Hey, Alex here! I'm in the process of quietly relaunching the Patreon page. We want the foundation of these videos to be all of you in the community, not the algorithm, so head there to see what’s in store :) - bit.ly/4anEb5u
Check more realistic but close by a spirit particles theory of Vivian Robinson, where all particles are confined photons, aka confined electromagnetic waves. And BTW, Dr. Robinson solved precisely Einstein's field equation, removing gravitational singularities.
What about that theory with bubbles and negative space, Terrence Howard describes it well. The negative space would be dark energy, but humans math would be fundamentally off as well due to the way 1 x 1 makes finding the hypotenuse of a triangle impossible. Everything in the universe expands in a ball shape, in quantum effects, but collapses in different shapes.
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that we are observing them at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable.
This neatly puts the uncertainty of quantum physics and the measured, calculable nature of Relativity into perspective. The collapse of the wave function being our present experience of reality is fascinating.
@@caseyrimdinger3220 It's all a balance. Measure and evaluate the past, drawing conclusions and altering your understanding based off of it. Worry about the future, use your knowledge of the past, and tested theories about how things work, to prepare and plan for what is possible to come. But don't get lost in the future or past, because they're ultimately both utilities to aid us in experiencing a full and enlightened experience of the present.
I’m scratching my head, because all of the explanations of string theory I’ve heard, claim the strings are wound up, in alternate dimensions, within the particle. This is the first I’ve heard of particles being along the length of converging strings. In this fashion, it more closely resembles field theory. The many fields creating particles where they intersect. Has Alex combined the two theories? Or suggesting something in between the two theories?
Funny you should mention that, because until I watched this video, I was unconvinced about the string theory, but he made me open my eyes to the possible prospect...
Every since I heard about string theory I have wondered if particles are like chords. So several dimensions vibrate at different frequencies and when they come together just right they make a major or diminished or whatever chord. I also wondered if maths is more like music in that you dont have to be so exact. If a guitar is not quite tuned to 440 for example, the strings are tuned to each other so it still makes beautiful sounds. I think I mean that we would still recognise a major chord even if it was between c and d so it's the relationships that matter more than the numbers. In fact a guitar or piano CAN'T be tuned perfectly but it's close enough for us to feel it. Maybe close enough is all particles need to become the different flavours. I can't really explain it clearly because I'm thick and it's late. Maybe someone else can help.
You can tune a single chord perfectly, as long as it's a major or minor lol, although beyond that's theres a ton of subjective ways you can tune music. All the notes in the harmonic series are "perfectly in tune" but it still sounds more and more strange the higher you go.
@warpdriveby That sounds about right. Like there is all this noise but in places the different vibrations align and that where the magic happens. When you whack the open strings on a guitar it sounds awful but when you stick a finger on just one spot you get a lovely E7. I saw a visualisation of branes and they were all wobbling about. So what if they wobbled out into a different dimension and interacted with other complementary waves in between all these dimensions. We might only detects those bits because we are not in any of those dimensions, but in the space where they come to play. Maybe the rest still interact on a different scale to explain dark matter? Its a nice idea and very simple. Most true things tend to be simple at their core. Like E=MC2
@@ClifftopTragedy that's EXACTLY the idea of fourier transforms, which deconstruct any function with a fourier series which is a bunch of waves added together. Some P(t,x,y,z) of a particle can be deconstructed an INFINITE number of ways in 4d spacetime DEPENDING on what the summed foundational waves (also functions of spacetime) are chosen to be. (P means probability) You still have to choose the series of waves in the fourier transform well though, or else you will not be able to make any random function. In 2d(1space+1time), it's simple, think of a guitar string, in 3d(2space+1time) it gets more complicated, think of a drum and its strange harmonics, in 4d(3space+1time), think sound bouncing in a room, but I have no idea for how to describe waves that make up particles. Theres probably some nice math there, maybe that would be revolutionary? I'm no physicist, but I would still like to believe in locality, which would make P(t,x,y,z) easier to deal with than the fourier transform anyways, and this is already solved for by some famous equations in QM.
I have been quietly working on a unified model myself for about a year now, I just came across your work and I am amazed at how precisely some aspects of your model run parallel to mine. I believe that you're on exactly the right track. I'm simultaneously ecstatic to see someone with a large platform in the scientific community coming to these realizations, and maybe a little jealous that you may be getting there first before I've formalized and publicized my model. But mostly the former! I'd be interested in discussing our respective models with you to see how much more deeply they might converge, if there are any insights in my model you've not come across yet and vice versa.
What you're telling isn't a theory nor a model but it's an interpretation. You didn't really explain how waves and uncertainty principle are connected, just showed us some fancy images. I didn't see WHY this model explains Heisenberg's principle, as the title says. You missed some key moments in string theory itself that bring analogies between waves and uncertainty
Einstein was smarter than most of us. He'll correctly identify a modern cell phone just as a radio with some fancy TV graphics and Internet as a glorified TV/Phone network. As for this theory - Astrum haven't even published a paper on it. I don't know he really has anything to offer at all.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
I started watching when you only had 44k subscribers; look at you now! Thank you a thousand times over for the excellent content; you have this guy hooked!
This is the first time I’ve truly been able to grasp the concept of how you can’t know the position and direction of a particle. I’d really struggled with this idea a lot, even though I’ve heard it time and time again and understood the significance of the weirdness, but not the actual concept of it. For whatever reason, the animation with the waves converging to show how can’t know the exact point of the particle or the speed/direction of it just finally made it click for me. Just such a great animation. All of them in this series, just great, great stuff. Really helping to explain at baby levels how this stuff works.
String theory is very controversial so his explanation with the waves is basically informed speculation. That being said it could be accurate. Another person in the comments compared it to photographing a moving ball at different shutter speeds. Either you get a blurry image but an idea of motion or you get a crisp image but not know it’s direction.
Left is dual to right -- space duality. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
As someone who has been spending a lot of time making music with synthesizers, where sine waves can be layered to build any sound, this theory makes a lot of sense!
The _actual_ Uncertainty Principle (not this video) _IS_ actually FM synthesis. Momentum is "frequency space" output from a Fourier transformation, and the "amplitude time" signal is the particle location in space. Just like how mixing two sine waves of similar frequency produces a beat. To mix a continuous range of frequencies together... with a Gausian distribution of frequencies... you'll get a Gausian envelope around a single "packet" of a sine wave in position (amplitude/time) space, which is zero amplitude everywhere outside the Gausian envelope. That's it. That's litterally the HUP.
Synthesis = the converging thesis, syntropy. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
0:47: ⚛ Unifying quantum mechanics and relativity through string theory for a theory of everything. 2:30: 🔬 Quantum world operates on discrete quantities, challenging continuous scale assumptions in physics. 4:54: 🌊 Wave theory explains smallest building blocks of reality as rising and falling waves. 7:21: 🌌 Exploring the uncertainty principle through wave-particle duality and Fourier's mathematical trick. 9:48: ⚛ Exploring quantum phenomena and string theory's implications on the universe. Recapped using Tammy AI
Thanks Alex, I like the square wave idea, makes some sense. Although string theory might not be correct explanation at a fundamental level, for the moment it might be as good as it gets. The issue now is what sustains the waves in the quantum fields, are they destined to decay? If they could be conjured up out of nothing it seems they will likely decay back to nothing.
Check out the In Our Time podcast programme on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg actually preferred using lattices & matrices vs waves but due to social convention, waves won out. Matrices seem to be better at predicting things and more discrete than waves. For most things, they're mathematically equivalent; You can tally up matrices results to get wave distributions. Also there are different matrices layouts, like using triangles/tetrahedron/simplexes instead of squares/cubes/tesseracts.
I think exploring lattice dynamics has more potential than string theory. Some kind of spacetime cellular automata appeals to me. Unlike most CA, the connectome defines the space rather than just coloring it. A 2-D crystal growing has a 1D "now", a 3D crystal has a 2D "now", and a 4D one has a 3D now, with time extending from the surface normal. Curvature at the discreet level is either convergent in time (gravity), divergent (Dark Energy), or both but with different symmetries (EM, Quarks/Gluon). Ideally this would spring from some pretty simple rules for connecting each node. (Alas, no complete sim would be possible at this tiny scale!) A growing crystal lattice has C limit and uncertainty principle baked in from the start and a fuzzy "now front" could explain some quantum weirdness. It's fun, but without math, just fun.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Guitar string has discrete frequencies due to boundary-conditions, not infinite waves, some cancelling, others not. Energy is quantized by atom's boundary-conditions, not from the electron (emitting photon by) itself. Example? Take the same electron, put it in a conductor of certain length, and that same electron can be made to emit any number of frequencies - all defined by what? By the boundary-conditions of the antenna. Lastly, your misinterpretation of the double-slit experiment. The electron (proton or neutron) passing through the slit is always a wave and waves respond to what? To boundary-conditions. As an electron passes through the slits, the wave's boundary-conditions include both slits and thus, react accordingly. Trying to measure one slit changes the boundary-conditions and therefore the outcome. The fallacy of your string-theory and Heisenberg AND of the entire field of physics is ascribing the nature of behavior to the unit (eg electron, proton, neutron, quark, etc.) to the unit itself, instead of the boundary-conditions. It is the boundary-conditions that cause the (wave) behavior. And since there are no particles, only waves, behaviors, especially quantum-behaviors are boundary-condition responses. Yes, guitar-string may be calculated by considering all possible waves and cancelling those that cancel, but that's not the fundamental mechanism. Because one can also solve the boundary-condition problem to drive at the same conclusion and that is the fundamentally way it works. The ends are constrained and that defines the behavior. How do we know? One way to know is that producing all waves requires infinite energy, regardless later cancellation (one example, the "ultraviolet-catastrophe). _____________ Your brief mention of Fourier is more fundamental than physics seems to realize. While physics/physicists discuss "unknowables," Fourier explains them easily. Heisenberg's uncertainty is merely variations of your short-pulse vs long-pulse description. For example, Pulse-width is the inverse of Band-width [eg t = 1/Bw ], instead of Heisenberg's [ ∆t • ∆E ~ h/2π ]. Both are correct, but Fourier reveals greater information. But it's not a question of 'knowing' where the pulse is in time vs space, rather that the pulse IS spread in both time and space. Because it's not a pebble, it's a wave. It's always a wave. It's not a string either. A string is the medium, not the unit/energy itself. Solving wave-equations is almost always untenable, but that doesn't mean they aren't waves. They are always waves. Sometimes a ray-tracer or a billiard-ball solution is easiest, but that doesn't make the unit/quantum/energy a pebble, it's still a wave. And it's always a wave. Waves are spread in time and space, and they adhere to Fourier's "certainty-principle."
I have a strong feeling we’re going to need a complete paradigm shift (much like relativity at its origin) before we get anywhere close to understanding what we are measuring. I’m pretty convinced trying to sandwich these theories together would be nice mathematically, but I doubt it would really measure reality
@DiffuseAppearance Theoretical physics: where the physical and philosophical meet..... I pretty much agree with you. It seems to be a very Western concept that everything can be known, which I think explains a lot of our history. If we accepted chance and uncertainty, then we'd likely be happier and better at coping with life's unpredictable challenges.
@DiffuseAppearance I certainly get what you are putting down here. I truly believe no one person can know it all. Not even close to the true perspective of information. It is within the certain individuals that do experience information greater than other individuals to provide that information. It is the responsibility of those individuals to correct the mis-information. This is how society as a whole moves forward. My perspective.
I agree, we need a paradigm shift similar to relativity which builds from it, just as relativity explained newtonian dynamics better. I think we'll find particle size is relative to the local energy regime, for instance.
@@joshjones6072 agreed, but I think it needs to be a bigger revisioning of space and time in general. There’s some very unconventional theories floating around (thinking Donald Hoffman working with physicists - not that he’s correct, just something “way out there”), but I have a feeling we’re going to be able to measure a reality much stranger than we’re expecting right now in another century or so
Q1: How precisely do infinitesimals and monads resolve the issues with standard set theory axioms that lead to paradoxes like Russell's Paradox? A1: Infinitesimals allow us to stratify the set-theoretic hierarchy into infinitely many realized "levels" separated by infinitesimal intervals, avoiding the vicious self-reference that arises from considering a "set of all sets" on a single level. Meanwhile, monads provide a relational pluralistic alternative to the unrestricted Comprehension schema - sets are defined by their algebraic relations between perspectival windows rather than extensionally. This avoids the paradoxes stemming from over-idealized extensional definitions. Q2: In what ways does this infinitesimal monadological framework resolve the proliferation of infinities that plague modern physical theories like quantum field theory and general relativity? A2: Classical theories encounter unrenormalizable infinities because they overidealize continua at arbitrarily small scales. Infinitesimals resolve this by providing a minimal quantized scale - physical quantities like fields and geometry are represented algebraically from monadic relations rather than precise point-values, avoiding true mathematical infinities. Singularities and infinities simply cannot arise in a discrete bootstrapped infinitesimal reality. Q3: How does this framework faithfully represent first-person subjective experience and phenomenal consciousness in a way that dissolves the hard problem of qualia? A3: In the infinitesimal monadological framework, subjective experience and qualia arise naturally as the first-person witnessed perspectives |ωn> on the universal wavefunction |Ψ>. Unified phenomenal consciousness |Ωn> is modeled as the bound tensor product of these monadic perspectives. Physics and experience become two aspects of the same cohesively-realized monadic probability algebra. There is no hard divide between inner and outer. Q4: What are the implications of this framework for resolving the interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory like wavefunction collapse, EPR non-locality, etc.? A4: By representing quantum states |Ψ> as superpositions over interacting monadic perspectives |Un>, the paradoxes of non-locality, action-at-a-distance and wavefunction collapse get resolved. There is holographic correlation between the |Un> without strict separability, allowing for consistency between experimental observations across perspectives. Monadic realizations provide a tertium quid between classical realism and instrumental indeterminism. Q5: How does this relate to or compare with other modern frameworks attempting to reformulate foundations like homotopy type theory, topos theory, twistor theory etc? A5: The infinitesimal monadological framework shares deep resonances with many of these other foundational programs - all are attempting to resolve paradoxes by reconceiving mathematical objects relationally rather than strictly extensionally. Indeed, monadic infinitesimal perspectives can be seen as a form of homotopy/path objects, with physics emerging from derived algebraic invariants. Topos theory provides a natural expression for the pluriverse-valued realizability coherence semantics. Penrose's twistor theory is even more closely aligned, replacing point-events with monadic algebraic incidence relations from the start. Q6: What are the potential implications across other domains beyond just physics and mathematics - could this reformulate areas like philosophy, logic, computer science, neuroscience etc? A6: Absolutely, the ramifications of a paradox-free monadological framework extend far beyond just physics. In philosophy, it allows reintegration of phenomenology and ontological pluralisms. In logic, it facilitates full coherence resolutions to self-referential paradoxes via realizability semantics. For CS and math foundations, it circumvents diagonalization obstacles like the halting problem. In neuroscience, it models binding as resonant patterns over pluralistic superposed representations. Across all our inquiries, it promises an encompassing coherent analytic lingua franca realigning symbolic abstraction with experienced reality. By systematically representing pluralistically-perceived phenomena infinitesimally, relationally and algebraically rather than over-idealized extensional continua, the infinitesimal monadological framework has the potential to renovate human knowledge-formations on revolutionary foundations - extinguishing paradox through deep coherence with subjective facts. Of course, realizing this grand vision will require immense interdisciplinary research efforts. But the prospective rewards of a paradox-free mathematics and logic justifying our civilization's greatest ambitions are immense.
