Does reductionism End? Quantum Holonomy theory says YES
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- Get MagellanTV here: try.magellantv.com/arvinash and get an exclusive offer for our viewers: an extended, month-long trial, FREE. MagellanTV has the largest and best collection of Science content anywhere, including Space, Physics, Technology, Nature, Mind and Body, and a growing collection of 4K. This new streaming service has 3000 great documentaries. Check out our personal recommendation and MagellanTV’s exclusive playlists: www.magellantv.com/genres/sci...
Link to book on Amazon: t.ly/sMJW
QHT Paper: arxiv.org/pdf/2008.09356.pdf
Non-technical Explanation: jespergrimstrup.org/research/...
0:00 - Does reductionism end?
2:24 - Why there probably is a final theory
7:00 - Quantum Holonomy theory
12:53 - Surprising implications of QHT
Does a final theory exist that can end our reductionist probing into ever shorter distances? Or is there no end to reductionism? There should be an end point because as the object of our measurement gets small enough, the high energies needed to measure it will create a black hole. And no information can get out of a black hole. So there is a limit to measurable reality.
We have united seemingly dissimilar forces in the past. For example, the unification of electricity and magnetism, and weak and electromagnetic forces. To continue this reductionism, we want a theory that unifies all known forces. Today we have two overarching theories for forces: Einstein’s Theory of General relativity for gravity, and The standard model for the electromagnetic, weak and strong force.
The problem is that the standard model is a quantum field theory, but general relativity is a classical field theory. The two are not compatible.
Past attempts for a theory of everything include string theory and loop quantum gravity. But string theory does not produce any falsifiable results. Its mathematics is too flexible. Loop quantum gravity only addresses gravity and not the other forces.
Quantum Holonomy Theory or QHT was pioneered by two Danish scientists, physicist Jesper Grimstrup and mathematician Johannes Aastrup. It begins by asking question, how can a theory be immune to further scientific reductions, so that reductionism ends?
The presumptive idea is that the simplest way to describe the universe is objects moving around in three dimensional space. The theory is based on the mathematics of empty 3-dimensional space, just space, not even time. So the starting point of QHT is the mathematics of moving stuff around. There are an infinite many ways you can move an arbitrary object between points in space.
Any one of these combination of movements from point A to point B, is called a recipe. A recipe for a combination of movements in physics is called a gauge field. A gauge field is the recipe of how to move one particle from point A to point B. Gauge fields are what makes up the forces in the standard model. Since they are recipes of moving things around in space, they represent how things interact with each other, or how forces work.
The sum of all mathematical recipes is called the “Configuration space” of these recipes. The key insight in QHT is that the this space has a geometry and stores a lot of information. Geometry means that two different recipes for moving stuff around can be said have a relationship between each other. This is complicated but can be proven mathematically.
Grimstrup and Aastrup found is that this geometry results in mathematics that looks almost identical to the mathematics that we already know from quantum field theory - this includes the mathematics of the Standard model.
From the geometry you can obtain a a Bott-Dirac operator. The square of this operator gives us the Hamiltonian for both matter particles and force carrying particles. The Hamiltonian represents the formula for all the energy in a system.
#QHT
#Theoryofeverything
Once you have a description of the energies of all the matter and forces in the universe, that’s all you need to need to understand how matter interacts in the universe, and is essentially everything we would need to describe the universe, once all the math is worked out. By simply considering the movements of objects in empty space, all this rich mathematics that appears to resemble the known mathematics of the universe comes out.
If QHT is correct, then here are the implications:
1) The universe is quantum because the only way you can describe things moving in empty space is via quantization.
2) Gravity is not quantized, so there is no theory of quantum gravity.
3) No singularities can exist
4) There is no infinite curvature of space-time inside black holes
5) The universe could not have come from nothing, but from a prior universe - a Big Bounce!
Become a patron: www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=17... 
Наука
Would you be open to interviewing them on your channel??????
Edit: Those who want an interview, like or reply to this comment.
Yes, if there is enough interest from viewers.
@@ArvinAsh I second the motion
@@ArvinAsh wow i hope so...
@@ArvinAsh also interested
I would love to learn more about this, so yes!
*Physicist:* A final non-reductionable theory must be made of something *extremely simple.* What is the most simple thing we could think of as building block?
*Me:* Hmmm... Maybe counting, adding, subtracting...
*Physicist:* Empty 3D space with infinite recipes ruled by integrals of wave functions and nested operators.
"...wave functions and nested operators. .baked @ 350*F for 25-mins in a pre-heated oven.
Lol. Well, the math is simply a description of how things move in empty space. I can't think of a simpler way to describe the universe, but maybe I'm not creative enough.
@@ArvinAsh “universe has stuff”
checkmate, physicists
My thoughts exactly.... Seems like they have imbued space with whatever properties they need while declaring it to be empty. If not they have imbued particles with properties that fit the bill... You can't get something from nothing. I still prefer my non-mathematical satire (that can be modelled in 3D+1D/4D)...
