I'm glad Matt Strassler is bringing to the attention of the public the fact that electrons are localized vibrations in an electron field and that the Higgs field affects the electron field.
Wow, I’m definitely going to read Waves In An Impossible Sea after listening to this interview. I’m about to get my master’s in physics (in the U.S.) and I feel like I’m only now able to start comprehending the deeper aspects of the theory. The Mindscape podcast has certainly helped with that. Thank you for this fascinating conversation Sean & Matt!
Thank you for a fascinating discussion. Both Sean Carroll and Matt Strassler exhibited what my greatest physics prof called egoistic humility, which is best captured in the words of Isaac Newton: “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
I enjoyed listening to Dr. Matt Strassler speak with Dr. Sean Carroll. However, I object to a statement 49 min from the beginning. Dr. Strassler says: “Even predict the weather if you’re clever enough to figure out the right equations because the equations stand on their own”. How can equations stand on their own? The butterfly effect shows that the initial conditions are never stable. Of course, we can predict the weather - but only to a certain degree.
"How can equations stand on their own?" I think the meaning is that the equations actually do predict the weather but predictions always couched in terms of probabilities varying according to temporal proximity. Predictions one hundred percent accurate in the 'now' but gradually and quickly fading down to zero re the not too distant future, sadly.
Just finished Impossible Sea. It’s bound to be a classic of scientific explanation. This is the kind of honest, authentic science book that has a chance of making the public trust science and scientists.
1:05:10- Doesn't an e⁻ at rest have energy from its mass even without viberation? This is what causes confusion in sciedu where the experts stress smth by ignoring smth else. So, neutrality and comprehensiveness is the way to go.
You are correct about rest energy. But in this case he doesn't mean it's physically vibrating in space, but there is a vibration in an "internal" space (rotations around the complex plane for example). I agree that these kinds of statements can cause confusion but that is inevitably the case when you're trying to describe something with words that is really only perfectly described with mathematics.
The Bohemian mechanics was not discussed. The BM says that electron itself is not a wave but is guided by an ambient abstract probabilistic wave which gives the probability of where the particle will be found and how that probability evolves over time. The Double Slit Experiment (DSE) is given as an example of an experiment which shows that electrons are particles and waves. I have an issue with that. Let me explain.... For a given configuration of Double Slit Experiment (DSE) there is a abstract standing wave interference pattern of predictive probabilistic wave, each individual particle going through the slits still creates a single dot on the screen. It is only the statistical distribution predicated by the probabilistic wave of many many many particles produces the interference pattern over time. So an individual particle is not a wave. It is the statistical distribution of many particles form the pattern. It is similar to the way ball bearing falling through a Galton board produce a Gaussian distribution in the collectors below. But an individual particle falls in one bucket. It is the collection of particles that produces the distribution. But in case of Galton board experiment we do not say that an individual particle has a Gaussian nature. It is a function of the boards configuration and of a large collection of ball bearings passing through it.
From an astronomical perspective, the earth goes around the sun, and the proof of that is the observable phenomena called "parallax". So if I compare the movement of the earth to only one star of the milky way (called the sun), it's true, you can freely swap the coordinate system, but if you compare it at least multiple stars, or all of them (the galaxy), you can't do that, it will be clear, the earth goes around the sun.
Space started everywhere, spread out for awhile, and then condensed. There should be no average velocity to the CMB as a result if you are not really moving a whole lot compared to space itself. We are moving a bit compared to the CMB though.
@@deltalima6703CMB is an electromagnetic radiation, and therefore it is moving at the speed of light. According to special relativity, everything is moving at the speed of light compared to CMB. That's why that is not a good choice.
The CMB is blue shifted in one direction and redshifted in the opposite direction. It obviously did not start out at different frequecies. We clearly are moving relative to it. Anyways, now that a reference frame is chosen you will see massive stuff, like the milky way, moving along and changing the curvature of space-time around it. Other stuff that is nearby feels that curvature (especially the time curvature, there is no escaping it) and moves accordingly. The sun for example, andromeda as another example. The sun does the same thing, and the planets, creating a barycenter near the sun, and the earth putts along in a locally straight path, just following whatever curvature it finds, which coincidentally keeps it more less the same distance from that barycenter. The idea of a universal clock, ticking out seconds since the big bang or something, is just wrong. Using a heliocentric coordinate system is convenient for locating stars in the milky way (on 6 month timescales), sure, but overall there is nothing particularly special about it. Maybe on a 106 million year timescale (half a galactic year) it would be better to center your coordinate system at sag A* to do the same thing.
