SPONSOR (THE ECONOMIST): As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 - Intro 01:20 - Lack of Scientific Progress 06:22 - The Academic System 12:03 - Crisis in ‘Fundamental’ Physics 18:18 - Ancient Societies (Greece, Egypt, Alexandria) 23:05 - European Bureaucracy 27:08 - Albert Einstein 29:14 - Heterodox Experiments (Cold Fusion) 34:34 - Outro / Support TOE
@@rockpadstudios You must have met the wrong people. I was there working on Unix. It was an incredible environment in which to work, like no place I've been in since.
Just saw F.W. Bell, or rather who aquired them, systematically kill very useful and obscure tech. Really sad. Soon to be replace with cheap crap, prob via China.
Einstein said he spent his last years researching the unlikely because no young scientist could afford to "waste time" on fringe ideas if he wants a career.
@@friendlyskiespodcast Einstein spent his last years trying to unify physics via by allowing the metric tensor to be anti-symmetric. This was pure nonsense which had no physical interpretation motivating it, essentially just making random mathematical abstractions in the hope something would stick … sort of like string theory does today. Einstein’s theory unfortunately is the fringe theory… physics will never progress until all that magical relative space&time nonsense is forgone.
@@friendlyskiespodcast he spent it trying to unify physics by making the metric tensor antisymmetric, which had no physical motivation but was essentially just making random mathematical abstractions in the hope that something would stick. Now this is still what all the theoretical physicists are still doing today. Einstein’s theory IS the fringe theory, or at least it should have been regarded as such. Deifying the behavior of light as absolute and invariant when such a thing could never be measured should never have been accepted as science - this is the reason physics hasn’t progressed in 70 years
But he also said that his later work wasn't of great significance and he was only going to work, so he can have the pleasure of walking back home with Godel.
You know what happens to organizations that become insular and so overly protective of themselves that they can no longer innovate or respond? They become irrelevant. Academia's issue is that the institutions make themselves an obstacle to everything until everyone works around that obstacle and suddenly they're just museum artifacts. In 30 years I don't even think universities will be offering competitive research programs in comparison to private ones. They may get more research money, but it's hard to tell if even that will last in perpetuity.
All the longstanding institutions are corrupt, they have for years put profit over everything else, and they are all collapsing. We are witnessing the end of capitalism.
Thomas Kuhn actually addressed this problem way back in the 1960s in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Seems nothing much has changed since then
It’s gotten worse as the funding needs and competition increases. I have described it as a psychological grid which filters out new ideas and creativity. It is the absolute best structure imaginable to do that because of what it requires of students, how it rewards them, the “don’t re-invent the wheel” ideas from increasing complexity. The limited opportunity to really and truly allow intuition to be a part of things. Think of it this way-memory gets you good grades. But all true creativity is from making your mind work like the universe actually does. We make memory palaces and mnemonic devices when they already exist in the form of natural working wholes. I literally cannot memorize arbitrary things. But if they have a larger meaning, I never forget. I have no trouble with relevant facts. And the way intuition works is organized differently than what we do to socially use knowledge as an interpersonal or competitive lever in this regard. Pretty much every huge change in human knowledge came from intuitive understanding not declarative walls against creativity. Much of schooling is building that kind of wall. Even Pink Floyd knew that. 😂❤
@@spiralsun1 I couldn't have said that better! Well said👍How higher learning has turned into a dystopian rat race to solicit research and grant funding🤑🤑🤑🤑 Ken Robinson would find you a kindred spirit no doubt
@@spiralsun1perfectly stated. The rot goes deeper, as all sorts of self preserving elements have calcified to enable it to perpetuate and resist change, but you’ve nailed it here. I’ll add to the original commenter, that 20 years after Kuhn came Feyerabend’s Against Method, which took it further to argue against “method” altogether to reignite science. Chaitlin’s critique, whether realized on his own, or incorporating Feyerabend’s analysis, incorporates this even more fundamental freedom as essential to decoupling scientism from science and unleashing the latter. Ian McGilchrist’s the Matter With Things includes several chapters on institutional science, science and life, science and truth that are a truly masterful deconstruction of ‘all of the above’ with a great deal of specific challenges to various pillars of dogma we are stuck in. He references Denis Noble’s work (which Curt has featured) specific to the ongoing dominance of reductionist gene essentialism, and the growing body of work it continues to ignore clinging to its misguided overweighting of genetics and the machine metaphor, ignoring the frontier-like complexity that has clearly emerged in the microcosmos and the teleological orchestration of genetics performed by cells and organisms which demonstrate genetics should be seen as a dynamic tool, not a blueprint.
“Publish or perish” was a 60s 70s thing. For quite a long time the rule has been, “Bring in money or perish.” The usual money quota is your own salary plus enough money to support 5 to 10 graduate student stipends plus the lab/computer expenses.
Rich people are buying authorship. There are entire FB groups where people advertise approved papers and you can put your name in for a price. As someone from Brazil with zero funding, it's impossible to compete with them for a postdoc in neuropsych.
@@DrVictorVasconcelos "People buying authorship?" How totally a dastardly concept that is. Not that I care about such deviousness, but is there a waiting list? -- (signed) Poverty Stricken Illiterate
Another example is Halton Arp and his analysis of galaxies' distances from Earth, which was totally rejected upfront. He was chased out of the scientific community by the ruling physicist's ideologies, silenced, overlooked, not published, etc. Now others are trying to take credit for his remarkable idéas as recent observations and deep space photographs seem to support his theories.
No-one can take the achievement of Halton Arp away. A few bright people as him make possible the formation of the final theory in Physics. It is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" Unfortunately, "They" is hiding the existence of this book even this channel.
Another good example is Kristian Birkeland and his proposed theory of the Solar origins of the Aurorae around 1905. He was ridiculed and ostracized by the scientific community until NASA probes in the 70's finally confirmed his ideas. Among his fiercest critics was Arthur Eddington who came up with the idea of the thermonuclear star and promoted the theories of gravitational collapse and General Relativity. Incidentally these theories were canonized in the 1920's and have ever since prevented any real scientific progress in these areas, including dismissing Halton Arp.
Chaitin is absolutely correct. Science started with a desire to know, to read, "the Handbook of the Heavens" as Galileo phrased it, but now it's to get a "career" as a professor at a good college, get Grants, perhaps even fame and money. No one can propose a project unless they know it will work, so nothing new comes out of it except more citations (of and additions to their CVs helping them get new grants and teach their (exploited) students their way towards "success". That's why I and others go towards the start-ups.
Since we are here mostly talking of fundamental physics, it is a question how much of the actual knowkedge in the field is actually open. We had these landmark discoveries in fundamental physics in the beginning of the 20th century. Than came WWII and it became clear that the new physics had military applications. The leading physicists got enrolled in the military to design nuclear weapons. And then came the cold war, where the race for weapons of mass destruction just continued. Fundamental physics became military secrets in the cold war arms race. And the question is if that ever stopped... Can we be sure that all there is known in fundamental physics is open and public?
I was very creative and did so well on their testing that guys in suits came to my school in 8th grade to try to recruit me into "something" and made me go to high school to take exams. They wanted me in advanced classes then early college courses but wouldn`t say why. Very shady! UFOs had been swarming our home at this time for over 13 years. I wanted to be a scientist (1979) but already knew I could never do great things because it would be weaponized. I just gave up on the "American Dream" and lived simply. I was right too. Even the fruit orchard, berries and organic vegetable gardens I`ve worked so hard on will be destroyed by idiocy and ignorant greed when I`m gone. How long will they last I wonder...will they even make it two years before the bulldozers arrive? Months? Weeks? Humans truly deserve what`s coming.
You've got it! And it was all stolen from dubious origin, like probably the right method to ignite the nuclear bombs, because funnily and curiosly only after May45 and German capitulation (totally!) the things on the nuclear bombs which were very stuck all of a sudden got speed! There is also uranium isotopes being recovered in Germany in the amout of tons that probably were captured in submarines on their way to Japan incl. the know-how to do it. What an irony of history that that stuff was eventually thrown on japanese cities! Too bad to imagine! 😮
It's not just in science. Bureaucrats love regimental structures that fit a paradigm for auditing, and for teaching. Uncertainty just does not fit, and so every industry now has set rules. Diet in relationship to food or facts in medical or any other orthodoxy seeks out order, and conformity.
@@valentinmalinov8424 I love this. I'm one of those who conducted his own inquiry and ended up somewhere completely unique. It must be outside of the imaginations of the scientific establishment that an outsider will come to contribute something special, because all doors that I've knocked on have been closed. Not even a basic hearing. Either outside of their imagination, or maybe its a feirce competition for the prestigious breakthorugh that leads the establishment to their indifference towards independant researchers. Either ither doesnt matter, it results in the same thing. An enviroment which is suprisinlgy well setup to limit our reach for being heard and or pubished. But I've used my time for having been silenced well, for the benefit having improved my work and refined its explinations. I have a youtube channel now with a video series. Lets see how that goes. And I wish everybody in my ambiations and shoes the very best
@@valentinmalinov8424 I love this. I'm one of those who conducted his own inquiry and ended up somewhere completely unique. It must be outside of the imaginations of the scientific establishment that an outsider will come to contribute something special, because all doors that I've knocked on have been closed.
The most important problem in the academia is that you can not survive in it if you do not have sufficient financial resources. Salaries are abysmal, hence most academicians have to do a lot of nonsense/fake projects/papers to get funding.
Love your thinking Greg. I'm in your camp. Had a vivid dream many years ago... was flying through the atmosphere, unassisted, came across a old man sitting on a carpet high up in the air. I stopped mid-flight, reversed to him and looking me in the eyes he said: "Learn everything you can... you going to need it", after which I flew off! Today, I'm doing just that and a few things already popped forward after my mind started fitting pieces from different puzzles together making the new! Nice innovative pictures on your wall.
"Geniuses Love Simplicity" - Terry A. Davis If you tell a real genius that they have to deal with the insane bureaucracy of todays academic world just so the stuff they say and think has validity... There are reasons why the average competency of college graduates has been decreasing for decades.