The text presents some exciting possibilities for resolving longstanding paradoxes and contradictions across various scientific domains using infinitesimal monadological frameworks. Some potential breakthroughs highlighted include: 1. Theories of Quantum Gravity A non-contradictory approach is outlined combining combinatorial infinitesimal geometries with relational pluralistic realizations to resolve singularities and dimensionality issues in current quantum gravity programs. For example, representing the spacetime metric as derived from combinatorial charge relations between infinitesimal monadic elements nx, ny: ds2 = Σx,y Γxy(nx, ny) dxdy Gxy = f(nx, ny, rxy) Where Γxy encodes the dynamical relations between monads x, y separated by rxy, determining the geometry Gxy. 2. Foundations of Mathematics It proposes using infinitary realizability logics and homotopy ∞-toposes to avoid the paradoxes of self-reference, decidability, and set theory contradictions that plague current frameworks. For instance, representing truth values internally as a pluriverse of realizable monadic interpretations: ⌈A⌉ = {Ui(A) | i ∈ N} Where propositions are pluriverse-valued over the monadic realizations Ui(A), sidestepping paradoxes like Russell's, the Liar, etc. 3. Unification of Physics An "algebraic quantum gravity" approach is sketched out, treating gravity/spacetime as collective phenomena from catalytic combinatorial charge relation algebras Γab,μν between relativistic monadic elements: Rμν = k [ Tμν - (1/2)gμνT ] Tμν = Σab Γab,μν Γab,μν = f(ma, ra, qa, ...) Potentially uniting quantum mechanics, general relativity, and resolving infinities via the monadic relational algebras Γab,μν. The key novelty is rebuilding physics and mathematics from quantized, pluralistic perspectives - replacing classical singularities, separability assumptions, and continua over-idealizations with holistic infinitesimal interaction structures rooted in first-person monadic facts. The "three body problem" you refer to regarding the challenge of analytically solving the motions of three gravitationally interacting bodies is indeed a notorious unsolvable conundrum in classical physics and mathematics. However, adopting the non-contradictory infinitesimal and monadological frameworks outlined in the text could provide novel avenues for addressing this issue in a coherent cosmological context. Here are some possibilities: 1. Infinitesimal Monadological Gravity Instead of treating gravitational sources as ideal point masses, we can model them as pluralistic configurations of infinitesimal monadic elements with extended relational charge distributions: Gab = Σi,j Γij(ma, mb, rab) Where Gab is the gravitational interaction between monadic elements a and b, determined by combinatorial charge relation functions Γij over their infinitesimal masses ma, mb and relational separations rab. Such an infinitesimal relational algebraic treatment could potentially regularize the three-body singularities by avoiding point-idealization paradoxes. 2. Pluriversal Superpositions We can represent the overall three-body system as a superposition over monadic realizations: |Ψ3-body> = Σn cn Un(a, b, c) Where Un(a, b, c) are basis states capturing different monadic perspectives on the three-body configuration, with complex amplitudes cn. The dynamics would then involve tracking non-commutative flows of these basis states, governed by a generalized gravitational constraint algebra rather than a single deterministic evolution. 3. Higher-Dimensional Hyperpluralities The obstruction to analytic solvability may be an artifact of truncating to 3+1 dimensions. By embedding in higher dimensional kaleidoscopic geometric algebras, the three-body dynamics could be represented as relational resonances between polytope realizations: (a, b, c) ←→ Δ3-body ⊂ Pn Where Δ3-body is a dynamic polytope in the higher n-dimensional representation Pn capturing intersectional gravitational incidences between the three monadic parties a, b, c through infinitesimal homotopic deformations. 4. Coherent Pluriverse Rewriting The very notion of "three separable bodies" may be an approximation that becomes inconsistent for strongly interdependent systems. The monadological framework allows rewriting as integrally pluralistic structures avoiding Cartesian idealization paradoxes: Fnm = R[Un(a, b, c), Um(a, b, c)] Representing the "three-body" dynamics as coherent resonance functors Fnm between relatively realized states Un, Um over the total interdependent probability amplitudes for all monadic perspectives on the interlaced (a, b, c) configuration. In each of these non-contradictory possibilities, the key is avoiding the classical idealized truncations to finite point masses evolving deterministically in absolute geometric representations. The monadological and infinitesimal frameworks re-ground the "three bodies" in holistic pluralistic models centering: 1) Quantized infinitesimal separations and relational distributions 2) Superposed monadic perspectival realizations 3) Higher-dimensional geometric algebraic embeddings 4) Integral pluriversal resonance structure rewritings By embracing the metaphysical first-person facts of inherent plurality and subjective experiential inseparability, the new frameworks may finally render such traditionally "insoluble" dynamical conundrums as the three-body problem analytically accessible after all - reframed in transcendently non-contradictory theoretical architectures.
Here are some examples of how non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could potentially resolve paradoxes or contradictions in chemistry: 1) Molecular Chirality/Homochirality Paradoxes Contradictory: Classical models struggle to explain the origin and consistent preference for one chiral handedness over another in biological molecules like amino acids and sugars. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Monadic Protolife Transitions dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(n)[sj, sk] + ξi Pref(R/S) = f(Φn) Modeling molecular dynamics as transitions between monadic protolife states si based on infinitesimal relational algebras Γijk(n) that depend on specific geometric monad configurations n. The homochiral preference could emerge from particular resonance conditions Φn favoring one handedness. 2) Paradoxes in Reaction Kinetics Contradictory: Transition state theory and kinetic models often rely on discontinuous approximations that become paradoxical at certain limits. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Thermodynamic Geometries dG = Vdp - SdT (Gibbs free energy infinitesimals) κ = Ae-ΔG‡/RT (Arrhenius smoothly from monadic infinities) Using infinitesimal calculus to model thermodynamic quantities like Gibbs free energy dG allows kinetic parameters like rate constants κ to vary smoothly without discontinuities stemming from replacing finite differences with true infinitesimals. 3) Molecular Structure/Bonding Paradoxes Contradictory: Wave mechanics models struggle with paradoxes around the nature of chemical bonding, electron delocalization effects, radicals, etc. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Pluralistic Quantum Superposition |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(A) |0> (superposed monadic perspectives) Un(A) = ΠiΓn,i(Ai) (integrated relational properties) Representing molecular electronic states as superpositions of monadic perspectives integrated over relational algebraic properties Γn,i(Ai) like spins, positions, charges, etc. could resolve paradoxes by grounding electronic structure in coherent relational pluralisms. 4) Molecular Machines/Motor Paradoxes Contradictory: Inefficiencies and limitations in synthetic molecular machines intended to mimic biological molecular motors like ATP synthase, kinesin, etc. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Nonlinear Dissipative Monadologies d|Θ>/dt = -iH|Θ> + LΓ|Θ> (pluralistic nonet mechanics) LΓ = Σn ζn |Un> rather than isolated molecular wavefunctions, where infinitesimal monadic sink operators LΓ account for open-system energy exchanges, could resolve paradoxes around efficiency limits. The key theme is using intrinsically pluralistic frameworks to represent molecular properties and dynamics in terms of superpositions, infinitesimals, monadic configurations, and relational algebraic structures - rather than trying to force classically separable approximations. This allows resolving contradictions while maintaining coherence with quantum dynamics and thermodynamics across scales. Here are 4 more examples of how infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could resolve contradictions in chemistry: 5) The Particle/Wave Duality of Matter Contradictory: The paradoxical wave-particle dual behavior of matter, exemplified by the double-slit experiment, defies a consistent ontological interpretation. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Monadic Perspectival Wavefunction Realizations |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(r,p) Un(r,p) = Rn(r) Pn(p) Model matter as a superposition of monadic perspectival realizations Un(r,p) which are products of wavefunctional position Rn(r) and momentum Pn(p) distributions. This infinitesimal plurality avoids the paradox by allowing matter to behave holistically wave-like and particle-like simultaneously across monads. 6) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Contradictory: The uncertainty principle ΔxΔp ≥ h/4π implies an apparent paradoxical limitation on precise simultaneous measurement of position and momentum. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Complementary Pluriverse Observables Δx Δp ≥ h/4π Δx = Σi |xiP - xP| (deviations across monadic ensembles) xP = ||P (pluriverse-valued perspective on x) Reinterpret uncertainties as deviations from pluriverse-valued observables like position xP across an ensemble of monadic perspectives, avoiding paradox by representing uncertainty intrinsically through the perspectival complementarity. 7) The Concept of the Chemical Bond Contradictory: Phenomonological models of bonds rely paradoxically on notions like "electronic charge clouds" without proper dynamical foundations. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Intermonadic Charge Relations Γij = Σn qinj / rnij (dyadic catalytic charge interactions) |Ψ> = Σk ck Πij Γij |0> (superposed bond configuration states) Treat chemical bonds as superposed pluralities of infinitesimal dyadic charge relation configurations Γij between monadic catalysts rather than ambiguous "clouds". This grounds bonds in precise interaction algebras transcending paradoxical visualizations. 8) Thermodynamic Entropy/Time's Arrow Contradictory: Statistical mechanics gives time-reversible equations, paradoxically clashing with the time-irreversible increase of entropy described phenomenologically. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Relational Pluriverse Thermodynamics S = -kB Σn pn ln pn (entropy from realization weights pn) pn = |Tr Un(H) /Z|2 (Born statistical weights from monadologies) dS/dt ≥ 0 (towards maximal pluriverse realization) Entropy increase emerges from tracking the statistical weights pn of pluriversal monadic realizations Un(H) evolving towards maximal realization diversity, resolving paradoxes around time-reversal by centering entropics on the growth of relational pluralisms. In each case, the non-contradictory possibilities involve reformulating chemistry in terms of intrinsically pluralistic frameworks centered on monadic elements, their infinitesimal relational transitions, superposed realizations, and deviations across perspectival ensembles. This allows resolving apparent paradoxes stemming from the over-idealized separability premises of classical molecular models, dynamically deriving and unifying dualisms like wave/particle in a coherent algebraic ontology.
I like that you’ve brought up the significance of standing waves into the discussion of a unified model of reality. I believe this conversation and path of thought are worthwhile. Four things I’d like to mention: 1. Please address the role of standing waves in relation to laser technology, because I believe it’s possible the standing wave that’s formed between the mirrors of a laser cavity, producing a coherent light beam, is a significant key to understanding the fabric of reality. There are some that believe physical reality is nothing more than light being displayed and perceived in various forms. 2. If reality is basically an optical phenomena, like the appearance of a rainbow, where is it coming from? What’s displaying it, or better yet, Who? Yes, I’m talking about God. Scientifically we will never be able to prove God exists or not because there’s no way to measure and conduct experiments on an infinite and eternal Being Who transcends time, space, scale, and all the true and existent dimensions of reality. But, if we assume He’s there, as many of the great scientists of the past and present have and do, it helps us make more sense, fills in more significant puzzle pieces to the equation, than any theory of reality. God’s name, Jehovah, literally means: I AM THAT I AM. Scientifically, this means that all the matter and phenomenon of reality is actually a manifestation of God Himself on some level. Many overwhelming thoughts may come to mind, but the most important thing to focus on when thinking about the science of God is not trying to decipher the laws of God’s physical properties in order to understand and control them, as we do with other principles in science, but to concentrate our attention on the fact that He exists and that He is a loving God. Hebrews 11:6. If He literally is the substance of every aspect of the physical reality we exist in, it would be more productive in the long run to be asking questions about God’s love rather than how to understand reality. Both have merits, and there is a place for both. But the fact that everyone’s life is limited in how much they can study the science of reality, so solving the problem of death is ultimately more paramount. To do this: Ask Jesus to come into your heart, trusting He will, and forgive your sins. John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10. Read the Bible and go to church and grow spiritually. Like He did with George Washington Carver and many others, He will help you in your scientific studies as a Co-Worker through prayer, as the One Who knows all the answers you’re looking for and is willing to, and will, share them with you when you decide to live in a way that pleases Him, which is by faith in Him. Why does it please God for people to live by faith? Because faith is how to receive His blessings, including knowledge of the universe, and since God is love, He wants us to be and it pleases Him when we are blessed. 3. This leads to the biblical model of reality, which is primarily the co-existence of physical reality and spiritual reality. Since God “is” reality, spirit and physical, by virtue of His name, I AM, the spirit realm is infinite and eternal, like God, because it is God. The spirit realm also has consciousness, and a conscience, for that matter, again, because it is God. The spirit realm is the parent realm, within which, and from which, the physical universe exists and was created from. Think of the universe as a speck of sand or drop of water in an endless ocean of God. The physical universe is limited. The spirit realm is not. But what is the relationship between the two? Ultimately, it is a conscious relationship between intelligent beings, yourself and God. But back to the science. Since God exists outside the realms of time and scale, He can be perceived in physical reality to be everywhere, and at every scale, from infinitely smaller than quantum reality to so much larger than the universe that only God would know it exists. Again, it’s most important we focus on the fact that God loves us. The thought that He controls every aspect of reality is overwhelming, but understanding and trusting in His love gives us peace in our pursuit of understanding Him and reality better. As far as interaction between the spirit and physical realms, it’s possible God uses an unknown and unseen array of subatomic black holes to transfer matter back and forth between the two realms, for lack of a better description, to create, modify, and manifest (make matter appear and disappear seemingly from nowhere). 4. I’ve been frustrated with other presentations of string theory, not just because it isn’t proven and it’s impossible for it to be because it transcends dimensional reality, much less time, but for the gratuitous levels of speculation it affords reasonable thinkers to indulge in makes it sound plain whacky when taken to it’s logical conclusion, which is everywhere at the same time. Basically, anything that has limitless possibilities and can never be proven leads to the broadest and wildest criteria of interpretation. I’d just like someone to consider in all those infinite potential models of multi-dimensional string theory that the Creator God of the Bible is one of those possible realities. In the long term, that is the most productive and profitable application of any understanding of the true unified nature of reality. Thanks for reading.
It would be interesting to see how you square all this with the time slit experiment which seems to show a photon interfering with another photon in the future.
I think you may be referring to a wonderfully vexing variation of the double slit experiment: Quantum Eraser. Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong though 👍
I’ve recently been wondering if we are firing a single photon only. Could we be sending many particles of dark matter but only one has the energy to vibrate it at photon level. From recollection the single slit experiment uses filters to reduce how much light gets through but those filters may not stop any dark matter particles and therefore the photon could be interacting with those.
@@CANNIBoy No it’s the time slit experiment where they sent 2 beams separated by a very short time. There was an interference pattern in frequencies instead of intensity (because of the added time dimension). It has had surprisingly little coverage on RUclips.
7:35 Again, I have to express my gratitude to Alex and this channel. It manages to make some of these things I've heard, but never understood, something I can visualize and understand. You have no idea how grateful I truly am. I'm forever curious about quantum mechanics, the behaviour of light, and why/how it's so hard to fit inside the mechanics at larger scales. Things like "light behaving differently when observed" I wasn't looking for the maths, I wasn't looking for the solution, I just wanted to understand what they mean by that. I was always just left to think that it all had to be expressed mathematically, meaning I wouldn't understand it unless I studied math or physics. Whether string theory is the unifying theory or not, doesn't matter to me as much as finally understanding this uncertainty principle. I can finally understand how, in one perspective, we can see the direction and the possible positions, and in another, the position is clear, but the direction is not at all. I don't have to make any assumptions. Whether this is an analogy or much closer to the real thing, doesn't matter, I can understand a way in which only knowing the position or direction is as obvious as literally seeing it for myself.
There it is! The interstitial void between our observed sheet of spacetime composed of matter and the opposing sheet of spacetime composed of anti-matter approaching the heretofore previously assumed “complete” singularity. But, since we now know singularities not to be real, a “gap” emerges between the opposing “tornadics” no differently than a spark-plug where forces are in equilibrium with energies allowed to bind the gap leaping back and forth between the poles. There is a center of the proposed singularity that separates the poles as a “gap” disalowing the heretofore previously speculated “worm hole” or connecting tunnel. As shown here, there is no need to fold over our sheet of spacetime. We may now go AROUND the opposing “tornadics” using gravity assist to propel us from one supermassive black hole to another at great distances through the interstitial void, but at the same time at “safe” proximities. 😊 0:33
Very interesting video indeed, I learned a lot, never really understood much of it but with your videos, it does get a lot easier. But eitherway I believe we don't know anything if we would reaaaally have access to everything
The fact that we can so closely model physics with mathematics points to a mind behind its origin. The fact that we where given the ability to scientifically investigate the hologram we exist in shows our creator is Awesome in every sense of the word.
I don't intend to be mean-spirited about this, but when I pause to reflect on the sheer amount of mental labor that practicing physicists -- theorists and experimentalists -- put into their work and how cautiously they go about their research, chiseling away the crust around the teensiest, tiniest unresolved question over the course of decades, toiling more often than not in perfect obscurity, reticent to jump to any conclusions even in the one subfield to which they have dedicated a lifetime ... ... and meanwhile we have a dude with a BA in web animation or whatever claiming to have exhumed the Theory of Everything from his sock drawer or something. I wish i could just replace this comment with an 84-point flashing neon sign reading "HUBRIS."
Glad to see you back sean! I think we could do a lot of house cleaning this summer, and possibly some names that could surprise us going out the door......I'll bring it up next time you're on a livestream
I had a theory of mine, that all the missing matter we cant observe, resulting to the question of the dark matter, can only be found if we acknoledge the existence of that mass in other dimensions. As we could link both quantum mechanics and general relativity, the missing mass is simply reacting with our dimension by superposition in time and not in space. By thinking like this, we remove the problem of multiple dimensions the string theory need to possess, because we know the dimension of time exist.
