel possible.
This is pretty interesting. Can you elaborate or let me know where I can read more about this?
@@das_it_mane Please watch this video: ruclips.net/video/vl5l9HLtc6Q/видео.html
Washing pans in my double sink and making vortex. Staying out of stars and holes.
When math tells you the Big Bang is not true and that black holes are not what you thought they were, you are supposed to look for the true answer, not hold onto your faith in the Big Bang or what you thought black holes were. Let’s practice true science here.
Math is talking to you? How about biology? Is biology talking to you, too?
It seems obvious, as these equations can be formulated to give the precise speed of light through a vacuume and this leads to the understanding that light and everything else there is being a disturbance in this field it follows that gravity can also be precisely described by it . QED
You can't measure the speed of light from a single source therefore it is an assumed speed from a reflected source vacuum or otherwise so let's stop with all the conjecture shall we? Then perhaps actual science can get back to the business of learning and testing.
Is it related to the janus model(starting from the principle that we live in a double universe ) of our french scientist Jean-Pierre Petit ? He is a solid scientist you should have a look at his theory, unfortunately french scientific politic did not allow him to evolve freely. He is at the end of his life and he is glad to share his knowledge.
@@jcd-k2s Comme tu le dis je ne suis pas physicien mais passionné de sciences, je ne crois pas qu'il y aie quelquechose de mal a demander a ceux qui s'y connaissent si il y a un rapport ... Personellement, je m'interesse à tout et bien que profane j'ai bien compris que jpp etait outsider au système de consensus scientifique... Mais là est bien le problème et en ce qui me concerne j'ai assez de culture pour savoir que les avancees ne sont pas forcément issues du consensus alors je n'ai pas d'à priori. Par contre autre sujet, ce n'est pas parce que tu te sens à l'abris derriere ton moniteur que tu peux te permettre un tel language avec un inconnu, ça en dit long sur ton toi profond. Je suis dans le 28 ça te dirait que nous en discutions de vive voix ? Tu m'expliqueras par exemple en quoi je te les brise et qui sont ces 'nous' dont tu fais le porte parole... Et en quoi pour une foi que je pose une question je declenche de l'animosité comme si tu le vivais comme un harcèlement....? 28 Châteaudun
@@jcd-k2sMerci de ta réponse un tantinet plus constructive que la précédente. Tu te trompes un peu sur mon compte , je ne t'en veux pas , tu ne peut que 'supposer', combler des vides informationnels, et je reconnais bien là la démarche scientifique moderne qui consiste à essayer de boucher un trou sans savoir et en faisant une supposition hasardeuse puis en tricotant quelque chose pour relier les points et que ça puisse ressembler à quelque chose.(oui je sais que ça t'énerve mais je te taquine) .Je suis effectivement juste un profane passionné mais aucun concept physique présenté n'a jamais été hors du champ de ma capacité d'appréhension ou de compréhension une foi bien expliqué. Ne m'imagine pas en Fan boy de JPP, j'aime bien le personnage mais en ce qui concerne ses théories, je suis plutôt en processus de recherche du crédit que l'on peut y apporter car en effet , si tout le monde peut être capable d'énoncer une théorie qui se tiens logiquement mathématiquement et fonctionnellement cela n'en demeure pas moins également le concept de la bonne science fiction tant que rien ne l'atteste .Donc si ce type raconte des théories vaseuse avec une telle ferveur de démonstration , pourquoi la communauté scientifique l'ignore au lieur de lui porter l'estocade publique via une démonstration scientifique? N'oublies pas que youtube est une plateforme grand publique pas une station de travail ni de publication scientifique, par conséquent tu pourras bien supporter de croiser des gens qui n'ont pas de doctorat en physique n'est-ce pas? Et en fait j'avais mis le commentaire avant d'avoir vu la video sur base du titre , après j'ai bien vu que j'étais hors sujet.Cordialement