I completely agree with this. In the past universities used to be a place of excellence. It were mainly the most talented few percent of people who had a chance of getting into universities. Most of the students had great talent and passion for the field they decided to study. Nowadays universities are basically a business targeted at the masses. For many jobs a degree is now a requirement and hence almost half of the younger people are now going to university to get a degree, not because they are particularly talented or passionate about a field but because they often kinda have to in order to get a decent job (or at least they believe so). Purely based on the numbers the average university student is now much closer to the overall population mean than to the top percentiles in terms of intellect. The consequent lack of depth probably can make universities even less attractive to the true top percentiles.
One of the last people who could write a compiler. All of the 'Strong-Brave' 'on Wed, we code!' idiots are just patching and stitching Davis' work and patting themselves on the back. Rewarding medocrity because of identity politics has made people dumb.
Back when I was in college, I wondered if this would eventually come up in the lexicon. There was so much pressure to conform in order to be considered "educated," it sometimes made me resent feeling like I had to be there. I thought maybe I had a tendency to think too much and let things get to me. But I always felt my doubts in the system were valid.
I spent 40,000 hours of following science and became a polymath, a master of human sound as an overtone singer, and a master of movement by making every common movement 10,000 times. I have had interesting conversations with 50,000 people and run 1000 performances with 100,000. We all need to become polymaths. We can then solve all our problems
I was a budding physicist about 50 years ago. But i gave it up. It's kind of nice to hear Gregory Chaitin say things i was sensing even back in the day. Especially how we're in a phase of tech innovation but in a basic research slump. Mostly because committees have to cater to the dumbest in the group.
Interesting, i was just reading that most influential chinese philosophy arised during the warring states period, because there was no central authority to limit what was acceptable knowledge. It seems that when there is no central authority man is most creative. This also is a warning against global governance, that would mean no theoretical contributions, only technological innovation to control the people.
publish or perish is one thing. garbage publications being published on so-called "esteem" journals like PRL is another problem. Research is really in bad conditions and getting worse by the day. Noone wants to recognize anymore who is understanding and who is not. Garbage environment.
I manage to publish my work, but "They" make nearly impossible for the people to find it. I believe will be a big surprise to you when you learn the title of my work - It is the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe".
A deep inquiry maybe, but oversight could be argued to be a fundamental part of the problem. I hear Chaitlin calling for a broad reconceptualization and wild west of atomized inquiry and renewed exploration unburdened by the expectations of institutions who’s oversight wrecks the most promising potentials for new ideas.
There needs to be oversight for things we actually use but there also needs to be a place for experimental topics / ideas that is not given to think thanks.
I can say my undergraduate studies were amazing. The vast majority of my professors never looked down or discouraged any ideas we had - they encouraged us to pursue them. They also have caveats on what they were teaching - e.g. "the electron has no structure" was explained correctly - we model it mathematically without structure for two reasons: 1. It's easier 2. We have not discovered the structure yet. It does NOT mean it has no structure. The velocity curve of (stars in) galaxies was explained in the late 1980's by Anthony Peratt - showing electromagnetic forces can very easily explain it to very, very high accuracy - with no need for bandage hypotheses of dark matter and energy which fundamentally can't be observed directly (how convenient...). Christian Birkeland, Hans Alfven, Ralph Juergens, Anthony Peratt, etc. also gave a wonderful hypothesis of the wholly unexplained phenomenae we observe on and from the sun - yet it is largely ignored. Not to speak of Halton Arp and his studies on redshift via quasars and "peculiar galaxies." I agree with 1920's being the last time of true scientific inquiry. We were having breakthroughs all the time before that, then things greatly changed.
Thank you. Electro-magnetism can explain most celestial phenomenon without creating things to make the explaination fit. Einsteinian cosmology is full of smoke and mirrors.
Moroccan Phd mathematics and CS. Here …. The truth about Moroccan academia and its excellence will blow the mind of anyone … at this point they are far ahead in creativity…. After 10 years following my Californian math journey in the wild alone leaving inside my mind with 0 social interactions i feel more in control …. This men gave you what you all needed to hear. …. I am personally So grateful for this interview
The same is true for the humanities and, most especially, for academic philosophy! How could something like philosophy ever be expected to flourish under the conditions Chaitin describes?
«Science has become big business. It's not a hobby anymore for a small group that really loves it and does it only out of curiosity. I think that has destroyed fundamental innovation» Chaitin is SOOO right!! It is for this reason that I have been suggesting a sort of a 'punk revolution' in science for almost two decades now!
@@thorebergmann1986 Good and fair question! Well, the first thing would be to 'gather' some discontent researchers, people who REALLY love science above almost everything else and are open minded to new ideas (it doesn't work if you don't share this frame of mind). Once you sarting to have a community of like-minded people things follow naturally. You would have a (hpefully groing) community of people reading each others papers, aiding each other, publishing alternative sites and journals/zines and even promoting meetings and conferences where people would crash on other peoples homes instead of staing at expensive hotels. This is just a simple and brief sketch, but in essence it wouldnot be very far from this. With current technology this is actually something very easy to do!... Would you join in?
Lord Kelvin and a few other Physics Honchos at the end of the 19th Century stated that Physics seemed complete, except for a few open questions: (1) "What causes discrete spectral lines?"; and (2) "What makes the Sun shine?" Kelvin conjectured that solving these problems would require "something new". (His actual statement is more elegant.)
Look into the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. The public never gets to see the newest discoveries and inventions. The best stuff gets classified and locked away, like most likely, anti-gravity.
This assumes that A) the inventors of antigravity technology were American, B) these inventors were so cowed that they didn't appeal or take their discovery to the media - as other inventors have, see the Phasorphone, and C) not a single scientist outside of the US has replicated this discovery.
@@Sifar_Secure Unfortunately, I think this channel - through its boosting and platforming of crackpots - fosters a community that includes a lot of conspiracy theorists and loons. I mean, even George Chaitin gives some legitimacy to cold fusion. Other videos boost UFO conspiracies. And on and on. I want a channel that is dedicated to talking about real theoretical frameworks that compete with string theory, and evaluating their relative merits. This video is just sour grapes disguised as critique.
You are a conteoist. Inventing cost money. Returns are desired. Therefore production must be facilitated. Patent protection time is limited. Therefore: 1. Either the original invention is released after 20 years. 2. Or someone else invent it again, but can not patent it, and therefore is not allowed to manufacture it, but can publish it, thus making the patent owner to start production to prevent patent applications elsewhere. You know there is no world patent. So even if the owner want to manipulate the market, its time extent almost certainly will not be as long as wished. Because if it is not used in production soon, there will be fierce competitors when it is finally released from protection.
I'd recommend watching Angela Collier's video "a physicist responds: physics has done very little for like 70 years." TL;DR: it's done a lot, actually.
We were expected only a published paper every so often, every couple years or more, in the 19th and early 20th centuries - now, if you don't constantly and consistently publish, you're gone. It is sad because this framework doesn't produce anything of substance. It's a waste of human life, intellect, and resources. Quantity over quality is detrimental to many things, especially science. Having to be essentially restricted to what your advisor studies in graduate school is a large problem. You're not allowed to research your true interests unless they just happen to be in line with where you go and whom you are under. This is a large reason many don't go on in their academic careers - when we realized we were not truly allowed to do the science we are interested in, what's the reason to continue? If we aren't allowed to "break the paradigm," then what are we doing? Refereeing papers is, by their own definition, a process of gatekeeping. Can't believe this has ever been tolerated in science, it's something cults do.
What is truly sad is the corporate monopolies are trying to make a one world government where everything is centralized we are going to end up with one government one corporation and nobody will be able to tell them apart. We need to put a end to this insanity
nah, the bankers will continue with having multiple corporations owned by them pretending to be competing. It has worked so well for them so far. See pepsi/coca cola, and all the media etc. As long as people think there are multiple entities no one will rebel.
I realized that academia was a racket 30 years ago during grad school when I noticed that a 30-page paper suitable for "Physical Review" would get submitted as ten 3-page papers to "Physics Letters".
Great interview, 100% agree with his views. Just one inaccuracy was said, i.e. that Aristotle was not Greek. What was he then? Aristotle was born in Stagira, a Greek city in the north, founded by Ionian Greeks. Greek was his native language and culture. Without getting into the weeds of how you define "Greek", and who a "true Scotchman" is (such debates exist within every ethnic identity I know of), I will simply say that if _anyone_ can call himself Greek, so can Aristotle. BTW, because I don't know the exact definition of "Greek", and I think it's more linguistic than anything (and others violently disagree with me on this), I call myself Grecophone, to avoid using a term ("Greek") that I cannot define without circularity. But this is already part of those "weeds" I want to avoid. For the average person out there, there is something called "a Greek nation / identity / culture / whatever". And for the average person out there, Aristotle was part of it, front and center.
@@ronrothrock7116 My best guess would be that he thinks that because Aristotle was born in Macedonia (near today's Thessaloniki) he wasn't Greek. Some people may think ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians were different ethnic groups. No archeologist could support that. There isn't a single piece of evidence that Macedonia wasn't part of the Greek world. The language was Greek, the Gods worshiped were Greek, the names of the people (including Alexander, Aristotle, and their parents' names) had clear Greek etymology, the signs and buildings and statues from the region were all Greek. This is not disputed by anyone AFAIK. Warning, long text follows. TLDR; The confusion may be related to the modern country called Northern Macedonia (a.k.a. FYROM), which is not a country of Greeks but of Slavs. One possible reason for the mistake is that, starting in the 7th century AD (1000 years after Aristotle), Slavic tribes migrated to the Balkans from the North, and a subset of those Slavs today call themselves "Macedonians". They are Macedonians only in the geographic sense, because they inhabit a part of the region that was always known as Macedonia. (Another big part of Macedonia is today in Greece and another small part is in Bulgaria). But they are not ethnically Greek (they admit that!), and they are not ethnically/culturally/linguistically/genetically related to the ancient Macedonians from the time of Aristotle. They came later, and we know when, because it wasn't that long ago. If you ask a Bulgarian, he will tell you that the modern "Macedonians", who live in the country of "Northern Macedonia", a.k.a. "FYROM" = "Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia", are ethnically Bulgarians with a slightly different dialect. If you ask a "Macedonian" today, though, he may respond differently. He will most likely admit he is a Slav. (It's kind of obvious! They can watch Bulgarian TV shows without subtitles; I cannot, the Greek language is totally different. But I can read Aristotle's texts, and they cannot.) Unfortunately, there has been a concerted effort by the government of Northern Macedonia, since the 1990s, to usurp the ancient Macedonian identity, with often comical results. E.g., they named their airport "Skopje Alexander the Great Airport", they built an enormous statue of Alexander, they put an ancient Greek symbol (the Sun of Vergina) in their flag and coinage... This is the result of a recent nationalist movement that followed (or maybe predated?) the dissolution of Yugoslavia. The new state that was formed needed some legitimacy, some prestige, and a good way to do that is to claim that you are somehow linked to a very ancient and very glorious civilization of that area. (Some ultra-nationalists would go even further and claim that the whole geographic region of Macedonia should be under their young government.) Note, other Slavs don't feel the need to do that. Bulgarians, for example, don't usurp ancient symbols and names, AFAIK, because their state has been well-established. The historical record is very clear, but whatever, if some Slavs want to name their airport "Alexander the Great" and call themselves "Macedonian", I personally don't mind it. "Imitation is the best form of flattery", people say.
