well that's just GREAT! i was at 36:24 when i read this. and considering i already had a decent understanding (for a non-physicist) of everything up to that point, it makes it sting just a little bit more. i almost aborted the mission because i wasn't hearing anything i hadn't already heard somewhere else. [note to self: read a few comments before committing to a 30+ minute presentation about quantum physics.]
How dare he present information that you people at the center of the universe already know? Physicists should consult with you when preparing public lectures.
I've watched RI lectures since I can't remember (I'm 64). Jim carefully talked his presentation through in such a way that I heard and could digest every word. Perhaps the sound effects weren't necessary, but otherwise he managed to avoid any other dramatic concessions. For an interested layman, I've never seen a better lecture on this or any other subject. Thank you.
He has a wonderful talent for making these extremely difficult concepts (somewhat) understandable while putting the listener at ease about not totally understanding it.😊
As a layman, I found your lecture fascinating. The sound effects were quite alarming; especially for someone who's profoundly deaf in one ear. What sounds I can hear, are extremely distorted and Dalek like. Needless to say, I jumped quiet a few times 🤣. I'll have to watch the video a few more times. Some of the concepts you introduce, are really hard to get one's head around. They simply don't comport to our everyday perception of space and time. As I said, the lecture was fascinating, thank you for sparking my curiosity 😀.
I guess the first half rehash is unavoidable, but the second half was highly effective in guiding me towards a better understanding of the big picture. Cheers to all involved in producing this little gem !
This is no surprise to me after all I have read about quantum mechanics and fields, etc.. Physicists have been working towards this for years. Nice to see it getting explained.
The closed captions (subtitles to you Brits) are great and error-free! Thank you, Royal Institution, for the captions, and the caption representation of the sound effects is helpful. Nothing wrong with those sound effects if they make the lecture interesting.
I am Shon Mardani, this is my Unifying Theory Of Everything, please let me know what you think, [GOD] Created NOTHING, a Void Point in Space. NOTHING Attracts [neighboring] Space, as the Only Law of The Nature, that gave the NOTHING its Property to be the GRAVITATIONAL PARTICLE (GP). Fast Moving Space into GP, Creates its own GP at the [vacated] Space and attracts the Surrounding Space. Propagation of the GPs in Cyclic Patterns Creates EVERYTHING. The Patterns' Frequencies in addition to to the Direction of GP Propagation are Observed as the Properties of the Matter, including Weight/Mass/Gravity, Magnetism, Electricity, Heat, Light and Color.
Someone somewhere is working hard to truly push this information into a new era of experience and conductivity! We can help by learning and pushing toward our own goals, no matter how small or large they may be! Cheers to the Roaring 20’s as they happen! So excited to see where all of this information heads 🧘🏽♂️🕰❤️
To anyone complaining for little details as the sound effects... Why don't you just say Thank you Jim for your time and the lecture? Those people who ONLY criticize instead of being grateful are usually the ones that never contribute with anything in this world, but are always ready to find mistakes and wrong in what the other are doing. If you are so perfect, why don't you do a presentation as this one? It is very easy to criticize, but hard to recognize the effort and contribution of others... Very sad reality :-( Please, do not criticize now my English, it is my third language :-)
Because if nobody tells him the sound effects were grating and obnoxious, he won't know that people didn't like them. Constructive criticism isn't a bad thing. People can know there's a problem without being able to deliver the solution. You'd be absolutely livid if your car broke down, and you took it to a mechanic who fixed it, but now the turn signal activates a horn in the cabin every time it lights up, and the mechanic told you that if you don't like their fix, you should do it yourself.
Thanks isn't necessary for criticism to be warranted or polite. I couldn't enjoy it with the sound effects, and I don't feel that thanks are in order, but it's also not rude or incorrect to not thank someone for something you didn't need or enjoy.
Save yourself a half hour and skip ahead to 35:46, if you already have a cursory understanding of special relativity, general relativity and the inception of Quantum Mechanics.
You’re too generous. He’s one of the best scientific dancers I’ve EVER seen! He dances around topics, with such fluidity.... Frankly, he’s an entertainer who’s memorized stories of science. Better to stay away, if you desire to learn. Nothing like that in his performances.
Well, actually, there are points where I'd wish he'd go slower. I bet even regular physicists get slightly boggled when they consider the implications of ordinary on ordinary observations like the simultaneous lightning strikes NOT being as simple as they appear.
WOW Dr. Baggott, thank you so much for the crystal clear explanation. I see Smolin changed his mind about Time, much to Professor Rovelli's annoyance, I suppose. Furthermore, as a layperson, I just hope one day to see string theorists and LQG supporters publicly confront each other, comparing ideas instead of filling square meters of blackboard with math....as I must confess I'm still unable to understand the substantial differences between the two approaches to the problem.
He said there were three approaches to get quantum mechanics and relativity to work together. One way s to just start again. Another is to assume quantum mechanics is correct and try and make gravity and relativity emerge from it: this is string theory. String theory says all particles are made up of strings vibrating in different ways. It also suggests a multiverse, where different universes like ours have different landscapes for the strings to vibrate on. For example, imagine in ours the strings wiggle on a flat table, in another the table is at an angle, causing the strings to wiggle differently, in another they wiggle on a wobbly surface. These different methods of vibration lead to different particles and different laws of physics. Another, third method, is to quantise gravity: this is loop quantum gravity. Einstein's relativity assumes space is infinitely divisible, but quantum mechanics doesn't like this: the Planck length is the smallest length possible. This LQG makes a new framework for what space and time is, (that graph network thing he talked about) and tries to make quantum mechanics appear out of it.
@@johnmpjkken3261 Seems nonsensical. Light moves through space. Light of a given frequency has so many oscillations per second. Therefore there is time in open space.
I mean, you'd have to ask him to elaborate. Time to you means what it does to you, to him it may mean something entirely different. If quantum fluctuation are independent of time, as they would have to be otherwise space-time couldn't be a field, then I don't see why fluctuations couldn't be the cause of time. I'm not saying he's right, but I am saying he isn't instantly wrong because your understanding of time is different.
well you aren't supposed to have infinites either so lots of these ideas are based in mathematical proofs not so-called observably persistent illusions
At one point you mentioned that the loops are not in space but are space. 2 questions - what is in between each loop, and what is in between from where you are looking and the loop you are observing?
There is nothing between the loops. It is how they are connected which makes up the "fabric" of spacetime. Drawing everything in the same place looks confusing.
The Seagull88 Maybe try this?: Light is quantized into photons and yet can usually be perceived and measured as an uninterrupted beam. But since proven to be existing in quanta, must be going on and off in between each photon quanta. If space itself is ever proven to be quantized, asking what is in between is nonsense since there would be no “place” to be “in between”. Best way I can perceive an answer. (shrugs)
@@briandeschene8424 Haramein explains ( but I just mention this !! I do NOT say that I am a believer of his theories !! ) how the Planck quantas are related one to another ..... and how they should interact .... fascinating stuff everywhere !!!
Loved this presentation, I put it at 1.25x speed like the other comments suggested, not sure why everyone is griping about the SFx, I can’t watch regular science shows anymore, I only digest lectures from theoretical physicists. Loop quantum gravity is an alternative to string theory , I recommend Brian Greene’s “the elegant universe” for more on gravity and quantum mechanics. Thanks for posting this RI.
Because you're laying in bed deep in thought enjoying the lecture while you drift off and are suddenly assaulted and jolted by a distorted sound effect of someone screaming.
If there's one thing that gets me mad, Jim, it's 'Don't worry about ...', since usually, that's exactly where I do want to go. Not understanding it, means it's what I need to find out about. That aside, an interesting and well-presented talk; thanks. And yes, Jim, I've bought several of your books, the latest included. Be bold, bloody and brave with the next one - and put the damn math in!! I'm sure I'm not the only one with that feeling. Hawking's editor who said every equation halves the sales, was an - ok, let's just say, was misguided.
The explanation that the gluon network holding the colored quarks together "snap" doesn't explain why quarks can't be separated. The explanation that the force needed to separate quarks would be enough to create a similar particle kind of does.