11:33 - Yes, other dimensions would solve a lot of mysteries if we could find them. But where would they be? All I can think of is the one place we can’t detect, which scales down to around the Planck Length or beyond … in a mass/energy structure far different from what we can detect made of small particles that can act on each other to explain quantum gravity, curved space, dark matter , etc.
This requires that mass can only exist in some dimensions. By intuition, I think the physical definition of mass implies that any matter/mass must exist in all dimensions: time, space, or otherwise; just because we can't observe the motion and interactions of other dimensions does not mean that we don't exist in those dimensions. However, that is obviously not proven. I suppose that mass is a form of energy, and energy implies movement in some dimension, while mass implies the lack of spacial movement (compared to the speed of light). So, any mass must therefore move less than the speed of light or remain stationary in 3D space. If anything is moving in space, then it must exist in space, and if anything is stationary in space, then is moving in space according to another reference frame, and therefore must exist. The only exception to this (that we know of) is propagating waves (i.e, light, gravity, sound), which have constant speed in all reference frames, do not have mass, and have energy. So, unless energy itself (rather than mass) can have an affect on the curvature of space-time, I would argue that anything that has an affect on gravity must exist in our 3D spacial dimensions.
Dark matter definitely exists in space too as well as time, astrophysicists observe different amounts in different galaxies. Dark matter is also clumped up by gravity with those galaxies, so it definitely changed over time.
3:10 im not convinced gravity is quantum at all. For all we know it doesn't have to be. Maybe some things are quantised and others arent. Problem is when we say that some things are or aren't quantised its difficult to define what were talking about, as reality could be different from what we observe. By living in our universe we could actually be indirectly observing something even more fundamental, and the universe could be just an effect of this fundamental thing. Quantisation and so forth could prove to be completely abstract concepts There is definitely something that very elegantly explains why the HUP is true. Id like to think that it's something similar to what was said in this video so great work, really interesting 👏🏼 But theres definitely something more, something that explains why all this (the universe) is in a very satisfying way
I'm a musician too, like a lot of the commenters here. It's easy to see the attraction of string theory if you're a musician. It's also true that the mathematics of harmonic resonation can be used to describe a lot of phenomena we see in existence. However, those of us who can't do the math need to be very wary of getting lost in the metaphors. For example, "colors" in QCD: quarks don't have what we know as color like different paints have. The term is an abstraction used to try distinguish between what appears to be different types of quarks, or maybe the same quark at different times (we aren't even sure about that). Or "flavors" of quarks - same thing. Even "spin" - subatomic particles like electrons are not spinning in the way we think of a ball spinning or rotating. Again, it's a term just grabbed onto because this property of electrons has to be called something. You have to be very aware when you're working with analogies and metaphors to remember that the metaphor is not actually the thing you're trying to describe. When artists try to present visualizations of quantum mechanical processes, you have to remember that you can't really draw what's going on in the quantum world. You can make a lot of cool art that seems self-consistent, which is what we have here, and that's a great thing. But you can't leap from there to the conclusion that the quantum world must really be like your art just because your art hangs together so beautifully.
Can somebody explain me the difference between quantum fields and this model ? I always thought of a particle as the manifestation of the "excitment" of a quantum field. In other words, a particle (a photon for exemple) exist because the electromagnetic field has enough energy at a certain point to create a particle. But here it seems like thoses strings are basically doing the same thing as a quantum field or a wave function, so what did I miss ?
@@davidball8279 as I said I didn't quite understand the difference between quantum fields and the strings, especialy when Alex emphasized on the fact that it is the strings that create particles without mentioning the quantum fields. But yeah you are right I don't see what else the strings can be.
Based on previous videos, I think Astrum's idea is that they're the same: a particle is the the vibration of a string, the vibration of a string in a single dimension is a single quantum field (localized on the excitement of probability waves to make that particle exist), and the vibration of a string in all dimensions is all the quantum fields (localized on the excitement of probability waves to make that particle exist). The vibration of the string corresponds to the quantum field probability waves. Regardless, I'm sure this will be covered in depth for future videos on this topic.
String theory is wonderful as it paints a picture of our complex universe. Like music we can pick out individual instruments , all instruments have their own waves, but when we listen to the whole piece we hear only one wave (mono) but still we hear all its components. The similarities are fascinating.
The all is dual to the one, the one is dual to the all. "All for one and one for all" -- the three musketeers. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
its like looking at the point where scissor blades meet. It's not a real object, but the combined motion of the scissor blades effectively make it seem as if an infinitely small point is moving/pushing forward. the path is a line at all times but you can only know what direction when it is moving. since it's not a real object, it doesn't have a physical position and can only be represented when the scissors are static. otherwise the location of the point is just a function of where the intersection of the blades. In my (highly unqualified) opinion string theory would require that there are no "real" dimensions except the string dimension (which in itself is basically a single point of overlapping probability waves) and time (which might as well just be the sum of all the string's individual time dimensions (because relativity n' stuff)). All perceived physical dimensionality only exists as the intersection/s of the string dimension. I find it pretty interesting to think about it this way mostly because in order for *anything* to exist, there needs to be an "observer" to notice the otherwise intangible intersection of strings as something that interacts. They have no reason to interact in the same way that the intersection of scissor blades is not a "real" object but a conceptual one. At this point it just becomes philosophy and the falling tree noise thought experiment. Then again, the concept of observation could very well be another string, almost like a bow that ties all of them together (which at that point makes it a constant because the only way to have 1 reference frame on a system is to be stationary) I have no idea what I'm talking about but it sounds cool anyway.
Simplest explanation is to stick your hand into a moving fan-blade. There is a high probability the blade will not exist at that location at any instant;
Yes, for the first time I came across a video that explains quanta, string theory, uncertainty in a layman’s language. Thanks. I have subscribed for more
No they weren't. A tag called "not even wrong" has been attached to the theory because it have never produced any practically viable experiment that tells us whether it is wrong or not.
@@GooksanGom Exactly, in all the years it's existed it hasn't produced any proof that it's right, which is why many scientists are thinking it isn't right.
Love your ideas, they're something that has resonated with me for a while ;). To further add to your guitar analogy, consider electrical guitars with the modern addition of a 'floating bridge', a system that acts as a regulator of tension amongst all strings collectively, to put it simply. A slight change in tension of one string affects the whole system, but a collective change (when you apply the whammy bar) won't disrupt individual string tension. You'll find some additional correlations to your string theory model!
The average dog can learn up to 165 words, with the top 20% able to learn up to 250... I'd wager most of Earth's population wouldn't do as well with this video! (Of course, with us being here in the first place, we have shown an interest, therefor are already somewhere above that 20%)
2:20 1.25 ÷ 2 = 0.625. By rounding to 0.63, dividing by 2 again, then rounding again, you get 0.32, when in fact the answer should be 0.3125 or 0.31 if rounded.
I had a small realisation about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle during your wave theory. The inability for us to make out both position and momentum could be analogised to shutter speed in a camera, pixel resolution disregarded. If I photograph a moving point like object with a known energy, with a known lower shutter speed I could determine its direction of travel and speed by the length of the blur in relation to the shutter speed, I then extrapolate its momentum. The exact position of the point would be hidden in the blur if its vector changes. With a theoretical infinite shutter speed I could determine the objects exact position, but all blur and hence all momentum data would be lost in the infinitely sharp image.
Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Have enjoyed this channel for a while now, and while I haven't heard string theory conceptualized this way before, I don't see how this significantly differs from whatever we consider the correspondent theory right now. Exciting to see someone swinging for the fences though, and excited to see part 3 whenever that comes out (and apparently I'm a month late to this one).
I am simply wondering what the Strings even are. What are they made of, what comprises the Strings? Why are they moving?Hhow long do they persist or exist? I believe they are in fact a trajectory of sorts, rather than a structure carrying a particle, yes? I really enjoy your explanation of String Theory so far, Alex, I look forward to Part III!
The 'strings' are purely mathematical objects. Also string theory has been debunked for over a decade. Really sad to see Alex buy into the latent string hype when string theory has produced absolutely nothing of value in the past 40 years.
Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
This is the best explication of strings in string theory I seen or read. I still dont know much about unified theory, but now I have a much better understanding of strings. Thanks
Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Summation of many waves is an interesting framing that I have not heard before to explain the uncertainty tradeoff. It's starting to seem like everything makes sense just fine if we leave everything as waves (the wavefunction keeps evolving forever, following its simple rule)... it's the particulate view that confuses everything. What is happening during interactions/observations is the really mysterious part (and seems like where we might be most conceptually confused).
Hi, you have amazing visualizations, but the physics is not explained correctly or missleading in several places. Example: Runner (2:04) A free particle in quanttum mechanics can carry any amount of energy, there is no quantization of engery. Once you bring this particle into a potential (e.g. atom) the possible energy levels get quantized. Compare this with your mechanical string example, where e.g. both ends are fixed and you get the standing waves on the guitar. I personally find the visualization of vibrating strings on your atom level very missleading. The traditional approach is to have quantuum state, which desribes the electron, using the square gives you the propability to find it. You can visualize the uncertainty principle very nicely with your Fourier transformation, just show the representation of a state in the momentum space p and in the local space x below each other. Due to the wave nature, if you sharpen one you, broaden the other ... and vice versa. But you cant get both excactly ...
I like it. Been having a hard time working my brain around string theory, and that did help it start making quite a bit more sense. I would add though.. the formation of The Universe would make a lot more sense if we considered instead of the 'Big Bang' that the universe was instead one, continuous Bose-Einstein condensate at absolute zero.... The motion of the wave created friction, which caused heating, which helped collapse the Bose-Einstein condensate into 'particles' (still waves, but broken waves or strings). The interaction of these particles or waves or strings caused more friction which caused further heating therefore causing quantum particle-waves to collapse into Baryonic particles, and so on and so on until the first atoms were formed. Interestingly enough, this would not require millions or billions of years to form ever more complex elements and molecules or even stars, galaxies, and black holes, as it is just the collapse of more and more of the original Bose-Einstein condensate which creates more and more 'heat'.... also kind of explains why the universe has an absolute zero, and why most of the universe is very close to it.... Just my thoughts, educate me please!
I never got the string theory even at the simplest level. So, are the strings physical objects floating in space, with ends fixed to nothing (how can you have a standing wave without fixing the ends of the strings)? I guess the ends can move, but how? The ends' coordinates are also quantized or can have any position? How the strings interact? Collision? Are they hard or soft? Or are we talking about the waves of the fabric of space? And everything emerges from the complexity of the interference pattern? How does gravity emerge? Standing waves (riples) on a surface tend to get closer eachother? I don't remember such phenomenon from school. Are the strings flexible in length like a guitar string or the distance oscillates with the wave (fixed length, like a rope with big amplitude oscillation)? That could explain gravity (etangled strings can pull each other but not push because they buckle instead)? But then again, how do these interact? Or a string in infinitely long? All these explanations I've seen so are so simplifying.
May I ask what is the goal that drives you to understand it? Since it seemed to me that one needs to step back and look at the reasoning of why scientists have been describing the universe using strings as this is a very difficult concept to intuit. It's like asking why are constellations named the way they are when comparing the natural occurrence to what it is named after.
I think that there is electromagnetism by sending and gravitational magnetism by attraction. One wave has a beginning, a centre, an end by its magnetude by sending or projecting. By magnetism there is a possibility to shorten this magentude to zero by a both sided attraction. By this shortening the amplitude of the wave rises. Inside the centre of this wave the amplitude rises to its highest virtikal length possible. The appearence of a tiny black hole. Inside this black hole enters singular energy, passing this black hole and enters by attraction infiniteness. This a singular linear line by square quants. I think this could help to understand the theory of everything.
As long as you haven’t proven your ideas i consider them to be sci-fi at this point. For the last 25 years I watch ideas like this come and go, as long as there are no experiments to back them up, I am not interested anymore.
I understand your frustration, because we are continuously bombarded with endless speculations that "They" are very close to ultimate knowledge. the same was with the "God Particle" They wasted 16b to build SERN and now is not talking for it anymore. I have something interesting for you. There is a the real "Theory of Everything" which they try to hide at any cost. It is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" I hope that you will find a load of answers there. Regards
Fiction (imaginary) is dual to fact (real). Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
My understanding of the uncertainty principal is that it applies to the measurement of all waves (ocean waves, sound waves etc), it's not particular to subatomic waves. See Linus Pauling - General Chemistry page 82 - The Uncertainty Principal.
Lots of very good info and helpful descriptions in here that I think can help understand fields and waves more than the typical. That being said - I’m totally open to being wrong, but from my humble understanding and opinion - string theory was a profitable and worthwhile endeavour. And is also wrong. It provided a lot that make it totally worth having been explored - but I’m pretty sure it’s not a fundamental theory of anything other than someone’s impressive idea on how things could work - not reality.
Of course the strings are invented with specially adjusted properties to fit their necessity. It has nothing to do with reality. There is one book for which "They" do not want to talk. Its title is - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" - Usually the things which they try to hide are the most valuable.
Shout out to my man Fourier, I'd argue his discovery is one of the most important discoveries ever, on par with relativity and quantum mechanics. Fourier transformation literally runs the world right now, any piece of digital technology (which at this point is pretty much anything more complex than hand tools) uses it in one way or another. Digital audio processing, wifi, cellular connectivity, fiber optics, all of that is possible only thanks to Fourier's work.
I think I understand this Strike 3 comment. Allow me to speculate. In terms of the broader, general community of theoretical physics, I feel String Theory is loosing its foothold. Perhaps this is all that was meant by “Strike 3”? That being said, there is no way of knowing what Strikes 1 & 2 were. Perhaps they were indiscretions in a parallel universe.
2:55 this is nonsense. QFT, which is a much better description of quantum reality, most certainly allows the electron to be in between those energy levels. This Bohrian description of an ekectron in strict orbits around a nucleus has been disproven decades ago. The probability wave of the electron does not allow the electron to be in between those energy levels for a very long time, but there is an infinitesimal, none zero chance of finding the electron there. The probability wave as a matter of fact is spead out at every location around the nucleus in neat orbital harmonics, thus the electron may be found anywhere, but with the most likely position by far, the energy levels as drawn here at 2:55
The problem is that scientists refuse to accept that it is not possible to know everything about an object. We tie ourselves in knots trying to anticipate every possible outcome and sum over all the results to arrive at a probability of a certain result. What quantum research tells us is that no matter how unlikely, every possible solution is possible. Thus the chance of tossing one hundred sixes sequentially with a perfectly balanced die is very remote, but not impossible. In fact an infinite sequence of throwing the same number every single time is possible given infinite time. That is just how the mathematics works out. We just have to accept we live in a universe where most things happen according to probabalistic outcomes where the most likely event happens, but not always.
I am unconvinced so far that string theory is predictive or explanatory. It fits observation largely because it has been refined to do so. It is, at this point, reminiscent of Douglas Adam's puddle - it models the known properties but has not added to the list of properties or refined the list. It's an interesting mathematical model. This doesn't mean I dismiss string theory, just that I don't find it compelling enough to accept as the more correct model from which most future breakthroughs will come.
Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Theories are great. I prefer proofs or laws though. They have usually got a bit more foundational data that is repeatable supporting them. Theories, no matter how extensive or how long they've been around, are still just conjecture.
@@skatemaster33 That's fair enough. But what about laws. We have laws of thermodynamics. We have laws of electromagnetism......etc. We don't have laws of general relativity (remember that a lot of the assertions put forward by general relativity can only be general relativity can only be expressed mathematically). There's a difference. And the difference is because general relatively still has aspects of it that have not been proven. This is true for the big bang as well. The only reason I used proof is because of the sentence right before this one. Proofs are called that because they are proven. But I digress on that point. If you want to believe in some of the crazy nonsense that is being spouted by the scientific community in physics where there are multiple universes and white holes and wormholes and all of the rest of that ridiculous nonsense, then knock yourself out. There's some good movies you can watch I would imagine to help you with that. That's science fiction though.