@@kanalarchis Thanks for the geography/history lesson. I did not find it TLDR material, but then I like to learn new things. So it sounds like he thought Aristotle was not Greek because he was Macedonian. Without having learned any of the historical context you presented, he came to an incorrect conclusion. Not to be derogatory of him in any way, but I've learned this is what can happen to "self taught" people like him. They are super smart and absorb info like a sponge and they can logically reason out what scientists take years to prove with experiments. But when it comes to basic facts vs having that broader knowledge surrounding the topic, they can make comments/statements like he did. It is a blessing and a curse to be like him. I, my self, have a MS in biotech (I've made GMOs), but on many of the other science topics I am like him. I understand science and how the scientific method is taught and used as well as how the publishing of papers works. But I love all forms of science (when first out of high school I started to go into aerospace engineering, but life took me a different direction.) In the other fields of science I, like him, am more self-taught. It helps to be able to see things from that different angle; out of the box if you will. But you lose a lot of credibility when you make a statement like he did that is incorrect.
@@ronrothrock7116 The Athenians of his time viewed Macedonians as closely related but not qualifying as Greeks, because they were barbarians, semi-Greek at best.
@@AbyssKeyBearer You know there was details and images of a positive energy system on YT not long ago. YT did not take it down. A paper was released in Aug explaining the whole thing. I have the paper if you want it?
@MikeKing-cj9cx Ha Ha!... But I AM serious. In the video I show the name of the paper. Search for it. I have been giving free copies to everyone if you want one. 0/∞
@@MikeKing-cj9cx No thank you. I AM sticking with logic and reason. Your statement is a perfect example of the many variations of "stifling science." It's the invincible ignorance fallacy. 0/∞
It's always amazing to listen to a great mind and get a glimpse into their genius. Gregory cuts across vast swaths of history to provide support for his hypothesis regarding the relative lack of innovation in the last century in science and particularly physics. It's funny, I recently performed a search of modern day physicists and came across a question of why there hasn't been another Einstein in the last 100 years. There were some arguments that today physics are so complicated that it's really difficult for one person to make a contribution like Einstein. It now takes more than one mind working on the same topic to have big scientific breakthroughs. Maybe Gregory's criticisms about academics are part of the problem and that is what is partially holding back real substantial breakthroughs in theoretical physics and not because great ideas are out of reach of any single individual in today's modern scientific world.
Tbh Einstein himself actually had to dabble with quite complicated physics back then, 50-200 years before him there were people like Gauss, Maxwell, Fourier, Laplace, Faraday etc which contributed to the fundamental sciences and added the layers of complexity, I like science but I am not a smart person hence I argues it was complicated even back then.
Planck's approach was to analyze the entropy of blackbody radiation as a function of energy. To make both high-frequency and low-frequency data consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, he included an additional "guess" term proportional to the frequency (hf); this results in Planck's Law. Planck's subsequent application of Boltzmann's Statistical Mechanics to justify his guess then led to his revolutionary conclusion that the material of the walls emit and absorb radiation in discrete quanta. A paper titled "Planck’s Route to the Black Body Radiation Formula and Quantization" by Michael Fowler (7/25/08) gives a nice discussion.
That's all nice but old stuff. Sorry, but even as a German, who could be proud on Planck, I don't care! What Was overridden, was the big question that is still open and undecided. The question are there continua of space & time or not. Is the quantum model basically ok but in the end bs? Is the nature of everything (as this channel discusses TOe mainly😅) grainy (quanta) or continuous at it's very ground fundamental states, and particles do not really exist (at least not as forms of "matter") but are f.i. vortices like Lord Kelvin proposed but had not yet the right instruments to prove it... There are many open questions and we should not stay nonmoving with Planck, Bohr, Einstein, Feyman Wheeler etc. We have to move on otherwise there is no progress!
This is easily explained by comparing it to products like appliances, automobiles, even groceries. We built a society that rewards maximizing profits. And doing it intentionally, like planned obsolescence. People are still allowed to push boundaries and innovate but are forced to do so within confined limits.
Intelligence is ostricized and marginalized by broader society, because our collective society cannot understand the complex interaction between factors which unfold our reality. It is clearly seen in the american orthodoxy of school funding for sports versus funding for higher scholastic ability. You can see it in english culture, where there are more derrogatory terms for intellectuals than there are for athletes. You can see it in movies. Music. Its clear, that athleticism is revered FAR more than intellectualism in society as a whole. Until this changes, the trajectory of human exellence will continue to decline.
Good points, but it will ever be thus. The masses cannot ever hope to comprehend what the intellectuals are thinking, so they default to things they can comprehend. The world you suggest will never come to be.
No. Utter mumbo-jumbo. Cultures require stability. Upsetting that stability should be hard. If your revolutionary idea is worth the effort, a culture will evolve to embrace it.
It is indeed better to say that no progress was made since 1973. Quantum chromodynamics does not at all follow from quantum mechanics without additional assumptions.
Alexandria's library is largely hype: science was already in trouble then because the freedom of thought that some more "liberal" city states like Athens or Syracuse had promoted was already being endangered under the Macedonians and then the Romans. Just consider how much the Greeks and Phoenicians explored, including probably circumnavigating Africa, and how little did the Romans instead. Alexandria's library was like a fossil of bygone times: it may have hosted the last great thinker of Antiquity (Ptolemy the Astronomer) but it was a dying light, not a promoter of research.
In 2011, I presented my observations to the ANU for an opinion. The Vice-Chancellor ( degrees in Law and Arts) opined that it couldn't be so and that there was no money in it. He was too lazy to take it down the corridor to the physics department. Now retired, I wish him everything that he deserves. Newton would have grasped it.
He’s 100% correct… The power of control is fear. YT would cancel this channel in a heartbeat if Curt actually entertained unique and novel TOEs , instead of the same old TOEs already available from dozens of other YT channels.
I don't think so. I had images and details of a positive energy system on YT and they didn't have a problem. Imagine his following if he did start, in a simple yet scientific way, delving into all those crazy ideas people have had. MythBusters eat your heart out - putting 1 to bed at a time. YT wont give a rats. Why would they.
@@MikeKing-cj9cx Why? Because if YT's handlers decided something was dangerous to their power, it would be scrubbed. But enough must remain that we sheep not notice some of us get slaughtered.
@@MikeKing-cj9cx Gee I wish you were right. But alas… Being shadow banned on YT happens so often on so many forums your optimism is ….cute. To So far Curt has not rocked the boat. He is a great interviewer, don’t get me wrong. but he is channel is the “funny cat videos” of physics. He knows that YT can and is likely to pull his revenue stream if he steps out of line. He even alludes so at the end of every single Video.
Modern physics is about to undergo a major paradigm shift! The speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Relativity itself contains a "proof" the speed of light cannot be a constant. According to Einstein's famous E = mC^2 or, using first year algebra, (E/m)^1/2 = C, which says the speed of light is a ratio of the total energy of the universe divided by the total mass (the square root, but we're talking about such big quantities , for simplicity's sake, I'm just going to concentrate on the ratio part. We have learned energy and matter are two versions of the same thing, nuclear bombs are an example of matter turning into energy. If E = 0 and it's all one hunk of matter, C = 0, logical since there's no place to go. If m approaches 0, and it's all energy, C will increase; in fact, C will approach infinity. Does the universe’s ratio E/m change? It does so within stars and atomic bombs, so why not the universe as a whole? The Big Bang Theory claims in the ancient past it was all m, E = 0, and C must have been 0, since there was no place to go. Similar to how a Gaussian closed 3-D surface can be treated as if its center of mass point contained all of its mass, can an area of space be treated as if its average E/m ratio were the universe’s E/m ratio? In other words, if in interstellar space, can a space station behave as if the mass of the universe were much less than it is, thus raising the speed of light on the station? Would that make the distant stars closer than they appear?
@@hdthorIt was the basis of my PhD thesis from ETH Zurich, 1997. See the description of my video. The thesis and all the researchers papers corroborating my results are there.
Einstein was wrong about the "particle properties of light." There is no such thing as a "particle property." Every property attributed to particles is also attributed to waves. That is why they cannot make a distinction between the two. If anyone cares to argue otherwise, start by listing all of the "particle properties" that are not "wave properties." Good luck! Also, Einstein did not come up with the energy mass equivalent. Woldemar Voigt published the E=mc^2 equation in his paper "On the Doppler Effect," in 1876 before Einstein was even born. Voigt's paper was a discussion of Christian Dopper's "Doppler Effect" which requires a medium of propagation. That is correct... E=mc^2 was derived in aether theory, just as was "time dilation," "length contraction" and other concepts often falsely attributed to Einstein that were actually postulated by other people before Einstein took them and reified them into his theory.
Very good explanation. Looks like you understand of Physics and this is the reason to inform you for the existence of the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" I hope that will give you good ideas.
When I was at university -- eons ago, admittedly -- the two best professors in my department were, over the summer between my freshman and sophomore years, fired for not publishing enough. Their getting easily the best student evaluations meant less than nothing... Damn you, damn you, Staub! Damn you...!
Around 30 minutes 40 seconds, Greg points out the difficulty of dealing with referee committees, but in my area of mathematics the tendency is to have only one referee and only occasionally two or three referees for a paper.