RI is a great institution! Humanity at its finest :) I was never really good at physics in high school, but I feel I have gained great insight and understanding by watching these really intuitive lectures. Brian Cox had similar great lectures and TV series. SciShow and similar RUclips shows are similar great resources. I wish I had them when I was in high school in the 90s. Then again it's never too late to learn. I'm currently pursuing a master's in public health and I love it though it would be even better if I had scholarship :) It is nice to see how biology, physics, chemistry and psychology intersect. To understand the universe and use that understanding to make a difference. I would love to see a lecture live in person someday.
The question about the twin bolts is answered by understanding that relative to speed is distance, as you travel from left to right you shorten the distance from one volt and increased the distance from the other, if you do the math and sum the total speed and distance of the man standing still and the one moving they both get the light in the same relative time. The reason why man has not found the secrets of space and time is its ego, we seem to belive everything is made for us and when we find something that does not behave acordingly to our ego, it is discarted.
15:50 The thunder effect is pushing the words of the speaker into the noise floor. Needs subtitles badly. There were missed words. (Edit: On second thought, it might not have anything to do with the noise floor; it could just be a software thing. But the point still stands.) (Edit2: Clarification: There are subtitles available, but it looks like they're based on the audio from the video, and are therefore useless, as they include the sound effect as well.)
Regarding the lightning bolts experiment, it's easier to imagine you staying at first in the middle between them, and starting to run the same time they hit. Think about the fact that photons are speeding away from the left bolt, and you are trying to run away from them (towards the right bolt) at a fraction of their speed. This means you have time to cover some small distance before they hit you. On the contrary, the photons from the right run in the opposite direction, thus they will reach you a lot faster. I stopped for a while to think about this - because I'm not that bright (pun intended) - and I hope that this will help some other people as well.
I doubt spacetime is quantized because quantized values are conserved physical quantities. Relativity has shown us that spacetime is not a conserved quantity. But, since everything we use to make observations is quantized, spacetime could appear quantized to an observer.
Fascinating. The immediate problem that springs to mind with this theory is the apparent expansion of the universe. If space is quantum in nature, what is expansion? It can't be the increasing in volume of one quantum of space, otherwise Planck's constant isn't so constant. So are new quanta of space being created? Another question I have is... if space is quantum in nature, does energy occupy space, or displace it?
Lord of the Rings reference was spot on. Sadowfax was like a force of nature, riden by Gandalf one of the Ainur a race of beings from before the creaton of the World, also a fundamental power. J.R.R Tolkein was a master story teller.
Jim mentions the Queen Elizabeth Engineering Prize as being awarded 'today'. The award to Parkinson, Spilker, FrueHauf, and Schwartz was announced 12 February 2019. This lecture and that announcement were simultaneous -- unless you're moving very fast.
This is unimaginably awesome lecture where things I could not understand in the past were described so simply and clearly that I understood them all. Woah, just wow!
I've been working on a hypothesis to try to nail down why we can't get this right. it seems to me that space itself is not quantized, but finite. As energy enters a given plank volume, that volume size should expand and flatten, up to a certain point, based on the amount of energy provided in said space. Time is just the perception of energy moving through space. As energy passes through space it flattens and expands creating a lower potential energy location at the center of the coordinate and sense energy takes the path of least action, that would be the most probable, but not only, path energy can move thru that space. a black hole is just merely the maximum capacity that space can flatten and we perceive the 6 dimensional object as a 3 dimensional shadow of fully flattened and expanded plank volumes of space filled with energy. Although they tested the idea for loop quantum gravity space being quantized, I believe the assumption that they use for that experiment was that those quantized bits are not malleable. However relativity has shown us that space dynamic. It would seem to me that if we could figure a way to see how much energy it takes to expand and flatten space per unit of energy, we may be able to extrapolate why relativity works. Matter and energy do not tell A spacetime how to curve but how to flatten and expand inside a three-dimensional framework... Well at least that's what I'm working on
🤔🤔🤔 🤨! Bravo! You've obviously got the goods but you're awfully close to going over the edge and not being able to connect to regular people anymore, carry on but don't lose sight of the little guy, we need their support and they deserve to understand what the heck they're paying for! 😁👍🤓🤓🤓🤓
You've lost grip on reality, mate. I hope for your sake you can let go of this "theory" of yours. At least don't make room on the shelf for your Nobel Price, just yet.....
Time: In PicoPhysics we have two related chronological parameters. While time is distance between events; Samay is distance between Instants. All events constituting an instant are simultaneous. The kenergy konservation is studied with reference to instant.
ive suggested that scientists of the last 50 years might as well be arguing for the existence of gods, theologists practically. To all intents and puposes 90% of science should be bout the here and now relevant to the lives we actually experience
I on the other hand found the sounds hilarious, and the lecture super interesting!! As a layperson with a basic understanding of the differences (and irreconcilability) between Relativity & quantum mechanics, and only heard about LQG without knowing the ins and outs, this lecture really easy to follow. Thank you!!
At about 17:00, his logic about the twin lightning bolts is flawed. What he is describing is his perception of when the bolts struck. He hasn't changed when they actually struck, only when he thinks they did. I'm not a physicist; I don't know if his conclusion is right. But his *explanation* is leakier than a colander.
This is actually wrong. You see, you are the only one who sees the lightning striking at the same time if you assume you are standing on flat ground, equally far apart from each lightning strike, each bolt coming straight down. Any other observer at any other position would say they saw the lightning strike at different times. Maybe because they were traveling like the one he gave in the lecture, maybe because they were closer to one than the other, maybe because of spacetime warping. All the possible observers can't possibly agree on the time difference between when they happened. Heck, some observers may say they only saw one lightning bolt strike, but not the other you are talking about. Because there are so many ways of measuring this event, but all are consistent with one another.
ConanOfOz, the point is that you fundamentally cannot tell. It’s not a mere matter of perspective. Since there is no preferred reference frame, no two observers will necessarily agree on which lightning strike happens first. Each observer’s observation is equally “privileged” and thus equally valid.
@@revanwallace But he never justifies or explains why each person's frame is equally valid and why there's no universal frame of reference in which we could talk about simultaneous events. It is a bad explanation of a valid concept.
@@DavidBeaumont Well, it's only a one hour video. You could spend an entire hour going back to the 1887 Michelson-Morely experiment which proved definitively there is no preferred inertial frame of reference in which simultaneity is unambiguous. The "failure" of the Michelson-Morely experiment to find a preferred frame (the so-called "aether") is what inspired Einstein to formulate his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, which assumed that there CANNOT be a preferred inertial frame, based on sound experimental evidence. But if there is no preferred inertial frame of reference, then we have to give up on the Cartesian notion that simultaneity (and time in general) are absolute concepts regardless of relative motion of the various observers. This would be a lot for an hour. Nevertheless, it is precisely correct to state that each person's (inertial) frame of reference is equally valid, and that there is no universal (inertial) frame.
Indeed, his explanation is wrong, I think he mixed up which observer was supposed to be him. I'll try to explain it a little more clearly. Let's say we have person A standing still half way between the lightning bolts. From his point of view they hit at the same time, and then the light from both takes the same time to reach him so he sees both flashes at the same time. Now, from the moving person's point of view he is stationary, while person A and the lightning bolts are all moving together. Since person A saw the light at the same time, that is a single well defined point in both space and time and so from person B's point of view the flashes still reach person A at the same time. But since light moves at a constant speed we now have a problem, because in the moving perspective person A is moving towards one lightning bolt and away from the other. So when you calculate the speed of approach his movement is added to the speed of light in one case and subtracted in the other. Person A is still half way between the lightning strikes, so the conclusion is that the one on the right had to flash before the one on the left to give the light the correct amount of time to travel and reach person A together. The time delay for the light flashes to travel to the moving person B is completely irrelevant to the problem, even after correcting for that A and B will still disagree on when the flashes were emitted.
I appreciate that physicists are trying to sort out space. Perhaps in the future they will be able to give it its own name and our common description of space as a gap between objects will carry on unimpeded and the phrase, "empty space", will be tacitly understood. As for time, I consider it a condition for existence, no matter how small or how short the duration. At any level, the nature of existence is time. If a bit of nature pops out of existence, then time can cease for that bit. But, I'm not a physicist nor mathematician and don't have to concern myself with those things.
As usual, excellent treatment with all the depth you can get without going numerical (or symbolic). Good job Jim. By the way I could do without the sound effects - it cheapens the exposition and may startle some.