Wowsers, I just barely understood what all this was about. The one thing I learned is that even this fundamental stuff is really complex and there are a lot of things which are unknown.
And I also learnt that for us to understand we have to accept some counterintuitive concepts packaged in simple formulas. Take for example f=ma. I was taught this concept and believed it as so simple. However upon listening to this podcast, it's a very counterintuitive concept because it does away with the law of causality. We only experience causality because we live on earth where friction makes us actually cause an object to move. Is it fascinating?
Wow! I learned more In this interview... about things I could never comprehend before... then in any of the every other single episode I have listened to... A word salad of a sentence but I hope you understand...that was fantastic! Hope the book Is in audiobook format. If so, I'll own it in about 15 minutes ❤️❤️❤️🫂's to both of you
I've heard rumors that the absolute nothing instantaneously became infinitely boring so that in order to dispel the boredom, absolute nothing split asunder into positive and negative which summed still add up to absolute nothing but in its split mode absolute nothing became infinitely more interesting. In short, Nature abhors boredom.
Thanks, Sean and Matt. I find it very helpful to break things down to try and understand it. Even so, it's so difficult to conceptualise a lot of things in physics. I do think that even if i were to study for a degree, it would still be difficult to get your head around. For instance, you may understand the concept of light that travels fantastic distance and time but does not degrade or experience time. Gosh, there are a few things that we will need to work on to further our understanding.
PBS Space Time recently summarised Freeman Dyson’s arguments that gravitons are in principle undetectable because any detector sensitive enough to detect them would inevitably form a black hole. In this view gravity cannot be said to be quantum in the usual sense.
1:19:28 For the enlightened among us that statement is not controversial. If you are religous then you will know that no *evidence* aka proof for god can exist because that would do away with the need for faith. Spirituality is a different animal than knowledge, if your religion is framed like that. The atheists will get a kick out of it for the obvious reason. I am not sure who should be offended by that statement, honestly.
Gravity is simple Galilean relative motion. The earth is approaching- expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration- the released object (apple). A proton is a collection of 1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. “G” calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. All atoms and atomic objects are expanding at 1/770,000th their size per second per second constant acceleration: gravity;d=1/2at^2 major part of the Atomic Expansion Equation. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well.... everything.
Wow! Thank you, Matt, for the very first time I _got,_ in a conceptual sense, something that has remained obstinately opaque to me thus far... wave-particle duality ✔︎
Light is self propagating via it's spiral polarization and transverse interactions between the electric and magnetic fields and requires no medium in which to propagate, unlike sound waves or the wake from a boat, which need air or water respectively, to propagate. The proof of lights spiral polarization is evident in literally every instance of the double slit experiment. You see the interference pattern spreads out horizontally where vertical slits are used, reason being the slits themselves are polarizers and if you measure the amount of light going in vs. the amount of light received on the backside it should be 2:1.
If electric and magnetic components are inextricably intertwined, how to think of static electric charge? What is the magnetic field doing in this situations? Or is it just a special case where its value is zero. Does a moving electron that is not accelerating - have a static charge? Does an accelerating electron have static charge? Meaning is "static" related or not to the motion of the electron? As soon as electron moves at constant velocity the magnetic field value is non-zero? or does the electron have to accelerate to produce magnetic field from it's static charge? The static charge of an electron is fixed and is forever as long as the electron exists? What sustains that static charge? Is the electric in the static electric charge of the electron contribute to the electric part of the electromagnetic field of a photon it might emit? Or is static charge of an electron analogous to the notion of inertial mass and the electromagnetic field of emitted photon analogous to momentum mass as in m x v^2 ?
If you believe that a wave function is real, which Sean has said he does, then most space within an atom is taken up by the electron orbitals we learned about in chemistry class. Electrons don't orbit the nucleus, they spread out within an atom. So the oft repeated idea that most of an atom is empty space is not true. That is why a book doesn't fall through a table, there is something taking up that space, a wave function.