German academics all say that the country's universities were damaged by the Bologna Reform. Simplification, international standardisation, much less time and scope for reflection and experiment, creativity. But, the reform wasn't pushed by bureaucrats in Brussels -- it was the business community's vision of what the academic world should be like, based upon pragmatism, tangible results and employability. Though I also consider myself to be a "romantic", dissolving the European Union wouldn't somehow turn the clock back to cultural diversity. We're in an international system of norms, and the problems go much deeper. It's about fear and conformity, not politics. The business world is also very bureaucratic in an insidious way that people don't even notice because it is woven into the fabric of society. Anyway, there are two other examples for the "small is beautiful" argument - Renaissance Italy and the patchwork of German-speaking countries in the 18th and 19th centuries. As a European citizen, I am in any case, despite everything, in favour of the EU. It's an interesting hybrid which serves many useful purposes better than all of these small countries would be able to going it alone. In the 21st century, there's no other way. We simply need a fundamental, philosophical, almost anthropological shift.
@@ms-jl6dlThe EU's only purpise it to prevent a French-German war. Everything else is only a plus. The plusses are: 1. Free movement of people. 2. Free movement of products. 3. Free movement of services. 4. Free movement of capital. 5. Stronger and easier scientific cooperation. 6. Bigger markets for everyone.
@@robertalenrichter „The internet once felt like an endless ocean, now it feels like a city block.“ The insidious element of business people trickled down into every aspect of our modern life. Automation, bureaucracy, ideological thinking, pressure to conform on younger people through social media is very much present. The economic state is of no help either, most people having the dire outlook of never being able to afford a nice house to live in peace. We will see what the AI revolution brings, because it will surely come. It’s a great time to live from an aspect of physical needs and safety (at least in most Western countries), yet a horrible time for the curious mind that wishes to not live a life of workaholism and survivorship, just to create new and impactful work, to be allowed to wander freely. Maybe, at some point, with safety such freedoms perish. I quit my physics bachelor 2 years ago because I lacked money to finance my life here in Vienna and it felt just like there was no room to really dive into the concepts you were learning, felt like you were rushed from one trial to the next, but my Web Development job doesn’t provide enough meaning now. So, I will go back to university next week. Better having learned physics under pressure with the certainty of knowing that academic life is of no option for me than not having learned physics at all, I guess. No wonder so many talented and curious smart people go into finance breaking their investigative heart, just for getting enough money to find an air bubble to breath in the future and thus enough certainty to go back to what they want to do, even though it won’t be like they wanted it to be.
Even back in the 80's in Australia there was no hope of gaining recognition for innovation . I promptly dropped out of Uni . in disgust . At that time I thought it was all about the British arrogance and megalomania . I gave u p trying to gain an accepted "education" in "higher education" and just started businesses to develop teach and sell it . No bullshit needed . oh wait then the AU government changed everything . and now I am not even qualified to drive a bus
I haven't been restricted in anyway by the AUS govt. It's the best country in the world man - very free. OK, they might keep an eye on me, but have never stopped me from R&D.
...and more importantly, commercialising anything I have produced. They might not make it easy, but fair is fair right. If you have a real fkn crack, you are free to make worthwhile change.
Great guest and 100% correct. I am a self taught science nerd that I believe I made a few major discoveries/research into gravity. And the many aspect of it. And that the gravitational force that between planets and their moons are different from the gravity on the surface of the planet. And I can solve the 3 body problem and back up with new theories
I propose that much of what is accepted today is a lie, and the truth is often the exact opposite. Embrace this perspective, and you'll witness breakthroughs everywhere. How do I know this? Through experience and the awareness that there are those among us who don't have humanity's best interests at heart.
I retired early from my academic position in Malaysia last 2 months. I totally agree with him about the rules we need to follow in the current bureaucratic-full university. This had been made worse by outcome base education.
This man is saying exactly what I think. If you have to make money from your science research then you must work on something safe. If you have the money then you can research whatever you want. If it goes nowhere society win's as it will then be known to be either wrong or done the wrong way. The next person can then change some thing and see if it gives a different result. Basically all results in research should be equally valuable whether they are right or wrong. That way we would have a change of eventually test all possibilities. When I studied to become an electronic engineer I was told that in business brain storms where often held. I was also told that if others laughed of an idea all that that meant was that it was a new idea. It could be good or bad. Only investigation would verify that. We need some more Skunkworks. That is if the stories told that ANY idea would be funded to be investigated is correct. Personally I am now retired and can do what I want but I just don't have the finances. Also to work alone is not nearly as productive as in a team.
How I understand! I have a similar problem. A fundamental discovery, but it doesn't fit into the existing paradigms. They push it from one side to the other and the fundamental experiments aren't done because they're afraid they'll be considered crazy!
There are differences between Progress Reports. One type is real-time feedback like the information provided to pilots from the suite of instruments in the cockpit. Another is focused on the needs and challenges of the passengers during the flight. Both are equally valid but differ in the outcomes. Pilot training is a prerequisite to understanding checklists…passenger compliance is mandatory for civility during the flight. The former utilizes a Flight Data Recorder supplemented with after-action reports. The latter requires compliance witha vast Transportation Security Apparatus.
since the 1920’s ? So solid state electronics, the microchip and advanced computers, cellphones, internet the list goes on. None of these were huge innovation?
All of these are still based on Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. What he’s referring to is a jump of that magnitude. A revolution rather than evolution.
It's also about greed in that the next big breakthrough or highly cited paper is a trophy for the institutions to obtain. This could bring in more funding or treasure.
Interesting the truly creative and educated started their own companies -- money from real world results. Grant money necessarily panders to the grant writers, real world results are less important than pandering to the preconceptions of the check writers. In the future, will bio's about private employment become more important than schools attended and awards given?
I'm calling it! There will be a Spontaneous Motion EXPO by 2030. Many may not produce useful power but I bet we would see an amazing array of working designs.
Mostly because you have too many bureaucrats in EU and they need work to justify their pay, so they created a system where people make work, like progress reports, despite the fact that it creates unnecessary work mostly.
Renaissance is a key word here on many levels. When one thinks of the word “renaissance” certain images come to mind. Michelangelo and DaVinci. Their art was beautiful and realistic. Now think of the art of the beginning of the 20th century. Abstract, surrealism and other BS. Well it happens to coincide with “developments” in physics of the time. That is what one might call a civilizational derailment. Art and thought strayed away from renaissance and created something opposite of it. It was all downhill from there on. And here we are, probably at the lowest point of this process. Let’s hope for a change.
What is most offensive to me is when science communicators and leaders in the field suggest, or just outright say, there can never be another Da Vinci because the depth of knowledge is so deep you need to specialize in it for years. This thinking is going to delay a new renaissance and keep us in the proverbial dark ages for a really long time. The truth is that expanding the depth of each theoretical pond has nothing to do with actually answering questions to the problems of physics.
@@Enkarashaddam in fact specialization maybe what leads to a dead end because all epiphanies and breakthroughs happen at a juncture of different fields. Broadening is the key and transfer of learning which brings us back to renaissance.
Heidegger also pointed this problem , calculative thinking where outcome is already decided forehand , as it is , where there is no room for creativity or poetry as he describe it. Money making kills art and creativity.
SPONSOR (THE ECONOMIST): As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe
TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 - Intro
01:20 - Lack of Scientific Progress
06:22 - The Academic System
12:03 - Crisis in ‘Fundamental’ Physics
18:18 - Ancient Societies (Greece, Egypt, Alexandria)
23:05 - European Bureaucracy
27:08 - Albert Einstein
29:14 - Heterodox Experiments (Cold Fusion)
34:34 - Outro / Support TOE
I know it's flawed and I have all the information on how to change it... Lol hello read my channel name 😂
Innovation will have to outpace extinction. Have homo-sapiens ever faced extinction by their own hands?
We need to consider that the current stagnation in human thought is caused by the thinkers we need never engaging with the university system at all.
@@mattphillips538 The thinkers outside the university system need to engage with it the most.
@@therealdesidaru Why would you wish that on them?
Killing the Bell system and with it Bell Laboratories was the most destructive blow to innovation ever.
So true.
Bell Labs was over by the time they killed it from the Bell Labs people I've met.
@@rockpadstudios You must have met the wrong people. I was there working on Unix. It was an incredible environment in which to work, like no place I've been in since.
Just saw F.W. Bell, or rather who aquired them, systematically kill very useful and obscure tech. Really sad. Soon to be replace with cheap crap, prob via China.
My dad said bell laboratories was a national treasure.
Einstein said he spent his last years researching the unlikely because no young scientist could afford to "waste time" on fringe ideas if he wants a career.
Now those would be interesting notes to read
@@friendlyskiespodcast Einstein spent his last years trying to unify physics via by allowing the metric tensor to be anti-symmetric. This was pure nonsense which had no physical interpretation motivating it, essentially just making random mathematical abstractions in the hope something would stick … sort of like string theory does today.
Einstein’s theory unfortunately is the fringe theory… physics will never progress until all that magical relative space&time nonsense is forgone.
@@friendlyskiespodcast he spent it trying to unify physics by making the metric tensor antisymmetric, which had no physical motivation but was essentially just making random mathematical abstractions in the hope that something would stick. Now this is still what all the theoretical physicists are still doing today.
Einstein’s theory IS the fringe theory, or at least it should have been regarded as such. Deifying the behavior of light as absolute and invariant when such a thing could never be measured should never have been accepted as science - this is the reason physics hasn’t progressed in 70 years
But he also said that his later work wasn't of great significance and he was only going to work, so he can have the pleasure of walking back home with Godel.
Einstein is the problem. The iconic figure who created chaos in physics stifles thinking. He himself 1913 said the GRT has a fundamental flaw,
You know what happens to organizations that become insular and so overly protective of themselves that they can no longer innovate or respond?
They become irrelevant. Academia's issue is that the institutions make themselves an obstacle to everything until everyone works around that obstacle and suddenly they're just museum artifacts.
In 30 years I don't even think universities will be offering competitive research programs in comparison to private ones. They may get more research money, but it's hard to tell if even that will last in perpetuity.
@@Sanchuniathon384 No. You spent all your time writing paragraphs just to reveal that you don't know how research/inquiry works.
All the longstanding institutions are corrupt, they have for years put profit over everything else, and they are all collapsing. We are witnessing the end of capitalism.