But the sound effects help us to understand what a bolt of lightning is. Lightning is just the same as the Big Bounce. I've finally nailed this subject.
If there is an analogue to photons, called gravitons, that transmit gravity the way photons transmit electromagnetism, and a black hole is a place where light can not escape from, then how can gravitons escape from it, so that its presence can be felt by other objects in the universe?
if space has gravity waves, space would be like a 3d ocean's top in my head. those waves should overlap even over themselves. would that create a "void" inside space? since the "void" would be "empty" it would not be able to break through the "fabric" of space, creating a outward expanding pressure inside the void. the void could still be shaped by gravitational effects causing it to be lumpy, smooth or both. could this be "dark energy" or "dark matter"?
(1) why should a wave overlap with itself? What does that mean? (2) the waves would not create a void, no. It's just rippling. Does the ocean surface create a void? You can only have a large ripple in one direction or a large ripple in another, or no ripple at all (constructive and destructive interference). (3) dark matter seems to be a particle, so you would have to have a stationary gravitational wave, which now that I think about it, is an interesting idea, but I'm quite sure it isn't a viable candidate for dark matter.
wish there was more context and explanation -- for example, its clear as mud how Einstein concluded space-time was curved based off his thought experiments involving relative motion....
The moment i open my eyes, i observe what i see, by observing, i am entangled to all that i observe, entangled quantum systems shares information. Tesla gave us a hint, think in matter of frequencies, energy and vibration. When you vibrate on the right frequencies, your energy then fuels into your entangled surroundings, this is basic quantum mechanics at work. You observe, and by observing in synchronization with your internal frequencies, vibration and energy, as you start to observe with this framework perspective in mind, play around a bit until you notice certain external responses to based on which frequencies you vibrate on. Map out which 'strings' effect different mechanics in your immediate surrounding, eventually you can then start working on engineering that which you observe. Fun little mental play to start practice the new art of quantum sciences. Be advised, most quantum scientists advanced in the field go a little ''crazy'' with all its new implications on reality as we 'understood' it, It is said that when you truly understand quantum sciences and how it all relates to your reality, then how could you not go a little ''crazy'' heh. But get out there, experiment with entanglement and the ripples you create by simple quantum mechanical engineering techniques, and look for immediate responses, which all depends on your current perspective / framework, and to which frequency you are vibrating on (frequency and vibration can translate to thought and emotion), and if your energies are positively charged, then that which is entangled, will be positively charged as well, making positive responses to that which is entangled by you, based on the framework perspective in focus and so on, It is you who decides when things entangle, by observing that which you want to entangle. Something to think about at least. I may not have put it perfectly, but that is basically how to start experiment with the quantum reality we live in. Good day, and may your science research go with ease, think of how the sciences apply to reality, because if you can't visualize what is said, and not connect it to reality, then you may have a harder time understanding what is being said by these top scientists in the quantum field, it all sounds like nonsense, until you understand how it relates to reality, then the game begins. Good luck out there, all the answers you seek are already here, it is just spread out over several different theories, but if you combine some of the latest theories, you will see the big picture of how this is all connected. A unifying theory is coming. Understand the observer can chose what to observe, before observing it, with these simple techniques. Farewell Traveler.
Equivalence of gravity and acceleration: In picophysics first we explain formation of particles with its constituent space and Kenergy, and consequent interaction among themselves and space and quants.
It's probably an old habit he still uses of waking up sleeping first year physics students(?) (I agree, not necessary and annoying.) But who's going to knock this guy; great lecture.
A poor lecture. His sfx are there for entertainment - while he dances fluidly around topics he barely touches. One of The BEST scientific dancers I’ve ever seen! Turn off the audio, and you’ll learn even more!
While considering the center of gravity for quantum particles it struck me, how do you define the center of gravity of a quantum particle that is showing super positioning? if you are not able to point the center due to super positioning then general relativity should also not be able to predict the precise motion since it cannot fix the center point gravity originate. In essence center of gravity would be smeared to a region of space of probability reducing the total gravitational force which should reduce the total equation of force between two masses since neither masses has a center of gravity in a quantum sense, only a region dictated by super positioning.
The vacuum of space is one big quantum wave, the stars and the planets are the collapsed super positional particles. For example, neutrinos may be a super position we create under observation, when we are not looking the neutrinos revert back to the wave function.
Interesting lecture, but spoiled by very silly and totally unnecessary audio 'effects'. Luckily they are mainly during the first ten minutes and only make one appearance later on, but the presentation would have been improved if they had never been used at all.
I'm not expert on this and don't know how the super computer works mathematically but didn't we quantize the space ourselves when we put the gluons and quarks on a lattice for lattice quantum chromodynamics which could give the appearance of quantified space?
If space is quantized, then wouldn't time have to be quantized as well? It seems impossible that there could be a unit of time below which change is unobservable because you can always move closer to the change, since light has no 3rd dimension. Light should always be able to reflect off an object no matter how close the observation is. How, then, could there be a unit of space-time below which change ceases to be discernable?
At the quantic level, time is undistinguishable from space since every particle moves at speed c, that is, the amount of Planck's length units displaced equals the amount of Planck's time units required.
Lord Rutherford when told that British physicists were ambivalent about relativity theory is reported to have quipped that 'they have too much common sense to buy into it'. Misguided, but funny.
The most intuitive way to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel. And given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, we can imagine that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?
“People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but **actually** from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly… time-y wimey… stuff.” -- The Doctor Well, someone had to put it in
To continue your research, I have impression particles maybe are made by gravity-loops, because mass is making deficit of space-time around it. However, does it consuming or restructures gravity knots when moving through the space as Earth around the Sun? How then the space curvature is constructed and have acceleration effect?
Einstein was very careful not to say that "light waves ARE particles", its better to think of them being neither of these extreme states/images, but being mere quantes which properties allow to "behave" similar to waves/particles
Unfortunately for you he did say just that in his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, when he assigned corpuscular position properties to photons. That was his actual biggest blunder. And, no, quanta do not behave either like particles or waves at any time. They always behave like quanta, the majority of mankind, you included, is just not capable of leaving the false dichotomy fallacy behind.
He says "there are no infinities in nature." Then he says "maybe the universe began with a bounce rather than a bang." Pardon me if I am missing something, but the bouncing universe cosmology implies an infinity of Time... right?
It implies that time isnt even in the equation. "Frozen time issues" basically space with out mass outside of quantum would be so small in distance time is irrelevant. And its sort of an oxymoron like the quotes at the end implies.
if time is a consequence of inflation, then the start of the "bounce" is without time, and time starts again in the next cycle. It could be an infinite cycle but I don't think that's the kind of infinity he's talking about.
Stunning. Absolutly stunning. The way you do the trick Sir is excellent. This is how you recognize a great mind!!! I'm a physicist myself as a graduate years ago and must say some ideas I' ve never even heard of.
For the many people like me, a lecturer covering 'basic' physics is good, because we then progress a degree further, every time, in our understanding of it and this was really needed when he began to speak about this quantum theory of space (-time..+time..0 time?), to oppose string theory and the multi-verse, which I think is ridiculous. I much prefer this one.
Mr. Baggott, a very nice lecture which captures ones attention based on its well put together content alone... Random sound effects at blasting volume are awkward and cringe worthy, so it might be best for you to leave those out of your next PowerPoint.
Why not publish an example of adjusting time-space for a satellite and how QG does it without time? History is but a wish for what never really was; theoretically?
Yes, I wish he had explained the example he gave of satellites being out 11 km/day a bit more thoroughly too. But that sort of goes with the woolliness of the whole lecture, doesn't it?
I think he might mean that at an instantaneous small quantum level if objects are stationary then its either or time versus space because like electrical imopedance bridges one variable must be diminished to insignificant to write the classical mechanics equation. That is position equals some simplified expression.
I have a small problem. Maybe someone can help me with it. Ernestine said that gravity is a warping of space-time and therefore not a force. But if it is not a force what forces the scale down when I buy my apples?
Jim Baggot is a physicist and physicists make their living by reading, thinking and giving lectures about the nature of the universe. I could not stand the pace of this lecture since I knew where he was leading and what he was going to say about 5 minutes before he said it. So I fast forwarded though a good chunk of it. The lecture wasn't terrible but I didn't think there was any enthusiasm for what he was saying. Just another day at the office to bring home another paycheck.