--
Personally I still think gravity gradients (acceleration curves) are continuous but gravity is quantised. Time and space are also fundamentally continuous but hold a base quantised subspace field of +ve base charge cells (quanta) held together by an ethereal sea of free-flowing - ve charge...
--
Knock a lattice cell free and you have a repulsive warp vibrating at C, never quite balancing, sending out blip spheres (electrostatic force) - A Positron (p+ = up quark), same for the hole but with opposite phase (e- = down quark)... EXACTLY equal opposite phased p+ + e- annihilate on contact, else they form NEUTRATRONS (Dark Matter).. Opposite phases cancel repulsion, recoil pushes particles together.
--
Gravity + Dark Energy is a macro effect due to the fact each p+ attracts 1 quanta of -ve charge away from voids, this adds up to a gravity welll, with voids expanding due to less -ve charge 'glue'...
--
Strong + Long Force is a flux tube of AC subspace current (longitudinal vibrating line of subspace lattice cells between entangled/bonded particles that thins with distance until only 1 lattice cell wide)...
--
Weak force is statistical due to constant bombardment from the NEUTRATRON FIELD (Neutratron is a gravitational electron neutrino)...
--
Temporary matter is large chunks + holes blown out of the subspace lattice field, quickly annihilating to regular (=empty) lattice, e-s, p+s and n+-s (neutratrons).
--
As I've said many times now!
It doesn't have to be simple to us, it just means everything emerges from a single principle, however abstract. Which leads to the oxymoron that it could be simple, but in a way that's beyond human understanding.
I’m still remarkably confused, but at a much higher level. 😂
Same here!😅
All T.O.E. theories are extremely complex, understandably, because they are attempting integrate all particles and forces of the universe in the mathematics. This is true for String theory, Wolfram, Loop quantum gravity etc. I tried to simplify as much as I could. Have another viewing, and if still confused, please list your points of confusion, and I will try to answer it. If you can follow even a little bit, you are way ahead of most people.
@@ArvinAsh Arvin, thank you for your response. I actually meant my comment in a more jovial sense. In reality, I found your presentation extremely clear, at least for us laymen. Again, thank you for your response and for the work that you do; I find it interesting, informative and entertaining as well.
@@ArvinAsh Fibre bundles. educate us on that soon please?
That's when you know it's working...
Thanks Arvin! It does nothing for these brilliant scientists to come up with fascinating theories without someone like you to deliver them to us laymen.
I agree. I'm hoping that scientists like Jesper can get more support for their theoretical work on fundamental physics. A lot of great ideas are not pursued, as you know, due to lack of funding.
I also want to become a scientist and research about them
@@ArvinAsh Fantastic job! You deserve millions of subscribers.
I absolutely agree! You do a wonderful job of synthesizing the information. My deep unanswered question at this point is how it all came about something from nothing.
This is my first time hearing about QHT, but it's encouraging because it agrees with my notion that the concept of a true singularity is simply that... just a mathematical concept. I've never believed in the theory of "infinite density" just for the reasons a lot of us already follow: if, prior to the Big Bang, the universe was a single infinitely dense point, then it could expand an infinite number of times and it would STILL be an infinitely dense point. Even energy has to have a bottom limit. I'm definitely interested in learning more about all of this... but the fact that it uses non-commutative geometry is more than a little daunting. I've looked at that before and calling it "complex" is a MASSIVE UNDERSTATEMENT 😱😱😱
I see from Google that QHT hit the scientific arena around 2015/6... and only 5 years later, we get to hear about it. Persumably because of their simplifying book. Sad also to read that they have had to chase crowd-funding to do their day job so well. It reminds me of the way David Bohm was simply ignored, when he published his 1952 pilot wave theory. Only last year did it seem to finally emerge as proper public property, though some physicists have been quietly exploring it for years, and the odd science book has referenced it.
What do you find about it , is qht progressing
Bro, I'm so impressed at how well you're able to take these theories and make them palatable for those of us without physics/mathematic degrees!
WoW! My head hurts. But you helped clear up a few things about the Plank Length for me. I always learn something from your videos. much respect Mr. Ash.
Yes, I also learned something new about the plank length (Corrected: Planck length) from this. I love when ever I learn even the smallest new thing about how physics works.
@@genostellar the plank length is used by carpenters when they need to know how long their planks are
@@The9thDoctor I'm honestly not sure whether or not to find your comment amusing or annoying.
Your strength, sir, is that you really make me feel like I'm your friend, when you say "...in the next video my friend." Also, "that's coming up right now" makes me go back to childhood immediately 😄
my mans beanie game too strong
Gotta go strong when you're prepping to rob a bank after upload
The beanie is dope AF. 👍
Indeed.
Jared Freedman
I am inclined to concur...
Tone it down
That's the first time anyone has explained not only that there is the Planck-length, but why it exists and is that size.