Academia is bullshit nowadays. 😢 College is a scam
Thomas Kuhn actually addressed this problem way back in the 1960s in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Seems nothing much has changed since then
So true! Group think rules.
It’s gotten worse as the funding needs and competition increases. I have described it as a psychological grid which filters out new ideas and creativity. It is the absolute best structure imaginable to do that because of what it requires of students, how it rewards them, the “don’t re-invent the wheel” ideas from increasing complexity. The limited opportunity to really and truly allow intuition to be a part of things. Think of it this way-memory gets you good grades. But all true creativity is from making your mind work like the universe actually does. We make memory palaces and mnemonic devices when they already exist in the form of natural working wholes. I literally cannot memorize arbitrary things. But if they have a larger meaning, I never forget. I have no trouble with relevant facts. And the way intuition works is organized differently than what we do to socially use knowledge as an interpersonal or competitive lever in this regard. Pretty much every huge change in human knowledge came from intuitive understanding not declarative walls against creativity. Much of schooling is building that kind of wall. Even Pink Floyd knew that. 😂❤
@@spiralsun1 I couldn't have said that better! Well said👍How higher learning has turned into a dystopian rat race to solicit research and grant funding🤑🤑🤑🤑 Ken Robinson would find you a kindred spirit no doubt
Yes of course. The current system crushes Einsteins
@@spiralsun1perfectly stated. The rot goes deeper, as all sorts of self preserving elements have calcified to enable it to perpetuate and resist change, but you’ve nailed it here.
I’ll add to the original commenter, that 20 years after Kuhn came Feyerabend’s Against Method, which took it further to argue against “method” altogether to reignite science. Chaitlin’s critique, whether realized on his own, or incorporating Feyerabend’s analysis, incorporates this even more fundamental freedom as essential to decoupling scientism from science and unleashing the latter.
Ian McGilchrist’s the Matter With Things includes several chapters on institutional science, science and life, science and truth that are a truly masterful deconstruction of ‘all of the above’ with a great deal of specific challenges to various pillars of dogma we are stuck in. He references Denis Noble’s work (which Curt has featured) specific to the ongoing dominance of reductionist gene essentialism, and the growing body of work it continues to ignore clinging to its misguided overweighting of genetics and the machine metaphor, ignoring the frontier-like complexity that has clearly emerged in the microcosmos and the teleological orchestration of genetics performed by cells and organisms which demonstrate genetics should be seen as a dynamic tool, not a blueprint.
“Publish or perish” was a 60s 70s thing. For quite a long time the rule has been, “Bring in money or perish.” The usual money quota is your own salary plus enough money to support 5 to 10 graduate student stipends plus the lab/computer expenses.
And there`s a war against the brightest based upon racism....anti white, anti Asian.
Self supporting.
But granting agencies check your h index before releasing 💰
Great, so an even worse system
Well put.
Rich people are buying authorship. There are entire FB groups where people advertise approved papers and you can put your name in for a price. As someone from Brazil with zero funding, it's impossible to compete with them for a postdoc in neuropsych.
So true. Vc brasileiro. Eu tambem
I am self taught. And stuck on moving on in research I have made
@@DrVictorVasconcelos "People buying authorship?" How totally a dastardly concept that is. Not that I care about such deviousness, but is there a waiting list? -- (signed) Poverty Stricken Illiterate
Gregory Chaitin is absolutely right.
Another example is Halton Arp and his analysis of galaxies' distances from Earth, which was totally rejected upfront. He was chased out of the scientific community by the ruling physicist's ideologies, silenced, overlooked, not published, etc. Now others are trying to take credit for his remarkable idéas as recent observations and deep space photographs seem to support his theories.
No-one can take the achievement of Halton Arp away. A few bright people as him make possible the formation of the final theory in Physics. It is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" Unfortunately, "They" is hiding the existence of this book even this channel.
Another good example is Kristian Birkeland and his proposed theory of the Solar origins of the Aurorae around 1905.
He was ridiculed and ostracized by the scientific community until NASA probes in the 70's finally confirmed his ideas.
Among his fiercest critics was Arthur Eddington who came up with the idea of the thermonuclear star and promoted the theories of gravitational collapse and General Relativity.
Incidentally these theories were canonized in the 1920's and have ever since prevented any real scientific progress in these areas, including dismissing Halton Arp.
Can we have a close up of that photo next to his head?
🧐😂
What! You cant recognize your mum???
I was wondering if anyone else noticed that. lol
He's living example of Mark Twin's life-experience: “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”
I 100% agree with this, science was subject of fascination before, now its just industrial machine
Chaitin is absolutely correct. Science started with a desire to know, to read, "the Handbook of the Heavens" as Galileo phrased it, but now it's to get a "career" as a professor at a good college, get Grants, perhaps even fame and money. No one can propose a project unless they know it will work, so nothing new comes out of it except more citations (of and additions to their CVs helping them get new grants and teach their (exploited) students their way towards "success". That's why I and others go towards the start-ups.
This is an outstanding guest, Curt. I have enjoyed every minute of this podcast
I’m so glad!
Universities even back in my time at Sydney Uni in the 80's there was no room for innovation or new ideas.
There is a lot of evidence that the USA classifies and hides scientific breakthroughs. So, innovation is pointless unless it serves consumerism.
Since we are here mostly talking of fundamental physics, it is a question how much of the actual knowkedge in the field is actually open. We had these landmark discoveries in fundamental physics in the beginning of the 20th century. Than came WWII and it became clear that the new physics had military applications. The leading physicists got enrolled in the military to design nuclear weapons. And then came the cold war, where the race for weapons of mass destruction just continued. Fundamental physics became military secrets in the cold war arms race. And the question is if that ever stopped... Can we be sure that all there is known in fundamental physics is open and public?
I was very creative and did so well on their testing that guys in suits came to my school in 8th grade to try to recruit me into "something" and made me go to high school to take exams. They wanted me in advanced classes then early college courses but wouldn`t say why. Very shady! UFOs had been swarming our home at this time for over 13 years. I wanted to be a scientist (1979) but already knew I could never do great things because it would be weaponized.
I just gave up on the "American Dream" and lived simply. I was right too. Even the fruit orchard, berries and organic vegetable gardens I`ve worked so hard on will be destroyed by idiocy and ignorant greed when I`m gone. How long will they last I wonder...will they even make it two years before the bulldozers arrive? Months? Weeks? Humans truly deserve what`s coming.
You've got it! And it was all stolen from dubious origin, like probably the right method to ignite the nuclear bombs, because funnily and curiosly only after May45 and German capitulation (totally!) the things on the nuclear bombs which were very stuck all of a sudden got speed! There is also uranium isotopes being recovered in Germany in the amout of tons that probably were captured in submarines on their way to Japan incl. the know-how to do it. What an irony of history that that stuff was eventually thrown on japanese cities! Too bad to imagine! 😮
It's not just in science. Bureaucrats love regimental structures that fit a paradigm for auditing, and for teaching. Uncertainty just does not fit, and so every industry now has set rules. Diet in relationship to food or facts in medical or any other orthodoxy seeks out order, and conformity.
Wow, absolutely riveting conversation. Thanks both.
Glad you enjoyed it Roland!
Outsiders have got no such restrictions on time and focus, so I guess the advantage is in our court
The sharing of ideas, one way or another.
You are right - "We" manage to publish (independently) the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@valentinmalinov8424 I love this. I'm one of those who conducted his own inquiry and ended up somewhere completely unique. It must be outside of the imaginations of the scientific establishment that an outsider will come to contribute something special, because all doors that I've knocked on have been closed. Not even a basic hearing. Either outside of their imagination, or maybe its a feirce competition for the prestigious breakthorugh that leads the establishment to their indifference towards independant researchers. Either ither doesnt matter, it results in the same thing. An enviroment which is suprisinlgy well setup to limit our reach for being heard and or pubished. But I've used my time for having been silenced well, for the benefit having improved my work and refined its explinations. I have a youtube channel now with a video series. Lets see how that goes. And I wish everybody in my ambiations and shoes the very best
@@valentinmalinov8424 I replied to you but yt deleted it
@@valentinmalinov8424 I love this. I'm one of those who conducted his own inquiry and ended up somewhere completely unique. It must be outside of the imaginations of the scientific establishment that an outsider will come to contribute something special, because all doors that I've knocked on have been closed.
Andrew Wiles was told to forget his childhood dream of proving Fermat's Last Theorem and instead build his career on more mainstream mathematics.
The most important problem in the academia is that you can not survive in it if you do not have sufficient financial resources. Salaries are abysmal, hence most academicians have to do a lot of nonsense/fake projects/papers to get funding.
Love your thinking Greg. I'm in your camp. Had a vivid dream many years ago... was flying through the atmosphere, unassisted, came across a old man sitting on a carpet high up in the air. I stopped mid-flight, reversed to him and looking me in the eyes he said: "Learn everything you can... you going to need it", after which I flew off! Today, I'm doing just that and a few things already popped forward after my mind started fitting pieces from different puzzles together making the new! Nice innovative pictures on your wall.
I have personally seen “ball lightning” float down the wooden handrails of my friends old house.
"Geniuses Love Simplicity" - Terry A. Davis
If you tell a real genius that they have to deal with the insane bureaucracy of todays academic world just so the stuff they say and think has validity... There are reasons why the average competency of college graduates has been decreasing for decades.
"Of all of the knowledge that I have acquired, the greatest has been a reverence for simplicity" I can't recall the author or if I correctly quoted.
I completely agree with this. In the past universities used to be a place of excellence. It were mainly the most talented few percent of people who had a chance of getting into universities. Most of the students had great talent and passion for the field they decided to study. Nowadays universities are basically a business targeted at the masses. For many jobs a degree is now a requirement and hence almost half of the younger people are now going to university to get a degree, not because they are particularly talented or passionate about a field but because they often kinda have to in order to get a decent job (or at least they believe so). Purely based on the numbers the average university student is now much closer to the overall population mean than to the top percentiles in terms of intellect. The consequent lack of depth probably can make universities even less attractive to the true top percentiles.
One of the last people who could write a compiler. All of the 'Strong-Brave' 'on Wed, we code!' idiots are just patching and stitching Davis' work and patting themselves on the back. Rewarding medocrity because of identity politics has made people dumb.