@@jcd-k2s tout doux, je pensait a la conceptualisation de la superposition quantique, aux champs quantiques, les digrames de feinman, le demi spin, le principe de symétrie ... Je suis certain que vous comprenez plein de choses que je ne pourai appréhender que losque les scientifiques les maitriseront et seront capable de les expliquer car souvent quand une théorie sort elle n'est pas vulgarisée car même ceux qui font des decouvertes ont du mal a interpréter le resultat de leur découvertes. . Sinon par definition effectivement on ne peut pas vraiment comprendre la mecanique quantique elle est pleine d'axiomes mais les concepts de superposition d'états et l'emergence de la physique classique hors des incertitudes quantiques a mon sens n'est pas compliquée à appréhender, la physique classique est juste la tendance statistique a grande échelle des probabilités quantiques, l'attraction et la répulsion des charges en sont un bon exemple. C'est comme en ingenierie sociale, si on ne peut predire avec certitude le comportement individuel, par contre le comportement de la masse statistique forme une tendance indéfectible, il en va de même pour la règle de pareto, de la a savoir pourquoi et comment, là c'est ton boulot moi je m'arete aux conceptes . Autre point qu'intuitivement je CROIS(emphase d'incertitude) c'est qu'a partir du moment ou l'on étudie des chose qui atteignent la vitesse de la lumière, leur temps local est figé n'est ce pas ? Dès lors n'est il pas raisonable de penser qu'elle ne peuvent exister qu'avec sont set informationnel définitif, ce qui expliquerait les possibilités d'expérience tel que l'effaceur quantique car si pour nous la lumière semble evoluer son temps local passé present et avenir etant transportés en permanence contiend déjà le résultat des choses qui pour nous ne nous ont pas l'air de s'être produite et pour le photon est instantané ou encore pourquoi un troisième filtre polarisant a 45 après deux filtre a 0-90 anihile partiellement l'effet filtrant total comme si la lumière n'avait pas vraiment de sens de passage(pensée purement conceptuelle) .....que veux tu dire par on a observé des lentilles gravitationelles de corps n'émettant pas de lumière.. L'effet de lentille gravitationelle est due a la masse et à la deformation de l'espace temps donc je ne vois pas ce que cela a d'exceptionnel tout ce qui se deplace dans le champs gravitationnel lumière ou pas en est forcément affecté non ?ah oui, J'imagine que tu parles des lentilles gravitationelle sans masse apparente détectable ? Les fameuses lentilles gravitationelles supposément de matière noire parce que l'on a pas de meilleure idée ? ... Et bien je me rejouis d'avancer dans le temps car pour le moment on est pas trop avancé puis on ne sais même pas avec certitude si l'univers est euclidien.... Mais tout ça est fascsinant et pour le coup je préfère être a ma place qu'a la votre. Mais voilà vous même vous savez que la matière noire a été introduite pour tenter d'expliquer certains phénomènes, tant mieux si vous faites bonne route, on ne peut pas souhaiter mieux😊moi j'attend la suite du film mais pourquoi diable sembler vous vous fermer à tout autre théorie, qu'est ce qui a rend si prometteuse ? Vu de l'extérieur on dirait que la science fonctionne parfois par hype scientifique. Et faut il le dire, nombre d'entre vous semblent tellement s' orgueillir de leur idées. J'aime beaucoup le discourt d'Étienne Klein qui a mon sens est l'exemple de l'humilité intelligente du scientifique contrairement à des gens comme Mr J. Bareau qui a une communication verbale et non verbale de suffisance ce qui souvent n'est plutôt pas un signe de grande perspicacité . Je te remercie pour le lien je vais voir si je peux a mon petit niveau en tirer quelquechose d'instructif. 👍
@@jcd-k2s oulala, l'échange devient agréable mais se doit entraîner des réponses complexes. Pour le spinn tu va vie comprendre. Tient un objet dans la paume ouverte de ta main droite. Fait faire un tour dans le sens contraire des aiguilles à l'objet sans le laisser tomber. L'objet vient de faire un tour et tu as le bras tordu et tu dois ressembler a une peinture egyptienne tu as bien fait 360 avec l'objet mais on ne peut pas dire que le système soit dans son etat initial, on peur dire que ru as un spin de 1/2. Maintenant lève ta paume et refait faire un tour a l'objet par dessus ton coude.... Tada deux foix un demi pour deux fois 360 degrés remettent le systeme dans l'etat initial. Quand au seul referentiel dans lequel nous voyageons a 99.99% c'est celui de la dimention temporelle justementc'est pourquoi si aquierions de la vitesse spaciale notre vecteur espace temps nous ferait perdre de la vitesse temporelle. Le plus intuitif est de considerer le temps comme autre 'ailleur dans une superposision d' instantanés tridimensionnels '. Si du référentiel de la lumière nous sommes a 99.99% par exemple ce serait la même pour elle nous somme figés dans notre temps local. Je vais te le dire autrement si nous parvenions à atteindre la vitesse de la lumière peut importe la distance le voyage nous paraîtrait instantané car notre temps local s'ecoulerait tellement lentement et si ton temps local se distortionne, tes pensées egalement, la physique même se distortionne et a aucun instant celui qui va vite n'a l'impression d'etre figé puisque sa conscience même l'est et pourtant le fait que tu va arriver a bon port est dépendants de la globalité des événements qui se trouvent en dehors de ton temps propre, imperceptibles... See what i mean ? (suite a venir...)