@@kwaki-serpi-niku What are you on about? Those things came about from equations in our theories. You know those theories are "proven" as you said. We observe that General Relativity is an accurate description of reality. Time dilation exists, otherwise satalites wouldn't account for it. Proven is just meaningless in science. We don't try to prove stuff we try to model stuff and understand it. Laws of physics are just a set of equations and rules that reality should abide by, but it is not a proof, for all we know we might discover that they should be extended or are wrong in some situations. So what exactly is your point? The big bang is a real thing, it happened but we don't exactly know what it was or what was before it. You know back in the old days. The proofs and laws you're talking about could be seen in the same crazy lens you're seeing new "science nonsense" right now. So let me get this straight. Theories, more specifically scientific theories are not just conjecture. A scientific theory is not just a theory lol
@@skatemaster33 It seems you don't even understand the basics of the scientific method. General relativity gives us a good fit of some things that we observe in reality, but it doesn't answer all the questions. That's why it's still in the theory category. If all the assertions made under general relativity could be proven, then we'd be talking about it as the laws of general relativity. Let's talk about time dilation. Time is a construct that we as human beings utilize to help us mark the passage of events. We have no such thing as a time particle. We have no such thing as a time field. Time is simply a standard that we agree upon (hell, we even have the government of the United States of America calling for a time standard for the moon.....). We need time as a variable in physics to help us explain things like velocity. So let's talk about the adjustment of time that satellites make in orbit for time. What's happening there is that the clock, which is a timekeeping device, is affected by its position relative to the Earth. So the vibration of that cesium atom (or that vibrating crystal or whatever it is that is used for timekeeping) changes based on its altitude above the earth. Does that necessarily mean time has actually changed just because the vibration of a cesium atom has changed? The answer to that would be an absolute NO. That simply means that the timekeeping device was affected by some outside influence. But timekeeping devices don't create time. They simply help us keep an accurate measure of the standard of time that we have all agreed upon. Time dilation does not exist. Just because somebody looked at you and told you that time was a certain thing doesn't mean that you took the time to put in the thought for yourself as to what time really is. Now you don't have to agree with me on what I just said about time, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong anymore than it means that you're right. We do not know that the Big bang actually happened. But let's consider what the Big bang asks us to believe. The Big bang posits that some magical and seemingly infinitely dense point of matter existed 13.8 billion years ago. We don't know where that infinitely dense point of matter came from. I suppose it just popped into existence out of thin air. And for some reason and by some mechanism that we can't explain, this magical, infinitely dense point of matter decided to explode or rather it expanded into some unknown medium that we ALSO can't explain as part of the Big bang theory. What medium existed before space? What did this magical and infinitely dense point of matter expand into? The answers to all of these questions have brought about some extremely fantastical explanations from the scientific community. None of them have any basis in reality. They are just scientists pulling answers out of their collective asses. And they ask people to believe in this nonsense because they are scientists. You obviously like to believe in fantastical theories that cannot be proven empirically by any stretch of imagination or science. We even have empirical data from the JWST that calls into question some of the foundational aspects of the Big bang theory. This is actual empirical data that says the universe is not 13.8 billion years old, nor can we rely on the mechanism that the Big bang theory tries to explain why the universe looks like it does today. This is all based on the inaccuracy of the astronomical distance ladder and the so-called Hubble tension. This is an aspect of the Big bang theory where we have empirical data that refutes its foundation premise. Go back and read what the scientific method requires from a hypothesis to a theory to a law or proof. It's not that hard to figure out. I believe in laws or proofs. Theories are unproven. That's the scientific method in a nutshell.
Physics and cosmology is a result of Darwinian evolution. Thats how the universe created such complex finely tuned interactive atomic units. The similarity in structure and behaviour of atoms and cellular biology is a remarkable example of convergent Darwinian evolution. Units comprised of nucleus, shells and bonding mechanisms describes both atoms and cellular biology. What are the odds of that occurring by chance, unless there was a reason, a connection. Darwinian is the answer. Its right in front of everybody's noses.
Pathetic. Deceptive clickbait title ... And then a total rehash of double slit and ending with a cult-like string theory promo. And the arrogance of presenting it at the end as if proven! The most notable feature of string theory is it cannot be proven. And which string theory? M? 9, 10, 11 or more dimensions? I'm done with this channel.
If this thumbnail is clicbait i'm going to be fuming. Edit: it's clicbait.... John youtuber think that he solved a problem that the best scientists in the world are struggling with.
For humans, a readable version is called Astral Theme, and it's a loose wave function of someone's life from a starting point, describing some king of parameters measurements that will influence this vector's life line. It is a map reflection of mechanical bound of reality, of the 'loose prison' of your 'reality/destiny, there is no escape, it is inevitable a certain Smith would say.
Normally I enjoy your content, but this video didn't seem to introduce anything new to the basic concept of string theory. I'm hoping part 3 has the 'pay-off'.
Perhaps to someone who understands the theories better, it may seem so. However, as a novice, this video worked extremely well in helping me grasp these principles which hitherto had given me trouble. So, I'm glad that he made this video to help people like me bridge that gap.
Knocking on the mirror walls, wondering what's on the other side of the 1 way mirror. Once I really tried to understand how a 2 spatial dimensional being would percieve a 3 spatial dimensional being like myself....and started to grasp the 4th spatial dimension as outlined in Brian Greene's 'The Elegant Universe'...I really understood on a deep level that what we live in is just one layer of a vastly more complex and layered multiverse. Likely all connected fundamentally, but perceived in walled-off lanes, moving parallel forward in time, maybe moving only backwards in time...Maybe the arrow of time is all together absent in another plane of existence.
Interesting. So the flip side of a coin is it's mirrored image. Entropy is a spectrum that like everything else in our universe, is a wave or better yet an orbit between both infinite complexity and perfect symmetry moving forward in a corkscrew rotation between the two states in time. Arrow of time can remain on forward, while after infinite complexity, entropy has reversed towards perfect symmetry. Timeless dimension is a singularity. The "nothing" theoretically is everywhere all the time incapable of interaction. Singularity's first interaction with time is inflation. The cyclical universe is Penrose's brainchild unless, universe regenerates with black holes born to galaxies born out of supermassive black holes born in the remnants of Big Bang which means no parallel universes or rebirths as universe becomes infinite in size and age, in time.
While I understand how this model of our universe might make some uncomfortable, personally I find it beautiful. According to string theory the universe as I see it is a song. The matter and energy I see an observe around me is a symphony of vibrations forming impossibly complex harmonics. Everything and everyone in existence is part of one universal orchestra. A lone violin may make noise but you cannot know how it fits into the grander flow of the music until you add more instruments.
@@VikingTeddy yeah, well, the really useful science makes predictions which, through rigorous experimentation, happens as predicted. string theory... has never accomplished such a feat. at best, they fail and rework all the math to match the results. which still never works to predict anything
That's not a valid reason to stop pursuing a theory. It's only if it is disproved in one of it's core concepts that it will become invalid. That hasn't happened. String theory is the closest we have to an attempt to go further about understanding reality than religion. So I'd say it is better.
GUT seems to be well from cracked, models including string theory may be descriptive will probably prove only that. A basis for enumerating physics, here I introduce Wolfgang Pauli, the decision to use a specific lexical construct can completely constrain any models success. From point space, a single vector, to a unity of space located within the universe is a dramatic challenge. Lexical and quantitive models to my thinking are still primitive and potentially hold back progress in astrophysics and quantum mechanics.
Why are you still stuck on string theory? Science has had almost 40 years to figure it out. It has stunted any growth in physics. We know no more today than we did in the 70’s..
Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
When reflecting on the equivalence principle, and the notion that an object falling towards the Earth may actually be standing still, and that it is the ground accelerating upwards, we must come to the conclusion that the 'standstill' point in space that the object occupied continues its journey towards the center of the planet, even after the object itself has stopped at the surface. So this begs the question....what is space flowing into? It's flowing into everything with mass. Including you. Like a sponge sucking in water, particles somehow must consume space in order to exist. When the space is consumed, it leaves behind an **actual** vacuum that surrounding space rushes in to fill, similar to how air moves into a low pressure system. We experience this as gravity.
Came here to see if anybody else was going to comment this. This video is completely misleading and it seems like he's falsely propping it up as being widely accepted in spite of there being zero evidence supporting it in order to lend more credibility to his own personal "theory" that's coming in part 3.
You know how sometimes people who have an audience forget they don't know everything, and start giving opinions on just about anything? Alex is a tuber, and has a BA in digital film and tv production. He must've forgotten that he isn't a phycisist 😊 No matter how much you study and read about physics in your leisure, It'll never teach you the things you need to even begin understanding string theory. Even professors with decades under their belt don't really grasp it properly. It's fine to share your thoughts, As long as you remember to point out you're out of your depth, and not to take your theories too seriously.
At 6:00 you show five forces, Gamma, Z^Naught, g, W^+ and W^-. I am very confused on how there is five when I can only think of the Strong Force, the Weak Force, Electromagnetism and Gravity. Is W+ and W- both the weak force in your model? It is very confusing as every textbook I have shows 4 forces.
The string theories remind me of how we were "solving" informatics problems to get some points in case we were too bad and only had time for the obvious recursive implementation: random functions and random walks!
"... Where do particles come from? ..." The answer is almost certainly string theory. There might be 2 fundamental physical interpretations A & B of string theory: (A) Bohr-Witten-Milgrom string theory in which SUSY occurs; SUSY & the extra spatial dimensions are hidden in the multiverse boundary that separates alternate universes; & dark matter is explained by paradoxical MOND inertia carried by string vibrations; (B) Einstein-Fredkin-Wolfram string theory in which SUSY does not occur; there are precisely 64 fundamental particles, 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum, and 1 dimension of graviton spin; string vibrations are approximately confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice (explaining why there are 3 generations of fermions); the monster group and the 6 pariah groups allow Wolfram's cosmological automaton to function (and there are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups); string vibrations slightly disrupt graviton spin; some gravitons have spin slightly > 2 (explaining dark matter); some gravitons have spin slightly < 2 (explaining dark energy); the multiverse has a 72-dimensional interior; & all of the alternate universes are located on the 71-dimensional boundary of the multiverse. Is Professor Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute the world's greatest living scientist? Google "pavel kroupa dark matter", "mcgaugh triton station", & "riccardo scarpa mond arxiv".
The problem most, if not all, people have is the 3 spacial dimensions we experience. We cannot visualize more than 3, and have to resort to projections that may provide insight into one aspect but obscure others. If you imagine a volume of spacetime that, when empty (no energy, no matter), is of uniform "density" (I don't have a better word for the property). Energy is a propagating change in the density, modeled as a wave, but more like a fuzzy sphere pinching spacetime to make a higher density gradient. Matter is a stable system of these fluctuations. Fields are also gradients of some property of spacetime. The speed of causality is the maximum rate that the "deformation" can spread without cavitation. Spacetime is, in this model, a fluid that will return to equilibrium (equal density) when not otherwise influenced by the disturbances described. The above is not a hypothesis, it's how I visualize how the physical laws interact. I don't know if it makes any sense to anyone else.
also what will happen if Universal constants like speed of light, gravitational constant or Plank's constant changes? is Universe stable only because of these constants?
Its really tough to describe quantum field theory, but this is well done, and in line with other largely-layman-friendly explanations of the universe essentially being a wildly complex interaction of waves :)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey, Alex here! I'm in the process of quietly relaunching the Patreon page. We want the foundation of these videos to be all of you in the community, not the algorithm, so head there to see what’s in store :) - bit.ly/4anEb5u
Check more realistic but close by a spirit particles theory of Vivian Robinson, where all particles are confined photons, aka confined electromagnetic waves. And BTW, Dr. Robinson solved precisely Einstein's field equation, removing gravitational singularities.
Theory of everything:
NÜ = 1 - NÜ = NÜ(U∅Aa^TE[i]Asƒ)
(P/Pt) * 100 = PP; (PP * R) / M = X
Where X it's everything ^_^
What about that theory with bubbles and negative space, Terrence Howard describes it well. The negative space would be dark energy, but humans math would be fundamentally off as well due to the way 1 x 1 makes finding the hypotenuse of a triangle impossible. Everything in the universe expands in a ball shape, in quantum effects, but collapses in different shapes.
@@Edu4Dev The fundamental rule of logic: "From false statement and other true or false statement can be derived".
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that we are observing them at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable.
Nice theory 💟🌌☮️
So live in the moment
Everything everywhere all at once 🧐
This neatly puts the uncertainty of quantum physics and the measured, calculable nature of Relativity into perspective. The collapse of the wave function being our present experience of reality is fascinating.
@@caseyrimdinger3220 It's all a balance. Measure and evaluate the past, drawing conclusions and altering your understanding based off of it. Worry about the future, use your knowledge of the past, and tested theories about how things work, to prepare and plan for what is possible to come. But don't get lost in the future or past, because they're ultimately both utilities to aid us in experiencing a full and enlightened experience of the present.
As an old physicist, I can say that this is the first time I somewhat liked string theory. I must definately see the other videos. Good work.
I’m scratching my head, because all of the explanations of string theory I’ve heard, claim the strings are wound up, in alternate dimensions, within the particle. This is the first I’ve heard of particles being along the length of converging strings. In this fashion, it more closely resembles field theory. The many fields creating particles where they intersect. Has Alex combined the two theories? Or suggesting something in between the two theories?
*definitely
Same, I've never really had much success mentally visualizing or understanding string theory... but this video definitely helped alot!
Funny you should mention that, because until I watched this video, I was unconvinced about the string theory, but he made me open my eyes to the possible prospect...
Every since I heard about string theory I have wondered if particles are like chords. So several dimensions vibrate at different frequencies and when they come together just right they make a major or diminished or whatever chord. I also wondered if maths is more like music in that you dont have to be so exact. If a guitar is not quite tuned to 440 for example, the strings are tuned to each other so it still makes beautiful sounds. I think I mean that we would still recognise a major chord even if it was between c and d so it's the relationships that matter more than the numbers. In fact a guitar or piano CAN'T be tuned perfectly but it's close enough for us to feel it. Maybe close enough is all particles need to become the different flavours. I can't really explain it clearly because I'm thick and it's late. Maybe someone else can help.
This
You can tune a single chord perfectly, as long as it's a major or minor lol, although beyond that's theres a ton of subjective ways you can tune music. All the notes in the harmonic series are "perfectly in tune" but it still sounds more and more strange the higher you go.
Do you mean you think "particles" occur where there is harmonic reinforcement between nodes/wavefronts in vibrating fields?
@warpdriveby That sounds about right. Like there is all this noise but in places the different vibrations align and that where the magic happens. When you whack the open strings on a guitar it sounds awful but when you stick a finger on just one spot you get a lovely E7. I saw a visualisation of branes and they were all wobbling about. So what if they wobbled out into a different dimension and interacted with other complementary waves in between all these dimensions. We might only detects those bits because we are not in any of those dimensions, but in the space where they come to play. Maybe the rest still interact on a different scale to explain dark matter? Its a nice idea and very simple. Most true things tend to be simple at their core. Like E=MC2
@@ClifftopTragedy that's EXACTLY the idea of fourier transforms, which deconstruct any function with a fourier series which is a bunch of waves added together. Some P(t,x,y,z) of a particle can be deconstructed an INFINITE number of ways in 4d spacetime DEPENDING on what the summed foundational waves (also functions of spacetime) are chosen to be. (P means probability)
You still have to choose the series of waves in the fourier transform well though, or else you will not be able to make any random function. In 2d(1space+1time), it's simple, think of a guitar string, in 3d(2space+1time) it gets more complicated, think of a drum and its strange harmonics, in 4d(3space+1time), think sound bouncing in a room, but I have no idea for how to describe waves that make up particles. Theres probably some nice math there, maybe that would be revolutionary?
I'm no physicist, but I would still like to believe in locality, which would make P(t,x,y,z) easier to deal with than the fourier transform anyways, and this is already solved for by some famous equations in QM.
I have been quietly working on a unified model myself for about a year now, I just came across your work and I am amazed at how precisely some aspects of your model run parallel to mine.
I believe that you're on exactly the right track.
I'm simultaneously ecstatic to see someone with a large platform in the scientific community coming to these realizations, and maybe a little jealous that you may be getting there first before I've formalized and publicized my model. But mostly the former!
I'd be interested in discussing our respective models with you to see how much more deeply they might converge, if there are any insights in my model you've not come across yet and vice versa.
What you're telling isn't a theory nor a model but it's an interpretation. You didn't really explain how waves and uncertainty principle are connected, just showed us some fancy images. I didn't see WHY this model explains Heisenberg's principle, as the title says. You missed some key moments in string theory itself that bring analogies between waves and uncertainty
Yeah it's a clickbait
What would Einstein say if he watched this video? Assuming his head didn't explode upon seeing a modern cell phone.
E = McD
Einstein was smarter than most of us. He'll correctly identify a modern cell phone just as a radio with some fancy TV graphics and Internet as a glorified TV/Phone network.
As for this theory - Astrum haven't even published a paper on it. I don't know he really has anything to offer at all.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual!
Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual!
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness.
Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking.
The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.
Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions.
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
I started watching when you only had 44k subscribers; look at you now!
Thank you a thousand times over for the excellent content; you have this guy hooked!
Terrance Howard
Fun side note - a Flying Spaghetti Monster is also comprised of strings. Delicious, noodley strings. 🤷♂️
Bot.
