A good conversation is always worth going back to. Thnx doc. It would be fitting to redo this conversation, but this time discussing Roy Kerr’s, recent work on rotating BH’s relating as such to our own Milky Way BH. If possible let the man from Christchurch (whats in a name) join. Eric Weinstein can add the mathematics of a puncturing torus, having the unique mathematical topology to reshape into its orthogonal alter ego. (See wikipedia animation) . This is how BH’s form. The inversion of particle and grid properties that come with it should again be of interest of Penrose, who always stresses mass is equal to inverse time (i.e. the clock in the QP world,) just as anergy and space will flip in their grid and potential role. that will satisfy Kerr answering what the inner ring is made of. Seems like cosmolgy needs a kick start after 60 years. Kerr blew the whistle.hora est gentlemen.
Why is Eric constantly brought in on these shows? He is not a serious researcher, he won't respond to peer review, drags his feet putting his ideas to paper, and is mostly just running a hedge fund and doing the podcast circuit? Wouldn't it be better to actually go out and get people, Phds, working on theories rigorously and not as an on-again-off-again hobby they can't be bothered to be serious about? Geometric Unity got some serious holes busted in it by peer review and he has never responded to fix them. Compare that with say, Andrew Wiles, who spend his life proving Fermat's Last Theorem, and on his first publish, peer reviewers found lots of issues. He went back in, fixed all of the issues, and then got the Fields Medal. If Eric is serious about Geometric Unity, he has to respond to peer review.
@@johndrumpf9888 Its precisely because Eric is outside of academia, that makes him potentially useful to the discussion. It provides him with certain degrees of freedom to criticize and be creative, not having to be careful about routinely repeating the legacy of failing predecessors. I can look cheerfully through his braggadiocio and at times large ego. He cools it off with humor and self-relativation at other times. What bothers people is his correct point about academia. Academia have gown so large on public subsidies for future promises that they simply can't afford 'business wise' to admit to decades of collective failure and at times even frauds. And having no meaningful self correction mechanism precisely leads to eventually dogmatic failure being baked in as a given in almost any branch of science now. Thats not sarcasm, just sociology. Only relative outsiders and experimentalists can cause breakthroughs at this stage. . Not because they are necessarily smarter, but because they are free. Penrose I like very much, mostly because he is the only daring to say mass doesnt fundamentally equals energy but inverse time (the clock) in the QP world. Seems no one has noticed but me. But it is telling that he has been awarded the Nobel Prize for static BH theories whilst actually only rotating BH's exists in our universe and thus Roy Kerr's work should have been awarded the Nobel Prize. And maybe thats a good thing that actual correct knowledge is no longer at academia. As long as they are in the right unknown hands.
Penrose is a generational talent. As is apparent with the Nobel Prize (black hole formation) and Wolf Prize (with Hawking for Penrose-Hawking Singularity Theorems), the relative intellectual stature of these men is not close... and it's a bit of a vanity jerk for Weinstein to be taking first billing and pretending this vid is some sort of legitimate contest in the same intellectual weight class. Penrose is also a humble man who reaches to share his love for the craft of maths and physics, including indulging in this "debate" to take his love of physics and maths to new RUclips audiences.
I have come to love science through YT . The old guy just oozes im open , however show me why . Again absolute novice of physics , yet know that Penrose is your APLHA and Weinstein the antagonist .
What happens if we use one extra spatial dimension in Dr. Penrose's "Twistor Theory"? If Physicists describe electrons as point particles with no volume, where is the mass of the particle? Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. Can a twisted 3D 4D soliton containing one extra spatial dimension help solve some of the current problems in Particle Physics? What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? Is the best explanation of the current data a form of “Twistor Theory” first proposed by Sir Roger Penrose during 1967? During recent years Dr. Peter Woit has explored Twistor Theory as a possible solution to help explain the current Standard Model. Has the concept of the “Aether” been resurrected from the dead and relabeled as the “Higgs Field”? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. Are these the “Flux Tubes” being described by many Physicists today? When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. The term “entanglement” in this case is analogous to three twisted ropes being wrapped around each other in a way which causes all of the ropes to move if someone pulls one of the ropes. Does the phenomenon of “Asymptotic Freedom” provide evidence that this concept is the correct interpretation of the experimental data now available? Can the phenomenon of "Supercoiling" help explain the "Multiple Generations" of particles in the Standard Model? The conversion of twist to writhe cycles is well understood in the structure of DNA molecules. Within this model neutrinos are a small, twisted torus produced when a tube becomes overtwisted and breaks producing the small, closed loop of tube and a tube open on each end, which is shorter than the original. (Beta Decay)
Re-posting years-old discussions without a date/timestamp is a deceptive practice for more clicks/views and makes me less likely to continue following your content moving forward. This is a repeated pattern of behavior, unfortunately.