Back when I was in college, I wondered if this would eventually come up in the lexicon. There was so much pressure to conform in order to be considered "educated," it sometimes made me resent feeling like I had to be there. I thought maybe I had a tendency to think too much and let things get to me. But I always felt my doubts in the system were valid.
love this guy!
I spent 40,000 hours of following science and became a polymath, a master of human sound as an overtone singer, and a master of movement by making every common movement 10,000 times. I have had interesting conversations with 50,000 people and run 1000 performances with 100,000. We all need to become polymaths. We can then solve all our problems
How did you go about making every common movement 10000 times?
Plot twist: this is the comment of a legit genius 2 year old.
I was a budding physicist about 50 years ago. But i gave it up. It's kind of nice to hear Gregory Chaitin say things i was sensing even back in the day. Especially how we're in a phase of tech innovation but in a basic research slump. Mostly because committees have to cater to the dumbest in the group.
Interesting, i was just reading that most influential chinese philosophy arised during the warring states period, because there was no central authority to limit what was acceptable knowledge. It seems that when there is no central authority man is most creative. This also is a warning against global governance, that would mean no theoretical contributions, only technological innovation to control the people.
publish or perish is one thing. garbage publications being published on so-called "esteem" journals like PRL is another problem. Research is really in bad conditions and getting worse by the day. Noone wants to recognize anymore who is understanding and who is not. Garbage environment.
I manage to publish my work, but "They" make nearly impossible for the people to find it. I believe will be a big surprise to you when you learn the title of my work - It is the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe".
The question for an oversight of scientific disciplines and their quality assurance is more than justified.
A deep inquiry maybe, but oversight could be argued to be a fundamental part of the problem. I hear Chaitlin calling for a broad reconceptualization and wild west of atomized inquiry and renewed exploration unburdened by the expectations of institutions who’s oversight wrecks the most promising potentials for new ideas.
There needs to be oversight for things we actually use but there also needs to be a place for experimental topics / ideas that is not given to think thanks.
I can say my undergraduate studies were amazing. The vast majority of my professors never looked down or discouraged any ideas we had - they encouraged us to pursue them. They also have caveats on what they were teaching - e.g. "the electron has no structure" was explained correctly - we model it mathematically without structure for two reasons: 1. It's easier 2. We have not discovered the structure yet. It does NOT mean it has no structure.
The velocity curve of (stars in) galaxies was explained in the late 1980's by Anthony Peratt - showing electromagnetic forces can very easily explain it to very, very high accuracy - with no need for bandage hypotheses of dark matter and energy which fundamentally can't be observed directly (how convenient...).
Christian Birkeland, Hans Alfven, Ralph Juergens, Anthony Peratt, etc. also gave a wonderful hypothesis of the wholly unexplained phenomenae we observe on and from the sun - yet it is largely ignored. Not to speak of Halton Arp and his studies on redshift via quasars and "peculiar galaxies."
I agree with 1920's being the last time of true scientific inquiry. We were having breakthroughs all the time before that, then things greatly changed.
Thank you. Electro-magnetism can explain most celestial phenomenon without creating things to make the explaination fit. Einsteinian cosmology is full of smoke and mirrors.
Fantastic guy! Love his attitude.
Moroccan Phd mathematics and CS. Here …. The truth about Moroccan academia and its excellence will blow the mind of anyone … at this point they are far ahead in creativity…. After 10 years following my Californian math journey in the wild alone leaving inside my mind with 0 social interactions i feel more in control …. This men gave you what you all needed to hear. …. I am personally So grateful for this interview
The same is true for the humanities and, most especially, for academic philosophy! How could something like philosophy ever be expected to flourish under the conditions Chaitin describes?
«Science has become big business. It's not a hobby anymore for a small group that really loves it and does it only out of curiosity. I think that has destroyed fundamental innovation»
Chaitin is SOOO right!! It is for this reason that I have been suggesting a sort of a 'punk revolution' in science for almost two decades now!
But how to do it?
@@thorebergmann1986 Good and fair question!
Well, the first thing would be to 'gather' some discontent researchers, people who REALLY love science above almost everything else and are open minded to new ideas (it doesn't work if you don't share this frame of mind). Once you sarting to have a community of like-minded people things follow naturally. You would have a (hpefully groing) community of people reading each others papers, aiding each other, publishing alternative sites and journals/zines and even promoting meetings and conferences where people would crash on other peoples homes instead of staing at expensive hotels.
This is just a simple and brief sketch, but in essence it wouldnot be very far from this. With current technology this is actually something very easy to do!...
Would you join in?
Lord Kelvin and a few other Physics Honchos at the end of the 19th Century stated that Physics seemed complete, except for a few open questions: (1) "What causes discrete spectral lines?"; and (2) "What makes the Sun shine?"
Kelvin conjectured that solving these problems would require "something new". (His actual statement is more elegant.)
Look into the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. The public never gets to see the newest discoveries and inventions. The best stuff gets classified and locked away, like most likely, anti-gravity.
anti-what?
This assumes that A) the inventors of antigravity technology were American, B) these inventors were so cowed that they didn't appeal or take their discovery to the media - as other inventors have, see the Phasorphone, and C) not a single scientist outside of the US has replicated this discovery.
@@Sifar_Secure Unfortunately, I think this channel - through its boosting and platforming of crackpots - fosters a community that includes a lot of conspiracy theorists and loons. I mean, even George Chaitin gives some legitimacy to cold fusion. Other videos boost UFO conspiracies. And on and on. I want a channel that is dedicated to talking about real theoretical frameworks that compete with string theory, and evaluating their relative merits. This video is just sour grapes disguised as critique.
You are a conteoist. Inventing cost money. Returns are desired. Therefore production must be facilitated. Patent protection time is limited. Therefore:
1. Either the original invention is released after 20 years.
2. Or someone else invent it again, but can not patent it, and therefore is not allowed to manufacture it, but can publish it, thus making the patent owner to start production to prevent patent applications elsewhere. You know there is no world patent.
So even if the owner want to manipulate the market, its time extent almost certainly will not be as long as wished. Because if it is not used in production soon, there will be fierce competitors when it is finally released from protection.
I'd recommend watching Angela Collier's video "a physicist responds: physics has done very little for like 70 years." TL;DR: it's done a lot, actually.
We were expected only a published paper every so often, every couple years or more, in the 19th and early 20th centuries - now, if you don't constantly and consistently publish, you're gone. It is sad because this framework doesn't produce anything of substance. It's a waste of human life, intellect, and resources. Quantity over quality is detrimental to many things, especially science.
Having to be essentially restricted to what your advisor studies in graduate school is a large problem. You're not allowed to research your true interests unless they just happen to be in line with where you go and whom you are under.
This is a large reason many don't go on in their academic careers - when we realized we were not truly allowed to do the science we are interested in, what's the reason to continue? If we aren't allowed to "break the paradigm," then what are we doing?
Refereeing papers is, by their own definition, a process of gatekeeping. Can't believe this has ever been tolerated in science, it's something cults do.
What is truly sad is the corporate monopolies are trying to make a one world government where everything is centralized we are going to end up with one government one corporation and nobody will be able to tell them apart. We need to put a end to this insanity
nah, the bankers will continue with having multiple corporations owned by them pretending to be competing. It has worked so well for them so far. See pepsi/coca cola, and all the media etc. As long as people think there are multiple entities no one will rebel.
you are absolutely right . Universities are dead weight these days only small startups are going to advance teach
Even they can’t escape the gravity well of money and bureaucracy
Interesting, thanks!
As long as you can see the big picture, you are on the right path. ❤
I realized that academia was a racket 30 years ago during grad school when I noticed that a 30-page paper suitable for "Physical Review" would get submitted as ten 3-page papers to "Physics Letters".
Great interview, 100% agree with his views. Just one inaccuracy was said, i.e. that Aristotle was not Greek. What was he then? Aristotle was born in Stagira, a Greek city in the north, founded by Ionian Greeks. Greek was his native language and culture. Without getting into the weeds of how you define "Greek", and who a "true Scotchman" is (such debates exist within every ethnic identity I know of), I will simply say that if _anyone_ can call himself Greek, so can Aristotle. BTW, because I don't know the exact definition of "Greek", and I think it's more linguistic than anything (and others violently disagree with me on this), I call myself Grecophone, to avoid using a term ("Greek") that I cannot define without circularity. But this is already part of those "weeds" I want to avoid. For the average person out there, there is something called "a Greek nation / identity / culture / whatever". And for the average person out there, Aristotle was part of it, front and center.
Interesting. Any idea where this speaker might have gotten the idea Aristotle was not Greek? Are there anthropologists saying he was not Greek?
@@ronrothrock7116 My best guess would be that he thinks that because Aristotle was born in Macedonia (near today's Thessaloniki) he wasn't Greek. Some people may think ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians were different ethnic groups. No archeologist could support that. There isn't a single piece of evidence that Macedonia wasn't part of the Greek world. The language was Greek, the Gods worshiped were Greek, the names of the people (including Alexander, Aristotle, and their parents' names) had clear Greek etymology, the signs and buildings and statues from the region were all Greek. This is not disputed by anyone AFAIK.
Warning, long text follows.
TLDR; The confusion may be related to the modern country called Northern Macedonia (a.k.a. FYROM), which is not a country of Greeks but of Slavs.
One possible reason for the mistake is that, starting in the 7th century AD (1000 years after Aristotle), Slavic tribes migrated to the Balkans from the North, and a subset of those Slavs today call themselves "Macedonians". They are Macedonians only in the geographic sense, because they inhabit a part of the region that was always known as Macedonia. (Another big part of Macedonia is today in Greece and another small part is in Bulgaria). But they are not ethnically Greek (they admit that!), and they are not ethnically/culturally/linguistically/genetically related to the ancient Macedonians from the time of Aristotle. They came later, and we know when, because it wasn't that long ago. If you ask a Bulgarian, he will tell you that the modern "Macedonians", who live in the country of "Northern Macedonia", a.k.a. "FYROM" = "Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia", are ethnically Bulgarians with a slightly different dialect. If you ask a "Macedonian" today, though, he may respond differently. He will most likely admit he is a Slav. (It's kind of obvious! They can watch Bulgarian TV shows without subtitles; I cannot, the Greek language is totally different. But I can read Aristotle's texts, and they cannot.) Unfortunately, there has been a concerted effort by the government of Northern Macedonia, since the 1990s, to usurp the ancient Macedonian identity, with often comical results. E.g., they named their airport "Skopje Alexander the Great Airport", they built an enormous statue of Alexander, they put an ancient Greek symbol (the Sun of Vergina) in their flag and coinage... This is the result of a recent nationalist movement that followed (or maybe predated?) the dissolution of Yugoslavia. The new state that was formed needed some legitimacy, some prestige, and a good way to do that is to claim that you are somehow linked to a very ancient and very glorious civilization of that area. (Some ultra-nationalists would go even further and claim that the whole geographic region of Macedonia should be under their young government.) Note, other Slavs don't feel the need to do that. Bulgarians, for example, don't usurp ancient symbols and names, AFAIK, because their state has been well-established. The historical record is very clear, but whatever, if some Slavs want to name their airport "Alexander the Great" and call themselves "Macedonian", I personally don't mind it. "Imitation is the best form of flattery", people say.