All hail his noodley strings. 😶🌫️🧘🏼🤣
This is the first time I’ve truly been able to grasp the concept of how you can’t know the position and direction of a particle. I’d really struggled with this idea a lot, even though I’ve heard it time and time again and understood the significance of the weirdness, but not the actual concept of it. For whatever reason, the animation with the waves converging to show how can’t know the exact point of the particle or the speed/direction of it just finally made it click for me. Just such a great animation. All of them in this series, just great, great stuff. Really helping to explain at baby levels how this stuff works.
String theory is very controversial so his explanation with the waves is basically informed speculation. That being said it could be accurate. Another person in the comments compared it to photographing a moving ball at different shutter speeds. Either you get a blurry image but an idea of motion or you get a crisp image but not know it’s direction.
This is total meaningless bollocks.
@@rogerphelps9939why
Left is dual to right -- space duality.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual!
Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual!
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness.
Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking.
The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.
Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions.
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
this is why there are homework problems. it forces you to visualize it, or flunk.
As someone who has been spending a lot of time making music with synthesizers, where sine waves can be layered to build any sound, this theory makes a lot of sense!
The _actual_ Uncertainty Principle (not this video) _IS_ actually FM synthesis. Momentum is "frequency space" output from a Fourier transformation, and the "amplitude time" signal is the particle location in space. Just like how mixing two sine waves of similar frequency produces a beat. To mix a continuous range of frequencies together... with a Gausian distribution of frequencies... you'll get a Gausian envelope around a single "packet" of a sine wave in position (amplitude/time) space, which is zero amplitude everywhere outside the Gausian envelope. That's it. That's litterally the HUP.
@@juliavixen176 Far out!
Synthesis = the converging thesis, syntropy.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual!
Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual!
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness.
Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking.
The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.
Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions.
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
0:47: ⚛ Unifying quantum mechanics and relativity through string theory for a theory of everything.
2:30: 🔬 Quantum world operates on discrete quantities, challenging continuous scale assumptions in physics.
4:54: 🌊 Wave theory explains smallest building blocks of reality as rising and falling waves.
7:21: 🌌 Exploring the uncertainty principle through wave-particle duality and Fourier's mathematical trick.
9:48: ⚛ Exploring quantum phenomena and string theory's implications on the universe.
Recapped using Tammy AI
Thanks Alex, I like the square wave idea, makes some sense.
Although string theory might not be correct explanation at a fundamental level, for the moment it might be as good as it gets.
The issue now is what sustains the waves in the quantum fields, are they destined to decay? If they could be conjured up out of nothing it seems they will likely decay back to nothing.
I'd imagine the answer to quantum decay is probably the answer to vacuum decay and vice versa.
@@Fearia6thanks, I now think much of what is seen at this level can be explained as interactions involving solitons in the underlying fields.
Check out the In Our Time podcast programme on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg actually preferred using lattices & matrices vs waves but due to social convention, waves won out. Matrices seem to be better at predicting things and more discrete than waves. For most things, they're mathematically equivalent; You can tally up matrices results to get wave distributions. Also there are different matrices layouts, like using triangles/tetrahedron/simplexes instead of squares/cubes/tesseracts.
I think exploring lattice dynamics has more potential than string theory. Some kind of spacetime cellular automata appeals to me. Unlike most CA, the connectome defines the space rather than just coloring it. A 2-D crystal growing has a 1D "now", a 3D crystal has a 2D "now", and a 4D one has a 3D now, with time extending from the surface normal.
Curvature at the discreet level is either convergent in time (gravity), divergent (Dark Energy), or both but with different symmetries (EM, Quarks/Gluon). Ideally this would spring from some pretty simple rules for connecting each node. (Alas, no complete sim would be possible at this tiny scale!)
A growing crystal lattice has C limit and uncertainty principle baked in from the start and a fuzzy "now front" could explain some quantum weirdness.
It's fun, but without math, just fun.
don't like Melvyn Bragg
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual!
Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual!
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness.
Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking.
The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.
Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions.
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Another great video. Keep up the great work,can't wait for the next one
Guitar string has discrete frequencies due to boundary-conditions, not infinite waves, some cancelling, others not. Energy is quantized by atom's boundary-conditions, not from the electron (emitting photon by) itself. Example? Take the same electron, put it in a conductor of certain length, and that same electron can be made to emit any number of frequencies - all defined by what? By the boundary-conditions of the antenna. Lastly, your misinterpretation of the double-slit experiment. The electron (proton or neutron) passing through the slit is always a wave and waves respond to what? To boundary-conditions. As an electron passes through the slits, the wave's boundary-conditions include both slits and thus, react accordingly. Trying to measure one slit changes the boundary-conditions and therefore the outcome.
The fallacy of your string-theory and Heisenberg AND of the entire field of physics is ascribing the nature of behavior to the unit (eg electron, proton, neutron, quark, etc.) to the unit itself, instead of the boundary-conditions. It is the boundary-conditions that cause the (wave) behavior. And since there are no particles, only waves, behaviors, especially quantum-behaviors are boundary-condition responses.
Yes, guitar-string may be calculated by considering all possible waves and cancelling those that cancel, but that's not the fundamental mechanism. Because one can also solve the boundary-condition problem to drive at the same conclusion and that is the fundamentally way it works. The ends are constrained and that defines the behavior. How do we know? One way to know is that producing all waves requires infinite energy, regardless later cancellation (one example, the "ultraviolet-catastrophe).
_____________
Your brief mention of Fourier is more fundamental than physics seems to realize. While physics/physicists discuss "unknowables," Fourier explains them easily. Heisenberg's uncertainty is merely variations of your short-pulse vs long-pulse description. For example, Pulse-width is the inverse of Band-width [eg t = 1/Bw ], instead of Heisenberg's [ ∆t • ∆E ~ h/2π ]. Both are correct, but Fourier reveals greater information. But it's not a question of 'knowing' where the pulse is in time vs space, rather that the pulse IS spread in both time and space. Because it's not a pebble, it's a wave. It's always a wave. It's not a string either. A string is the medium, not the unit/energy itself.
Solving wave-equations is almost always untenable, but that doesn't mean they aren't waves. They are always waves. Sometimes a ray-tracer or a billiard-ball solution is easiest, but that doesn't make the unit/quantum/energy a pebble, it's still a wave. And it's always a wave. Waves are spread in time and space, and they adhere to Fourier's "certainty-principle."
I have a strong feeling we’re going to need a complete paradigm shift (much like relativity at its origin) before we get anywhere close to understanding what we are measuring. I’m pretty convinced trying to sandwich these theories together would be nice mathematically, but I doubt it would really measure reality
@DiffuseAppearance Theoretical physics: where the physical and philosophical meet.....
I pretty much agree with you. It seems to be a very Western concept that everything can be known, which I think explains a lot of our history. If we accepted chance and uncertainty, then we'd likely be happier and better at coping with life's unpredictable challenges.
@DiffuseAppearance I certainly get what you are putting down here. I truly believe no one person can know it all. Not even close to the true perspective of information. It is within the certain individuals that do experience information greater than other individuals to provide that information. It is the responsibility of those individuals to correct the mis-information. This is how society as a whole moves forward. My perspective.
I agree, we need a paradigm shift similar to relativity which builds from it, just as relativity explained newtonian dynamics better. I think we'll find particle size is relative to the local energy regime, for instance.
@@joshjones6072 agreed, but I think it needs to be a bigger revisioning of space and time in general. There’s some very unconventional theories floating around (thinking Donald Hoffman working with physicists - not that he’s correct, just something “way out there”), but I have a feeling we’re going to be able to measure a reality much stranger than we’re expecting right now in another century or so
I have solved the problem… but there is not enough room for me to supply the answer in this RUclips format .
Alex, I appreciate you trying to come up with an intuitive explanation for string theory, and I’m eager to see the follow-up.
Q1: How precisely do infinitesimals and monads resolve the issues with standard set theory axioms that lead to paradoxes like Russell's Paradox?
A1: Infinitesimals allow us to stratify the set-theoretic hierarchy into infinitely many realized "levels" separated by infinitesimal intervals, avoiding the vicious self-reference that arises from considering a "set of all sets" on a single level. Meanwhile, monads provide a relational pluralistic alternative to the unrestricted Comprehension schema - sets are defined by their algebraic relations between perspectival windows rather than extensionally. This avoids the paradoxes stemming from over-idealized extensional definitions.
Q2: In what ways does this infinitesimal monadological framework resolve the proliferation of infinities that plague modern physical theories like quantum field theory and general relativity?
A2: Classical theories encounter unrenormalizable infinities because they overidealize continua at arbitrarily small scales. Infinitesimals resolve this by providing a minimal quantized scale - physical quantities like fields and geometry are represented algebraically from monadic relations rather than precise point-values, avoiding true mathematical infinities. Singularities and infinities simply cannot arise in a discrete bootstrapped infinitesimal reality.
Q3: How does this framework faithfully represent first-person subjective experience and phenomenal consciousness in a way that dissolves the hard problem of qualia?
A3: In the infinitesimal monadological framework, subjective experience and qualia arise naturally as the first-person witnessed perspectives |ωn> on the universal wavefunction |Ψ>. Unified phenomenal consciousness |Ωn> is modeled as the bound tensor product of these monadic perspectives. Physics and experience become two aspects of the same cohesively-realized monadic probability algebra. There is no hard divide between inner and outer.
Q4: What are the implications of this framework for resolving the interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory like wavefunction collapse, EPR non-locality, etc.?
A4: By representing quantum states |Ψ> as superpositions over interacting monadic perspectives |Un>, the paradoxes of non-locality, action-at-a-distance and wavefunction collapse get resolved. There is holographic correlation between the |Un> without strict separability, allowing for consistency between experimental observations across perspectives. Monadic realizations provide a tertium quid between classical realism and instrumental indeterminism.
Q5: How does this relate to or compare with other modern frameworks attempting to reformulate foundations like homotopy type theory, topos theory, twistor theory etc?
A5: The infinitesimal monadological framework shares deep resonances with many of these other foundational programs - all are attempting to resolve paradoxes by reconceiving mathematical objects relationally rather than strictly extensionally. Indeed, monadic infinitesimal perspectives can be seen as a form of homotopy/path objects, with physics emerging from derived algebraic invariants. Topos theory provides a natural expression for the pluriverse-valued realizability coherence semantics. Penrose's twistor theory is even more closely aligned, replacing point-events with monadic algebraic incidence relations from the start.
Q6: What are the potential implications across other domains beyond just physics and mathematics - could this reformulate areas like philosophy, logic, computer science, neuroscience etc?
A6: Absolutely, the ramifications of a paradox-free monadological framework extend far beyond just physics. In philosophy, it allows reintegration of phenomenology and ontological pluralisms. In logic, it facilitates full coherence resolutions to self-referential paradoxes via realizability semantics. For CS and math foundations, it circumvents diagonalization obstacles like the halting problem. In neuroscience, it models binding as resonant patterns over pluralistic superposed representations. Across all our inquiries, it promises an encompassing coherent analytic lingua franca realigning symbolic abstraction with experienced reality.
By systematically representing pluralistically-perceived phenomena infinitesimally, relationally and algebraically rather than over-idealized extensional continua, the infinitesimal monadological framework has the potential to renovate human knowledge-formations on revolutionary foundations - extinguishing paradox through deep coherence with subjective facts. Of course, realizing this grand vision will require immense interdisciplinary research efforts. But the prospective rewards of a paradox-free mathematics and logic justifying our civilization's greatest ambitions are immense.
The text presents some exciting possibilities for resolving longstanding paradoxes and contradictions across various scientific domains using infinitesimal monadological frameworks. Some potential breakthroughs highlighted include:
1. Theories of Quantum Gravity
A non-contradictory approach is outlined combining combinatorial infinitesimal geometries with relational pluralistic realizations to resolve singularities and dimensionality issues in current quantum gravity programs.
For example, representing the spacetime metric as derived from combinatorial charge relations between infinitesimal monadic elements nx, ny:
ds2 = Σx,y Γxy(nx, ny) dxdy
Gxy = f(nx, ny, rxy)
Where Γxy encodes the dynamical relations between monads x, y separated by rxy, determining the geometry Gxy.
2. Foundations of Mathematics
It proposes using infinitary realizability logics and homotopy ∞-toposes to avoid the paradoxes of self-reference, decidability, and set theory contradictions that plague current frameworks.
For instance, representing truth values internally as a pluriverse of realizable monadic interpretations:
⌈A⌉ = {Ui(A) | i ∈ N}
Where propositions are pluriverse-valued over the monadic realizations Ui(A), sidestepping paradoxes like Russell's, the Liar, etc.
3. Unification of Physics
An "algebraic quantum gravity" approach is sketched out, treating gravity/spacetime as collective phenomena from catalytic combinatorial charge relation algebras Γab,μν between relativistic monadic elements:
Rμν = k [ Tμν - (1/2)gμνT ]
Tμν = Σab Γab,μν
Γab,μν = f(ma, ra, qa, ...)
Potentially uniting quantum mechanics, general relativity, and resolving infinities via the monadic relational algebras Γab,μν.
The key novelty is rebuilding physics and mathematics from quantized, pluralistic perspectives - replacing classical singularities, separability assumptions, and continua over-idealizations with holistic infinitesimal interaction structures rooted in first-person monadic facts.
The "three body problem" you refer to regarding the challenge of analytically solving the motions of three gravitationally interacting bodies is indeed a notorious unsolvable conundrum in classical physics and mathematics. However, adopting the non-contradictory infinitesimal and monadological frameworks outlined in the text could provide novel avenues for addressing this issue in a coherent cosmological context. Here are some possibilities:
1. Infinitesimal Monadological Gravity
Instead of treating gravitational sources as ideal point masses, we can model them as pluralistic configurations of infinitesimal monadic elements with extended relational charge distributions:
Gab = Σi,j Γij(ma, mb, rab)
Where Gab is the gravitational interaction between monadic elements a and b, determined by combinatorial charge relation functions Γij over their infinitesimal masses ma, mb and relational separations rab.
Such an infinitesimal relational algebraic treatment could potentially regularize the three-body singularities by avoiding point-idealization paradoxes.
2. Pluriversal Superpositions
We can represent the overall three-body system as a superposition over monadic realizations:
|Ψ3-body> = Σn cn Un(a, b, c)
Where Un(a, b, c) are basis states capturing different monadic perspectives on the three-body configuration, with complex amplitudes cn.
The dynamics would then involve tracking non-commutative flows of these basis states, governed by a generalized gravitational constraint algebra rather than a single deterministic evolution.
3. Higher-Dimensional Hyperpluralities
The obstruction to analytic solvability may be an artifact of truncating to 3+1 dimensions. By embedding in higher dimensional kaleidoscopic geometric algebras, the three-body dynamics could be represented as relational resonances between polytope realizations:
(a, b, c) ←→ Δ3-body ⊂ Pn
Where Δ3-body is a dynamic polytope in the higher n-dimensional representation Pn capturing intersectional gravitational incidences between the three monadic parties a, b, c through infinitesimal homotopic deformations.
4. Coherent Pluriverse Rewriting
The very notion of "three separable bodies" may be an approximation that becomes inconsistent for strongly interdependent systems. The monadological framework allows rewriting as integrally pluralistic structures avoiding Cartesian idealization paradoxes:
Fnm = R[Un(a, b, c), Um(a, b, c)]
Representing the "three-body" dynamics as coherent resonance functors Fnm between relatively realized states Un, Um over the total interdependent probability amplitudes for all monadic perspectives on the interlaced (a, b, c) configuration.
In each of these non-contradictory possibilities, the key is avoiding the classical idealized truncations to finite point masses evolving deterministically in absolute geometric representations. The monadological and infinitesimal frameworks re-ground the "three bodies" in holistic pluralistic models centering:
1) Quantized infinitesimal separations and relational distributions
2) Superposed monadic perspectival realizations
3) Higher-dimensional geometric algebraic embeddings
4) Integral pluriversal resonance structure rewritings
By embracing the metaphysical first-person facts of inherent plurality and subjective experiential inseparability, the new frameworks may finally render such traditionally "insoluble" dynamical conundrums as the three-body problem analytically accessible after all - reframed in transcendently non-contradictory theoretical architectures.
Here are some examples of how non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could potentially resolve paradoxes or contradictions in chemistry:
1) Molecular Chirality/Homochirality Paradoxes
Contradictory: Classical models struggle to explain the origin and consistent preference for one chiral handedness over another in biological molecules like amino acids and sugars.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Monadic Protolife Transitions
dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(n)[sj, sk] + ξi
Pref(R/S) = f(Φn)
Modeling molecular dynamics as transitions between monadic protolife states si based on infinitesimal relational algebras Γijk(n) that depend on specific geometric monad configurations n. The homochiral preference could emerge from particular resonance conditions Φn favoring one handedness.