There is also the color force in physics which is even stronger than the strong force. My amateur guess is that all forces in physics, from the color force to gravity, are Casimir effects.
I know its hard to explain complex things, but...
Its a real deal to ignore all useless words, to stay on the main line and purpose, and finally realise what you try to talk about.
I think all people who try to vulgarise science should try to resume theyre final product. Because many things are dispersing than focusing. 20min would be concrete. Sorry for my english.
Life is but a Dream
What about E-8 & how all particles & forces are represented in 3D reality thru 2 transforms?
That was just a practical joke by that guy who sells laxatives on late night tv.
E8 is mathematically pretty, and it was put forward as a contender at one point long ago (70s I think?) But it was fairly quickly ruled out as a mathematical basis for modeling reality for reasons I don't remember (and probably didn't understand at the time anyway).
Gravity has directions? As well as mass? The 'sphere' is the potential of all direction from a central point?
Gravity definitely has a direction, that's how you stay on the Earth!
If you only have a single source of gravity, then yes your potential would always be pointing toward the center of mass (or away from it maybe? Can't remember how its formulated but on that line anyway).
Things get interesting when there are multiple sources of gravity though. We don't get to see/feel that ourselves because the Earth is so locally overwhelming, but if we go further afield, even within our own solar system, we run into situations where we need to balance multiple gravity sources. And being the clever apes that we are, we can actually play gravitational games with our spacecraft to improve travel times: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Network
The other part of your question though - does gravity have mass.. that's a lot trickier, and in some ways lies at the heart of the disconnect between the standard model and general relativity. We know that _if_ gravity is quantized, it will require at least one massless, spin-2 boson to be its force carrier (the graviton). There are some theories with multiple gravitons though I'm not sure if they would all be massless and spin-2 in those theories.
But a massless boson is hardly the end of the story. Like photons, the "massless" graviton would be carrying some (very small) amount of energy along for the ride, and as Einstein taught us, energy and mass are equivalent. That implies gravitons would have to be self-interacting like gluons rather than non-interactive like photons. I imagine that's the cause of the mathematical mess at 33:32 in the video (though I haven't seen that formula before so I can't say with 100% certainty).
Of course, that's all "if". We don't at this point know for sure whether or not gravity actually is quantized. We certainly expect it to be (at least most of us do) as we don't really see a way to reconcile classical gravity with the quantum mechanical world of the standard model, and we have some reasonably strong mathematical arguments against quantum mechanics being wrong (that is, even if/when the standard model is replaced, we would expect the replacement to also be quantum mechanical).
Random thought/question while writing that out though: If we can envision a gravitational boson, might there also be gravitational fermions? If so, what properties might they have? And if not, why not?
@@altrag Lol, imagine gravity as a wave instead of a boson particle that could be diffracted. Another thought, imagine a BEC in a zone of space with zero outside gravitational interactions…would time stop for it from an outside pov?
@@starventure > imagine gravity as a wave
Gravity is a wave. That is unquestionable, as shown by LIGO. The question is how to describe those waves (mathematically). GR does it classically (spacetime having a smooth, continuous geometry) while attempts at quantum gravity does it discretely (individual excitations moving in a field aka gravitons).
> instead of a boson particle
We're getting into the world of quantum mechanics though. Its not "instead" but "as well" - that is, it would exhibit the same kind of wave/particle duality that other quantum mechanical objects do.
As noted in my previous post though, this is all an "if". Einstein's general relativity is not quantum mechanical and does not include a graviton or anything similar - the "waves" in GR are spacetime itself being warped in an oscillating manner.
The only reason physicists came up with the idea of a graviton is because GR and the standard model are incompatible, and we (so far) can't envision any successor to the standard model going back to being classical again, but we _can_ envision a quantum model of gravity (we haven't successfully created one yet, but we can imagine such a thing being at least possible in theory).
> would time stop for it from an outside pov?
No. At least not in any current formulation. In general relativity, time stops from an "outside pov" under the opposite condition - when gravity is maximal (ie: at the event horizon of a black hole). Without gravity, time and space would still exist they just wouldn't be warped.
Of course such a theoretical region of spacetime would necessarily have to be completely empty since any object within the region would have to have mass and/or energy, and that would itself generate gravitational warping. So that makes it a bit difficult to even define what you mean by "time stops" when there is nothing to move/change/be observed.
Kind of the "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound" scenario, but at a much more fundamental level.
52:00 HY! ...I've watched this whole video, & @ my level of intellect, the most significant thing I see is the universe greeting me with odd spelling.
why can gravitational waves escape a black hole?
They can't. The gravitational wave is outside of the event horizons.