@@kanalarchis Thanks for the geography/history lesson. I did not find it TLDR material, but then I like to learn new things. So it sounds like he thought Aristotle was not Greek because he was Macedonian. Without having learned any of the historical context you presented, he came to an incorrect conclusion. Not to be derogatory of him in any way, but I've learned this is what can happen to "self taught" people like him. They are super smart and absorb info like a sponge and they can logically reason out what scientists take years to prove with experiments. But when it comes to basic facts vs having that broader knowledge surrounding the topic, they can make comments/statements like he did.
It is a blessing and a curse to be like him. I, my self, have a MS in biotech (I've made GMOs), but on many of the other science topics I am like him. I understand science and how the scientific method is taught and used as well as how the publishing of papers works. But I love all forms of science (when first out of high school I started to go into aerospace engineering, but life took me a different direction.) In the other fields of science I, like him, am more self-taught. It helps to be able to see things from that different angle; out of the box if you will. But you lose a lot of credibility when you make a statement like he did that is incorrect.
@@ronrothrock7116 The Athenians of his time viewed Macedonians as closely related but not qualifying as Greeks, because they were barbarians, semi-Greek at best.
I could listen to this man all day long.
Finally, the truth is unveiling. Much respect to this courageous Pr.
Liked and i agree 100% with everything that was said👍
There is a reason that RUclips recommended I watch this video. I AM going through the same thing. 0/∞
Say more?
@@MikeKing-cj9cx I can't even tell you any details because RUclips deletes my comments if I gave any details. There is a video on my channel. 0/∞
@@AbyssKeyBearer You know there was details and images of a positive energy system on YT not long ago. YT did not take it down.
A paper was released in Aug explaining the whole thing. I have the paper if you want it?
@MikeKing-cj9cx Ha Ha!... But I AM serious. In the video I show the name of the paper. Search for it. I have been giving free copies to everyone if you want one. 0/∞
@@MikeKing-cj9cx No thank you. I AM sticking with logic and reason. Your statement is a perfect example of the many variations of "stifling science." It's the invincible ignorance fallacy. 0/∞
It's always amazing to listen to a great mind and get a glimpse into their genius. Gregory cuts across vast swaths of history to provide support for his hypothesis regarding the relative lack of innovation in the last century in science and particularly physics. It's funny, I recently performed a search of modern day physicists and came across a question of why there hasn't been another Einstein in the last 100 years. There were some arguments that today physics are so complicated that it's really difficult for one person to make a contribution like Einstein. It now takes more than one mind working on the same topic to have big scientific breakthroughs. Maybe Gregory's criticisms about academics are part of the problem and that is what is partially holding back real substantial breakthroughs in theoretical physics and not because great ideas are out of reach of any single individual in today's modern scientific world.
Tbh Einstein himself actually had to dabble with quite complicated physics back then, 50-200 years before him there were people like Gauss, Maxwell, Fourier, Laplace, Faraday etc which contributed to the fundamental sciences and added the layers of complexity, I like science but I am not a smart person hence I argues it was complicated even back then.
Planck's approach was to analyze the entropy of blackbody radiation as a function of energy. To make both high-frequency and low-frequency data consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, he included an additional "guess" term proportional to the frequency (hf); this results in Planck's Law. Planck's subsequent application of Boltzmann's Statistical Mechanics to justify his guess then led to his revolutionary conclusion that the material of the walls emit and absorb radiation in discrete quanta.
A paper titled "Planck’s Route to the Black Body Radiation Formula and Quantization" by Michael Fowler (7/25/08) gives a nice discussion.
That's all nice but old stuff. Sorry, but even as a German, who could be proud on Planck, I don't care! What Was overridden, was the big question that is still open and undecided. The question are there continua of space & time or not. Is the quantum model basically ok but in the end bs? Is the nature of everything (as this channel discusses TOe mainly😅) grainy (quanta) or continuous at it's very ground fundamental states, and particles do not really exist (at least not as forms of "matter") but are f.i. vortices like Lord Kelvin proposed but had not yet the right instruments to prove it...
There are many open questions and we should not stay nonmoving with Planck, Bohr, Einstein, Feyman Wheeler etc. We have to move on otherwise there is no progress!
This is easily explained by comparing it to products like appliances, automobiles, even groceries. We built a society that rewards maximizing profits. And doing it intentionally, like planned obsolescence.
People are still allowed to push boundaries and innovate but are forced to do so within confined limits.
Academia dooms even people to planned obsolescence in its own way as well, and throws people away as callously as we throw plastic into the sea
A. I. will tell bureaucrats that much of the bureaucracy has to go.
I've thought the same thing. AI is going to be corrupted by the bureaucracy in order to survive. Where will we be then?
Intelligence is ostricized and marginalized by broader society, because our collective society cannot understand the complex interaction between factors which unfold our reality.
It is clearly seen in the american orthodoxy of school funding for sports versus funding for higher scholastic ability.
You can see it in english culture, where there are more derrogatory terms for intellectuals than there are for athletes.
You can see it in movies.
Music.
Its clear, that athleticism is revered FAR more than intellectualism in society as a whole.
Until this changes, the trajectory of human exellence will continue to decline.
You should read David Berlinski
Very good points.
Good points, but it will ever be thus. The masses cannot ever hope to comprehend what the intellectuals are thinking, so they default to things they can comprehend. The world you suggest will never come to be.
No. Utter mumbo-jumbo. Cultures require stability. Upsetting that stability should be hard. If your revolutionary idea is worth the effort, a culture will evolve to embrace it.
@@edblair5253Berlinsky is overrated. His books contain mathematical and historical errors.
This man has great taste in art.
It is indeed better to say that no progress was made since 1973. Quantum chromodynamics does not at all follow from quantum mechanics without additional assumptions.
I think he is talking fundamental physics, eg Can you create spontaneous motion?
Einstein did his breakthrough papers as an outsider
Clear intelligent discussion that an ordinary person can appreciate and understand. Thanks wish you had been my professor!
Someone needs to create another Bell Labs.
Alexandria's library is largely hype: science was already in trouble then because the freedom of thought that some more "liberal" city states like Athens or Syracuse had promoted was already being endangered under the Macedonians and then the Romans. Just consider how much the Greeks and Phoenicians explored, including probably circumnavigating Africa, and how little did the Romans instead. Alexandria's library was like a fossil of bygone times: it may have hosted the last great thinker of Antiquity (Ptolemy the Astronomer) but it was a dying light, not a promoter of research.
I 100% agree with this man.
In 2011, I presented my observations to the ANU for an opinion. The Vice-Chancellor ( degrees in Law and Arts) opined that it couldn't be so and that there was no money in it. He was too lazy to take it down the corridor to the physics department. Now retired, I wish him everything that he deserves. Newton would have grasped it.
He’s 100% correct…
The power of control is fear.
YT would cancel this channel in a heartbeat if Curt actually entertained unique and novel TOEs , instead of the same old TOEs already available from dozens of other YT channels.
Or if they thought he would persuade too many. Let us hope he remain successful, but not too successful.
@@friendlyone2706 I had a positive energy system on YT showing some detail and they didn't touch it. All good and thankyou YT.
I don't think so. I had images and details of a positive energy system on YT and they didn't have a problem.
Imagine his following if he did start, in a simple yet scientific way, delving into all those crazy ideas people have had. MythBusters eat your heart out - putting 1 to bed at a time.
YT wont give a rats. Why would they.
@@MikeKing-cj9cx Why? Because if YT's handlers decided something was dangerous to their power, it would be scrubbed. But enough must remain that we sheep not notice some of us get slaughtered.
@@MikeKing-cj9cx Gee I wish you were right. But alas…
Being shadow banned on YT happens so often on so many forums your optimism is ….cute.
To So far Curt has not rocked the boat.
He is a great interviewer, don’t get me wrong. but he is channel is the “funny cat videos” of physics.
He knows that YT can and is likely to pull his revenue stream if he steps out of line. He even alludes so at the end of every single Video.
What's required is a competing academic system so that creative thought by our scientists and the like can be explored.
I have seen ball lightning when I was a kid. I googled it and learned that this phenomenon does exist
Modern physics is about to undergo a major paradigm shift! The speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Relativity itself contains a "proof" the speed of light cannot be a constant. According to Einstein's famous E = mC^2 or, using first year algebra, (E/m)^1/2 = C, which says the speed of light is a ratio of the total energy of the universe divided by the total mass (the square root, but we're talking about such big quantities , for simplicity's sake, I'm just going to concentrate on the ratio part.
We have learned energy and matter are two versions of the same thing, nuclear bombs are an example of matter turning into energy.
If E = 0 and it's all one hunk of matter, C = 0, logical since there's no place to go.
If m approaches 0, and it's all energy, C will increase; in fact, C will approach infinity.
Does the universe’s ratio E/m change? It does so within stars and atomic bombs, so why not the universe as a whole? The Big Bang Theory claims in the ancient past it was all m, E = 0, and C must have been 0, since there was no place to go.
Similar to how a Gaussian closed 3-D surface can be treated as if its center of mass point contained all of its mass, can an area of space be treated as if its average E/m ratio were the universe’s E/m ratio? In other words, if in interstellar space, can a space station behave as if the mass of the universe were much less than it is, thus raising the speed of light on the station? Would that make the distant stars closer than they appear?
Wow! Thank you for introducing me to these new ideas! How did you originally stumble upon it?