Someone: what was before the Big Bang?
QHT: Yes.
u mean when the 'Being' clicked deploy on our simulation?
@@cryptolicious3738 Click !
Before the big bang there was bang big.
Q: Who's on first?
A: Yes.
Big dong
I'm sold. QHT is now my new banner on which I will contemplate things. Great video as always Arvin. Thank you so much for the work you do for us.
Says "Stands on" but ends up the other way round in the animation, LOL! Nice video and great explanation, though, 10/10 would recommend.
Yeah, I agree. "Stands" was not the best choice of words.
@@ArvinAsh imo the words were right and the graphic was wrong/backward
@@ArvinAsh This reminds me of Scott Aaronson's short story "The Pancake at the Bottom" about ordinal numbers.
Often, people think of the larger ordinals being above the smaller ones, with 0 at the bottom. But in Aaronson's story, 0 is at the top, which is a turtle resting on another turtle (1), resting on another turtle, and so on,
and then these first omega (the first infinite ordinal) turtles, are on top of an iguana or some other reptile, idr.
Well, I shouldn't spoil the story, but I find it quite meaningful.
@@andrewsomerville5772 yeah, it should've been a tower with biology at the top but the problem is that we would have some kind of floating pyramid as we have no idea how tall it should be maybe a good alternative would've been to start zoomed in on the tallest then we go down as we list the layers then just show non labeled layers going down when he says something about how many layers we will have or something like that
Great Video. Your videos always make me start from physics, and take me to the realm of philosophy. Deeper questions.
Your video have a therapeutic effect.
I want to appreciate your effort of going through these very complex papers and presenting in a way that is comprehensible to us. I dont claim to understand the maths behind, but do get the wonderment part of it.
Thanks again for an awesome video.
Thanks. The wonderment is really what I am trying to convey. I want people to keep wondering and seeking answers to BIG questions.
Hi Arvin. You got the pronunciation of Danish names pretty darn close! :D I'm perfectly well aware that Danish is a tongue twister even to the other Scandinavian countries, so even getting it somewhat intelligible is a feat in and of itself. And getting it 99% like you did really shows you put effort in not being wishy washy with peoples names :)
Thanks. It took me a few tries. I knew I would mangle the names, so I got help from a Dane. Lol. Interestingly, Jesper was very kind, and wasn't bothered at all about how I might pronounce his name.
@@ArvinAsh Heheh. I can imagine. We're usually like "Just go ahead and pronounce it according to English spelling rules... otherwise you might summon a demon or some shit" :P
Lovely channel, dealing with proven and hypothetical scenarios with ease.
You're doing a big good job Arvin, and I can imagine nothing but a big heart and good intention behind all this! Wish you a long life and much love 🙌🏽
Great episode! I love that Jesper assisted, it's always great to see great quality science being promoted! :)
I had never heard about QHT until your video, but it really gives me a peace of mind that I never had with string theory. I always had the feeling string theory sounds just like a "play on numbers" with no real significance. I think it became so popular due to the spectacularity of its claims, rather than the actual science behind it. I really like the idea of QHT that a "theory of everything" must be based on something incredibly simple, no dozens of extra dimensions, supersymmetry or other crazy stuff. Just the natural consequence of things moving around in empty space. To see that such a theory manages to start with something that simple and still unify and explain the shortcomings of relativity and quantum mechanics, is really enlightening.
My favorite notification to get is a new upload from this channel!
Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video. Many thanks for the link to the arXiv paper and the website for further information.
thank you very much Mr. Ash as usual a beautiful explanation of hard problems.
What I love about this video is that you started out speaking about a few points that I have been thinking about for some time now. You then went on to address them in so much depth that I ended up feeling very reassured both in the explanation and in the fact that people much smarter than me have been thinking about it too.
Always love a good episode from Arvin “Right Now!” Ash.
Amazing explanation, I finally understand QHT a little bit. Thank you very much
Very interesting. When I saw your teaser I did some reading on this and I have to say I like it better than the other theories.
I hope your recovery is going well.
Such a very clear and concise explanation what a joy to watch thank you so much
My brain has blown up even with this simplified explanation . Great job as always. Thank you .
Whoa! Now I have an exciting new theory to learn about! Thank you very much Arvin Ash!
Plus, I am hopeful that gauge theory and the configuration space will be possible to help with an open problem in recreational mathematics. So learning about QHT will help out there as well.
Yes, exactly. The simple explanation of what a configuration space really is, hopefully, will help you and others.
Brilliant episode, thank you Arvin
Really Interesting video! So glad I made the decision to subscribe! 👍👍👍
Mr. Arvin is one of the best science communicators I've ever come across, because he's so extraordinary at helping people without a background in math and physics visualize these complex principles of nature. It's the absolute best way to teach students, because the maths just describe what you understand and I wouldn't touch that math with a 10 foot science pole.