@@schmetterling4477 If there is no gravitational waves inside the event horizon, doesn’t that mean that time stops inside from an outside point of view? Also, is it possible that black holes may have a superdense (but fluidlike) crust like a neutron star but “sinking” and a quark plasma core?
@@starventure Of course there is also a gravitational wave inside the event horizon, that one just can't get out. We will never know what the state of matter inside a stellar size black hole is. We can speculate, but know? No. That's not possible, at least not as long as GR is even borderline correct.
@@schmetterling4477 I believe in the planck star theory. Gravity can trounce all the other forces for only so long before it looses the fight for containment of mass before it bangs itself apart. The description of how a planck star would work fits the bill in my mind for the core region of a black hole, which also means that the real mass of a black hole can’t be measured because the planck core has an incalculable mass equivalence. The collapsar/gravitar shell surrounding the core must always be massive enough to maintain symmetrical containment of the core, otherwise something very bad would happen like a bang. I believe this also means that mergers of supermassive black holes are likely one of the most potentially dangerous events in the universe as the risk of mass asymmetry is higher than for smaller size mergers. As always, take what I say with a grain of salt because I am just a daydreamer. I don’t know jack about deep physics.
@@starventure Beliefs belong into church.
The inversion of the sphere/circle is the basis for all fields and relationships.
Electron is pure outflow. 3 dimensions/axes of outflow.
A proton is an equal inflow but being the future means gaining mass and so there is a “neutralized” charge pair which can be seen as standing wave within a Planck radius or as a spinning (in 3 dimensions simultaneously) sphere. The charge difference induces rotation, space is thixotropic so we have spinning at c over the functional infinitesimal, a Planck, which induces angular momentum c^2 continually. The edge is always 90deg from previous location. Always. Because this happens over a Planck moment and that is all the time there is. A Planck moment. Just time enough to change. Incrementally.
Good talk.pfd
So point black holes is what the vacuum is made of?
Uhh not in any meaningful sense. If that were true, everything would have immediately been caught in those "point black holes" and unable to escape (the defining feature of black holes), and the universe could never have formed.
Of course that's just practically speaking. Mathematically any zero-size point with non-zero energy could be treated as a black hole if you try hard enough, and we could arbitrarily assert that the zero-point energy of empty space fills that roll. But I don't think anyone would consider that to be physical (ie: be a model for anything that exists in the real world) because of the above argument that we wouldn't be here if that were true.
@@altrag oh, everything s too big to fall into any but still falling into the next one and that is perpetual inertia, until space slope wins, that is. Just an idea, they wouldn't clog, only be displaced, uniform space deformed. 🙄
Gravity being the weakest force does not compute for me.
Surely range and upper limits should weigh in when considering the strength of a force.
That's because gravity is not a force, to begin with.
@@schmetterling4477 : Explain, please.
@@theGoogol Why don't you Googol it? Pun! :-)
@@schmetterling4477 : Oh, I'm well aware of Einstein's reasoning on the shortest path along curved space time due to the presence of a difference in mass being a geodesic.
He was explaining the effects of gravity, though, not the source. You could argue that a force is bending space time and then we're back at square one.
Ergo, I'd like to hear you explain it for obviously I'm missing something and you seem to know more. :)
@@theGoogol Forces are not bending spacetime. You are not back at square one. You never left square one.
I still don't know how spacetime curvature emerges from a double copy. The talk left way too much to imagination. Actually, it was more like an advertisement for the speaker's theoretical research group than anything.
BH isnt only about gravity and mass, but also time. All of time, from the universe started - until it ended, is fixated inside the singularity of all black holes, since it contain infinite mass and energy. I still belive that beyond the singularity you end up on the opposite side, to something we can not yet define, but only speculate.
So if one is a particle physicist, does that give you a confirmation bias where you view everything as a particle?
Kind of like how "if all you have is a hammer..."
The general formulation of the rule is;
"If one is a Professor at a British University, all you have is a hammer and sickle that give you all sorts of biases running the courses"
Too many particle physicists. Not enough wave physicists.
@@aaronsmith6632 the particle physicists are wave physicists, are they not? The particles are quanta of waves* , so..?
@@drdca8263 quanta of waves* gives you vertical buoyancy within the formed *double layers* , double layers have collective variable capacitive electromagnetic moments, so -gravitational- wave physicists are *theoretical* electricians with the wrong degree & wrong lexicon!
I have a question!!! why does it take you physis guy's so long to get to the point??????!
Very interresting, I just do not get the bloody mathematics behind the subject.