Throughout, actually; and it makes me wonder why. i can’t blame it on the audience. it must be in the delivery. i’m very sympathetic, though, as whatever intangible speaking skills he lacks, i lack as well. Whenever i’m speaking and try to evoke a particular response, i nearly always fail. i think his success rate in this lecture was pretty close to 0.000 There HAVE been a few times, though, when things have magically worked as planned. It’s unpredictable, however.
The reason the sound effects are disruptive is because they are crudely imposed upon the audio mix. By contrast, Baggott's voice is well-balanced acoustically, with a timbre and reverberance that sounds appropriate for this type of lecture hall. The sound effects are not only excessively loud, they lack the acoustic depth needed to make them sound like they're actually occuring in this particular room. Baggott's lecture was thoughtful and well-presented, it's too bad he didn't have assistance from an audio engineer to better integrate the sound effects.
I can never figure out: when he (or physicists in general) speak of electron "spin" and them having a magnetic field that points "up" or "down": up or down with respect to WHAT? Same with "up" and "down" quarks. Up or down with respect to WHAT? Why/how would, say, all "up quarks" have the same orientation? It doesn't really make sense. Wouldn't their orientation be more or less random?
"A mathematician may say anything he pleases, but a physicist must be at least partly sane." - J. Willard Gibbs (thermodynamics) “Today's 'scientists' have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” -- Nikola Tesla (father of the twentieth century)
+jordan cox - YOU are no authority on Tesla. and the MAIN point Tesla was making is valid, regardless. mathematical modeling is NOT science, nor is it reality. an untestable proposition is NOT a theory, NOR is it SCIENCE. "Insofar as mathematics describes reality, it is not certain. Insofar as it is certain, it does not describe reality." -- A. Einstein
@@johnmichael1594 I didnt say mathematical modeling was science. Tesla's statement was made in the context of General Relativity which already had experimental evidence in its favor by the time his statement was made.
+jordan cox - sorry, but you're wrong. there is not, nor has there ever been experimental evidence that exclusively OR conclusively supports SRT or GRT. the widely touted observations by eddington of stars during the solar eclipse a century ago were deliberately fudged to support einstein. they were immediately called into question, and the consensus of everyone who has since reviewed the raw data is that they are simply FAR too poor to say one way OR the other. more recent observations are NOT exactly consistent with the predictions of SRT/GRT, and there are numerous other SIMPLER (Occam's Razor) explanations that are also a better fit to the raw data, foremost, photons have mass (easily calculated by anyone with a high school physics education). therefore the gravity of the sun simply deflects the photons (and suddenly there is no need for the oxymoronic concept of curved nothingness). as for experimentally observed time dilation (clocks on satellites), there are numerous and SIMPLER (remember Occam?) explanations that account for that. if you are not just an illiterate clod with a hare-brained opinion on a subject you are utterly incompetent to comment upon, i highly recommend you read "Old Physics For New" by Dr. Thomas E. Phipps, Jr. it is not only a thorough deconstruction of SRT that clearly points out the gigantic errors in einstein's math, it also points the way to remedying them. it's very comprehensive and clear, that is, if you can manage the multivariable calculus and partial differential equations. if you can't, then i really don't think you are qualified to express an opinion on the matter. but that probably won't stop you, will it?
Quantum sciences are truly unique, and a fascinating example of how far science will go in its demand for answers to the currently inexplicable. Quantum Science is the ultimate expression of a curiosity driven pursuit of knowledge. So much so, that it's the only area of science that invents its own reality. No other science discusses components that we cannot prove exist. It's a study largely based in imagination as opposed to facts. The fact that it spawned its own math, and its own relative physical world (ie "quarks", which are entirely theoretical with no evidence of existing) makes quantum sciences very much like a religion... we believe what we choose to believe.
That progression thru the coordinate scales was painful. After too many examples he says "you can see where I am going with this", then proceeds to give yet more examples :-(
Jim Baggott could have done vastly better in making things understandable, for instance by explaining that if not for the quantization of spacetime, any pair of particles, like 2 protons on a collision course, could collide at zero distance, in a duration of zero time, which would represent an _infinite power level,_ and thus create a tiny black hole. Such a small black hole would immediately evaporate, due to Hawking radiation. In that process, the protons would be destroyed, and what came back out could be (and likely _would_ be) something entirely different, like a bunch of electrons, positrons, and photons. That would make stars impossible, and we would not be around to think about anything. Therefore, quantization of spacetime is essential to the sort of universe we see, and perhaps to any sort of universe whatsoever.
If you already listened countless talks about general relativity you can skip to 38:00
You can skip it altogether, I'd say.
Thanks, I was just about to post the same thing.
well that's just GREAT! i was at 36:24 when i read this. and considering i already had a decent understanding (for a non-physicist) of everything up to that point, it makes it sting just a little bit more. i almost aborted the mission because i wasn't hearing anything i hadn't already heard somewhere else. [note to self: read a few comments before committing to a 30+ minute presentation about quantum physics.]
How dare he present information that you people at the center of the universe already know? Physicists should consult with you when preparing public lectures.
@@fascistpedant758 i know, right?
I've watched RI lectures since I can't remember (I'm 64). Jim carefully talked his presentation through in such a way that I heard and could digest every word. Perhaps the sound effects weren't necessary, but otherwise he managed to avoid any other dramatic concessions. For an interested layman, I've never seen a better lecture on this or any other subject. Thank you.
ಏಏ
ಐಐಐಏ
The sfx were totally unnecessary and annoying. Therefore, I'll never know how it ended.
I am in no way a mathematician! I just am fascinated by quantum theory etc. and this was outstanding!
I agree. It is a great lecture!
For those familiar with history of physics, loop quantum gravity starts at 36:00
Thx
Hero
"To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour." William Blake
Life is like a box of chocolates
Forret gump.
Great quote!.
It’s a state of mind..
You know he took LSD right? 🍄🐛🦋🌈❤
@@vicioussyd6870 too oo onn7n7n7n7n7n7n7n77n77n7n7n7n77n7n7n7n7n7nn7n7n7n7777n7n7n7n7n7n7
He has a wonderful talent for making these extremely difficult concepts (somewhat) understandable while putting the listener at ease about not totally understanding it.😊
As a layman, I found your lecture fascinating. The sound effects were quite alarming; especially for someone who's profoundly deaf in one ear. What sounds I can hear, are extremely distorted and Dalek like. Needless to say, I jumped quiet a few times 🤣.
I'll have to watch the video a few more times. Some of the concepts you introduce, are really hard to get one's head around. They simply don't comport to our everyday perception of space and time. As I said, the lecture was fascinating, thank you for sparking my curiosity 😀.
I guess the first half rehash is unavoidable, but the second half was highly effective in guiding me towards a better understanding of the big picture. Cheers to all involved in producing this little gem !
brb skipping to the second half lol
I like the rehash, it may make total sense one of these days😂
This is no surprise to me after all I have read about quantum mechanics and fields, etc.. Physicists have been working towards this for years. Nice to see it getting explained.
The closed captions (subtitles to you Brits) are great and error-free! Thank you, Royal Institution, for the captions, and the caption representation of the sound effects is helpful. Nothing wrong with those sound effects if they make the lecture interesting.
We try our best to make our videos as accessible as possible, thank you for your kinds words.
The sound effects should have at least been normalized in post production. Absolutely awful. Completely attention-breaking and pointless.
@@TheRoyalInstitution If we can wish for anything, a de-esser at the end would have helped to on all the sssss sounds ;)
Other than that, great talk!
I am Shon Mardani, this is my Unifying Theory Of Everything, please let me know what you think,
[GOD] Created NOTHING, a Void Point in Space.
NOTHING Attracts [neighboring] Space, as the Only Law of The Nature, that gave the NOTHING its Property to be the GRAVITATIONAL PARTICLE (GP).
Fast Moving Space into GP, Creates its own GP at the [vacated] Space and attracts the Surrounding Space.
Propagation of the GPs in Cyclic Patterns Creates EVERYTHING.
The Patterns' Frequencies in addition to to the Direction of GP Propagation are Observed as the Properties of the Matter, including Weight/Mass/Gravity, Magnetism, Electricity, Heat, Light and Color.
Someone somewhere is working hard to truly push this information into a new era of experience and conductivity! We can help by learning and pushing toward our own goals, no matter how small or large they may be! Cheers to the Roaring 20’s as they happen!