1:17:40 So, maybe we could compare the relation of the Higgs field and the electron field (being two coupled fields) with the electric field and the magnetic field. This relation will most likely break pretty soon if or when one thinks harder about it, but sounds like an interesting start for some mind experiments. Besides that, the Higgs field is coupled with other fields besides the electron field. Maybe there exists another field that interacts both with electron and Higgs making it a three-way coupling, sounds even more nonsense but again, perhaps, some food for thought. [edit] Well the electron field is definitely coupled with the electric and magnetic fields, so this leads me to think that it is quite the opposite, probably every field is coupled to another in some way, most of them indirectly, otherwise it is like it does not even exist or does not matter if it does exist or not if it cannot influence anything that we observe. This lead me to think about dark matter, if it turns out there is a field associated to whatever it is, this field seems to only interact directly to the gravity field, if we can put gravity on the same field conception we talk about the other fields that is. Also, I can see why we more explicitly talk about the electromagnetic coupling and not the others, but it is not that easy to put in words as to why.
Is electron a particle or knot in electric field or is there a separate notion of electron field? So how to understand the fixed electric charge of an electron. Is the electric charge of an electron imparted by the electric field associated with the electron.
There is an electron field whose associated particle is the electron (every particle is an excitation of a field). There is also an electomagnetic field whose associated particle is the photon. No one calls it the photon field because we knew about electomagnetism before photons.
Well that was fun. I thought I heard a hint in there that it's leading to "space isn't real" and I take that to mean nothing is actually physical, there is no billions of galaxies except in our perceptions/minds. Its all consciousness energy.
I thought I heard a hint in there that's leading to "space is a spandrel" and I take that to mean space per se is not physical but abstract, entsprechend Emmanuel Kant.
1) Space is certainly a real thing. It's not just an emergence like Matt believes. It's probably just some variant of Dark Matter/Energy that we are still discovering and do not understand yet, that is apart of the "empty" space you're clearly unable to correlate. I think this is just 1 of 100 examples of Matt trying too hard to discredit Einstein. 2) The physics of Space/time from Einstein work fine and are even perfectly logical. And once we understand Dark energy/matter we will also find the final note to the musical of the unity of physics. And instead of viewing space as just something we cannot understand, it will instead just be another variable the same way the constant speed of light is... 3) Following on that notion-- Matt also seems to have a grudge against Einstein. He took every chance he could to downplay him. So maybe a 3rd removed relative of his was slighted in a Poker game by Einsteins family? not sure. But seems like it's something causing Matt to be unable of a clear opinion without bias against Einstein.
i luv this guy. honest. humble. sciencey. direct. ima gunna listen again.
Matt Strassler is fantastic! Sean, you have my permission to break your rule against having a guest on twice for Matt.
I agree. Also get his book
Such lucid and honest communication of the limitations of our understanding is what we need Sean.
I'm glad Matt Strassler is bringing to the attention of the public the fact that electrons are localized vibrations in an electron field and that the Higgs field affects the electron field.
Wow, I’m definitely going to read Waves In An Impossible Sea after listening to this interview. I’m about to get my master’s in physics (in the U.S.) and I feel like I’m only now able to start comprehending the deeper aspects of the theory. The Mindscape podcast has certainly helped with that. Thank you for this fascinating conversation Sean & Matt!
Wow, he's GOOD at explaining physics in layperson's terms. Great gift. Will be looking up more of Dr. Strassler.
Thank you for a fascinating discussion. Both Sean Carroll and Matt Strassler exhibited what my greatest physics prof called egoistic humility, which is best captured in the words of Isaac Newton:
“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
Great podcast, just a simple question: Do the W & Z bosons get their mass from the Higgs field?
I enjoyed listening to Dr. Matt Strassler speak with Dr. Sean Carroll.
However, I object to a statement 49 min from the beginning.
Dr. Strassler says:
“Even predict the weather if you’re clever enough to figure out the right equations because the equations stand on their own”.
How can equations stand on their own? The butterfly effect shows that the initial conditions are never stable. Of course, we can predict the weather - but only to a certain degree.