Interesting idea. Why does QCD so deliberately throw out The Positron and Electron as the Up Quark and Down Quark when all atoms and nuclear reactions can be electrically balanced using intrinsic and * new * electron-positron pairs? Is physics really definitely sure all electrons and positrons annihilate when there are energy dependencies that have to be fixed by Electron Neutrinos? I really want to know about positron-positron collisions at different energies. I half expect Protons to be formed and the Antimatter Catastrophe to be solved..
--
We know a Neutron can be described as a Proton and bound electron which can be shared with another Proton, why isn't the same arrangement allowed for 2 positrons and a central electron.. In beta+ decay I see strong light colliding the 2 proton positrons together, forming a new electron-positron pair. In the early universe, the first batch of electron-positron pairs formed, with some positron strongly/weakly colliding, instantly forming a new positron-electron pair, with the electron trapped between two positrons that vibrate in contrary motion a bit, pulled together by the electron, with their +1/2 electric charges repelling both before either can annihilate with the electron..
--
I'm looking at gravity as a macro subspace field effect due to each Positron attracting 1 quanta of -ve subspace charge that close-packs +ve field cells (ball) together.. This is the wave medium.. Knocked free cells form a balancing-overbalancing field vibration radiating out at C - A Positron.. The excess -ve charge 'matter-energy stuff' also pulls in the +ve field cells that overbalances and vibrate.. They have the same phase in time and opposite phase in space..
--
Each has 6 (or maybe 12) 'spin loops' as forming a torus-sphere shape, perhaps with a twist. Electrostatic 'blips' and spin loops vibrate the close-packed subspace field laterally too, with this force, but not the field cells, travelling many times faster than C, linked to gravity (tighter field means more cells have to move out of the way per electrostatic blip / spin loop advance..
--
Gravity is a fairly static subspace -ve charge density gradient but I can visualise a flow model with direct inward force and looping outward force.. Field in voids expands as more matter forms because positrons attract -ve subspace charge that holds the field together..
--
Relativity is interesting in this model. I prefer a constant, absolute clock (Longitudinal force moves from subspace cell to cell in T, no matter how large the cell gap as their force field always touch, lateral force a covers many cells in T(ick)) plus a variable absolute speed of light (that always measures C locally).. Spin-loops / strong force / magnetic circuits cover more subspace cells in higher gravity / acceleration due to conservation of energy so mass and time dilate.. Some of the energy is 'lost' to acceleration of electron and positron focal points - matter is pulled inward.
--
It's all about a simple, quantised system full of imbalances continuously trying to find balance, at C (in time T(ick)). A unifying medium and clock * seems * to make some good sense.
> We know a Neutron can be described as a Proton and bound electron
Was briefly considered a possibility somewhere around 1910. The predicted (calculated) properties of such a "neutron" do not match experiments at all.
@@denysvlasenko1865 .. A neutron decays into a proton and electron or hydrogen... They do no know what mass is, if you believe they do you are fooled. They do not know what electric charge is, or how the strong force works.. Nature would not waste The Positron, it doesn't work that way. A positron is a permanent, definite, proper particle, like an electron, proton and neutron... Protons and neutrons are composite particles... You do the math.. Please name another elementary, non-composite positive particle we definitely know exists...
@@PrivateSi > You do the math..
No. This is not how science works. If you have a theory that neutron is proton + electron, YOU do the math: show that the mass and spin of such aggregate match the experimentally measured mass and spin of neutron. If it does not work out, your theory is incorrect. (Hint: it doesn't).
@@denysvlasenko1865 .. No, I advise go back to first principles and logic.. Science is empirical, but when obvious experimental brick walls are hit and models are ballooning yet getting more useless, it's time to go back to DEFINITE data.. Theoretical physics data becomes less definite as fast as it gets more definite, ironically, yet 'predictably' given the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and probing ever-higher energies.
--
If the model confusion is increasing while not answering the most basic questions then I consider it FAILING.. You really think the science is settled? I've done the math for balancing all nucleons and nuclear reactions using internal and NEW electron-positrons pairs.. It's very simple, you could probably sit down and do it in half an hour... We know new electron-positron pairs are formed, and proton + electron or neutron with enough energy by firing light at nuclei and smashing protons etc...
--
One thing is certain, a TOE will have to be engineered, science can only guide the engineering process.. Why would nature waste the positron when it needs a positive component?.. Knock a quantised, subspace field cell free and it forms a positive field imbalance, a positron, with the hole left behind forming an electron.. Start with a physical, unifying single subspace particle field of +ve cells (balls) bound by free-flowing -ve charge and derive the basics from that. It can be done, possibly the entire, slightly corrected standard model. It's semi-classical and based on the simplest physical field model, rather than some abstract model.