Him and Sabine are my to-go science channels 🥴
Arvin AMAZING explanation as usual. Finally, a theory that makes sense. I was suspecting that infinite gravity in the center of black holes is just silly. My logic is that in the "Singularity" the quantum fields are under "tension" thus there is no sufficient vibration to create matter in there. Consequently, there is a limit to compress the matter. In the singularity gravity = 0. although the boundaries of the singularity are superdense and thus with a lot of gravity of course. WHY MASS "GENERATE" GRAVITY ACCORDING TO QHT? THANKS
Amazing! As always! Thanks!
Thank you very much for this!
I truly enjoy listening your videos :)
Well, watching too... of course :)
Getting rid of singularities and the universe coming form nothing seems a lot more reasonable.
The universe still exists, so this only moves its beginning to some different point, or demands acceptance it has existed for eternity.
Exactly. But not in this way.
I wrote to Arvin, and he simply ... ignores what I've sent him. I have also put that in the comments of several of his previous videos. He doesn't react. Wrote to him on FB. "Nada".
The game is ... over. Intelligent NPD (qr.ae/pNn9xf) psychopaths ("magicians": nevalalee.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/feynman-the-magician/) are going down. Definitely.
Why are they psychopaths, is clearly explained here:
independent.academia.edu/ZDimi%C4%87
Enjoy the victory of healthy reasoning. Truths are available only and exclusively to the clear healthy reasoning.
Enjoy the simple, clear, inherently unified, true fundamental physics. Ready to be taught in the higher grades of primary school. In the secondary school, the pupils will already get to the expert level.
It is not hard to be expert for ... really fundamental (the most basic) things. Only psychopaths can turn that into "super 'science'".
Forget about QHT, and all of the previous ... mad constructs of "magicians"
www.goodreads.com/quotes/131800-the-scientists-of-today-think-deeply-instead-of-clearly-one
What I did, I did for you, for everybody. Forget about me, but do not neglect the most important truths which are presented here
independent.academia.edu/ZDimi%C4%87
and which we all need. If we want to get rid of the psychopaths, which all top-elites are composed of. ALL (lawyers, business, bankster, political, military, ..., religious, and scientific (especially the experts for "fundamental" "physics(es)" (yes, physicses: relativity, QM, QED, QCD, QFT, ..., strings/superstrings, branes/D-branes/...holographic branes, ... ))
@@zorand67 yeah can’t imagine why he doesn’t respond...
@@Itsmellsfishy No need to imagine, Micha-el.
@@Itsmellsfishy 😆
Arvin, thank you so so much.
Wow. Fascinating. Thank you!
Interesting contender and not widely discussed yet, at least in my faculty with is the University of RUclips.
Very interesting, thank you! What is the scientific community reaction to that ? and is there any experimental result or observation that come out of it? How the theory resolves all the known paradoxes, apparently rising when combining gravity with QM?
I think it is just not well understood because few can do the math. Their predictions cannot practically be tested. But Grimstrup and others are working on getting more predictions from the math that can verify or falsify the theory. The known paradox solved is that the solution to Gravity does not need a quantum description.
@@ArvinAsh does that mean gravity is an emergent phenomenon in QHT?
@@ArvinAsh If the solution to gravity doesn't need a quantum description, how does it describe the decay of a Planck-mass black hole?
@@ozzymandius666 decay is hawking radiation and thus a quantum phenomena, beyond realising the mass has disappeared, right?
@@ArvinAsh Thanks !
Wow, this was a tough one, but you did your best Arvin! Great video.
Excellent video, Arvin.
Hi, enjoys your videos alot. Could you make video on fundamental nature of space, time, energy. And ads-cft.
Great suggestion! I like that idea.
@@ArvinAsh Yes..! Please...! !
Question from José Edelstein:
- "Do you think that one day it will be possible to extend your ideas to describe quantum gravity in our universe?"
Juan Martín Maldacena answers: (skipping the first intro sentences to the topic)
- ".... all these ideas have so far been more useful to try to understand aspects of black holes. For those aspects, it does not matter much what the structure of space-time is at great distances, a black hole can be in space -flat time, curved one, etc.
What I hope is that as one understands more aspects of black holes one can understand more about the explanations of cosmology.
"" The reason is that inside a black hole there is a collapsing universe. "" A black hole is a configuration of space-time where there is a region of space-time that is collapsing, big crunch of course or a big bang.
That region is what we call the interior of a black hole.
If one manages to understand this with quantum gravity in a correct way, perhaps one can understand that little cosmology and based on that translate those lessons for a cosmology where that initial singularity is at the beginning and not at the end of time. "
Yes, it may be possible with QHT. The math has not been fully worked out yet. More researchers are needed to explore this theory.
@@ArvinAsh Exactly, we have to be careful. There is no denying that it is wonderful in itself.
What we can do as a conceptual exercise is to go one step further and ask questions accepting that the universe can be considered an AN, for example,
- If the universe is an AN that has more AN's inside it, the information entangled in the "main" Hawking radiation could be subjected to different Hawking radiation inside the AN.