How true..
Predicting the weather accurately is way beyond the power of equations. Most relations in the universe are non-linear.
Wise words, Hans! @@hansjohansson66
"How can equations stand on their own?"
I think the meaning is that the equations actually do predict the weather but
predictions always couched in terms of probabilities varying according to temporal proximity.
Predictions one hundred percent accurate in the 'now' but
gradually and quickly fading down to zero re
the not too distant future,
sadly.
One of your very best. Ill be looking for more from Dr. Strassler. Algorithm, are you listening? I know you are..
Just finished Impossible Sea. It’s bound to be a classic of scientific explanation. This is the kind of honest, authentic science book that has a chance of making the public trust science and scientists.
What an awesome talk - I always feel like all is well with the world while listening to such talks! Thank you Matt and Sean!
THANK YOU, SEAN CAROL; THE EQUATIONS HELP.✌️👍
Love this podcast.❤❤
Um diálogo super interessante com Matt Strassler e Sean Carrroll.
Obrigada a ambos
!?Como Que?! 🙂
Fascinating! Cool Wurly bumper at 4:40
I literally aced cosmology and geometry in college, and this conversation is nowhere near as simple as you guys think it is
we have models for electromagnetic radiation that agree with experimental observations.
Fantastic!
where do we find rest mass in the universe. everything appears to be in motion.
Thank u dr . Carroll . ❤ from 🇨🇦
Great episode; you may want to fix the number in the title (267 vs 268)
Thanks!
@@seancarrollThe best of the best.
we don't know the speed of light in one direction, we know the average speed of light from source to it's point of reflection and back to source.
is it a waves or particles? waves and particles are models
Sean finds his match.
1:05:10- Doesn't an e⁻ at rest have energy from its mass even without viberation? This is what causes confusion in sciedu where the experts stress smth by ignoring smth else. So, neutrality and comprehensiveness is the way to go.
You are correct about rest energy. But in this case he doesn't mean it's physically vibrating in space, but there is a vibration in an "internal" space (rotations around the complex plane for example). I agree that these kinds of statements can cause confusion but that is inevitably the case when you're trying to describe something with words that is really only perfectly described with mathematics.
The Bohemian mechanics was not discussed. The BM says that electron itself is not a wave but is guided by an ambient abstract probabilistic wave which gives the probability of where the particle will be found and how that probability evolves over time.
The Double Slit Experiment (DSE) is given as an example of an experiment which shows that electrons are particles and waves. I have an issue with that. Let me explain....
For a given configuration of Double Slit Experiment (DSE) there is a abstract standing wave interference pattern of predictive probabilistic wave, each individual particle going through the slits still creates a single dot on the screen. It is only the statistical distribution predicated by the probabilistic wave of many many many particles produces the interference pattern over time. So an individual particle is not a wave. It is the statistical distribution of many particles form the pattern. It is similar to the way ball bearing falling through a Galton board produce a Gaussian distribution in the collectors below. But an individual particle falls in one bucket. It is the collection of particles that produces the distribution. But in case of Galton board experiment we do not say that an individual particle has a Gaussian nature. It is a function of the boards configuration and of a large collection of ball bearings passing through it.
From an astronomical perspective, the earth goes around the sun, and the proof of that is the observable phenomena called "parallax". So if I compare the movement of the earth to only one star of the milky way (called the sun), it's true, you can freely swap the coordinate system, but if you compare it at least multiple stars, or all of them (the galaxy), you can't do that, it will be clear, the earth goes around the sun.
Thats not a proof. Not even the best "preferred coordinate system". The CMB is better.
@@deltalima6703 why?
Space started everywhere, spread out for awhile, and then condensed. There should be no average velocity to the CMB as a result if you are not really moving a whole lot compared to space itself.
We are moving a bit compared to the CMB though.
@@deltalima6703CMB is an electromagnetic radiation, and therefore it is moving at the speed of light. According to special relativity, everything is moving at the speed of light compared to CMB. That's why that is not a good choice.
The CMB is blue shifted in one direction and redshifted in the opposite direction. It obviously did not start out at different frequecies. We clearly are moving relative to it.