--
You can have in-out stretch/compression warps or vibes, 'blips' where a cell moves forward and back, possibly in sync, in a 'flux tube' between particles, pushing cells together, out of the way laterally before returning (possible FTL lateral force mechanism), and spinning loops of cells also affecting the subspace field laterally... Gravity can be a subtle macro subspace charge gradient, with each positron attracting 1 quantum of -ve charge away from the rest of the field.. This can have a fixed (Einstein) or variable metric (Brans-Dicke), Dark Gravity.. Blowing larger warps, chunks, sprays and holes into the self-balancing, close-packed subspace field results in a right mess... a Photon is a transverse field warp travelling through the field.
--
FUN CONJECTURE based on the most well proven data while discarding the dubious aspects.. Sticks to the engineering principle of 'keep it as simple as possible', premise-wise. How is QCD useful to humanity again? How much money has been spent 'proving' it? How many variables are there to make it work, how many are proven rather than theoretical?
@@PrivateSi > I've done the math for balancing all nucleons and nuclear reactions using internal and NEW electron-positrons pairs
Show it. Show me your calculation of proton+electron mass and spin.
I have a question. It appears to me that the attractive force of gravity should have been introduced at the point of the big bang fluctuation, if not how would have anything been produced in any form of observable material? Do you think it's possible that gravity was the first force introduced in the construction of the fundamental forces and our universes laws of physics?
Umm sort of? None of our theories actually say definitively what happened at the t=0 point of the big bang. But the general consensus (based entirely on how we handle the other three forces - ie: with zero actual evidence) is that all of the forces were combined into one at that very first instant.
But that one force would be a combination of the others - it would be a completely new force that doesn't directly relate to any of the four we know today. So gravity (along with the other three) would be _part_ of the first force, but not actually the first force itself.
Look up electroweak theory for an example of how two forces combine into a new force that (on the surface) doesn't look like either of the separate forces. Basically we expect the same idea to continue up the change (we have some experimental evidence for electroweak symmetry, but merging the strong force requires energies quite a bit above modern accelerators, and gravity is way out of the picture - we still don't even know for sure _if_ gravity can be combined with the others like that, never mind how it might work. We're just assuming).
I like your response, but I still see gravity at the heart of the"first force" you mentioned. Does this deserve more investigation. It just seems to me that gravity seems to be like a guiding force that initiates everything else. I know all of this is hard to investigate, but if we remove everything we know about gravity from the first force, what would happen? My speculation is, nothing would become a structure, the energy would proceede in it's velocidal pathway for ever. Gravity, in my mind is what allows energy to come together close enough for other forces to emerge. Is this hypothesis far fetched, or not. By the way I believe string theory is on the right path to the theory of everything
@@progressor4ward85 Its more of a conceptual issue (assuming gravity really is a force - not something we've actually determined yet).
Just like you can't really say either electricity or magnetism is the "heart" of the electromagnetic force (well I mean you can _say_ anything, but in terms of the theoretical mathematics, they are not really separable like that).
Now if gravity really is a purely geometric effect (ie: the shape of spacetime) rather than a "force" in the same manner as the other three, then things get a little weirder.
Its not really (as far as I know) something anyone has really investigated too much due to the well-known incompatibilities of the two concepts as we currently understand them, and the presumption that we can't really explain quantum mechanics using any non-quantum theory (that is, any theory that supersedes the Standard Model could not be classical).
> if we remove everything we know about gravity from the first force, what would happen
Well, we don't even know what would happen _with_ gravity in there, so that's definitely a wide open question! Oddly, what we _do_ know (thanks to AdS/CFT duality) that a 4D (3+1) universe without gravity is equivalent to a 3D (2+1) universe with gravity.. so in some sense we can't really consider a universe without gravity, "first force" or otherwise. And yes, that's very weird to try and conceptualize!
> the energy would proceede in it's velocidal pathway for ever
That's certainly possible. Even with gravity that is in some ways how things are going (expansion of the universe). That said, we presume the "clumpiness" of the universe is primarily due to gravitation, so its likely the universe would be even more isotropic than it is (ie: "stuff" spread out even more evenly - and probably not form stars/galaxies/etc). So in that sense I believe you're probably pretty close to correct.
> close enough for other forces to emerge
No, the other forces are just as fundamental as gravity. But in terms of symmetry breaking (the phrase we use to describe the mechanism by which combined forces split into separate forces) is based on the amount of energy in a volume (aka: the temperature).
So a universe with a lack of gravity would actually expose the other forces even earlier as there would be less inward force keeping everything dense (and therefore hot) during the very first moments. The forces separated within a few nanoseconds so "earlier" is definitely relative, but a few nanoseconds was a huge amount of time relative to how fast things were expanding at that time.