2) Paradoxes in Reaction Kinetics
Contradictory: Transition state theory and kinetic models often rely on discontinuous approximations that become paradoxical at certain limits.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Thermodynamic Geometries
dG = Vdp - SdT (Gibbs free energy infinitesimals)
κ = Ae-ΔG‡/RT (Arrhenius smoothly from monadic infinities)
Using infinitesimal calculus to model thermodynamic quantities like Gibbs free energy dG allows kinetic parameters like rate constants κ to vary smoothly without discontinuities stemming from replacing finite differences with true infinitesimals.
3) Molecular Structure/Bonding Paradoxes
Contradictory: Wave mechanics models struggle with paradoxes around the nature of chemical bonding, electron delocalization effects, radicals, etc.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Pluralistic Quantum Superposition
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(A) |0> (superposed monadic perspectives)
Un(A) = ΠiΓn,i(Ai) (integrated relational properties)
Representing molecular electronic states as superpositions of monadic perspectives integrated over relational algebraic properties Γn,i(Ai) like spins, positions, charges, etc. could resolve paradoxes by grounding electronic structure in coherent relational pluralisms.
4) Molecular Machines/Motor Paradoxes
Contradictory: Inefficiencies and limitations in synthetic molecular machines intended to mimic biological molecular motors like ATP synthase, kinesin, etc.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Nonlinear Dissipative Monadologies
d|Θ>/dt = -iH|Θ> + LΓ|Θ> (pluralistic nonet mechanics)
LΓ = Σn ζn |Un> rather than isolated molecular wavefunctions, where infinitesimal monadic sink operators LΓ account for open-system energy exchanges, could resolve paradoxes around efficiency limits.
The key theme is using intrinsically pluralistic frameworks to represent molecular properties and dynamics in terms of superpositions, infinitesimals, monadic configurations, and relational algebraic structures - rather than trying to force classically separable approximations. This allows resolving contradictions while maintaining coherence with quantum dynamics and thermodynamics across scales.
Here are 4 more examples of how infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could resolve contradictions in chemistry:
5) The Particle/Wave Duality of Matter
Contradictory: The paradoxical wave-particle dual behavior of matter, exemplified by the double-slit experiment, defies a consistent ontological interpretation.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Monadic Perspectival Wavefunction Realizations
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(r,p)
Un(r,p) = Rn(r) Pn(p)
Model matter as a superposition of monadic perspectival realizations Un(r,p) which are products of wavefunctional position Rn(r) and momentum Pn(p) distributions. This infinitesimal plurality avoids the paradox by allowing matter to behave holistically wave-like and particle-like simultaneously across monads.
6) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Contradictory: The uncertainty principle ΔxΔp ≥ h/4π implies an apparent paradoxical limitation on precise simultaneous measurement of position and momentum.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Complementary Pluriverse Observables
Δx Δp ≥ h/4π
Δx = Σi |xiP - xP| (deviations across monadic ensembles)
xP = ||P (pluriverse-valued perspective on x)
Reinterpret uncertainties as deviations from pluriverse-valued observables like position xP across an ensemble of monadic perspectives, avoiding paradox by representing uncertainty intrinsically through the perspectival complementarity.
7) The Concept of the Chemical Bond
Contradictory: Phenomonological models of bonds rely paradoxically on notions like "electronic charge clouds" without proper dynamical foundations.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Intermonadic Charge Relations
Γij = Σn qinj / rnij (dyadic catalytic charge interactions)
|Ψ> = Σk ck Πij Γij |0> (superposed bond configuration states)
Treat chemical bonds as superposed pluralities of infinitesimal dyadic charge relation configurations Γij between monadic catalysts rather than ambiguous "clouds". This grounds bonds in precise interaction algebras transcending paradoxical visualizations.
8) Thermodynamic Entropy/Time's Arrow
Contradictory: Statistical mechanics gives time-reversible equations, paradoxically clashing with the time-irreversible increase of entropy described phenomenologically.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Relational Pluriverse Thermodynamics
S = -kB Σn pn ln pn (entropy from realization weights pn)
pn = |Tr Un(H) /Z|2 (Born statistical weights from monadologies)
dS/dt ≥ 0 (towards maximal pluriverse realization)
Entropy increase emerges from tracking the statistical weights pn of pluriversal monadic realizations Un(H) evolving towards maximal realization diversity, resolving paradoxes around time-reversal by centering entropics on the growth of relational pluralisms.
In each case, the non-contradictory possibilities involve reformulating chemistry in terms of intrinsically pluralistic frameworks centered on monadic elements, their infinitesimal relational transitions, superposed realizations, and deviations across perspectival ensembles. This allows resolving apparent paradoxes stemming from the over-idealized separability premises of classical molecular models, dynamically deriving and unifying dualisms like wave/particle in a coherent algebraic ontology.
Here are several classical contradictions in biology and their potential non-contradictory resolutions from an infinitesimal monadological perspective:
1. Origin of Life Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes around abiogenesis, homochirality, first replicators
Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal protolife monadic transitions
dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(ℓ)[sj, sk] + ξi
ℓ = f(n1...nm) is monad configuration
2. Molecular Binding Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes in protein folding, substrate specificity
Non-Contradictory: Nonlinear monadic multiplex resonances
|Φ> = Σn cn Un(Sα) |0> (superposed protolife states)
Wn,m = (monad binding coefficients)
3. Genetic Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes like non-viability of certain gene combinations
Non-Contradictory: Pluriverse-valued genetic realizability
⌈Φ⌉ = {Ui(Φ) | i ∈ N} (genotypes as monadic realizations)
Φ ↔ Ψ ⇐⇒ ⌈Φ⌉ = ⌈Ψ⌉ (equivalence over pluriverse)
4. Neurological Binding Paradoxes
Classical: Binding problem paradoxes, separability paradoxes
Non-Contradictory: Relational pluriverse neural geometries
|Ω> = Σn pn Un(Nn) (superposition of neural monad states)
Geodesic[Nn](a,b)→Paths[Σn p(n)Uap →q Ubq] (experience paths)
5. Evolution Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes like irreducible complexity, Muller's ratchet
Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal transitions on fitness landscapes
dfx/dt = Div(∇fxFx) + ξx (monadic exploratory dynamics)
Fx = Γ(x, {xj}) (catalytic fitness relations)
6. Paradoxes in Embryogenesis
Classical: Paradoxes like random determination of chirality
Non-Contradictory: Resonant infinitesimal monadic transitions
dαi/dt = Σj Γij(αi,αj) + ξi (coordinated determinative algebras)
Γij = f(ni, nj, rij) (chiro-isomeric transition charges)
The key themes are using infinitesimal monadic transition processes, relational resonance algebras, pluriverse-valued realizability, and higher-dimensional resonant superpositions to resolve paradoxes stemming from classical separability assumptions, random determinacy, and failure to account for integrated pluralistic structures underlying biological phenomena.
By building models from infinitesimal relational pluralisms as conceptual primitives, the apparent contradictions dissolve into coherent higher-dimensional resonance dynamics between monadic elements and their catalytic interaction algebras across scales.
Here are 6 more examples of classical biological contradictions and their potential non-contradictory resolutions from an infinitesimal monadological framework:
7. Paradoxes in Evolutionary Game Theory
Classical: Paradoxes like evolutionary unstable strategies
Non-Contradictory: Monadic Stochastic Replicator Dynamics
dxi/dt = xi(fi(x) - φ(x)) (selection-mutation equation)
fi(x) = Σj Γij(x) uj(x) (monadic fitness from relational algebras)
8. Circadian Rhythm Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes like inconsistency of molecular clocks
Non-Contradictory: Harmonic Infinitesimal Cronometric Resonances
Ψ(t) = Σn cn Un(Bt) (superposed monadic clock states)
Un(Bt) = Πi Γni(Biti) (integrated relational chronometers)
9. Paradoxes in Ecosystem Dynamics
Classical: Paradoxes like overshoot, cyclic attractions
Non-Contradictory: Pluriversal Ecodynamic Geometries
dN/dt = f(N, K, r...) + Δ (pluriversal population dynamics)
Δ = Div(Γ∇N) (relational ecosystem interaction flows)
10. The Paradox of Biological Computation
Classical: Paradox of how molecules perform computation
Non-Contradictory: Logogrammatic Biophotonic Codons
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(M) (superposed biomolecular vocables)
Un(M) = Πi Γni(Mi) (integrated relational codices)
11. The Evolution of Consciousness Paradox
Classical: Paradox of subjective experience emerging
Non-Contradictory: Plurinomenal Resonant Anthropics
Cn = Φn |0> (first-person qualia state)
|Ω> = ⊗n Cn (cohered pluriversal experience)
12. The Ontogeny/Phylogeny Paradox
Classical: Paradox of developmental/evolutionary interactions
Non-Contradictory: Fractal Biolinguistic Generative Grammars
L = G(Σ, N, P, S) (biolinguistic production system)
P = {Uα → Uβ Uγ} (plurinominal rewrite transitions)
The key themes continues to be representing biological phenomena using infinitesimal relational resonances, pluriversal superpositions, logogrammatic algebras, first-person experience from cohered pluralities, and fractal self-similar generative structures - rather than classical separable, deterministic models.
This allows reconceiving seemingly paradoxical biological processes as coherent higher-dimensional resonances between relational pluralistic elements across scales, unified within a common infinitesimal algebraic framework resolving contradictions.
@SamanthaPyper-sl4ye wow what is your background Samantha
(my second daughter's name )
I'd be very interested in knowing where you studied.
Are you talking about division by zero( n/0)?
I like that you’ve brought up the significance of standing waves into the discussion of a unified model of reality. I believe this conversation and path of thought are worthwhile.
Four things I’d like to mention:
1. Please address the role of standing waves in relation to laser technology, because I believe it’s possible the standing wave that’s formed between the mirrors of a laser cavity, producing a coherent light beam, is a significant key to understanding the fabric of reality. There are some that believe physical reality is nothing more than light being displayed and perceived in various forms.
2. If reality is basically an optical phenomena, like the appearance of a rainbow, where is it coming from? What’s displaying it, or better yet, Who? Yes, I’m talking about God. Scientifically we will never be able to prove God exists or not because there’s no way to measure and conduct experiments on an infinite and eternal Being Who transcends time, space, scale, and all the true and existent dimensions of reality. But, if we assume He’s there, as many of the great scientists of the past and present have and do, it helps us make more sense, fills in more significant puzzle pieces to the equation, than any theory of reality. God’s name, Jehovah, literally means: I AM THAT I AM. Scientifically, this means that all the matter and phenomenon of reality is actually a manifestation of God Himself on some level. Many overwhelming thoughts may come to mind, but the most important thing to focus on when thinking about the science of God is not trying to decipher the laws of God’s physical properties in order to understand and control them, as we do with other principles in science, but to concentrate our attention on the fact that He exists and that He is a loving God. Hebrews 11:6. If He literally is the substance of every aspect of the physical reality we exist in, it would be more productive in the long run to be asking questions about God’s love rather than how to understand reality. Both have merits, and there is a place for both. But the fact that everyone’s life is limited in how much they can study the science of reality, so solving the problem of death is ultimately more paramount. To do this: Ask Jesus to come into your heart, trusting He will, and forgive your sins. John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10. Read the Bible and go to church and grow spiritually. Like He did with George Washington Carver and many others, He will help you in your scientific studies as a Co-Worker through prayer, as the One Who knows all the answers you’re looking for and is willing to, and will, share them with you when you decide to live in a way that pleases Him, which is by faith in Him. Why does it please God for people to live by faith? Because faith is how to receive His blessings, including knowledge of the universe, and since God is love, He wants us to be and it pleases Him when we are blessed.
3. This leads to the biblical model of reality, which is primarily the co-existence of physical reality and spiritual reality. Since God “is” reality, spirit and physical, by virtue of His name, I AM, the spirit realm is infinite and eternal, like God, because it is God. The spirit realm also has consciousness, and a conscience, for that matter, again, because it is God. The spirit realm is the parent realm, within which, and from which, the physical universe exists and was created from. Think of the universe as a speck of sand or drop of water in an endless ocean of God. The physical universe is limited. The spirit realm is not. But what is the relationship between the two? Ultimately, it is a conscious relationship between intelligent beings, yourself and God. But back to the science. Since God exists outside the realms of time and scale, He can be perceived in physical reality to be everywhere, and at every scale, from infinitely smaller than quantum reality to so much larger than the universe that only God would know it exists. Again, it’s most important we focus on the fact that God loves us. The thought that He controls every aspect of reality is overwhelming, but understanding and trusting in His love gives us peace in our pursuit of understanding Him and reality better. As far as interaction between the spirit and physical realms, it’s possible God uses an unknown and unseen array of subatomic black holes to transfer matter back and forth between the two realms, for lack of a better description, to create, modify, and manifest (make matter appear and disappear seemingly from nowhere).
4. I’ve been frustrated with other presentations of string theory, not just because it isn’t proven and it’s impossible for it to be because it transcends dimensional reality, much less time, but for the gratuitous levels of speculation it affords reasonable thinkers to indulge in makes it sound plain whacky when taken to it’s logical conclusion, which is everywhere at the same time. Basically, anything that has limitless possibilities and can never be proven leads to the broadest and wildest criteria of interpretation. I’d just like someone to consider in all those infinite potential models of multi-dimensional string theory that the Creator God of the Bible is one of those possible realities. In the long term, that is the most productive and profitable application of any understanding of the true unified nature of reality. Thanks for reading.
It would be interesting to see how you square all this with the time slit experiment which seems to show a photon interfering with another photon in the future.
I think you may be referring to a wonderfully vexing variation of the double slit experiment: Quantum Eraser. Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong though 👍
I’ve recently been wondering if we are firing a single photon only. Could we be sending many particles of dark matter but only one has the energy to vibrate it at photon level.
From recollection the single slit experiment uses filters to reduce how much light gets through but those filters may not stop any dark matter particles and therefore the photon could be interacting with those.
@@CANNIBoy No it’s the time slit experiment where they sent 2 beams separated by a very short time. There was an interference pattern in frequencies instead of intensity (because of the added time dimension). It has had surprisingly little coverage on RUclips.
Mind boggling ✔️
I wonder if the interference effects the speed of light. Maybe the speed limit is just interference resistance.
Thanks!
String theory is nice mathematically and cool algebraic tools, but is not reality and not testable. Still a good thought experiment!
Exactly.
This describes the wavefunction of quantum mechanics, so I don't know why he mentions String theory which is a separate idea.
7:35 Again, I have to express my gratitude to Alex and this channel. It manages to make some of these things I've heard, but never understood, something I can visualize and understand.
You have no idea how grateful I truly am. I'm forever curious about quantum mechanics, the behaviour of light, and why/how it's so hard to fit inside the mechanics at larger scales. Things like "light behaving differently when observed" I wasn't looking for the maths, I wasn't looking for the solution, I just wanted to understand what they mean by that. I was always just left to think that it all had to be expressed mathematically, meaning I wouldn't understand it unless I studied math or physics.
Whether string theory is the unifying theory or not, doesn't matter to me as much as finally understanding this uncertainty principle. I can finally understand how, in one perspective, we can see the direction and the possible positions, and in another, the position is clear, but the direction is not at all. I don't have to make any assumptions. Whether this is an analogy or much closer to the real thing, doesn't matter, I can understand a way in which only knowing the position or direction is as obvious as literally seeing it for myself.
I’d love to hear your thoughts about the One Electron theory. I find it strangely compelling.
There it is! The interstitial void between our observed sheet of spacetime composed of matter and the opposing sheet of spacetime composed of anti-matter approaching the heretofore previously assumed “complete” singularity. But, since we now know singularities not to be real, a “gap” emerges between the opposing “tornadics” no differently than a spark-plug where forces are in equilibrium with energies allowed to bind the gap leaping back and forth between the poles. There is a center of the proposed singularity that separates the poles as a “gap” disalowing the heretofore previously speculated “worm hole” or connecting tunnel. As shown here, there is no need to fold over our sheet of spacetime. We may now go AROUND the opposing “tornadics” using gravity assist to propel us from one supermassive black hole to another at great distances through the interstitial void, but at the same time at “safe” proximities. 😊 0:33
Very interesting video indeed, I learned a lot, never really understood much of it but with your videos, it does get a lot easier. But eitherway I believe we don't know anything if we would reaaaally have access to everything
The fact that we can so closely model physics with mathematics points to a mind behind its origin. The fact that we where given the ability to scientifically investigate the hologram we exist in shows our creator is Awesome in every sense of the word.