Anyways, now that a reference frame is chosen you will see massive stuff, like the milky way, moving along and changing the curvature of space-time around it. Other stuff that is nearby feels that curvature (especially the time curvature, there is no escaping it) and moves accordingly. The sun for example, andromeda as another example.
The sun does the same thing, and the planets, creating a barycenter near the sun, and the earth putts along in a locally straight path, just following whatever curvature it finds, which coincidentally keeps it more less the same distance from that barycenter.
The idea of a universal clock, ticking out seconds since the big bang or something, is just wrong. Using a heliocentric coordinate system is convenient for locating stars in the milky way (on 6 month timescales), sure, but overall there is nothing particularly special about it. Maybe on a 106 million year timescale (half a galactic year) it would be better to center your coordinate system at sag A* to do the same thing.
❤
🤓
❤🎉😊
etaddhasti darshana iva jatyandhah
Great show! The guest, Dr. Strassler, did a great job of bringing us up to speed on the current state of thought in physics.
I've been reading Matt's blog for over a decade. I am definitely getting the book!
Wowsers, I just barely understood what all this was about. The one thing I learned is that even this fundamental stuff is really complex and there are a lot of things which are unknown.
And I also learnt that for us to understand we have to accept some counterintuitive concepts packaged in simple formulas. Take for example f=ma. I was taught this concept and believed it as so simple. However upon listening to this podcast, it's a very counterintuitive concept because it does away with the law of causality. We only experience causality because we live on earth where friction makes us actually cause an object to move. Is it fascinating?
Excellent talk. I understand physics a lot more now, thanks!
Wow! I learned more In this interview... about things I could never comprehend before... then in any of the every other single episode I have listened to... A word salad of a sentence but I hope you understand...that was fantastic!
Hope the book Is in audiobook format. If so, I'll own it in about 15 minutes ❤️❤️❤️🫂's to both of you
Is that what the Big Bang was? When half the yings became yangs? Ie, half the fermions became bosons? Did God say “let there be Pauli Exclusion!”-?
I've heard rumors that
the absolute nothing instantaneously became infinitely boring so that
in order to dispel the boredom, absolute nothing split asunder
into positive and negative which summed still add up to absolute nothing but
in its split mode absolute nothing became infinitely more interesting.
In short, Nature abhors boredom.
Thanks, Sean and Matt. I find it very helpful to break things down to try and understand it. Even so, it's so difficult to conceptualise a lot of things in physics. I do think that even if i were to study for a degree, it would still be difficult to get your head around. For instance, you may understand the concept of light that travels fantastic distance and time but does not degrade or experience time. Gosh, there are a few things that we will need to work on to further our understanding.
PBS Space Time recently summarised Freeman Dyson’s arguments that gravitons are in principle undetectable because any detector sensitive enough to detect them would inevitably form a black hole. In this view gravity cannot be said to be quantum in the usual sense.
I thought a black hole would be the location of gazillions of gravitons which
if true, would make detection of just one more surely problematic?
1:19:28 For the enlightened among us that statement is not controversial.
If you are religous then you will know that no *evidence* aka proof for god can exist because that would do away with the need for faith. Spirituality is a different animal than knowledge, if your religion is framed like that.
The atheists will get a kick out of it for the obvious reason.
I am not sure who should be offended by that statement, honestly.
Is there a reason why the super thanks function is turned off?
Immnual Kant influenced Einstein
Gravity is simple Galilean relative motion. The earth is approaching- expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration- the released object (apple). A proton is a collection of 1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. “G” calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. All atoms and atomic objects are expanding at 1/770,000th their size per second per second constant acceleration: gravity;d=1/2at^2 major part of the Atomic Expansion Equation. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well.... everything.
Wow! Thank you, Matt, for the very first time I _got,_ in a conceptual sense, something that has remained obstinately opaque to me thus far... wave-particle duality ✔︎
Light is self propagating via it's spiral polarization and transverse interactions between the electric and magnetic fields and requires no medium in which to propagate, unlike sound waves or the wake from a boat, which need air or water respectively, to propagate. The proof of lights spiral polarization is evident in literally every instance of the double slit experiment. You see the interference pattern spreads out horizontally where vertical slits are used, reason being the slits themselves are polarizers and if you measure the amount of light going in vs. the amount of light received on the backside it should be 2:1.