> I believe string theory is on the right path to the theory of everything
Maybe. Its certainly the most well-researched so far, specifically because it seems to explain everything. But at the same time, it hasn't really progressed significantly in like 30 years and its completely untestable, making people wonder if there's maybe not actually anything there. Its absolutely still in the running, but a lot of physicists are trying to think a bit further outside the box at this point hoping to run across some new formulation that might produce an actual testable prediction.
Probably the biggest contender at the moment is loop quantum gravity. It still suffers from two major flaws that string theory doesn't have though: First, just a simple lack of research. Its newer and not as widely-adopted so naturally there hasn't been as much work done on it at this point. Secondly and more importantly though, it _only_ explains gravity - its not a theory of everything. It is quantum mechanical though, so people are hopeful that it can be added into the Standard Model (or vice-versa) but so far that hasn't happened (personally I suspect it will reduce to string theory if/when that happens, "loops" sound suspiciously similar to closed strings.. though I'm definitely not good enough with the math to know how close they really are beyond a high level overview and the terminology).
@@altrag thank you for responding to my inquiry, your point about the other forces not being able to form without gravity in the mix was exactly the point I was trying to make, gravity seems like the first initiative, with out it there is no structure. And yes I agree it's hard to prove this due to the fact that we're not sure what gravity is. As far as string theory, I hypothesize the possibility that at the center of all objects, resides a void that a source of energy rotates around, and in this rotation a wabble ensues this wabble around the center point could be described as a vibrating string. So the string actually isn't there only the action of the wabble. Depending on the intensity of the wabble defines the object and it's action. This idea may be testible. I came to the conclusion of the center point void when I considered when something spins the center spins slower than the perimeter. The further you move to the center the slower you rotate to a point of standstill, that's not possible, so there must be a center point that everything rotates around. Is this something we could look at to advance the hypothesis? Or is it too far outside the box. And as far as loop quantum gravity goes, for me I think there's too many dimensions needed to make it work, seems to me that the different dimensions mentioned could be compared to some kind of gearing mechanism like what's needed for a clock to run correctly. Or maybe I need to look at it more closely. In my model the only dimensions I can come up with are smaller or bigger, example, a dimension smaller than the Planck scale, or a dimension outside the size of our universes size. The three dimensions we expirence are the following the first dimension is the point of energy the second dimension is the liner movement of the energy in a streight line or plane, the third dimension is the curvature of space that allows for an infinite amount of vector directions the liner velocity of the energy can move to. After that I don't see a necessity for another dimension like the forth or so on. Are we certain that space only curves due to extreme mass only. Could excessive velocity curve space? mass and velocity are symmetrical aren't they? And one more thing how are vectors considered in an area in which one has no determination of direction. For me the only two vectors that can be verified are the vector of a direction away from a previous point to a future point, and it happens simultaneously. Yes we can move in limitless directions however, each individual movement is only away from the first point and towards the next point, simultaneously. One vector two directions. Is there a flaw in this thinking?
@@progressor4ward85 > not being able to form without gravity in the mix
I'm not sure what you mean by "not being able to form". They would "form" _easier_ without gravity, as temperatures would decrease faster (and lower temperatures is what causes the symmetry breaking that produces the known forces from the prior combined force).
> resides a void that a source of energy rotates around
That's basically what string theory says (well for closed strings anyway), except it focuses more on the properties of that "source of energy" than on the void in the middle.
Of course "in the middle" becomes a non-trivial definition in its own right when we're talking about weird numbers of dimensions. Our 3D intuition of what "in the middle" means can lead us astray rather quickly.
> This idea may be testible
It is testable _in principle_ (as is string theory and loop quantum gravity and everything else). The problem is that it isn't testable in practice. Building an accelerator capable of producing the energies needed to explore physics beyond the standard model is something like 15 orders of magnitude greater than what the LHC can produce.
Leonard Susskind at one point suggested it would take a ring approximately the size of the Earth's orbit around the sun (so, a Dyson accelerator). That's probably hundreds if not thousands of years beyond our ability to construct, assuming absolutely everything goes well with our technological development into a space-faring species.
When I say string theorists are looking for a testable hypothesis, I mean testable within the realm of current or near-future technologies. Supersymmetry (which string theory requires) was an easy candidate as the LHC is powerful enough to test at least some classes of possible supersymmetric theories. Unfortunately it found a whole lot of nothing so far. That doesn't rule out supersymmetry (or string theory) by any means - there are many theories where the lightest SS particle is heavier than the LHC would observe - but it made things a lot more challenging, and we so far haven't got any other significant proposals for testable predictions. There's a few smaller proposals that have not been universally recognized as likely candidates for testing, so all hope is certainly not lost.. but again it makes things more challenging.