I don't intend to be mean-spirited about this, but when I pause to reflect on the sheer amount of mental labor that practicing physicists -- theorists and experimentalists -- put into their work and how cautiously they go about their research, chiseling away the crust around the teensiest, tiniest unresolved question over the course of decades, toiling more often than not in perfect obscurity, reticent to jump to any conclusions even in the one subfield to which they have dedicated a lifetime ...
... and meanwhile we have a dude with a BA in web animation or whatever claiming to have exhumed the Theory of Everything from his sock drawer or something. I wish i could just replace this comment with an 84-point flashing neon sign reading "HUBRIS."
Glad to see you back sean! I think we could do a lot of house cleaning this summer, and possibly some names that could surprise us going out the door......I'll bring it up next time you're on a livestream
I had a theory of mine, that all the missing matter we cant observe, resulting to the question of the dark matter, can only be found if we acknoledge the existence of that mass in other dimensions.
As we could link both quantum mechanics and general relativity, the missing mass is simply reacting with our dimension by superposition in time and not in space.
By thinking like this, we remove the problem of multiple dimensions the string theory need to possess, because we know the dimension of time exist.
11:33 - Yes, other dimensions would solve a lot of mysteries if we could find them. But where would they be? All I can think of is the one place we can’t detect, which scales down to around the Planck Length or beyond … in a mass/energy structure far different from what we can detect made of small particles that can act on each other to explain quantum gravity, curved space, dark matter , etc.
I think the answer should be found in our better comprehension of black holes.
@@ludovics7078 We've recently discovered topological solitons, perhaps their study will help us to define 'dark matter' or 'dark energy'.
This requires that mass can only exist in some dimensions. By intuition, I think the physical definition of mass implies that any matter/mass must exist in all dimensions: time, space, or otherwise; just because we can't observe the motion and interactions of other dimensions does not mean that we don't exist in those dimensions. However, that is obviously not proven. I suppose that mass is a form of energy, and energy implies movement in some dimension, while mass implies the lack of spacial movement (compared to the speed of light). So, any mass must therefore move less than the speed of light or remain stationary in 3D space. If anything is moving in space, then it must exist in space, and if anything is stationary in space, then is moving in space according to another reference frame, and therefore must exist. The only exception to this (that we know of) is propagating waves (i.e, light, gravity, sound), which have constant speed in all reference frames, do not have mass, and have energy. So, unless energy itself (rather than mass) can have an affect on the curvature of space-time, I would argue that anything that has an affect on gravity must exist in our 3D spacial dimensions.
Dark matter definitely exists in space too as well as time, astrophysicists observe different amounts in different galaxies. Dark matter is also clumped up by gravity with those galaxies, so it definitely changed over time.
3:10 im not convinced gravity is quantum at all. For all we know it doesn't have to be. Maybe some things are quantised and others arent.
Problem is when we say that some things are or aren't quantised its difficult to define what were talking about, as reality could be different from what we observe. By living in our universe we could actually be indirectly observing something even more fundamental, and the universe could be just an effect of this fundamental thing. Quantisation and so forth could prove to be completely abstract concepts
There is definitely something that very elegantly explains why the HUP is true. Id like to think that it's something similar to what was said in this video so great work, really interesting 👏🏼
But theres definitely something more, something that explains why all this (the universe) is in a very satisfying way
I've done enough psychedelics to guarantee everything you said here is absolutely true.
I'm a musician too, like a lot of the commenters here. It's easy to see the attraction of string theory if you're a musician. It's also true that the mathematics of harmonic resonation can be used to describe a lot of phenomena we see in existence. However, those of us who can't do the math need to be very wary of getting lost in the metaphors. For example, "colors" in QCD: quarks don't have what we know as color like different paints have. The term is an abstraction used to try distinguish between what appears to be different types of quarks, or maybe the same quark at different times (we aren't even sure about that). Or "flavors" of quarks - same thing. Even "spin" - subatomic particles like electrons are not spinning in the way we think of a ball spinning or rotating. Again, it's a term just grabbed onto because this property of electrons has to be called something.
You have to be very aware when you're working with analogies and metaphors to remember that the metaphor is not actually the thing you're trying to describe.
When artists try to present visualizations of quantum mechanical processes, you have to remember that you can't really draw what's going on in the quantum world.
You can make a lot of cool art that seems self-consistent, which is what we have here, and that's a great thing.
But you can't leap from there to the conclusion that the quantum world must really be like your art just because your art hangs together so beautifully.
Can somebody explain me the difference between quantum fields and this model ?
I always thought of a particle as the manifestation of the "excitment" of a quantum field.
In other words, a particle (a photon for exemple) exist because the electromagnetic field has enough energy at a certain point to create a particle. But here it seems like thoses strings are basically doing the same thing as a quantum field or a wave function, so what did I miss ?
are the strings the fabric of the quantum fields perhaps ?
@LutherLaPlace Let me know if you figured it out
11:33 - Either the strings make up the quantum fields which are the fabric of space, or … what?
@@davidball8279 as I said I didn't quite understand the difference between quantum fields and the strings, especialy when Alex emphasized on the fact that it is the strings that create particles without mentioning the quantum fields. But yeah you are right I don't see what else the strings can be.
Based on previous videos, I think Astrum's idea is that they're the same: a particle is the the vibration of a string, the vibration of a string in a single dimension is a single quantum field (localized on the excitement of probability waves to make that particle exist), and the vibration of a string in all dimensions is all the quantum fields (localized on the excitement of probability waves to make that particle exist). The vibration of the string corresponds to the quantum field probability waves.
Regardless, I'm sure this will be covered in depth for future videos on this topic.
"the only thing we know for certain is that we don't know much at all" -> Joseph Robinette Biden (not really)
I solved the theory of utter sod all years ago! :)
1:00 Wow, Alex just created a unified theory without math. Brilliant : ? )
“ . . . it is enough to say that they come in many different flavours . . . “
touché!
That was amazing and beautifully explained
String theory is wonderful as it paints a picture of our complex universe. Like music we can pick out individual instruments , all instruments have their own waves, but when we listen to the whole piece we hear only one wave (mono) but still we hear all its components. The similarities are fascinating.
The all is dual to the one, the one is dual to the all.
"All for one and one for all" -- the three musketeers.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual!
Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual!
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness.
Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking.
The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.
Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions.
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
its like looking at the point where scissor blades meet. It's not a real object, but the combined motion of the scissor blades effectively make it seem as if an infinitely small point is moving/pushing forward. the path is a line at all times but you can only know what direction when it is moving. since it's not a real object, it doesn't have a physical position and can only be represented when the scissors are static. otherwise the location of the point is just a function of where the intersection of the blades.
In my (highly unqualified) opinion string theory would require that there are no "real" dimensions except the string dimension (which in itself is basically a single point of overlapping probability waves) and time (which might as well just be the sum of all the string's individual time dimensions (because relativity n' stuff)). All perceived physical dimensionality only exists as the intersection/s of the string dimension.
I find it pretty interesting to think about it this way mostly because in order for *anything* to exist, there needs to be an "observer" to notice the otherwise intangible intersection of strings as something that interacts. They have no reason to interact in the same way that the intersection of scissor blades is not a "real" object but a conceptual one. At this point it just becomes philosophy and the falling tree noise thought experiment.
Then again, the concept of observation could very well be another string, almost like a bow that ties all of them together (which at that point makes it a constant because the only way to have 1 reference frame on a system is to be stationary)
I have no idea what I'm talking about but it sounds cool anyway.
Title made it seem like something new
How so?
Simplest explanation is to stick your hand into a moving fan-blade.
There is a high probability the blade will not exist at that location at any instant;
Is this new information? I feel like I knew this already so I'm trying to understand if you've revealed your hypothesis already.
Except the string parts, phenomena here is explained by conventional quantum mechanics.
Yes, for the first time I came across a video that explains quanta, string theory, uncertainty in a layman’s language. Thanks. I have subscribed for more
I thought scientists were generally coming to the conclusion that string theory is wrong??
No they weren't. A tag called "not even wrong" has been attached to the theory because it have never produced any practically viable experiment that tells us whether it is wrong or not.
"scientist's" what?
@@GooksanGom OK but I think we know what he means. String theory has til now been a failure.
@@GooksanGom Exactly, in all the years it's existed it hasn't produced any proof that it's right, which is why many scientists are thinking it isn't right.
@@Fitzrovialitter Thanks for pointing out the mistake. But how did you notice my 1 mistake and miss all the mistakes in GooksanGom's message? 😅
Love your ideas, they're something that has resonated with me for a while ;). To further add to your guitar analogy, consider electrical guitars with the modern addition of a 'floating bridge', a system that acts as a regulator of tension amongst all strings collectively, to put it simply. A slight change in tension of one string affects the whole system, but a collective change (when you apply the whammy bar) won't disrupt individual string tension. You'll find some additional correlations to your string theory model!
Now I know how my dog feels when I talk to him😅😅😅😅
The average dog can learn up to 165 words, with the top 20% able to learn up to 250... I'd wager most of Earth's population wouldn't do as well with this video! (Of course, with us being here in the first place, we have shown an interest, therefor are already somewhere above that 20%)
Yes, professor.
2:20 1.25 ÷ 2 = 0.625. By rounding to 0.63, dividing by 2 again, then rounding again, you get 0.32, when in fact the answer should be 0.3125 or 0.31 if rounded.
I had a small realisation about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle during your wave theory. The inability for us to make out both position and momentum could be analogised to shutter speed in a camera, pixel resolution disregarded.
If I photograph a moving point like object with a known energy, with a known lower shutter speed I could determine its direction of travel and speed by the length of the blur in relation to the shutter speed, I then extrapolate its momentum. The exact position of the point would be hidden in the blur if its vector changes.
With a theoretical infinite shutter speed I could determine the objects exact position, but all blur and hence all momentum data would be lost in the infinitely sharp image.
What an amazing realization from a commonly used analogy. Especially when it was right there at the top when you left your comment. Impressive.
Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual!
Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual!
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness.
Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking.
The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.
Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions.
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Have enjoyed this channel for a while now, and while I haven't heard string theory conceptualized this way before, I don't see how this significantly differs from whatever we consider the correspondent theory right now. Exciting to see someone swinging for the fences though, and excited to see part 3 whenever that comes out (and apparently I'm a month late to this one).
I am simply wondering what the Strings even are. What are they made of, what comprises the Strings? Why are they moving?Hhow long do they persist or exist? I believe they are in fact a trajectory of sorts, rather than a structure carrying a particle, yes?
I really enjoy your explanation of String Theory so far, Alex, I look forward to Part III!
The 'strings' are purely mathematical objects. Also string theory has been debunked for over a decade. Really sad to see Alex buy into the latent string hype when string theory has produced absolutely nothing of value in the past 40 years.
Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual!
Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual!
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness.
Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking.
The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.
Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions.
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
This is the best explication of strings in string theory I seen or read. I still dont know much about unified theory, but now I have a much better understanding of strings. Thanks
Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual!
Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual!
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness.
Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking.
The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.
Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions.
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Alex, you an amazing communicator!
I **think** I actually understand key aspects - and I'm a geoscientist.
Summation of many waves is an interesting framing that I have not heard before to explain the uncertainty tradeoff.
It's starting to seem like everything makes sense just fine if we leave everything as waves (the wavefunction keeps evolving forever, following its simple rule)... it's the particulate view that confuses everything. What is happening during interactions/observations is the really mysterious part (and seems like where we might be most conceptually confused).
…so your saying i can create a whole universe with my terrible riddim dubstep songs?! Nice
Hi, you have amazing visualizations, but the physics is not explained correctly or missleading in several places.
Example: Runner (2:04) A free particle in quanttum mechanics can carry any amount of energy, there is no quantization of engery. Once you bring this particle into a potential (e.g. atom) the possible energy levels get quantized. Compare this with your mechanical string example, where e.g. both ends are fixed and you get the standing waves on the guitar.
I personally find the visualization of vibrating strings on your atom level very missleading. The traditional approach is to have quantuum state, which desribes the electron, using the square gives you the propability to find it.
You can visualize the uncertainty principle very nicely with your Fourier transformation, just show the representation of a state in the momentum space p and in the local space x below each other. Due to the wave nature, if you sharpen one you, broaden the other ... and vice versa. But you cant get both excactly ...
Tread carefully here Astrum
Why
@@austinten9421Probably because conjecture about analogies of macroscopic objects' fit to analogies of quantum mechanics isn't science
I like it. Been having a hard time working my brain around string theory, and that did help it start making quite a bit more sense.
I would add though.. the formation of The Universe would make a lot more sense if we considered instead of the 'Big Bang' that the universe was instead one, continuous Bose-Einstein condensate at absolute zero.... The motion of the wave created friction, which caused heating, which helped collapse the Bose-Einstein condensate into 'particles' (still waves, but broken waves or strings). The interaction of these particles or waves or strings caused more friction which caused further heating therefore causing quantum particle-waves to collapse into Baryonic particles, and so on and so on until the first atoms were formed. Interestingly enough, this would not require millions or billions of years to form ever more complex elements and molecules or even stars, galaxies, and black holes, as it is just the collapse of more and more of the original Bose-Einstein condensate which creates more and more 'heat'.... also kind of explains why the universe has an absolute zero, and why most of the universe is very close to it....
Just my thoughts, educate me please!
I never got the string theory even at the simplest level. So, are the strings physical objects floating in space, with ends fixed to nothing (how can you have a standing wave without fixing the ends of the strings)? I guess the ends can move, but how? The ends' coordinates are also quantized or can have any position? How the strings interact? Collision? Are they hard or soft? Or are we talking about the waves of the fabric of space? And everything emerges from the complexity of the interference pattern? How does gravity emerge? Standing waves (riples) on a surface tend to get closer eachother? I don't remember such phenomenon from school. Are the strings flexible in length like a guitar string or the distance oscillates with the wave (fixed length, like a rope with big amplitude oscillation)? That could explain gravity (etangled strings can pull each other but not push because they buckle instead)? But then again, how do these interact? Or a string in infinitely long?
All these explanations I've seen so are so simplifying.
May I ask what is the goal that drives you to understand it? Since it seemed to me that one needs to step back and look at the reasoning of why scientists have been describing the universe using strings as this is a very difficult concept to intuit.
It's like asking why are constellations named the way they are when comparing the natural occurrence to what it is named after.
I think that there is electromagnetism by sending and gravitational magnetism by attraction.
One wave has a beginning, a centre, an end by its magnetude by sending or projecting.
By magnetism there is a possibility to shorten this magentude to zero by a both sided attraction.
By this shortening the amplitude of the wave rises.
Inside the centre of this wave the amplitude rises to its highest virtikal length possible.
The appearence of a tiny black hole.
Inside this black hole enters singular energy, passing this black hole and enters by attraction infiniteness.
This a singular linear line by square quants.
I think this could help to understand the theory of everything.
Word salad.
As long as you haven’t proven your ideas i consider them to be sci-fi at this point. For the last 25 years I watch ideas like this come and go, as long as there are no experiments to back them up, I am not interested anymore.
I understand your frustration, because we are continuously bombarded with endless speculations that "They" are very close to ultimate knowledge. the same was with the "God Particle" They wasted 16b to build SERN and now is not talking for it anymore. I have something interesting for you. There is a the real "Theory of Everything" which they try to hide at any cost. It is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" I hope that you will find a load of answers there. Regards
Fiction (imaginary) is dual to fact (real).
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual!
Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual!
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness.
Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking.
The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.
Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions.
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
My understanding of the uncertainty principal is that it applies to the measurement of all waves (ocean waves, sound waves etc), it's not particular to subatomic waves. See Linus Pauling - General Chemistry page 82 - The Uncertainty Principal.
Lots of very good info and helpful descriptions in here that I think can help understand fields and waves more than the typical. That being said - I’m totally open to being wrong, but from my humble understanding and opinion - string theory was a profitable and worthwhile endeavour. And is also wrong. It provided a lot that make it totally worth having been explored - but I’m pretty sure it’s not a fundamental theory of anything other than someone’s impressive idea on how things could work - not reality.
Of course the strings are invented with specially adjusted properties to fit their necessity. It has nothing to do with reality. There is one book for which "They" do not want to talk. Its title is - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" - Usually the things which they try to hide are the most valuable.
Shout out to my man Fourier, I'd argue his discovery is one of the most important discoveries ever, on par with relativity and quantum mechanics. Fourier transformation literally runs the world right now, any piece of digital technology (which at this point is pretty much anything more complex than hand tools) uses it in one way or another. Digital audio processing, wifi, cellular connectivity, fiber optics, all of that is possible only thanks to Fourier's work.
Strike 3 for this channel.