It’s not deceptive whatsoever, it’s what RUclips channels are for. I’ve never seen this discussion and wouldn’t have it wasn’t reposted this way. You’re note a massive black hole, things don’t revolve around you.
My father was fond of saying, "well, wasn't that a singular something!" So I propose that we replace the term 'singularity' with 'singular something'. That should clear everything up.
Greatly appreciate Eric...who amongst few having the capacity, candour, and curiosity to admire the intellectual status of our Saint of Science, Sir Roger Penrose!
Singularity state is like trying to reach absolute zero just in the opposite direction but heat and cold are basically the same thing at extreme enough temperatures. Good video giving clarification of though process... Penrose kinda touches on letting go of 3d thinking to find the answer but spin is just a description of a 3d state. Another great well though out clip to post.💯💚💜
science is ignorant of what came before IT IS SO OBVIOUS .. *what came before the idea called quantum spin?* What came before is the narrative where the twins or brothers, or sister and brother that helped create the world are introduced. IMHO characters like the son of god and the devil are diplomats of 'spin' or 'left vs right' or 'north vs south' or 'east vs west' or or or the good guy *Jesus vs bad guy the ANTI-christ* ... the ANTI-clockwise-christ is going in an opposite direction to the clockwise christ AND we want everybody flowing going in the same direction .. correct? Go to Mecca to the Kaaba Cube ... try to circumambulate CLOCKWISE around the sacred cube going against the flow of Muslims who are going in a ANTI-christ-clockwise direction ...
In CCC, wouldn't the singularity be the conformal edge? I know Sir Penrose theorizes that ccc begins and ends with aeons but is it totally necessary for that all or nothing approach?
The only thing I can bring up right off the bat is that a singularity shows up in convex or concave mirror in your last video was very crucial for this and I know this seems very simplistic but it's a crucial importance and all powerful things are usually simplistic
More importantly, the shatterspheric residue therein was pining for recognition from the observer. Though it's material essence may be readily described as an amalgamation, conscious will persists.
Singularity - just before a BigBang is, in my humble opinion, just another rabbit hole ... Eric is right that nitty gritty tensor analysis is UNDER TAUGHT in colleges... Edward Teller was dialed into this, and he personally told me that 'The BigBang Theory" grew out of 'Creative psychedelic wild mushroom theory'! ...Mary Fowler's Geophysics PREM chart offers a plausible alternative about where physics took a wrong turn decades ago - but its tensor analysis suggests perpetual motion!...WOW! ... I think the BigBang concept should be shelved next to Flat-Earth Theory (after all, a Flat Earth was a very reasonable concept 600 years ago.) ... Roger has nice 'no sharp elbows' in his manner of debating ...Always enjoyable to hear what he has to say about a topic...
Everything is made of gravity. Strong and weak forces ride gravational waves and Fourier gives us the means to define spins. Everything is made from waves and spins.
Have you noticed that particle physics is one of those subjects that you can speak intelligently about and yet not know that much really about the subject . Everyone seems to have a theory of the quantum world of gravity .
Any concept of the singularity has to be at minimum spherical by nature, as a result of chaotic motion, because any order imparted as such will always produce a geometrical construct as a result.
What about 1 dimensional? And I think shape variables breakdown when going into higher dimensions. Im just reading through the comments but will go watch the video.
At this point in physics , from my outsider perspective, it seems like being a physicist is a bit of a disadvantage. Issues of publishing, reputation, and conservative constraints are nowadays too constraining to achieve the next big break... which means physics is due for a paradigm shift. I have a few ideas of where that shift might be headed, but even if I'm wrong about the details, the amount of effort it takes to gain even relatively small territorial gains is disproportionate compared to other eras of physics, due to the unwillingness to take necessary risks. There is always new ground, but at some points, a punctuated equilibrium of sorts -- a paradigm shift -- must precede discovery of new, fallow ground.
Roger Penrose is my hero. Weinstein is pretty cool too. These guys are looking under the rocks! Here is my idea: Time is a wave, yes? Explain the wake to me? I think it's gravity. That would explain a lot. Look at it: Time moves one way, and gravity pulls every so slightly back the other way. It keeps the geometric narrative of quantum math of existence on Earth attached to the sphere inside the multiverse as the math of existence unfolds.
Dr Brian Keating, CAN: bring together two great minds for an open discussion, CAN'T: put his telephone on mute to give that discussion it's due gravitas.
If I have a Planck spacetime sphere 28 meters wide, given to me by the Creator of the universe, and I can order it to do anything (physics related), then you have a problem. What happens if I order that 28 meter sphere to absorb EVERY gravity wave that crosses its boundary?