So excited to see where all of this information heads 🧘🏽♂️🕰❤️
To anyone complaining for little details as the sound effects... Why don't you just say Thank you Jim for your time and the lecture? Those people who ONLY criticize instead of being grateful are usually the ones that never contribute with anything in this world, but are always ready to find mistakes and wrong in what the other are doing. If you are so perfect, why don't you do a presentation as this one? It is very easy to criticize, but hard to recognize the effort and contribution of others...
Very sad reality :-( Please, do not criticize now my English, it is my third language :-)
Well said!!!
Ditto that: baby!
Because if nobody tells him the sound effects were grating and obnoxious, he won't know that people didn't like them. Constructive criticism isn't a bad thing.
People can know there's a problem without being able to deliver the solution. You'd be absolutely livid if your car broke down, and you took it to a mechanic who fixed it, but now the turn signal activates a horn in the cabin every time it lights up, and the mechanic told you that if you don't like their fix, you should do it yourself.
People can criticize and being nice at the same time. At least thanks him for the presentation, then... Suggest him the improvement.
Thanks isn't necessary for criticism to be warranted or polite. I couldn't enjoy it with the sound effects, and I don't feel that thanks are in order, but it's also not rude or incorrect to not thank someone for something you didn't need or enjoy.
Save yourself a half hour and skip ahead to 35:46, if you already have a cursory understanding of special relativity, general relativity and the inception of Quantum Mechanics.
His melancholy is delighting.
This was such a fantastic explanation. I've watched several videos on loop quantum gravity and I believe this one to be the best so far.
Yeah but it's all a bit contradictory, it's still - this should work cos every other explanation is even worse/less believable...
You understand that' quantum' is the Latin word for how much?
I'll believe it when they make their first warp drive....
If I were to take the diplomatic route, I'd say that as a speaker this guy is a great writer.
Zzzz oop thing about public speaking....it absolutely is.
You’re too generous. He’s one of the best scientific dancers I’ve EVER seen! He dances around topics, with such fluidity....
Frankly, he’s an entertainer who’s memorized stories of science. Better to stay away, if you desire to learn. Nothing like that in his performances.
Yeah because you can surely do better. Right?
Well, actually, there are points where I'd wish he'd go slower. I bet even regular physicists get slightly boggled when they consider the implications of ordinary on ordinary observations like the simultaneous lightning strikes NOT being as simple as they appear.
Don't know what happened to my grammar there!
Thanks!
WOW Dr. Baggott, thank you so much for the crystal clear explanation. I see Smolin changed his mind about Time, much to Professor Rovelli's annoyance, I suppose. Furthermore, as a layperson, I just hope one day to see string theorists and LQG supporters publicly confront each other, comparing ideas instead of filling square meters of blackboard with math....as I must confess I'm still unable to understand the substantial differences between the two approaches to the problem.
He said there were three approaches to get quantum mechanics and relativity to work together. One way s to just start again. Another is to assume quantum mechanics is correct and try and make gravity and relativity emerge from it: this is string theory. String theory says all particles are made up of strings vibrating in different ways. It also suggests a multiverse, where different universes like ours have different landscapes for the strings to vibrate on. For example, imagine in ours the strings wiggle on a flat table, in another the table is at an angle, causing the strings to wiggle differently, in another they wiggle on a wobbly surface. These different methods of vibration lead to different particles and different laws of physics.
Another, third method, is to quantise gravity: this is loop quantum gravity. Einstein's relativity assumes space is infinitely divisible, but quantum mechanics doesn't like this: the Planck length is the smallest length possible. This LQG makes a new framework for what space and time is, (that graph network thing he talked about) and tries to make quantum mechanics appear out of it.
stop wasting minds on string theory altogetherId say, its little more than fantasy make believe
at 52:51 "Fluctuations in quantum space create the appearance of time."
How can you possibly have fluctuations without having time to begin with?
@@johnmpjkken3261 Seems nonsensical. Light moves through space. Light of a given frequency has so many oscillations per second. Therefore there is time in open space.
I mean, you'd have to ask him to elaborate. Time to you means what it does to you, to him it may mean something entirely different. If quantum fluctuation are independent of time, as they would have to be otherwise space-time couldn't be a field, then I don't see why fluctuations couldn't be the cause of time. I'm not saying he's right, but I am saying he isn't instantly wrong because your understanding of time is different.
quantum fluctuation may be a ripple of what was there before our universe caused time.
I'm sure he really understands what he's talking about. You would probably have to ask him yourself.
well you aren't supposed to have infinites either so lots of these ideas are based in mathematical proofs not so-called observably persistent illusions
At one point you mentioned that the loops are not in space but are space. 2 questions - what is in between each loop,
and what is in between from where you are looking and the loop you are observing?
There is nothing between the loops. It is how they are connected which makes up the "fabric" of spacetime. Drawing everything in the same place looks confusing.
The Seagull88
Maybe try this?: Light is quantized into photons and yet can usually be perceived and measured as an uninterrupted beam. But since proven to be existing in quanta, must be going on and off in between each photon quanta. If space itself is ever proven to be quantized, asking what is in between is nonsense since there would be no “place” to be “in between”. Best way I can perceive an answer. (shrugs)
@@briandeschene8424 Haramein explains ( but I just mention this !! I do NOT say that I am a believer of his theories !! ) how the Planck quantas are related one to another ..... and how they should interact .... fascinating stuff everywhere !!!
Loved this presentation, I put it at 1.25x speed like the other comments suggested, not sure why everyone is griping about the SFx, I can’t watch regular science shows anymore, I only digest lectures from theoretical physicists. Loop quantum gravity is an alternative to string theory , I recommend Brian Greene’s “the elegant universe” for more on gravity and quantum mechanics. Thanks for posting this RI.
Because you're laying in bed deep in thought enjoying the lecture while you drift off and are suddenly assaulted and jolted by a distorted sound effect of someone screaming.
If there's one thing that gets me mad, Jim, it's 'Don't worry about ...', since usually, that's exactly where I do want to go. Not understanding it, means it's what I need to find out about. That aside, an interesting and well-presented talk; thanks. And yes, Jim, I've bought several of your books, the latest included. Be bold, bloody and brave with the next one - and put the damn math in!! I'm sure I'm not the only one with that feeling. Hawking's editor who said every equation halves the sales, was an - ok, let's just say, was misguided.
We need an audio peak compressor.
And a de-esser with some noise cleaning, these frequencies are pretty annoying...
you can get an equalizer app .
What about dark matter and you have to take an account dark matter an expansion of space and time
And also take an account that particles do have mass
I should correct that some particls have mass
Thank you for this; I've been looking for years for a clear explanation of LQG and now I've found it!
The explanation that the gluon network holding the colored quarks together "snap" doesn't explain why quarks can't be separated. The explanation that the force needed to separate quarks would be enough to create a similar particle kind of does.
Really enjoyed the way Dr Baggot covered all this. Very interesting.
This guy officially melted my brain.
LOL so funny
"...have you heard the new album of Cosmic Metronome, Jim..."
Brilliant! Thank you mr Baggott and RI for another excellent talk.
15:24 jeeez thanks for scaring my dog LOUD
RI is a great institution! Humanity at its finest :) I was never really good at physics in high school, but I feel I have gained great insight and understanding by watching these really intuitive lectures. Brian Cox had similar great lectures and TV series. SciShow and similar RUclips shows are similar great resources. I wish I had them when I was in high school in the 90s. Then again it's never too late to learn.
I'm currently pursuing a master's in public health and I love it though it would be even better if I had scholarship :) It is nice to see how biology, physics, chemistry and psychology intersect. To understand the universe and use that understanding to make a difference.
I would love to see a lecture live in person someday.
Intersect... eh.. They're really all subsets of physics
The question about the twin bolts is answered by understanding that relative to speed is distance, as you travel from left to right you shorten the distance from one volt and increased the distance from the other, if you do the math and sum the total speed and distance of the man standing still and the one moving they both get the light in the same relative time. The reason why man has not found the secrets of space and time is its ego, we seem to belive everything is made for us and when we find something that does not behave acordingly to our ego, it is discarted.
[... they both get the light in the same relative time.]
The person moving did not
55:24 'a single proton contains about 10^65 quantum of volume'. Quite a lot. And proton is small as hell.