Since the information would not be lost but would be exponentially encoded.
- what is gravity in this context?
- time ?
- Is the model we have of our universe with big bang, analyzed from today at the beginning, for someone outside of an AN is the model of a spaghett?
-etc
Nice practical, illustrative description of measurement and energy connection.
thanks Arvin for such an intuitive and yet fairly accurate description of the principles of QHT. It amazes me that a conclusion from this theory is that the quantized way of matter interaction seems to be "the simplest" way to go: that's promising!
Why your videos are damn addictive
QHT should go mainstream just like LQG and ST. It seems more promissing the way it generates QM without gravity causing issues. Everything from thinking of moving stuff around. I wonder what happens to time.
I also think it's more promising :) You can help making it mainstream by sharing this video, buy the book, gift the book or just mention it to your friends!
I think this theory has not caught on in pop science probably because people can digest something like "everything is made of tiny strings" but not something like "stuff like this exists because of the way it moves in space".
Can u send the 2D or 3D image of quantum field plz?(example:electron field,up-quark field)
@@anshanshtiwari8898 Can u send the 2D or 3D image of quantum field plz?(example:electron field,up-quark field)
@@TheOnlineBlackboard Can u send the 2D or 3D image of quantum field plz?(example:electron field,up-quark field)
Great content 👌
I've been waiting in anticipation all week for this vid 😃 there's not many videos out there about quantum holonomy
Parts are dual to wholes -- Holons.
Holism (integration) is dual to reductionism (differentiation).
The western thought paradigm of differentiation, reductionism and separation is dual to the eastern thought paradigm of integration, holism & unity.
Divergence (division, differentiation, entropy) is dual to convergence (unity, integration, syntropy).
Universals (holism, infinite) is dual to particulates (reductionism, finite) -- Plato.
Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant.
Generalization is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Homology is dual to co-homology.
6 quarks, 6 leptons & 6 force carriers (Higgs, photon, gluon, Z, W+, W-) -- the standard model or the number of the beast 666 (triality)!
Thesis (Proton) is dual to anti-thesis (Electron) synthesize the photon force carrier -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Force carriers are a by-product of duality being conserved, they are synthesized by duality!
Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato.
Triality or trinity is built from duality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
I really wish I could understand the mathematics behind physics a but more but I feel like I would need to spend years learning to come to a closer understanding
Yes you would. Around 8 years of very hard work
You could do, as I do, and learn it one piece at a time for fun in your spare time. If you're into that. It'll still take a long time, but understanding it all right away would be boring. You'd be robed of the thrill of each new discovery in understanding that you make.
I have a basic mathematics degree I gained 40 years ago and then entered a career that had no use for it, and have subsequently forgotten the intricacies. Even so, what I use to know I feel would still be of little use.
@@mitseraffej5812 Some things we learn not because they are useful. Some things we learn because they are fun. The basics are important, even if only to determine that you knew something 40 years ago.
You don't.
I wrote to Arvin, and he simply ... ignores what I've sent him. I have also put that in the comments of several of his previous videos. He doesn't react. Wrote to him on FB. "Nada".The game is ... over.
Intelligent NPD (qr.ae/pNn9xf) psychopaths ("magicians": nevalalee.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/feynman-the-magician/)
are going down. Definitely.
Why are they psychopaths, is clearly explained here:
independent.academia.edu/ZDimi%C4%87
Enjoy the victory of healthy reasoning. Truths are available only and exclusively to the clear healthy reasoning.Enjoy the simple, clear, inherently unified, true fundamental physics. Ready to be taught in the higher grades of primary school. In the secondary school, the pupils will already get to the expert level.It is not hard to be expert for ... really fundamental (the most basic) things. Only psychopaths can turn that into "super 'science'".Forget about QHT, and all of the previous ... mad constructs of "magicians"www.goodreads.com/quotes/131800-the-scientists-of-today-think-deeply-instead-of-clearly-one
What I did, I did for you, for everybody. Forget about me, but do not neglect the most important truths which are presented here independent.academia.edu/ZDimi%C4%87, and which we all need. If we want to get rid of the psychopaths, which all top-elites are composed of. ALL (lawyers, business, bankster, political, military, ..., religious, and scientific (especially the experts for "fundamental" "physics(es)" (yes, physicses: relativity, QM, QED, QCD, QFT, ..., strings/superstrings, branes/D-branes/...holographic branes, ... ))
QHT could become a leading candidate for me as i have a hard time accepting infinity. Going to purchase this book immediately. Thx Arvin
And the book is a good read too.
Disclaimer: I do not know Jesper Grimstrup or is acquainted with him in even the slightest way. Never met him or even heard him speak. But I AM Danish like Mr. Grimstrup, and us Danes have been described as more of a tribe than a country, so maybe I am partial.
You still have to accept infinity. It's just shifted from infinitely small things to an infinite past with this explanation.