> for me I think there's too many dimensions needed to make it work
I suspect you're thinking of Supergravity, which is a completely different theory (and is actually very closely related to string theory via the M-theory extension). Loop quantum gravity uses only the 4 dimensions we recognize in the real world.
> the first dimension is the point of energy the second dimension is the liner movement of the energy in a streight line or plane, the third dimension is the curvature of space
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but its not how physicists use the term "dimension" (mathematicians on the other hand use the term a lot more broadly, and of course physics is strongly based on math.. so maybe you're going with something in that sense? In any case, its got little to do with the idea of "dimensions" in string theory, supergravity or loop quantum gravity).
> Are we certain that space only curves due to extreme mass only
Space curves due to energy. Mass is but one form of energy.
> Could excessive velocity curve space?
Yes. Kinetic energy is a form of energy, and therefore curves space. That is why we can do things like light sails even though light has no mass of its own - the energy of its movement performs the same function, in essence. That said, the factor of c^2 when converting between mass and energy means actual mass is _enormously_ more impactful on the curvature of spacetime. A unit of mass is "worth" something like 18 orders of magnitude more than a similar unit of energy (its not really correct to define/ compare things like that, but it provides a bit of intuition).
> Is this something we could look at to advance the hypothesis?
I can't say for sure, but I would suspect not - mostly due to that extremely loose definition of what "in the middle" means in higher (or lower!) dimensions. Keep in mind though that string theory is almost entirely defined in terms of topology, and topology is very much concerned with the limits of things like holes in surfaces (which are much more rigorously defined than "in the middle"), so its possible that its something we've already looked at in a sense. Your definitions are a bit too loose to really provide certainty of that though.
> And one more thing how are vectors considered in an area in which one has no determination of direction
Look up the concept of "affine" spaces. They deal with geometries where you can't define a fixed coordinate system (and therefore don't have a strict concept of things like "direction"). In particular, general relativity is defined in such a way (there is no "center" of the universe - defining direction requires arbitrarily choosing a point in space. There's also no "outside" the universe either for similar reasons. That's very hard to wrap your head around and something I myself have yet to manage at an intuitive level. I just have to trust that the math works on that one).
> Is there a flaw in this thinking?
If I'm understanding you correctly, you've in many ways just re-described many of the basic concepts so not really "flawed" but just need a bit more experience/ knowledge regarding things science has already gone over during the past century and why certain theories were rejected while others were accepted.
I think you're on the right track though, for the most part! I mentioned Susskind before specifically because I've seen a lot of his lectures through Stanford's RUclips program: ruclips.net/channel/UCNPslw9h5x5OqEBUX65DEmg . It is very dry (its actual lectures he taught to real physics students that they decided to record and make freely available) but if you can sit through the math he takes you all the way from Newton's F=ma and classical mechanics all the way up to very close to the cutting edge (particularly string theory and the holographic principle since he's one of the foremost researchers in those areas, so its kind of his baby).
Einstein cannot explain INSTANTANEITY.
Just imagine that you are a body and let s look it the othere way that spacetime defines your
lookalike. one way or another.
Every once in a while someone tries to get me to reveal the secret of my Powdered Water™. Nice try.
To me the most pressing question for all humanity is: "how the hell we gonna get out of this covid madness we created?" :)
What is more ludicrous than not employing detailed maths is saying you calculated everything precisely but can't account for 95% of the universe.
Huh? We can account for 68% of the universe with exactly one number. That is the problem with dark energy, mate, it doesn't give you much to play with as a physicist. The experimental work for the standard model of high energy physics took over 100 years and has produced many TBytes of precision data. Dark energy, OTOH, is the equivalent of a single byte of information.
@@schmetterling4477 I was trying to make the point that if the theory, the model is even slightly incorrect then a mountain of precise data and a multitude of correct predictions are just describing the same thing. An example is Snells law, a mathematically precise law, but what is the microscopic thing, at the photonic level that explains it? There should be at least 3 or 4 theories to account for this law in order to guide research, not just confirmations of the law.
@@baraskparas9559 And I was trying to get you to understand that what you think about these things just ain't so. Snell's law is perfectly valid. It describes the world at a different level and for a different purpose than QED. Can you imagine that there could be two different valid explanations for the same thing in some corner case? If you can't, then science is not for you, yet, because science does it all the time. That is one of the great success recipes of science: it allows for a multitude of explanations at different levels of detail. Welcome to the world of adults, kid. It has color. It's not all black and white.
@@schmetterling4477 Hey Bozo! I'm the guy who wrote the world's first abiogenesis scenario from prebiotic chemistry all the way up to the animalia including a solution to the evolution of the ribosome and the genetic code so keep your bullshit to yourself!