15:50 The thunder effect is pushing the words of the speaker into the noise floor. Needs subtitles badly. There were missed words.
(Edit: On second thought, it might not have anything to do with the noise floor; it could just be a software thing. But the point still stands.) (Edit2: Clarification: There are subtitles available, but it looks like they're based on the audio from the video, and are therefore useless, as they include the sound effect as well.)
Unfortunately they were embedded into the presentation, we didn't add them in afterwards.
some horrific sound effects there
@Sunamer Z më nnk p bb
I fell asleep to my RUclips channel doing it's auto-thing. That scream sound effect was not pleasant to wake up to.
Regarding the lightning bolts experiment, it's easier to imagine you staying at first in the middle between them, and starting to run the same time they hit. Think about the fact that photons are speeding away from the left bolt, and you are trying to run away from them (towards the right bolt) at a fraction of their speed. This means you have time to cover some small distance before they hit you. On the contrary, the photons from the right run in the opposite direction, thus they will reach you a lot faster.
I stopped for a while to think about this - because I'm not that bright (pun intended) - and I hope that this will help some other people as well.
Lol not that bright pun
47:00 knot quantum gravity could possibly be the greatest misleading physics term if they went with that.
lmao... it is pretty accurate.
Punny Physics.. XD
@@Cyberplayer5 Nuance... smh.
For the love of Jebus. Lmao
I doubt spacetime is quantized because quantized values are conserved physical quantities. Relativity has shown us that spacetime is not a conserved quantity. But, since everything we use to make observations is quantized, spacetime could appear quantized to an observer.
A little circular but correct nonetheless, good show!
Excellent lecture! I loved every minute of it. A hearty thank you to Dr. Baggott and the RI. I can't recall ever meeting a RI lecture I didn't enjoy.
Oh you, flattery will get you everywhere.
Baggott's "Interpretation of Quantum Theory" is the clearest book on the topic I have ever read.
Jim “Don’t look for them, you won’t find them” Baggott
This had me cracking up
Fascinating. The immediate problem that springs to mind with this theory is the apparent expansion of the universe. If space is quantum in nature, what is expansion? It can't be the increasing in volume of one quantum of space, otherwise Planck's constant isn't so constant. So are new quanta of space being created?
Another question I have is... if space is quantum in nature, does energy occupy space, or displace it?
A wonderful lecture. I found it extremely educational. I love the presentation style.
Me too. I just love listening to calm people. And also, he is actually entertaining. He doesn't need to insist upon himself.
Lord of the Rings reference was spot on.
Sadowfax was like a force of nature, riden by Gandalf one of the Ainur a race of beings from before the creaton of the World, also a fundamental power.
J.R.R Tolkein was a master story teller.
Jim mentions the Queen Elizabeth Engineering Prize as being awarded 'today'. The award to Parkinson, Spilker, FrueHauf, and Schwartz was announced 12 February 2019. This lecture and that announcement were simultaneous -- unless you're moving very fast.
I wasn't moving very fast, the rest of you were moving very fast! 😋
@33:45 if recombination should be called combination, then the fotons are leased in this act, not released.
..coat..
set to 1.25 speed. I could really do without his SFX
Yes.
Thank you
He sounds remarkably natural at 1.25x, but ridiculously too fast at 1.5x
lol you snails, 2x is the only speed I can watch RI lectures anymore XD
Can I ask what does SFX mean? Thanks.
Thanks!!
Excellent explanation of where physics stands and how we got here.
This is unimaginably awesome lecture where things I could not understand in the past were described so simply and clearly that I understood them all. Woah, just wow!
I've been working on a hypothesis to try to nail down why we can't get this right. it seems to me that space itself is not quantized, but finite.
As energy enters a given plank volume, that volume size should expand and flatten, up to a certain point, based on the amount of energy provided in said space.
Time is just the perception of energy moving through space. As energy passes through space it flattens and expands creating a lower potential energy location at the center of the coordinate and sense energy takes the path of least action, that would be the most probable, but not only, path energy can move thru that space.
a black hole is just merely the maximum capacity that space can flatten and we perceive the 6 dimensional object as a 3 dimensional shadow of fully flattened and expanded plank volumes of space filled with energy.
Although they tested the idea for loop quantum gravity space being quantized, I believe the assumption that they use for that experiment was that those quantized bits are not malleable.
However relativity has shown us that space dynamic.
It would seem to me that if we could figure a way to see how much energy it takes to expand and flatten space per unit of energy, we may be able to extrapolate why relativity works.
Matter and energy do not tell A spacetime how to curve but how to flatten and expand inside a three-dimensional framework...
Well at least that's what I'm working on
🤔🤔🤔 🤨!
Bravo! You've obviously got the goods but you're awfully close to going over the edge and not being able to connect to regular people anymore, carry on but don't lose sight of the little guy, we need their support and they deserve to understand what the heck they're paying for!
😁👍🤓🤓🤓🤓
You've lost grip on reality, mate.
I hope for your sake you can let go of this "theory" of yours.
At least don't make room on the shelf for your Nobel Price, just yet.....
No need for the sound fx/ naive graphics. but otherwise excellent.
59:34 Dividing by such a small number means that _S_ is *GINORMOUS.*
I almost wanted to hit the desk for him at least once! hahaah, I love this talk. thanks so much for sharing....
love it.. again and again....
Time: In PicoPhysics we have two related chronological parameters. While time is distance between events; Samay is distance between Instants. All events constituting an instant are simultaneous. The kenergy konservation is studied with reference to instant.
Best Ri lecture ever? Certainly a contender.
Could have done without the sound effects though.
Great lecturer who knows about microphones and good audio.....brilliant !
7:16 "This is a theory for which there is no empirical evidence to support it"
Almost like an ... hypothesis? :D
I think his point was that we shouldn't let string theorists get away with claiming it is the ONLY hypothesis.
Actually hypotheses often have some non conclusive evidence or observations. This isn’t even an hypothesis. This is just speculation.
ive suggested that scientists of the last 50 years might as well be arguing for the existence of gods, theologists practically. To all intents and puposes 90% of science should be bout the here and now relevant to the lives we actually experience
Granjacia we do experience gravity. And space.
@@dontwatchthat8933 lol I meant things like multiverses etc. Simply fruitless ;)
I on the other hand found the sounds hilarious, and the lecture super interesting!!
As a layperson with a basic understanding of the differences (and irreconcilability) between Relativity & quantum mechanics, and only heard about LQG without knowing the ins and outs, this lecture really easy to follow.
Thank you!!
At about 17:00, his logic about the twin lightning bolts is flawed. What he is describing is his perception of when the bolts struck. He hasn't changed when they actually struck, only when he thinks they did.
I'm not a physicist; I don't know if his conclusion is right. But his *explanation* is leakier than a colander.
This is actually wrong. You see, you are the only one who sees the lightning striking at the same time if you assume you are standing on flat ground, equally far apart from each lightning strike, each bolt coming straight down.
Any other observer at any other position would say they saw the lightning strike at different times.
Maybe because they were traveling like the one he gave in the lecture, maybe because they were closer to one than the other, maybe because of spacetime warping.
All the possible observers can't possibly agree on the time difference between when they happened.
Heck, some observers may say they only saw one lightning bolt strike, but not the other you are talking about.
Because there are so many ways of measuring this event, but all are consistent with one another.
ConanOfOz, the point is that you fundamentally cannot tell. It’s not a mere matter of perspective. Since there is no preferred reference frame, no two observers will necessarily agree on which lightning strike happens first. Each observer’s observation is equally “privileged” and thus equally valid.
@@revanwallace But he never justifies or explains why each person's frame is equally valid and why there's no universal frame of reference in which we could talk about simultaneous events. It is a bad explanation of a valid concept.
@@DavidBeaumont Well, it's only a one hour video. You could spend an entire hour going back to the 1887 Michelson-Morely experiment which proved definitively there is no preferred inertial frame of reference in which simultaneity is unambiguous. The "failure" of the Michelson-Morely experiment to find a preferred frame (the so-called "aether") is what inspired Einstein to formulate his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, which assumed that there CANNOT be a preferred inertial frame, based on sound experimental evidence. But if there is no preferred inertial frame of reference, then we have to give up on the Cartesian notion that simultaneity (and time in general) are absolute concepts regardless of relative motion of the various observers. This would be a lot for an hour. Nevertheless, it is precisely correct to state that each person's (inertial) frame of reference is equally valid, and that there is no universal (inertial) frame.