Whats a good route to eventually be able to have impeccable math in reference to whatever topic is it just learn everything follow a path or ask a question learn the math that surrounds it and focus on that until you can work with it?
Suggestion. Find something that holds your interest. Learn what you need as you go along. In detail, when you encounter a term you don't understand or a concept. Write it down and find out about it. Then just carry on. (What holds your interest may change as you go along)
Are they really "versus"? As I understood, they agree, that GR is not a fundamental theory because it breaks down on the description of singularities and tat that therefore, singularities are not rea, but mathematical artefacts. Thanks for the post.
The universe is right? Or left, chiral pun intended? Electrons, protons, neutrons and photons know what they are, both waves and particles and behave accordingly, both bipolar, real and virtual? The universe by definition is singular, and contains all the consciousness and calculations or physical laws it requires to exist, even if it is a holographic projection as some infer? A main question is- is it boundless or confined within a self-compensating error-correcting spheroid, or slightly asymetric ellipsoid with closed spacetime curvature? Gravity or universal acceleration or free fall requires something to relate to or confine it or observe it the latter at light speed, and to take note as a kind of memory to exist? Confinement could be achieved with things like event horizons, cell membranes or magnetic flux tubes? If event horizons, gluons and cell membranes did not exist would anything? Or, is the universe a self replicating dream or computation as Spinoza and Wolfram posit? As an analogy, could a white blood cell that has some agency and purpose and ephemeral existence, figure out and understand the relatively universe sized mammal and all of its comrades' sample population contained therein mammal, perhaps trillions of them in a blue whale? Feel free to question comment or criticize! Vibrating the laryngeal chords and projecting sonic waves via vocalizing is therapeutic! The wind is the best medium for transmitting coded sounds with ideas attached to them!
He's probably doesn't care and just enjoys talking. Eric is a non entity interested in self promotion. He was denied a nobel prize along with his brother(in different fields LOL)
Penrose is a gem of a great scientist. Some of the latest ideas he is advocating, such as consciousness and cyclic cosmology, are very creative and somewhat speculative, and therefore he is taking great risks to push the envelope. This is what great scientists do.
If a man was able to see a black hole singularity, it would be like when King Arthur called upon Excalibur’s power to change an unalterable law and defeat Lancelot. The unbreakable sword of power, broke. Any man would be utterly destroyed for his inability to physiologically handle what is being force fed into his consciousness. It’s like seeing God.
Quantum gravity already exists. It is called space particle dualism or SPD-quantum gravity. It is needed because newton and Einstein were wrong in assuming that gravity is proportional to mass/energy. It is proportional to baryon count. And of course singularities are just as nonsensical as event horizons. Quantum mechanics demands an absolute frame of reference and Penrose knows that very well.
I'm just an ordinary person that loves all things science. I know just enough about astrophysics and quantum mechanics to get me into a bit of trouble, I'm sure. But, what if we're missing some piece or pieces of Mathematics, quantum mechanics, or some deeper understanding of GTR. Have theoretical scientists gone down the wrong path. Does matter even fall into a black holes ( yes, I'm aware of the Nobel prize). Are black holes a pure spacetime construction. Did the inflationary hot big bang model happen as we all think it did. I have silly theories of my own. I have even created a 9 space dimensions universe with 1 or 2 time dimensions (might travel in opposite directions like a primary and secondary) theory that I'm sure nobody wants to hear. Well, I better quit typing and go to bed before somebody thinks I'm some kind of koook. Anyway absolutely love the video. Gonna be sure to watch the full version tomorrow. ❤
Gravity is a tricky thing it's not supposed to have SI units even, consider the alphabetical table let S (entropy) be 19 and 11 be the Boltzmann constant then 19 mod 11=8 @ entropy 1atm , boltzmann constant 1.380649×10^-23 multiplied by the avogardo number is 6.02×10^23= 8.3 beware numbers were switched up playfully or the universe is not straightforward?It might be that even our physics constant are not even close enough but the standard equation should be (entropy/Boltzmann constant)*Avogardo number to get an absolute number as a solution which should relate to 8 or symbol h. In the Einstein model E=5 m=13 c=3 hence its the best because it also follows Fibbonacian sequence 1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55 etc there is always a different perspective to looking at things.
J. R. R. Tolkien, who is widely regarded as one of the greatest writers of the fantasy genre, invested an extraordinary amount of his life into crafting the lore of Middle-earth. He created a rich world that feels very real to the dedicated fans of his work, who spend hours arguing over the smallest details of Middle-earth's fictional history. If Tolkien had believed he was somehow psychically channeling the history of a real world that actually existed in the past, and his fans were drawn into that delusion by Tolkien's masterful command of the English language, they would all be regarded as lunatics 😂
The earth is flat locally the same as the speed of light is the same locally but not on a larger scale. The earth is round and the speed of light depends on the measures of time and distance which change depending on the amount of gravity in the surrounding area. This means that distant starlight arrives instantaneously from distant galaxies which aren’t as far away as they appear to us to be with our measures of time and distance and the time is also passing by at a much faster rate since there’s no matter between us and distant galaxies to slow down time or shorten distance according to general relativity which is now an observation and not just a theory. …and things approaching a black hole look stopped to us because of how slow they are moving.