@@genostellar dang, you spoiled the ending... hehe
Then my infinite quest to look for a theory without infinity included will continue, forever
@@ScottWengel Such an ironic twist.
@@ScottWengel What do you find about it
When things get really small or really big they get equally fascinating and scary! Thanks for another great video.
I subscribed to Magellan through your link! Thanks!
Nice! Let me know how you like it.
This was incredibly explained. Thank you Ash and the Danish scientists for this amazing theory.
Moments before the Big Bang scientists from another universe were about to conclude the ultimate experiment: to concentrate 1.2 x 10^19 GeV in a space just 1.6 x 10^-35 meters across.
I feel like they may have succeeded.
I've often wondered if the gamma ray bursts were civilizations trying that super super particle collider experiment and thus wiping out their solar system. Would be a Great Filter solution as well.
@@henrytjernlund I think there can't be that many advanced civilizations wiping themselves out.
Every once in awhile, something jumps out at me and hits me in the GUT (sorry). This was one of them. I will be exploring further and can't wait to read Shell Beach. Thanks for your clear presentations, however simplified.
It is important to know that Jesper Grimstrup is self-employed and gets no academic funding, because QHT is outside of the current mainstream physical research. So if you think that his work is important, consider to give him a one-time or recurring donation.
This theory is incredibly interesting! But what are it's greatest criticisms? Did anyone disproved it, or found holes in it?
The theory has not been worked on enough to say. The math has to be worked out so that some testable or fasifiable predictions come out of it. I think that is one of the biggest things remaining to be done.
Parts are dual to wholes -- Holons.
Holism (integration) is dual to reductionism (differentiation).
The western thought paradigm of differentiation, reductionism and separation is dual to the eastern thought paradigm of integration, holism & unity.
Divergence (division, differentiation, entropy) is dual to convergence (unity, integration, syntropy).
Universals (holism, infinite) is dual to particulates (reductionism, finite) -- Plato.
Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant.
Generalization is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Homology is dual to co-homology.
6 quarks, 6 leptons & 6 force carriers (Higgs, photon, gluon, Z, W+, W-) -- the standard model or the number of the beast 666 (triality)!
Thesis (Proton) is dual to anti-thesis (Electron) synthesize the photon force carrier -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Force carriers are a by-product of duality being conserved, they are synthesized by duality!
Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato.
Triality or trinity is built from duality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hi Arvin! Thanks for the videos, I find them very inspirational and informative!
I wanted to ask - you said that a result of QHT is the quantum nature of Nature.
If I got it right, it is the description of nature using Hilbert spaces.
Does QHT also give us a way to derive the Schrödinger equation?
Does it have something to say about the measurement postulate?
Thanks a lot again!
Tal
Thanks. No, the Hamiltonian emerges from the math, but I don't think the math has been worked out to the extent that equations like the Schrodinger equation comes out of it. More work is needed.
Mr Ash!... you sir, are fantastic! Thank you
Excellent...... thanks 🙏.
This theory makes the most sense to me I like it. It's too bad that's irrelevant to what is actually true lol (quantum is not intuitive). Testable results are nice but we will never have pre-inflation data to test with. In QHT does enough matter compressed to the plank length cause the same curvature of space and what an infinitely dense object would, I feel like there would be something that could be testable in here. It would explain why the black whole event horizon grows with each matter/energy absorption, if there was a true singularity you would think infinite density would not need to grow and widths. I like how well you simplified the complexity for the general public here great work!
Wow QHT is an amazing theory, the idea of infinity and multiple dimensions always seemed to me a bit too far fetched, it’s good to hear of a realistic explanation. 💯👊🏾
I love to watch these videos and dream of being understand them soon😂 For now I will just focus on my high school physics class, love the videos!!
That... was completely fascinating. I'm not sure how much of it I followed, but anyway, thank you for your efforts.
How does QHT explain time? Time needs to emerge from the axiomatic geometry somehow, and you didn't mention that at all. This stands in direct contrast to "Mad-Dog" Everetianism. Since time is a term inside of the Schrodinger equation, I think that most physicists believe that *time* is the actual thing that is fundamental, not space. Meaning that if you just start with an axiom of time and a Hamiltonian, space can pop out of it as an emergent thing. I don't see how you could do it the other way around.
The Hamiltonian comes out of the math. This describes the time evolution of particles and forces. I don't think the theory tells us any new description of time, if that is what you are asking.
No, Danielle. .in your case, time becomes infinite.. therefore immeasurable..a contra-positive to its own definition (linguistically).
@@ArvinAsh The Hamiltonian operator is the merely derivative wrt time of the time-dependent wave function(multiplied by suitable constants to maintain dimensional consistence and Hermicity, of course), is it not? What equation exactly is this Bott-Dirac operator operating on?