Indeed, his explanation is wrong, I think he mixed up which observer was supposed to be him. I'll try to explain it a little more clearly.
Let's say we have person A standing still half way between the lightning bolts. From his point of view they hit at the same time, and then the light from both takes the same time to reach him so he sees both flashes at the same time.
Now, from the moving person's point of view he is stationary, while person A and the lightning bolts are all moving together. Since person A saw the light at the same time, that is a single well defined point in both space and time and so from person B's point of view the flashes still reach person A at the same time.
But since light moves at a constant speed we now have a problem, because in the moving perspective person A is moving towards one lightning bolt and away from the other. So when you calculate the speed of approach his movement is added to the speed of light in one case and subtracted in the other. Person A is still half way between the lightning strikes, so the conclusion is that the one on the right had to flash before the one on the left to give the light the correct amount of time to travel and reach person A together.
The time delay for the light flashes to travel to the moving person B is completely irrelevant to the problem, even after correcting for that A and B will still disagree on when the flashes were emitted.
I appreciate that physicists are trying to sort out space. Perhaps in the future they will be able to give it its own name and our common description of space as a gap between objects will carry on unimpeded and the phrase, "empty space", will be tacitly understood. As for time, I consider it a condition for existence, no matter how small or how short the duration. At any level, the nature of existence is time. If a bit of nature pops out of existence, then time can cease for that bit. But, I'm not a physicist nor mathematician and don't have to concern myself with those things.
As usual, excellent treatment with all the depth you can get without going numerical (or symbolic). Good job Jim. By the way I could do without the sound effects - it cheapens the exposition and may startle some.
Jake LaBete the sounds effects are dumb and make it seem like they think we are dumb
But the sound effects help us to understand what a bolt of lightning is. Lightning is just the same as the Big Bounce. I've finally nailed this subject.
If there is an analogue to photons, called gravitons, that transmit gravity the way photons transmit electromagnetism, and a black hole is a place where light can not escape from, then how can gravitons escape from it, so that its presence can be felt by other objects in the universe?
Extremely good explanation! Thank you so much! I would love to see more lectures with Jim.
Have you seen the one he gave about Mass? It's also very good - ruclips.net/video/HfHjzomqbZc/видео.html
Define change. Define changing. Define language. Thinking and reason. Wisdom and information.
Now or link to a dictionary?
if space has gravity waves, space would be like a 3d ocean's top in my head. those waves should overlap even over themselves. would that create a "void" inside space? since the "void" would be "empty" it would not be able to break through the "fabric" of space, creating a outward expanding pressure inside the void. the void could still be shaped by gravitational effects causing it to be lumpy, smooth or both. could this be "dark energy" or "dark matter"?
(1) why should a wave overlap with itself? What does that mean? (2) the waves would not create a void, no. It's just rippling. Does the ocean surface create a void? You can only have a large ripple in one direction or a large ripple in another, or no ripple at all (constructive and destructive interference). (3) dark matter seems to be a particle, so you would have to have a stationary gravitational wave, which now that I think about it, is an interesting idea, but I'm quite sure it isn't a viable candidate for dark matter.
wish there was more context and explanation -- for example, its clear as mud how Einstein concluded space-time was curved based off his thought experiments involving relative motion....
The moment i open my eyes, i observe what i see, by observing, i am entangled to all that i observe, entangled quantum systems shares information. Tesla gave us a hint, think in matter of frequencies, energy and vibration. When you vibrate on the right frequencies, your energy then fuels into your entangled surroundings, this is basic quantum mechanics at work. You observe, and by observing in synchronization with your internal frequencies, vibration and energy, as you start to observe with this framework perspective in mind, play around a bit until you notice certain external responses to based on which frequencies you vibrate on. Map out which 'strings' effect different mechanics in your immediate surrounding, eventually you can then start working on engineering that which you observe. Fun little mental play to start practice the new art of quantum sciences. Be advised, most quantum scientists advanced in the field go a little ''crazy'' with all its new implications on reality as we 'understood' it, It is said that when you truly understand quantum sciences and how it all relates to your reality, then how could you not go a little ''crazy'' heh. But get out there, experiment with entanglement and the ripples you create by simple quantum mechanical engineering techniques, and look for immediate responses, which all depends on your current perspective / framework, and to which frequency you are vibrating on (frequency and vibration can translate to thought and emotion), and if your energies are positively charged, then that which is entangled, will be positively charged as well, making positive responses to that which is entangled by you, based on the framework perspective in focus and so on, It is you who decides when things entangle, by observing that which you want to entangle. Something to think about at least. I may not have put it perfectly, but that is basically how to start experiment with the quantum reality we live in. Good day, and may your science research go with ease, think of how the sciences apply to reality, because if you can't visualize what is said, and not connect it to reality, then you may have a harder time understanding what is being said by these top scientists in the quantum field, it all sounds like nonsense, until you understand how it relates to reality, then the game begins. Good luck out there, all the answers you seek are already here, it is just spread out over several different theories, but if you combine some of the latest theories, you will see the big picture of how this is all connected. A unifying theory is coming. Understand the observer can chose what to observe, before observing it, with these simple techniques. Farewell Traveler.
Equivalence of gravity and acceleration: In picophysics first we explain formation of particles with its constituent space and Kenergy, and consequent interaction among themselves and space and quants.
why the need for the sfx"soundeffects"? its so random
It's probably an old habit he still uses of waking up sleeping first year physics students(?) (I agree, not necessary and annoying.) But who's going to knock this guy; great lecture.
A poor lecture. His sfx are there for entertainment - while he dances fluidly around topics he barely touches.
One of The BEST scientific dancers I’ve ever seen! Turn off the audio, and you’ll learn even more!
10:48 "You are here" should be in the center since we are the center of our observable universe.
The universe is the center
Can we do an experiement like projectile using Quantum Gravity/Space ?
it seems fun to trace the path of a particle on the Quantized Space :)
While considering the center of gravity for quantum particles it struck me, how do you define the center of gravity of a quantum particle that is showing super positioning?
if you are not able to point the center due to super positioning then general relativity should also not be able to predict the precise motion since it cannot fix the center point gravity originate.
In essence center of gravity would be smeared to a region of space of probability reducing the total gravitational force which should reduce the total equation of force between two masses since neither masses has a center of gravity in a quantum sense, only a region dictated by super positioning.
I think you miss the fundamental essence of a quantem "particle"
god damn those audio fx effects
The vacuum of space is one big quantum wave, the stars and the planets are the collapsed super positional particles.
For example, neutrinos may be a super position we create under observation, when we are not looking the neutrinos revert back to the wave function.
Interesting lecture, but spoiled by very silly and totally unnecessary audio 'effects'. Luckily they are mainly during the first ten minutes and only make one appearance later on, but the presentation would have been improved if they had never been used at all.
Lol
I'm not expert on this and don't know how the super computer works mathematically but didn't we quantize the space ourselves when we put the gluons and quarks on a lattice for lattice quantum chromodynamics which could give the appearance of quantified space?
Definitely one of the best RI Talk I've heard!
If space is quantized, then wouldn't time have to be quantized as well? It seems impossible that there could be a unit of time below which change is unobservable because you can always move closer to the change, since light has no 3rd dimension.
Light should always be able to reflect off an object no matter how close the observation is.
How, then, could there be a unit of space-time below which change ceases to be discernable?
There is a Planck unit for time, as well as length and several other things. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
Jim Baggott, many Thanks: Great lecture!
At the quantic level, time is undistinguishable from space since every particle moves at speed c, that is, the amount of Planck's length units displaced equals the amount of Planck's time units required.
Relativity from the perspective of the British Empire: "I don't have a goofy accent, you have a goofy accent!"
Lord Rutherford when told that British physicists were ambivalent about relativity theory is reported to have quipped that 'they have too much common sense to buy into it'. Misguided, but funny.
@@jakelabete7412 they continued that ambivalence into COVID days
The most intuitive way to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel.
And given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, we can imagine that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?
If time exists then is it also quantum in nature? A time particle ? A time wave? A time field?