If we leave the planet and visit the planets and stars it will be because of these two mathematicians If we ever have an ‘intelligent’ conversation with a none human intelligence, it’s these two men I want asking the questions and taking the notes. Never thought I’d see these two together thinking aloud. If chess is the gymnasium of the mind. These two are for my mind - like a full on marathon ran backwards. Humbling and inspiring In equal measure. Thanks Dr Brian.
what do you think about Roy Kerr's newest article, stating that things with rest mass do not necessary end up in the singularity in fact singularities do not exist? arXiv:2312.00841 "There is no proof that black holes contain singularities when they are generated by real physical bodies. Roger Penrose claimed sixty years ago that trapped surfaces inevitably lead to light rays of finite affine length (FALL's). Penrose and Stephen Hawking then asserted that these must end in actual singularities. When they could not prove this they decreed it to be self evident. It is shown that there are counterexamples through every point in the Kerr metric. These are asymptotic to at least one event horizon and do not end in singularities. "
These are undeniable two of the smartest persons around when geometry and spacetime is concerned. We may add Roy Kerr into the mix as well. Kerr’s recent seminal work on the ring shaped singularity inside a rotating black hole deserves far more attention, because all BH all rotating, none are static. I’d like Roger and Brian’s take on Kerrs work on these ringularities and discuss what happens to the cosmoc sag a* ringularity if turning into a 2D naked version thereof. It has consequences for grasping the structure of our own galactic plane and thus the distortions of any light reaching us from beyond our galactic plane. What could be more consequential than that??. Any chance to have a team up / discussion between these 2 epic black hole oldtimers on your show Brian? It would be an event for the ages, no matter what …
If anti-de Sitter space curves outward from the soup can why do inflation diagrams for CCC stop without completing the donut? The a-dS torus shape reverses due to Newtonian gravity reassertion as inflation momentum wanes. A donut frosted by galaxies can communicate via ER=EPR phenomena with two loci for BHs to connect via wormholes and/or collect dark matter for Oppenheimer recombustion.
Nothing personal against Professor Penrose but there’s a reason why physicists and mathematicians usually do their best work in their 20s and 30s. It’s human nature to grow more invested in past patterns as we get older
Whether or not to include the "or not" every time one says "whether". Or not. (Pro Tip... don't do it. The idea that there's a negative alternative is implied by the use of "whether")
The mechanism of gravity is in-plain-sight. Open your eyes, and your mind, and you will indeed elicit the mechanism. It is indeed quantum in origin, but it is not what you may think. A, not a theory, but a Model of Everything will be published in 2024. It answers most, if not all, open problems in physics - with all the numbers to prove it; so it is not just a rhetorical argument. Also, singularities do not exist. They are a purely mystical notion with no basis in reality. Think about it; infinite gravity in infinitesimal space must predict the instantaneous contraction of the entire Universe. How is that compatible with a reality within which a Universe does indeed exist and therefore, not subject to the dire effects the singularity predicts?
My respect to all of you ❤😊 Of course, singularity is unreal. It is a flaw of the theory. We should find a new mathematical formalism to construct a full-fledged theory of quantum gravity.
Penrose: the water is boiling. What happened before the water started boiling or, how it started, is irrelevant. The water is boiling now and thats all that matters.......... All he's said is he doesn't know bugger all in a lenthy manner.
We have 60 to 70 years where no one has published any decay rates of dates that contradict. If your lucky they noted but didn't mention it in what published. This is a lot of list data .evolutionary human family tree just suddenly changed recently radically different than we've been feed for generations. For the sack of all that is good in science we need to fix things like this in those disciplines
You're not discussing the ontological structure of what causes gravity/wavefunctions (QM)/physics constants to exist. I don't know what kind of future humanity has if the physics community can't come up with some new experiments that can probe a greater understanding of how nature works.
And when talk about the big bang, who is to say there weren't MULTIPLE big bangs. What happens at the singularity of a black hole? well if you keep crushing, turns into a quark and then... well, turns into space time itself. So while blackhole recycle matter, they also generate the very fabric of spacetime for existance to exist on?
@@dredrotten he certainly knows all lot about physics and talks about it. I have heard him speak volumes on physics so he is considered a physics bro in my mind.
Singularity in equations always point out where the theory breaks down for example the Ultraviolet Catastrophe which led to the discovery of Quantum Mechanics.