Is the sequence of unification presented in previous video required or a different path is permitted for example if we unify strong force and gravity before unification with electroweak force
Well, since the standard model has weak, strong and EM, it would look more likely that these three would be united first. But since we don't have any working theory, it's hard to exclude anything. In QHT it's more like you have gravity and from gravity you get strong, weak, and EM
Sure, I don't think a particular sequence is required. If you can unite gravity with any of the other forces, for example, that would be a huge revelation.
The unification is predicated on the coupling constants for each force converging. What experimental and theoretical evidence we have so far indicate that the electroweak force coupling constant will converge with the strong coupling constant at a much lower energy than they do with the gravitational coupling constant.
Thank you, very interesting.
thank you so much my friend; we need people like you to try to escape from the traps our minds are creating for us 👏👏👍👍👍
@Arvin ash
What your opinion on future of string theory?
I think it has some useful mathematics, but as far as being a TOE, I think it has not provided the evidence needed to get there.
A bit knotty.
No strings made out of faith, check. No extra one hundred dimensions, check.
Ridiculously complex math, check.
Looks like we have a winner!
Some day...
Hopefully...
...all replaced by Delphic mathematical utterances signifying nothing.
There is no reason to believe the universe is not infinite in every sense, in time, in distance, and in scale.
@@havenbastion universe is not eternal. it has beginning. also, finite too.
No question, just a compliment. Awesome video my friend! Was pretty cool to learn this.
Very interesting video. This is the first time I've heard of QHT, and I'm very interested in hearing more about it. I like that it doesn't make obviously false conclusions. Thanks
What do you find about it
I prefer this over string theory
Bruh
Me too. that theory is unimaginable.
I cant think in 4d and their universe is in 20ish ds
couldn't the "end" of our observable universe just be the smallest size, that matter could interact with? So maybe there is something "behind" this curtain, but energy as we know of can't really effect anything that is behind. Language is weird for trying to explain what I mean...
EDIT: just at 4:40 and I realized that you told exactly what I wrote here :D
There's two possible "ends" to the tower: One is that we actually find the end - a description that we can definitively say cannot possibly be described by anything simpler, even in theory (that's what QHT is apparently attempting).
The other is that we find the practical "end" - a point which beyond its impossible to make observations of any kind, even if you haven't ruled out the possibility of smaller things. That's kind of where string theory is at - what are those strings made of? "Energy!" What's energy made of? "Its just a thing that exists!" String theory is currently still far from "practical" end. Yes, its probably impossible for humanity to ever probe string theory energies so people working in the field are trying their damnedest to find a (comparatively) macroscopic effect that no other theory describes to be used as a test, but in principle those energies _could_ be obtained if we drained a few stars into a galactic scale particle accelerator.
But even when we hit those energies, the very best we could do would be using one string to measure another string, and unless that was sufficient to tease out a concept of what "energy" actually is, that would be as far as we could go - even if we still aren't certain that "energy" couldn't be made up of anything more fundamental. Hell, that's quite possibly where we'd be with the standard model right now if it didn't conflict so badly with relativity.
Such a great explanation!! I totally believe it involves complex calculations. Understanding connections between physical forces on all levels through the basis of simple movement alone giving rise to this geometry is going to be very interesting to explore!
Great Job sir 👍.
Right out of the gate, what stands on what is upside-down in the graphic -- is gravity reversed in this video?
Yeah I get it. I wanted to do a tower concept. Maybe the word "stands" was not the best choice of words.
If it bothers you THAT much, Curtis... just change your rotational setting and turn your phone 180*... Geez.. the remainder of us understood perfectly what was being artfully depicted.
Time... how & ever..to move along
Question: if we cannot measure something, is it actually able to affect us? Since if we cannot measure it that also should mean that it cannot interact with us
If we can't measure it then that means our technology is not good enough. We have just scratches the universe, many things are unknown even are today
His hat makes excellent camouflage with the background.
I always find you describe things in such better detail than other channels. For example all other channels just state the plank length as the smallest denominator of space. Yet you've just explained its not its just that its the smallest amount we are able to measure. So in theory..... Could there be infinite distances between any two points? Great content yet again.
thank you arvin for bringing me out of my wolfram-weinstein-lisi echo chamber
Finally something better than PBS Space Time IMO :)
I don't know if I would agree that it is better - at least not always - but definitely up there with PBS SpaceTime in terms of quality and production value
perfect timing! i have just started lookimg into holonomy ...since the YT Algo started suggesting it to me recently. Arvin, can you please get us into Fibre Bundles Eric W speaks of ? thanks
Thank you arvin
He sounds like a really nice guy
I like his hat. It suits him.
Does QHT decouple space from time? That is, does the concept of space-time exist in QHT?
13:33 He explained that spacetime can be curved without quantizing gravity
Great question! My understanding is that the math of the geometry does not need to incorporate time, but when you solve it for the configuration space, the Hamiltonian comes out, which shows how forces and particles evolve over time.
I am hoping Jesper reads this, and elaborates.
Wouldn't time still just be the entropic relationship of how things move in empty space (or - if you accept monistic physicalism, the entropy of the monad)?