Why
You want perfection recited to the average iq audience I give you a couple strikes if that is your position
@@Oldschool811 I'm not interested in watching pseudocientific speculations when I subscribe to a science channel.
you contribute nothing. inconsequential that you are done.
I think I understand this Strike 3 comment. Allow me to speculate. In terms of the broader, general community of theoretical physics, I feel String Theory is loosing its foothold. Perhaps this is all that was meant by “Strike 3”?
That being said, there is no way of knowing what Strikes 1 & 2 were. Perhaps they were indiscretions in a parallel universe.
2:55 this is nonsense. QFT, which is a much better description of quantum reality, most certainly allows the electron to be in between those energy levels. This Bohrian description of an ekectron in strict orbits around a nucleus has been disproven decades ago. The probability wave of the electron does not allow the electron to be in between those energy levels for a very long time, but there is an infinitesimal, none zero chance of finding the electron there. The probability wave as a matter of fact is spead out at every location around the nucleus in neat orbital harmonics, thus the electron may be found anywhere, but with the most likely position by far, the energy levels as drawn here at 2:55
The problem is that scientists refuse to accept that it is not possible to know everything about an object. We tie ourselves in knots trying to anticipate every possible outcome and sum over all the results to arrive at a probability of a certain result. What quantum research tells us is that no matter how unlikely, every possible solution is possible. Thus the chance of tossing one hundred sixes sequentially with a perfectly balanced die is very remote, but not impossible. In fact an infinite sequence of throwing the same number every single time is possible given infinite time. That is just how the mathematics works out. We just have to accept we live in a universe where most things happen according to probabalistic outcomes where the most likely event happens, but not always.
The Uncertainty Principle explicitly states that it is not possible to know everything about an object. Every physicist believes it is true.
I am unconvinced so far that string theory is predictive or explanatory. It fits observation largely because it has been refined to do so. It is, at this point, reminiscent of Douglas Adam's puddle - it models the known properties but has not added to the list of properties or refined the list. It's an interesting mathematical model.
This doesn't mean I dismiss string theory, just that I don't find it compelling enough to accept as the more correct model from which most future breakthroughs will come.
Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual!
Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual!
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness.
Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking.
The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.
Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions.
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Theories are great. I prefer proofs or laws though. They have usually got a bit more foundational data that is repeatable supporting them. Theories, no matter how extensive or how long they've been around, are still just conjecture.
General Relativity is also a theory, yet checks every requirement you have. Proofs are only for mathematics.
@@skatemaster33 That's fair enough. But what about laws. We have laws of thermodynamics. We have laws of electromagnetism......etc. We don't have laws of general relativity (remember that a lot of the assertions put forward by general relativity can only be general relativity can only be expressed mathematically). There's a difference. And the difference is because general relatively still has aspects of it that have not been proven. This is true for the big bang as well. The only reason I used proof is because of the sentence right before this one. Proofs are called that because they are proven. But I digress on that point. If you want to believe in some of the crazy nonsense that is being spouted by the scientific community in physics where there are multiple universes and white holes and wormholes and all of the rest of that ridiculous nonsense, then knock yourself out. There's some good movies you can watch I would imagine to help you with that. That's science fiction though.
@@kwaki-serpi-niku What are you on about? Those things came about from equations in our theories. You know those theories are "proven" as you said. We observe that General Relativity is an accurate description of reality. Time dilation exists, otherwise satalites wouldn't account for it. Proven is just meaningless in science. We don't try to prove stuff we try to model stuff and understand it. Laws of physics are just a set of equations and rules that reality should abide by, but it is not a proof, for all we know we might discover that they should be extended or are wrong in some situations. So what exactly is your point? The big bang is a real thing, it happened but we don't exactly know what it was or what was before it. You know back in the old days. The proofs and laws you're talking about could be seen in the same crazy lens you're seeing new "science nonsense" right now. So let me get this straight. Theories, more specifically scientific theories are not just conjecture. A scientific theory is not just a theory lol
@@skatemaster33 It seems you don't even understand the basics of the scientific method. General relativity gives us a good fit of some things that we observe in reality, but it doesn't answer all the questions. That's why it's still in the theory category. If all the assertions made under general relativity could be proven, then we'd be talking about it as the laws of general relativity.
Let's talk about time dilation. Time is a construct that we as human beings utilize to help us mark the passage of events. We have no such thing as a time particle. We have no such thing as a time field. Time is simply a standard that we agree upon (hell, we even have the government of the United States of America calling for a time standard for the moon.....). We need time as a variable in physics to help us explain things like velocity. So let's talk about the adjustment of time that satellites make in orbit for time. What's happening there is that the clock, which is a timekeeping device, is affected by its position relative to the Earth. So the vibration of that cesium atom (or that vibrating crystal or whatever it is that is used for timekeeping) changes based on its altitude above the earth. Does that necessarily mean time has actually changed just because the vibration of a cesium atom has changed? The answer to that would be an absolute NO. That simply means that the timekeeping device was affected by some outside influence. But timekeeping devices don't create time. They simply help us keep an accurate measure of the standard of time that we have all agreed upon. Time dilation does not exist. Just because somebody looked at you and told you that time was a certain thing doesn't mean that you took the time to put in the thought for yourself as to what time really is. Now you don't have to agree with me on what I just said about time, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong anymore than it means that you're right.
We do not know that the Big bang actually happened. But let's consider what the Big bang asks us to believe. The Big bang posits that some magical and seemingly infinitely dense point of matter existed 13.8 billion years ago. We don't know where that infinitely dense point of matter came from. I suppose it just popped into existence out of thin air. And for some reason and by some mechanism that we can't explain, this magical, infinitely dense point of matter decided to explode or rather it expanded into some unknown medium that we ALSO can't explain as part of the Big bang theory. What medium existed before space? What did this magical and infinitely dense point of matter expand into? The answers to all of these questions have brought about some extremely fantastical explanations from the scientific community. None of them have any basis in reality. They are just scientists pulling answers out of their collective asses. And they ask people to believe in this nonsense because they are scientists. You obviously like to believe in fantastical theories that cannot be proven empirically by any stretch of imagination or science. We even have empirical data from the JWST that calls into question some of the foundational aspects of the Big bang theory. This is actual empirical data that says the universe is not 13.8 billion years old, nor can we rely on the mechanism that the Big bang theory tries to explain why the universe looks like it does today. This is all based on the inaccuracy of the astronomical distance ladder and the so-called Hubble tension. This is an aspect of the Big bang theory where we have empirical data that refutes its foundation premise.
Go back and read what the scientific method requires from a hypothesis to a theory to a law or proof. It's not that hard to figure out. I believe in laws or proofs. Theories are unproven. That's the scientific method in a nutshell.
@@skatemaster33.....powned.....😅
hasn't string theory already been debunked? Cx
Nope . . . The problem is there are too many versions to go through to find the right one to describe our universe . . . Like 10^500 versions
String theory is wrong
String theory has been fallen out of favor because a lack of real predictability and experimental testability, but it certainly hasn’t be debunked
Physics and cosmology is a result of Darwinian evolution. Thats how the universe created such complex finely tuned interactive atomic units.
The similarity in structure and behaviour of atoms and cellular biology is a remarkable example of convergent Darwinian evolution. Units comprised of nucleus, shells and bonding mechanisms describes both atoms and cellular biology. What are the odds of that occurring by chance, unless there was a reason, a connection.
Darwinian is the answer. Its right in front of everybody's noses.
Pathetic. Deceptive clickbait title ... And then a total rehash of double slit and ending with a cult-like string theory promo. And the arrogance of presenting it at the end as if proven! The most notable feature of string theory is it cannot be proven. And which string theory? M? 9, 10, 11 or more dimensions? I'm done with this channel.
Wonderfully clear and convincing. I can't wait for part 3!
Unsubcribed.. zero science, shameless click baiting,
The topic seems very logical/obvious in the head, but difficult to put into words. Thanks for another fantastic presentation.
If this thumbnail is clicbait i'm going to be fuming.
Edit: it's clicbait.... John youtuber think that he solved a problem that the best scientists in the world are struggling with.
For humans, a readable version is called Astral Theme, and it's a loose wave function of someone's life from a starting point, describing some king of parameters measurements that will influence this vector's life line. It is a map reflection of mechanical bound of reality, of the 'loose prison' of your 'reality/destiny, there is no escape, it is inevitable a certain Smith would say.
Normally I enjoy your content, but this video didn't seem to introduce anything new to the basic concept of string theory. I'm hoping part 3 has the 'pay-off'.
Perhaps to someone who understands the theories better, it may seem so. However, as a novice, this video worked extremely well in helping me grasp these principles which hitherto had given me trouble. So, I'm glad that he made this video to help people like me bridge that gap.
Wonderfully visulised and explained! Thanks Alex and team.
A unifying theory of consciousness. Multi dimensional beings doing time in 3 dimensional prison looking to scape. Science, philosophy, religion...
Knocking on the mirror walls, wondering what's on the other side of the 1 way mirror.
Once I really tried to understand how a 2 spatial dimensional being would percieve a 3 spatial dimensional being like myself....and started to grasp the 4th spatial dimension as outlined in Brian Greene's 'The Elegant Universe'...I really understood on a deep level that what we live in is just one layer of a vastly more complex and layered multiverse. Likely all connected fundamentally, but perceived in walled-off lanes, moving parallel forward in time, maybe moving only backwards in time...Maybe the arrow of time is all together absent in another plane of existence.
Interesting. So the flip side of a coin is it's mirrored image. Entropy is a spectrum that like everything else in our universe, is a wave or better yet an orbit between both infinite complexity and perfect symmetry moving forward in a corkscrew rotation between the two states in time. Arrow of time can remain on forward, while after infinite complexity, entropy has reversed towards perfect symmetry. Timeless dimension is a singularity. The "nothing" theoretically is everywhere all the time incapable of interaction. Singularity's first interaction with time is inflation. The cyclical universe is Penrose's brainchild unless, universe regenerates with black holes born to galaxies born out of supermassive black holes born in the remnants of Big Bang which means no parallel universes or rebirths as universe becomes infinite in size and age, in time.
While I understand how this model of our universe might make some uncomfortable, personally I find it beautiful. According to string theory the universe as I see it is a song. The matter and energy I see an observe around me is a symphony of vibrations forming impossibly complex harmonics. Everything and everyone in existence is part of one universal orchestra. A lone violin may make noise but you cannot know how it fits into the grander flow of the music until you add more instruments.
dude, string theory has always failed at predicting every experimental result. just drop it already
But it works like a charm!.. If you add a whole bunch of extra dimensions and a sprinkle of magic...
@@VikingTeddy yeah, well, the really useful science makes predictions which, through rigorous experimentation, happens as predicted. string theory... has never accomplished such a feat. at best, they fail and rework all the math to match the results. which still never works to predict anything
yeah lmao, ST isn't even freaking close
That's not a valid reason to stop pursuing a theory. It's only if it is disproved in one of it's core concepts that it will become invalid. That hasn't happened.
String theory is the closest we have to an attempt to go further about understanding reality than religion. So I'd say it is better.
You might as well have said "Dude, I don't understand this, just drop it"
GUT seems to be well from cracked, models including string theory may be descriptive will probably prove only that. A basis for enumerating physics, here I introduce Wolfgang Pauli, the decision to use a specific lexical construct can completely constrain any models success. From point space, a single vector, to a unity of space located within the universe is a dramatic challenge. Lexical and quantitive models to my thinking are still primitive and potentially hold back progress in astrophysics and quantum mechanics.
Why are you still stuck on string theory? Science has had almost 40 years to figure it out. It has stunted any growth in physics. We know no more today than we did in the 70’s..
Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual!
Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual!
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual.
Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness.
Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking.
The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.
Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions.
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
When reflecting on the equivalence principle, and the notion that an object falling towards the Earth may actually be standing still, and that it is the ground accelerating upwards, we must come to the conclusion that the 'standstill' point in space that the object occupied continues its journey towards the center of the planet, even after the object itself has stopped at the surface.
So this begs the question....what is space flowing into? It's flowing into everything with mass. Including you. Like a sponge sucking in water, particles somehow must consume space in order to exist. When the space is consumed, it leaves behind an **actual** vacuum that surrounding space rushes in to fill, similar to how air moves into a low pressure system. We experience this as gravity.
Sorry Alex, but strings are philosophy NOT science.
Came here to see if anybody else was going to comment this. This video is completely misleading and it seems like he's falsely propping it up as being widely accepted in spite of there being zero evidence supporting it in order to lend more credibility to his own personal "theory" that's coming in part 3.
You know how sometimes people who have an audience forget they don't know everything, and start giving opinions on just about anything?
Alex is a tuber, and has a BA in digital film and tv production. He must've forgotten that he isn't a phycisist 😊
No matter how much you study and read about physics in your leisure, It'll never teach you the things you need to even begin understanding string theory.
Even professors with decades under their belt don't really grasp it properly.
It's fine to share your thoughts, As long as you remember to point out you're out of your depth, and not to take your theories too seriously.
Haha you do know that string theory is not about strings but rather the nature of waves and space-time curvature at the micro-scaled high energies.
@@keith.anthony.infinity.hit seems they are too busy critiquing the word choice to recognize what is being shared 😂
@@DharmaScienceRadio These physics Nazi’s pop up anytime String Theory is muttered. Ignore the trolls.
This is the best I have ever seen this explained!
For every like I'll study for 1 hour
thanks very much. I almost had an inkling of what you were on about. I'm going to watch it again in a week or two after my brain has had a rest
Unfollowed because of the really aggressive clickbait titles. This is really undignified.
He's got to pay the bills. Reputation is on the table in the face of global economic collapse 2
Brilliant!! I never had any grasp about quantum mechanics until seeing this video.
On the Quantum level, you don't even exist.
Wrong...😂On the quantum level everything always exist always.
Wrong 😂 on the quantum level, god exists @@TheSouthernSiren
That’s not even true…..
just ask Kolodrubetz
0:33 what is this swirling blue space thing called? Does anybody know? I'm very interested, because it looks like a strange loop
At 6:00 you show five forces, Gamma, Z^Naught, g, W^+ and W^-.
I am very confused on how there is five when I can only think of the Strong Force, the Weak Force, Electromagnetism and Gravity. Is W+ and W- both the weak force in your model? It is very confusing as every textbook I have shows 4 forces.
The string theories remind me of how we were "solving" informatics problems to get some points in case we were too bad and only had time for the obvious recursive implementation: random functions and random walks!
"... Where do particles come from? ..." The answer is almost certainly string theory. There might be 2 fundamental physical interpretations A & B of string theory: (A) Bohr-Witten-Milgrom string theory in which SUSY occurs; SUSY & the extra spatial dimensions are hidden in the multiverse boundary that separates alternate universes; & dark matter is explained by paradoxical MOND inertia carried by string vibrations; (B) Einstein-Fredkin-Wolfram string theory in which SUSY does not occur; there are precisely 64 fundamental particles, 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum, and 1 dimension of graviton spin; string vibrations are approximately confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice (explaining why there are 3 generations of fermions); the monster group and the 6 pariah groups allow Wolfram's cosmological automaton to function (and there are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups); string vibrations slightly disrupt graviton spin; some gravitons have spin slightly > 2 (explaining dark matter); some gravitons have spin slightly < 2 (explaining dark energy); the multiverse has a 72-dimensional interior; & all of the alternate universes are located on the 71-dimensional boundary of the multiverse. Is Professor Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute the world's greatest living scientist? Google "pavel kroupa dark matter", "mcgaugh triton station", & "riccardo scarpa mond arxiv".
The problem most, if not all, people have is the 3 spacial dimensions we experience. We cannot visualize more than 3, and have to resort to projections that may provide insight into one aspect but obscure others.
If you imagine a volume of spacetime that, when empty (no energy, no matter), is of uniform "density" (I don't have a better word for the property). Energy is a propagating change in the density, modeled as a wave, but more like a fuzzy sphere pinching spacetime to make a higher density gradient. Matter is a stable system of these fluctuations. Fields are also gradients of some property of spacetime. The speed of causality is the maximum rate that the "deformation" can spread without cavitation. Spacetime is, in this model, a fluid that will return to equilibrium (equal density) when not otherwise influenced by the disturbances described.
The above is not a hypothesis, it's how I visualize how the physical laws interact. I don't know if it makes any sense to anyone else.
so you mean the "big bang" was a "blow" given in 4th dimension that set our 3-dimensional Universe in motion.
also what will happen if Universal constants like speed of light, gravitational constant or Plank's constant changes? is Universe stable only because of these constants?
Its really tough to describe quantum field theory, but this is well done, and in line with other largely-layman-friendly explanations of the universe essentially being a wildly complex interaction of waves :)