For various reasons I think there's a kind symbiotic ebb and flow between gravity begetting QM which begets gravity and so on, due to more fundamental information dynamics that post inflationary transitions set up. That is I think it is a bit of an illusion that gravity and QM are strictly simultaneous or fundamental aspects of reality that will answer the bigger questions in of themselves combined.
Well, to me, since we know now we have non-material quantum fields everywhere, it's more logical to assume that the curvature that creates gravity, is mass curving the quantum in space, not space itself, as space is not a thing. It's just distance between things. But Einstein didn't know about quantum fields in space. If he had, I'm sure he'd come up with a different theory. And to me, there was no BB, and space always existed. But that's another topic. lol...
In the not too distant future I can imagine a university lecturer placing many of todays theorists alongside those of Plinny the Elder just to emphasize that making assumptions from so little information and passing it off as fact makes an 'ass out of you and me' = assume
Regarding the “back-in-time” previous post and Penrose CCC( not Russian I think) at the beginning in our direction vs the mirror of our direction vs Penrose Ccc// if “the Penrose “ is on the other side of the BB then there is no correlation to symmetry in the mirror( because it’s not a mirror it’s a Mobius (?) Klein bottle (?) However in the Mandelbrot version it’s helicoid: toroid catenoid: polar grid disc… minimal surfaces of STE( space-time-energy) However in just a gigolo … I mean I ain’t got nothing nobody cares for me… no body… I’m so sad and lonely… Dang I hate it when ..
Can someone write a book or do a podcast to explain: what is a layperson to do if the physics community overlooks something obvious... Spacetime is expanding. That means that spacetime is exerting a positive pressure. That means that if anything gets in the way of that, it obstructs the positive pressure. An obstruction to positive pressure is a negative pressure. Matter is an obstruction to the positive pressure of expansion of spacetime. Gravity is not a separate force. Gravity is just the effect of an obstruction of the positive pressure of expansion of spacetime.
❤ with love for new experiences. BIG ERROR in measuring the Universe. Let's do the Michelson-Morley experiment on a school bus and determine the speed in a straight line - this is exactly the experiment Einstein dreamed of. Perhaps we will see the postulates: “Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and Dominant gravitational fields control the speed of light in a vacuum.” There is a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, two coils with optical fiber, where the light in each arm travels 18,000 meters, without exceeding the parameters of 0.4/0.4/0.4 meters and mass - 4 kg. ???
Theory, theory, theory...Let's get a machine, an experiment that we can actually use to explore a [ new] technology. Otherwise, it just become a mental exercise. Don't know what it would take to make that happen or even where scientists would begin.
Maybe the “beginning” of the universe was a massive particle decay and we are in one of its stages of decay. Perhaps the expansion will continue until the next decay and maybe the space between relates to its and particle decay
@DrBrianKeating, And of course the elephant in the room Edward Witten is not mentioned. Lots of respect to Sir Roger and his noble prize but Witten has done more for theoretical physics in the last 50 years than Sir Roger would be able to achieve in 100 life times. Nobody will debate Edward Witten on Quantum Gravity or super string theory because everyone who has ever debated him get fried, Edward is 1,000,000 times smarter than everyone else on the planet (quote from Brian Green) and a quote from Weinstein. "I am dumb enough not to be afraid to debate anything with anyone on the planet, with the exception of Edward Witten, who I am terrified of!".
Well but isnt general relativity a local theory I mean we have some local coordinate system, not defined globally. So why would we want to care about the weyl curvature..?
You have to figure out what the building blocks are of spacetime quantum mechanics/physics constants. I'll give you a hint. You've seen them before in physics experiments.
*_Watch the full conversation_* ruclips.net/user/live57SMQj3lOm0?si=tLcDAHqETzNYMXeT?sub_confirmation=1
Hit the 🔔!!!
Three years old??!? Go, go, go for the clicks!!!
A good conversation is always worth going back to. Thnx doc. It would be fitting to redo this conversation, but this time discussing Roy Kerr’s, recent work on rotating BH’s relating as such to our own Milky Way BH. If possible let the man from Christchurch (whats in a name) join. Eric Weinstein can add the mathematics of a puncturing torus, having the unique mathematical topology to reshape into its orthogonal alter ego. (See wikipedia animation) . This is how BH’s form. The inversion of particle and grid properties that come with it should again be of interest of Penrose, who always stresses mass is equal to inverse time (i.e. the clock in the QP world,) just as anergy and space will flip in their grid and potential role. that will satisfy Kerr answering what the inner ring is made of. Seems like cosmolgy needs a kick start after 60 years. Kerr blew the whistle.hora est gentlemen.