Intuitively it would not need to involve time to describe any POTENTIAL movements in a 3D space, as you could basically describe the outcomes of various recipe combinations and assign them probabilities for occuring, giving you something analogous to the wave function. However, for the movements to actually take place in said 3D space you still require a fourth dimension unless your object in question is able to be in two or more places at once, which would go against all known physics (think of the wave function collapse gives you a discrete outcome).
I know that wave functions have not been mentioned in the video and that they probably should not be mixed up in this theory, but to me they help grasping this concept a bit better.
Is it that time comes from the presence of all possible 'recipies' for moving things from A to B?
Thank you Arvin, I followed most of this video as I've struggled with a few of the complex quantum videos lately.
I feel the universe is a cyclic expansion and contraction event. It then poses the thought, there had to be a beginning to the cycle. Other than numbers I can't imagine anything else in the universe is infinite within it. You video describes a the tower of understanding and I agree that there must be a base theory that is very simple (if ever known).
Great thought provoking video :o)
Expansion is dual to contraction.
Parts are dual to wholes -- Holons.
Holism (integration) is dual to reductionism (differentiation).
The western thought paradigm of differentiation, reductionism and separation is dual to the eastern thought paradigm of integration, holism & unity.
Divergence (division, differentiation, entropy) is dual to convergence (unity, integration, syntropy).
Universals (holism, infinite) is dual to particulates (reductionism, finite) -- Plato.
Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant.
Generalization is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Homology is dual to co-homology.
6 quarks, 6 leptons & 6 force carriers (Higgs, photon, gluon, Z, W+, W-) -- the standard model or the number of the beast 666 (triality)!
Thesis (Proton) is dual to anti-thesis (Electron) synthesize the photon force carrier -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Force carriers are a by-product of duality being conserved, they are synthesized by duality!
Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato.
Triality or trinity is built from duality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
What does QHT say regarding locality? It sounds very exciting and I would love to know more! As always, great job explaining such a complex theory so intuitively!
My theory of everything: Given that infinity and eternity are inevitable something was bound to happen.
Mike ..truly love your prophetic comment..!!..put your "bound" in quotation marks and get an even bigger smile 😁
The problem with that theory is that Boltzmann brains are much more likely to happen than our universe is.
That explains big bang through statistical mechanics of Entropy but unifying gravity and quantum field theory still remains at large
"something was bound to happen" - Well, even probability and statistics require some agent to cause any irregularities, no matter how tiny they are.
I don't get it, is this a syntactical wordplay or something?
Without any experimental evidence or mathematical exploration, I'm still convinced that quantum uncertainty is a direct consequence of quantization errors. :p
well, that may be true, but I hope it's not, because if it is then we live in deterministic universe with little to no room for free will
@@neznamy55 What is free will, anyway, though? If we can't measure/model accurately enough to predict outcomes or states of a running system to any significant degree, why does free will even matter? How would you differentiate having free will vs. not having it?
@@GordLambI don't actually believe in free will, yet it seems quantum uncertainty conserves illusion of it. What free will is? In eyes of scientist it's sort of miracle(there is no free will in deterministic view). In life of a person, it's about everything, example - responsibility over our life, our triumps and our failures, we can be praised, we can be shamed, we can be blamed, but only if it's act of our free will, without free will concept of responsibility collapses, you can't be guilty of something you were destined to do, in the same way you can't even be praised for any success - because it's not you who is responsible - universe that set starting values is responsible, everything that followed was nothing but a chain reaction, also there would be no need for consciousness (which current science doesn't understand) as all we would need to be is automatons that act according their program, no need for conscious choice if there's predetermined path
@@neznamy55 thing is, whether or not the Universe is actually deterministic has no material impact on personal responsibility. You're still responsible for your actions, right?
Philosophically one might argue that it's "unfair" to punish people for things they were predisposed to do, but we don't need quantum uncertainty to be able to model the human brain at the macro level. We can already detect many motor actions before they're recognized by the conscious mind. In the future, we'll undoubtedly be able to predict complex response to stimuli seconds.. minutes.. perhaps even hours in advance. But punishment isn't (in an ideal world) meant to be vindictive, but protective, so it's a moot point.
If we can't see the future or model/evaluate our own mental state, then we have the illusion of free will. And I submit that there's no material difference between than and a free will influenced by true randomness.
FUCKING WOW!
Arvin, you always manage to amaze me.
Love your work¡
Amazing summary
Aw yeah, I'm the 33rd like
I see a universe where people know about Sp0ns0rBlock!
It gives more evidence of pilot wave theory
If an intuitive explanation is sufficient, an unintuitive one is a tragedy.
You're an excellent explainer.
Omg! 😳 one of the very best videos on the subject! Dr Arvin you are great! 👍👍💕💕💕 please, would you get deeper about this theory, and what about dark matter and energy? Is this QHT able to tell us anything yet? by the way are you ok, under your cap?