"Time is just one damn thing after another." 😎
“People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but **actually** from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly… time-y wimey… stuff.” -- The Doctor
Well, someone had to put it in
Or an emergent property of the expansion of space
Ιn all cases continuum implies infinity which leads to paradox... a whatever small period of time would consist of infinite moments of no duration...
To continue your research, I have impression particles maybe are made by gravity-loops, because mass is making deficit of space-time around it. However, does it consuming or restructures gravity knots when moving through the space as Earth around the Sun? How then the space curvature is constructed and have acceleration effect?
Try Milo Wolff Wave Structure of Matter.
Einstein was very careful not to say that "light waves ARE particles", its better to think of them being neither of these extreme states/images, but being mere quantes which properties allow to "behave" similar to waves/particles
Unfortunately for you he did say just that in his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, when he assigned corpuscular position properties to photons. That was his actual biggest blunder. And, no, quanta do not behave either like particles or waves at any time. They always behave like quanta, the majority of mankind, you included, is just not capable of leaving the false dichotomy fallacy behind.
He says "there are no infinities in nature." Then he says "maybe the universe began with a bounce rather than a bang."
Pardon me if I am missing something, but the bouncing universe cosmology implies an infinity of Time... right?
Now cant be if it is infinty before now.lol
It implies that time isnt even in the equation. "Frozen time issues" basically space with out mass outside of quantum would be so small in distance time is irrelevant. And its sort of an oxymoron like the quotes at the end implies.
if time is a consequence of inflation, then the start of the "bounce" is without time, and time starts again in the next cycle. It could be an infinite cycle but I don't think that's the kind of infinity he's talking about.
Stunning. Absolutly stunning. The way you do the trick Sir is excellent. This is how you recognize a great mind!!! I'm a physicist myself as a graduate years ago and must say some ideas I' ve never even heard of.
LOVE ALL THIS STUFF ..GREAT VID....
For the many people like me, a lecturer covering 'basic' physics is good, because we then progress a degree further, every time, in our understanding of it and this was really needed when he began to speak about this quantum theory of space (-time..+time..0 time?), to oppose string theory and the multi-verse, which I think is ridiculous. I much prefer this one.
Mr. Baggott, a very nice lecture which captures ones attention based on its well put together content alone... Random sound effects at blasting volume are awkward and cringe worthy, so it might be best for you to leave those out of your next PowerPoint.
Smart physicist yes, media specialist no. Lol
Why not publish an example of adjusting time-space for a satellite and how QG does it without time? History is but a wish for what never really was; theoretically?
John Holsen huh?
Yes, I wish he had explained the example he gave of satellites being out 11 km/day a bit more thoroughly too.
But that sort of goes with the woolliness of the whole lecture, doesn't it?
I think he might mean that at an instantaneous small quantum level if objects are stationary then its either or time versus space because like electrical imopedance bridges one variable must be diminished to insignificant to write the classical mechanics equation. That is position equals some simplified expression.
I have a small problem. Maybe someone can help me with it. Ernestine said that gravity is a warping of space-time and therefore not a force. But if it is not a force what forces the scale down when I buy my apples?
Excellent question.
How to stretch a 15 minute talk to an hour
How to complain about free educational materials
How to forget that science communication involves reteaching concepts some may already know to newer audiences
Ooo! Can you put it into a haiku?
Jim Baggot is a physicist and physicists make their living by reading, thinking and giving lectures about the nature of the universe. I could not stand the pace of this lecture since I knew where he was leading and what he was going to say about 5 minutes before he said it. So I fast forwarded though a good chunk of it. The lecture wasn't terrible but I didn't think there was any enthusiasm for what he was saying. Just another day at the office to bring home another paycheck.
20:40 tough crowd
Throughout, actually; and it makes me wonder why. i can’t blame it on the audience. it must be in the delivery. i’m very sympathetic, though, as whatever intangible speaking skills he lacks, i lack as well. Whenever i’m speaking and try to evoke a particular response, i nearly always fail. i think his success rate in this lecture was pretty close to 0.000
There HAVE been a few times, though, when things have magically worked as planned. It’s unpredictable, however.
The reason the sound effects are disruptive is because they are crudely imposed upon the audio mix. By contrast, Baggott's voice is well-balanced acoustically, with a timbre and reverberance that sounds appropriate for this type of lecture hall. The sound effects are not only excessively loud, they lack the acoustic depth needed to make them sound like they're actually occuring in this particular room. Baggott's lecture was thoughtful and well-presented, it's too bad he didn't have assistance from an audio engineer to better integrate the sound effects.
Clarity where I have never seen it before!
I can never figure out: when he (or physicists in general) speak of electron "spin" and them having a magnetic field that points "up" or "down": up or down with respect to WHAT? Same with "up" and "down" quarks. Up or down with respect to WHAT? Why/how would, say, all "up quarks" have the same orientation? It doesn't really make sense. Wouldn't their orientation be more or less random?
"A mathematician may say anything he pleases, but a physicist must be at least partly sane." - J. Willard Gibbs (thermodynamics)
“Today's 'scientists' have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” -- Nikola Tesla (father of the twentieth century)
Tesla also didn't believe in subatomic particles. Great man, but he's no authority on physics.
+jordan cox - YOU are no authority on Tesla. and the MAIN point Tesla was making is valid, regardless. mathematical modeling is NOT science, nor is it reality. an untestable proposition is NOT a theory, NOR is it SCIENCE.
"Insofar as mathematics describes reality, it is not certain. Insofar as it is certain, it does not describe reality." -- A. Einstein
@@johnmichael1594 I didnt say mathematical modeling was science. Tesla's statement was made in the context of General Relativity which already had experimental evidence in its favor by the time his statement was made.
+jordan cox - sorry, but you're wrong. there is not, nor has there ever been experimental evidence that exclusively OR conclusively supports SRT or GRT. the widely touted observations by eddington of stars during the solar eclipse a century ago were deliberately fudged to support einstein. they were immediately called into question, and the consensus of everyone who has since reviewed the raw data is that they are simply FAR too poor to say one way OR the other.
more recent observations are NOT exactly consistent with the predictions of SRT/GRT, and there are numerous other SIMPLER (Occam's Razor) explanations that are also a better fit to the raw data, foremost, photons have mass (easily calculated by anyone with a high school physics education). therefore the gravity of the sun simply deflects the photons (and suddenly there is no need for the oxymoronic concept of curved nothingness).
as for experimentally observed time dilation (clocks on satellites), there are numerous and SIMPLER (remember Occam?) explanations that account for that. if you are not just an illiterate clod with a hare-brained opinion on a subject you are utterly incompetent to comment upon, i highly recommend you read "Old Physics For New" by Dr. Thomas E. Phipps, Jr. it is not only a thorough deconstruction of SRT that clearly points out the gigantic errors in einstein's math, it also points the way to remedying them. it's very comprehensive and clear, that is, if you can manage the multivariable calculus and partial differential equations. if you can't, then i really don't think you are qualified to express an opinion on the matter.
but that probably won't stop you, will it?
@@johnmichael1594 lmboooooo there's no evidence for relativity?? Yeah you are unhinged from reality.
Quantum sciences are truly unique, and a fascinating example of how far science will go in its demand for answers to the currently inexplicable. Quantum Science is the ultimate expression of a curiosity driven pursuit of knowledge. So much so, that it's the only area of science that invents its own reality. No other science discusses components that we cannot prove exist. It's a study largely based in imagination as opposed to facts. The fact that it spawned its own math, and its own relative physical world (ie "quarks", which are entirely theoretical with no evidence of existing) makes quantum sciences very much like a religion... we believe what we choose to believe.
That progression thru the coordinate scales was painful. After too many examples he says "you can see where I am going with this", then proceeds to give yet more examples :-(
Jim Baggott could have done vastly better in making things understandable, for instance by explaining that if not for the quantization of spacetime, any pair of particles, like 2 protons on a collision course, could collide at zero distance, in a duration of zero time, which would represent an _infinite power level,_ and thus create a tiny black hole. Such a small black hole would immediately evaporate, due to Hawking radiation. In that process, the protons would be destroyed, and what came back out could be (and likely _would_ be) something entirely different, like a bunch of electrons, positrons, and photons. That would make stars impossible, and we would not be around to think about anything. Therefore, quantization of spacetime is essential to the sort of universe we see, and perhaps to any sort of universe whatsoever.