If electric and magnetic components are inextricably intertwined, how to think of static electric charge? What is the magnetic field doing in this situations? Or is it just a special case where its value is zero. Does a moving electron that is not accelerating - have a static charge? Does an accelerating electron have static charge? Meaning is "static" related or not to the motion of the electron? As soon as electron moves at constant velocity the magnetic field value is non-zero? or does the electron have to accelerate to produce magnetic field from it's static charge? The static charge of an electron is fixed and is forever as long as the electron exists? What sustains that static charge?
Is the electric in the static electric charge of the electron contribute to the electric part of the electromagnetic field of a photon it might emit?
Or is static charge of an electron analogous to the notion of inertial mass and the electromagnetic field of emitted photon analogous to momentum mass as in m x v^2 ?
42:00 - 👀
Will someone explain how incorporeal "waves" become chairs we can sit on and tables we can sit on?
If you believe that a wave function is real, which Sean has said he does, then most space within an atom is taken up by the electron orbitals we learned about in chemistry class. Electrons don't orbit the nucleus, they spread out within an atom. So the oft repeated idea that most of an atom is empty space is not true. That is why a book doesn't fall through a table, there is something taking up that space, a wave function.
@@vogarner Good explanation but better if just 'wave' rather than 'wave function'.
Strassler: 'in a way, we don't know the answer...'
Carroll: 'it's a shame it does not exist...'
wtf, Sean...
1:17:40 So, maybe we could compare the relation of the Higgs field and the electron field (being two coupled fields) with the electric field and the magnetic field.
This relation will most likely break pretty soon if or when one thinks harder about it, but sounds like an interesting start for some mind experiments.
Besides that, the Higgs field is coupled with other fields besides the electron field. Maybe there exists another field that interacts both with electron and Higgs making it a three-way coupling, sounds even more nonsense but again, perhaps, some food for thought.
[edit]
Well the electron field is definitely coupled with the electric and magnetic fields, so this leads me to think that it is quite the opposite, probably every field is coupled to another in some way, most of them indirectly, otherwise it is like it does not even exist or does not matter if it does exist or not if it cannot influence anything that we observe.
This lead me to think about dark matter, if it turns out there is a field associated to whatever it is, this field seems to only interact directly to the gravity field, if we can put gravity on the same field conception we talk about the other fields that is.
Also, I can see why we more explicitly talk about the electromagnetic coupling and not the others, but it is not that easy to put in words as to why.
People speak of 'reality' but I don't.
Why?
Because my existence is abstract and
all my thoughts are abstract too.
Is electron a particle or knot in electric field or is there a separate notion of electron field? So how to understand the fixed electric charge of an electron. Is the electric charge of an electron imparted by the electric field associated with the electron.
There is an electron field whose associated particle is the electron (every particle is an excitation of a field). There is also an electomagnetic field whose associated particle is the photon. No one calls it the photon field because we knew about electomagnetism before photons.
Well that was fun. I thought I heard a hint in there that it's leading to "space isn't real" and I take that to mean nothing is actually physical, there is no billions of galaxies except in our perceptions/minds. Its all consciousness energy.
I thought I heard a hint in there that's leading to "space is a spandrel" and
I take that to mean space per se is not physical but abstract, entsprechend Emmanuel Kant.
1) Space is certainly a real thing. It's not just an emergence like Matt believes. It's probably just some variant of Dark Matter/Energy that we are still discovering and do not understand yet, that is apart of the "empty" space you're clearly unable to correlate. I think this is just 1 of 100 examples of Matt trying too hard to discredit Einstein.
2) The physics of Space/time from Einstein work fine and are even perfectly logical. And once we understand Dark energy/matter we will also find the final note to the musical of the unity of physics. And instead of viewing space as just something we cannot understand, it will instead just be another variable the same way the constant speed of light is...
3) Following on that notion-- Matt also seems to have a grudge against Einstein. He took every chance he could to downplay him. So maybe a 3rd removed relative of his was slighted in a Poker game by Einsteins family? not sure. But seems like it's something causing Matt to be unable of a clear opinion without bias against Einstein.
The Dunning Kruger effect in action