@@hdthorIt was the basis of my PhD thesis from ETH Zurich, 1997. See the description of my video. The thesis and all the researchers papers corroborating my results are there.
@@williamwalker39 Thank for the additional info!
This is 100% wrong.
Spectacularly wrong.
Relativity is woven into quantum field theory.
Einstein was wrong about the "particle properties of light." There is no such thing as a "particle property." Every property attributed to particles is also attributed to waves. That is why they cannot make a distinction between the two. If anyone cares to argue otherwise, start by listing all of the "particle properties" that are not "wave properties." Good luck! Also, Einstein did not come up with the energy mass equivalent. Woldemar Voigt published the E=mc^2 equation in his paper "On the Doppler Effect," in 1876 before Einstein was even born. Voigt's paper was a discussion of Christian Dopper's "Doppler Effect" which requires a medium of propagation. That is correct... E=mc^2 was derived in aether theory, just as was "time dilation," "length contraction" and other concepts often falsely attributed to Einstein that were actually postulated by other people before Einstein took them and reified them into his theory.
Very good explanation. Looks like you understand of Physics and this is the reason to inform you for the existence of the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" I hope that will give you good ideas.
When I was at university -- eons ago, admittedly -- the two best professors in my department were, over the summer between my freshman and sophomore years, fired for not publishing enough. Their getting easily the best student evaluations meant less than nothing... Damn you, damn you, Staub! Damn you...!
Around 30 minutes 40 seconds, Greg points out the difficulty of dealing with referee committees, but in my area of mathematics the tendency is to have only one referee and only occasionally two or three referees for a paper.
German academics all say that the country's universities were damaged by the Bologna Reform. Simplification, international standardisation, much less time and scope for reflection and experiment, creativity. But, the reform wasn't pushed by bureaucrats in Brussels -- it was the business community's vision of what the academic world should be like, based upon pragmatism, tangible results and employability. Though I also consider myself to be a "romantic", dissolving the European Union wouldn't somehow turn the clock back to cultural diversity. We're in an international system of norms, and the problems go much deeper. It's about fear and conformity, not politics. The business world is also very bureaucratic in an insidious way that people don't even notice because it is woven into the fabric of society. Anyway, there are two other examples for the "small is beautiful" argument - Renaissance Italy and the patchwork of German-speaking countries in the 18th and 19th centuries. As a European citizen, I am in any case, despite everything, in favour of the EU. It's an interesting hybrid which serves many useful purposes better than all of these small countries would be able to going it alone. In the 21st century, there's no other way. We simply need a fundamental, philosophical, almost anthropological shift.
@@robertalenrichter Name one "usefull purpose" of EU.
You're going to get bitterly dissapointed with the upcoming events.
And you're delusional.
Best comment so far!! (even better than my own ...)
@@ms-jl6dlThe EU's only purpise it to prevent a French-German war. Everything else is only a plus. The plusses are:
1. Free movement of people.
2. Free movement of products.
3. Free movement of services.
4. Free movement of capital.
5. Stronger and easier scientific cooperation.
6. Bigger markets for everyone.
@@robertalenrichter „The internet once felt like an endless ocean, now it feels like a city block.“
The insidious element of business people trickled down into every aspect of our modern life. Automation, bureaucracy, ideological thinking, pressure to conform on younger people through social media is very much present. The economic state is of no help either, most people having the dire outlook of never being able to afford a nice house to live in peace.
We will see what the AI revolution brings, because it will surely come. It’s a great time to live from an aspect of physical needs and safety (at least in most Western countries), yet a horrible time for the curious mind that wishes to not live a life of workaholism and survivorship, just to create new and impactful work, to be allowed to wander freely. Maybe, at some point, with safety such freedoms perish.
I quit my physics bachelor 2 years ago because I lacked money to finance my life here in Vienna and it felt just like there was no room to really dive into the concepts you were learning, felt like you were rushed from one trial to the next, but my Web Development job doesn’t provide enough meaning now. So, I will go back to university next week.
Better having learned physics under pressure with the certainty of knowing that academic life is of no option for me than not having learned physics at all, I guess.
No wonder so many talented and curious smart people go into finance breaking their investigative heart, just for getting enough money to find an air bubble to breath in the future and thus enough certainty to go back to what they want to do, even though it won’t be like they wanted it to be.
Remove MBAs in the fields of research and things will improve
Even back in the 80's in Australia there was no hope of gaining recognition for innovation . I promptly dropped out of Uni . in disgust . At that time I thought it was all about the British arrogance and megalomania . I gave u p trying to gain an accepted "education" in "higher education" and just started businesses to develop teach and sell it . No bullshit needed . oh wait then the AU government changed everything . and now I am not even qualified to drive a bus
I haven't been restricted in anyway by the AUS govt. It's the best country in the world man - very free. OK, they might keep an eye on me, but have never stopped me from R&D.
...and more importantly, commercialising anything I have produced. They might not make it easy, but fair is fair right. If you have a real fkn crack, you are free to make worthwhile change.
Great guest and 100% correct. I am a self taught science nerd that I believe I made a few major discoveries/research into gravity. And the many aspect of it. And that the gravitational force that between planets and their moons are different from the gravity on the surface of the planet. And I can solve the 3 body problem and back up with new theories
how long did a hand full of people hold up physics with string theory?
I propose that much of what is accepted today is a lie, and the truth is often the exact opposite. Embrace this perspective, and you'll witness breakthroughs everywhere. How do I know this? Through experience and the awareness that there are those among us who don't have humanity's best interests at heart.
I retired early from my academic position in Malaysia last 2 months. I totally agree with him about the rules we need to follow in the current bureaucratic-full university. This had been made worse by outcome base education.
This man is saying exactly what I think. If you have to make money from your science research then you must work on something safe. If you have the money then you can research whatever you want. If it goes nowhere society win's as it will then be known to be either wrong or done the wrong way. The next person can then change some thing and see if it gives a different result. Basically all results in research should be equally valuable whether they are right or wrong. That way we would have a change of eventually test all possibilities.
When I studied to become an electronic engineer I was told that in business brain storms where often held. I was also told that if others laughed of an idea all that that meant was that it was a new idea. It could be good or bad. Only investigation would verify that. We need some more Skunkworks. That is if the stories told that ANY idea would be funded to be investigated is correct.
Personally I am now retired and can do what I want but I just don't have the finances. Also to work alone is not nearly as productive as in a team.
The science of cat litter boxes could be the new thing soon.
Oh boy, you can’t even affirm Pyramids built by Egyptians.
Oh, sh!t, Greg Chaitin of Algorithmic Info Theory. Pay attention kids, this dude is the real deal...
I’m energized by his point of view.
How I understand! I have a similar problem. A fundamental discovery, but it doesn't fit into the existing paradigms. They push it from one side to the other and the fundamental experiments aren't done because they're afraid they'll be considered crazy!
There are differences between Progress Reports. One type is real-time feedback like the information provided to pilots from the suite of instruments in the cockpit. Another is focused on the needs and challenges of the passengers during the flight. Both are equally valid but differ in the outcomes. Pilot training is a prerequisite to understanding checklists…passenger compliance is mandatory for civility during the flight. The former utilizes a Flight Data Recorder supplemented with after-action reports. The latter requires compliance witha vast Transportation Security Apparatus.
since the 1920’s ? So solid state electronics, the microchip and advanced computers, cellphones, internet the list goes on. None of these were huge innovation?
Technology is not "fundamenal science".
We’ll if “fundamental science” means that kind of science that results in no practical and widespread innovations in society. Okay
All of these are still based on Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. What he’s referring to is a jump of that magnitude. A revolution rather than evolution.
Chaitin is right. The EU should be broken up. It's a disaster in every way.
It's also about greed in that the next big breakthrough or highly cited paper is a trophy for the institutions to obtain. This could bring in more funding or treasure.
Thank you for the time put in to edit this for the sake of fluidity. That is tedious work.
Yes, I have been prevented from publishing.
Interesting the truly creative and educated started their own companies -- money from real world results.
Grant money necessarily panders to the grant writers, real world results are less important than pandering to the preconceptions of the check writers.
In the future, will bio's about private employment become more important than schools attended and awards given?
I'm calling it! There will be a Spontaneous Motion EXPO by 2030. Many may not produce useful power but I bet we would see an amazing array of working designs.
Gregory is my childhood hero! We must find some new way to unleash the human potential...
Great interview and great speech from the interviewee!
Alexander Unzicker holds similar views on the stagnation of Fundamental Physics.
Best talk I had the chance to watch in a while
Mostly because you have too many bureaucrats in EU and they need work to justify their pay, so they created a system where people make work, like progress reports, despite the fact that it creates unnecessary work mostly.
Renaissance is a key word here on many levels. When one thinks of the word “renaissance” certain images come to mind. Michelangelo and DaVinci. Their art was beautiful and realistic. Now think of the art of the beginning of the 20th century. Abstract, surrealism and other BS. Well it happens to coincide with “developments” in physics of the time. That is what one might call a civilizational derailment. Art and thought strayed away from renaissance and created something opposite of it. It was all downhill from there on. And here we are, probably at the lowest point of this process. Let’s hope for a change.
What is most offensive to me is when science communicators and leaders in the field suggest, or just outright say, there can never be another Da Vinci because the depth of knowledge is so deep you need to specialize in it for years. This thinking is going to delay a new renaissance and keep us in the proverbial dark ages for a really long time. The truth is that expanding the depth of each theoretical pond has nothing to do with actually answering questions to the problems of physics.
@@Enkarashaddam in fact specialization maybe what leads to a dead end because all epiphanies and breakthroughs happen at a juncture of different fields. Broadening is the key and transfer of learning which brings us back to renaissance.
@@vadimkravets9209 agreed
The intro was good, but i have some ideas, and some of them i already shared
Start a podcast....reads wonderful and exciting ! Great descriptions....BRAVO !
@@thornebladezlash9925
🙂 Some know, would you like to know?
@@swerremdjee2769 ...yes, I was not being sarcastic....great writing and expressing the subject matter. Great stuff !
Heidegger also pointed this problem , calculative thinking where outcome is already decided forehand , as it is , where there is no room for creativity or poetry as he describe it. Money making kills art and creativity.
MY FAVORITE THINKER
Tesla was the last magician we had. No one else is bringing the same volume of magnificent wild inventions