Why is Eric constantly brought in on these shows? He is not a serious researcher, he won't respond to peer review, drags his feet putting his ideas to paper, and is mostly just running a hedge fund and doing the podcast circuit? Wouldn't it be better to actually go out and get people, Phds, working on theories rigorously and not as an on-again-off-again hobby they can't be bothered to be serious about? Geometric Unity got some serious holes busted in it by peer review and he has never responded to fix them.
Compare that with say, Andrew Wiles, who spend his life proving Fermat's Last Theorem, and on his first publish, peer reviewers found lots of issues. He went back in, fixed all of the issues, and then got the Fields Medal.
If Eric is serious about Geometric Unity, he has to respond to peer review.
@@johndrumpf9888 Its precisely because Eric is outside of academia, that makes him potentially useful to the discussion. It provides him with certain degrees of freedom to criticize and be creative, not having to be careful about routinely repeating the legacy of failing predecessors. I can look cheerfully through his braggadiocio and at times large ego. He cools it off with humor and self-relativation at other times. What bothers people is his correct point about academia.
Academia have gown so large on public subsidies for future promises that they simply can't afford 'business wise' to admit to decades of collective failure and at times even frauds. And having no meaningful self correction mechanism precisely leads to eventually dogmatic failure being baked in as a given in almost any branch of science now. Thats not sarcasm, just sociology. Only relative outsiders and experimentalists can cause breakthroughs at this stage. . Not because they are necessarily smarter, but because they are free. Penrose I like very much, mostly because he is the only daring to say mass doesnt fundamentally equals energy but inverse time (the clock) in the QP world. Seems no one has noticed but me. But it is telling that he has been awarded the Nobel Prize for static BH theories whilst actually only rotating BH's exists in our universe and thus Roy Kerr's work should have been awarded the Nobel Prize. And maybe thats a good thing that actual correct knowledge is no longer at academia. As long as they are in the right unknown hands.
Ever Heard of Flat Earth it renders all these theories as 🐎💩Fairy Tales
Penrose is a generational talent. As is apparent with the Nobel Prize (black hole formation) and Wolf Prize (with Hawking for Penrose-Hawking Singularity Theorems), the relative intellectual stature of these men is not close... and it's a bit of a vanity jerk for Weinstein to be taking first billing and pretending this vid is some sort of legitimate contest in the same intellectual weight class. Penrose is also a humble man who reaches to share his love for the craft of maths and physics, including indulging in this "debate" to take his love of physics and maths to new RUclips audiences.
Well put. Completely agree
I have come to love science through YT . The old guy just oozes im open , however show me why . Again absolute novice of physics , yet know that Penrose is your APLHA and Weinstein the antagonist .
The real scientists are few, and great. Would love to meet him and discuss
100%
What happens if we use one extra spatial dimension in Dr. Penrose's "Twistor Theory"?
If Physicists describe electrons as point particles with no volume, where is the mass of the particle?
Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. Can a twisted 3D 4D soliton containing one extra spatial dimension help solve some of the current problems in Particle Physics?
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? Is the best explanation of the current data a form of “Twistor Theory” first proposed by Sir Roger Penrose during 1967? During recent years Dr. Peter Woit has explored Twistor Theory as a possible solution to help explain the current Standard Model.
Has the concept of the “Aether” been resurrected from the dead and relabeled as the “Higgs Field”?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. Are these the “Flux Tubes” being described by many Physicists today? When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. The term “entanglement” in this case is analogous to three twisted ropes being wrapped around each other in a way which causes all of the ropes to move if someone pulls one of the ropes. Does the phenomenon of “Asymptotic Freedom” provide evidence that this concept is the correct interpretation of the experimental data now available? Can the phenomenon of "Supercoiling" help explain the "Multiple Generations" of particles in the Standard Model? The conversion of twist to writhe cycles is well understood in the structure of DNA molecules. Within this model neutrinos are a small, twisted torus produced when a tube becomes overtwisted and breaks producing the small, closed loop of tube and a tube open on each end, which is shorter than the original. (Beta Decay)
I like how Roger is the combined age of the two of you and still articulates as if he were the same age as you two.
If Roger hits 90 he can run for President of USA
Re-posting years-old discussions without a date/timestamp is a deceptive practice for more clicks/views and makes me less likely to continue following your content moving forward. This is a repeated pattern of behavior, unfortunately.
It’s not deceptive whatsoever, it’s what RUclips channels are for. I’ve never seen this discussion and wouldn’t have it wasn’t reposted this way. You’re note a massive black hole, things don’t revolve around you.
That's just the way of the world now unfortunately
Everybody in hurry to be "high value"
Bye Felicia
Amen. RUclips viciously punishes accounts that other users take the trouble to block - do humanity a favor by clicking ‘block’!
For everyone's transparency, this video is 3 years old.
My father was fond of saying, "well, wasn't that a singular something!" So I propose that we replace the term 'singularity' with 'singular something'. That should clear everything up.
The singularity might not be single aftet all
@@Manuel_Bache The Multisingulatity!
@@johnrichardson7629 I wanna skip the name to avoid to squander and triffle away the name in a creativity spurt, but😎😎
Greatly appreciate Eric...who amongst few having the capacity, candour, and curiosity to admire the intellectual status of our Saint of Science, Sir Roger Penrose!
@@aqu9923 The deference outweighed the differences.
I didn't understand even a single sentence... but just WOW...🙃
Me watching this conversation is much like a golden retriever listening to Mozart.
Comparing Penrose with Weinstein is like comparing an iPhone with a rock. :D
And that's being generous! Yet, according to Keating Weinstein is on the avant-garde of physics ... 🤔
What's crazy is that is not to be taken as an insult to Weinstein either!
Penrose gets his best material from Weinstein. 😂
@@SIM2014Be quiet you fool.
Brilliant comment!
can you provide link to full length discussion?
They have it posted now as a pinned topic
Hey, is the full conversation somewhere on RUclips?
Nvm I just found it😅
@@Doozy_Titter where ?
@@Rarkal It's here on this channel from 3 years ago. 2+ hours
@@Doozy_Titterif it's 3 years old, then both of them might have different ideas by now! 🤔
@@ecostatic5739 eric maybe but not penrose
What a fantastic conversation to be able to watch! 👍
It seems to leave you waiting for the chat continuance. Well, maybe we’ll luck up.
Singularity state is like trying to reach absolute zero just in the opposite direction but heat and cold are basically the same thing at extreme enough temperatures. Good video giving clarification of though process... Penrose kinda touches on letting go of 3d thinking to find the answer but spin is just a description of a 3d state. Another great well though out clip to post.💯💚💜
You not Alone
science is ignorant of what came before IT IS SO OBVIOUS .. *what came before the idea called quantum spin?*
What came before is the narrative where the twins or brothers, or sister and brother that helped create the world are introduced.
IMHO characters like the son of god and the devil are diplomats of 'spin' or 'left vs right' or 'north vs south' or 'east vs west' or or or the good guy *Jesus vs bad guy the ANTI-christ* ... the ANTI-clockwise-christ is going in an opposite direction to the clockwise christ AND we want everybody flowing going in the same direction .. correct?
Go to Mecca to the Kaaba Cube ... try to circumambulate CLOCKWISE around the sacred cube going against the flow of Muslims who are going in a ANTI-christ-clockwise direction ...
Thanks Dr Keating!
WHERES THE FULL CONVO KEATING!!!
ruclips.net/user/live57SMQj3lOm0?si=tLcDAHqETzNYMXeT
@@DrBrianKeatingoh my god thank you for taking the time to reply, if I knew that was in the cards I would have been nicer about it 😂
@@cameronbannicknow go stand in the corner. 😂
😂@@cameronbannick
@cameronbannick, always be respectful is most important than nice and really, be courteous in the first place anyway....
In CCC, wouldn't the singularity be the conformal edge?
I know Sir Penrose theorizes that ccc begins and ends with aeons but is it totally necessary for that all or nothing approach?
The only thing I can bring up right off the bat is that a singularity shows up in convex or concave mirror in your last video was very crucial for this and I know this seems very simplistic but it's a crucial importance and all powerful things are usually simplistic
More importantly, the shatterspheric residue therein was pining for recognition from the observer. Though it's material essence may be readily described as an amalgamation, conscious will persists.
Watch the full conversation ruclips.net/user/live57SMQj3lOm0?si=tLcDAHqETzNYMXeT?sub_confirmation=1
Hit the 🔔😊
Eric is a mathematician. Penrose is a Physicist.
Singularity - just before a BigBang is, in my humble opinion, just another rabbit hole ... Eric is right that nitty gritty tensor analysis is UNDER TAUGHT in colleges... Edward Teller was dialed into this, and he personally told me that 'The BigBang Theory" grew out of 'Creative psychedelic wild mushroom theory'! ...Mary Fowler's Geophysics PREM chart offers a plausible alternative about where physics took a wrong turn decades ago - but its tensor analysis suggests perpetual motion!...WOW! ... I think the BigBang concept should be shelved next to Flat-Earth Theory (after all, a Flat Earth was a very reasonable concept 600 years ago.) ... Roger has nice 'no sharp elbows' in his manner of debating ...Always enjoyable to hear what he has to say about a topic...
Absolute nonsense. Evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming.
Dr. Keating, in times like this, I tell myself... It is better to be underpaid and overvalued than a Noble Prize Award Winner and undervalued.
Everything is made of gravity. Strong and weak forces ride gravational waves and Fourier gives us the means to define spins. Everything is made from waves and spins.
Have you noticed that particle physics is one of those subjects that you can speak intelligently about and yet not know that much really about the subject . Everyone seems to have a theory of the quantum world of gravity .
Singularity is the smallest form of reducible state of matter
Two of the greatest Scientific minds today.
Any concept of the singularity has to be at minimum spherical by nature, as a result of chaotic motion, because any order imparted as such will always produce a geometrical construct as a result.
What about 1 dimensional? And I think shape variables breakdown when going into higher dimensions. Im just reading through the comments but will go watch the video.
At this point in physics , from my outsider perspective, it seems like being a physicist is a bit of a disadvantage. Issues of publishing, reputation, and conservative constraints are nowadays too constraining to achieve the next big break... which means physics is due for a paradigm shift.
I have a few ideas of where that shift might be headed, but even if I'm wrong about the details, the amount of effort it takes to gain even relatively small territorial gains is disproportionate compared to other eras of physics, due to the unwillingness to take necessary risks.
There is always new ground, but at some points, a punctuated equilibrium of sorts -- a paradigm shift -- must precede discovery of new, fallow ground.
Roger Penrose is my hero. Weinstein is pretty cool too. These guys are looking under the rocks! Here is my idea: Time is a wave, yes? Explain the wake to me? I think it's gravity. That would explain a lot. Look at it: Time moves one way, and gravity pulls every so slightly back the other way. It keeps the geometric narrative of quantum math of existence on Earth attached to the sphere inside the multiverse as the math of existence unfolds.
Given that Weinstein is a deliberately obtuse sith lord and Penrose is a independently thinking genius. I'll side with Roger
Dr Brian Keating, CAN: bring together two great minds for an open discussion, CAN'T: put his telephone on mute to give that discussion it's due gravitas.
gravity:positron::light:electron
Gravity, the opposite of light, is from positrons inside of protons and neutrons.
If I have a Planck spacetime sphere 28 meters wide, given to me by the Creator of the universe, and I can order it to do anything (physics related), then you have a problem. What happens if I order that 28 meter sphere to absorb EVERY gravity wave that crosses its boundary?
Penrose. Btw he use almost the same framework I use as well. Twistors is the same family class as kahler geometry.
Whats a good route to eventually be able to have impeccable math in reference to whatever topic is it just learn everything follow a path or ask a question learn the math that surrounds it and focus on that until you can work with it?
Suggestion. Find something that holds your interest. Learn what you need as you go along. In detail, when you encounter a term you don't understand or a concept. Write it down and find out about it. Then just carry on. (What holds your interest may change as you go along)
Are they really "versus"? As I understood, they agree, that GR is not a fundamental theory because it breaks down on the description of singularities and tat that therefore, singularities are not rea, but mathematical artefacts. Thanks for the post.
The universe is right? Or left, chiral pun intended? Electrons, protons, neutrons and photons know what they are, both waves and particles and behave accordingly, both bipolar, real and virtual?
The universe by definition is singular, and contains all the consciousness and calculations or physical laws it requires to exist, even if it is a holographic projection as some infer? A main question is- is it boundless or confined within a self-compensating error-correcting spheroid, or slightly asymetric ellipsoid with closed spacetime curvature? Gravity or universal acceleration or free fall requires something to relate to or confine it or observe it the latter at light speed, and to take note as a kind of memory to exist? Confinement could be achieved with things like event horizons, cell membranes or magnetic flux tubes? If event horizons, gluons and cell membranes did not exist would anything? Or, is the universe a self replicating dream or computation as Spinoza and Wolfram posit?
As an analogy, could a white blood cell that has some agency and purpose and ephemeral existence, figure out and understand the relatively universe sized mammal and all of its comrades' sample population contained therein mammal, perhaps trillions of them in a blue whale?
Feel free to question comment or criticize! Vibrating the laryngeal chords and projecting sonic waves via vocalizing is therapeutic! The wind is the best medium for transmitting coded sounds with ideas attached to them!
Not sure why Penrose chooses to debate with an individual with near zero contributions to the fields of QM and GR.
He's probably doesn't care and just enjoys talking. Eric is a non entity interested in self promotion. He was denied a nobel prize along with his brother(in different fields LOL)
Nonsense that’s like saying you can’t question the police.
Penrose is a gem of a great scientist. Some of the latest ideas he is advocating, such as consciousness and cyclic cosmology, are very creative and somewhat speculative, and therefore he is taking great risks to push the envelope. This is what great scientists do.
If a man was able to see a black hole singularity, it would be like when King Arthur called upon Excalibur’s power to change an unalterable law and defeat Lancelot. The unbreakable sword of power, broke. Any man would be utterly destroyed for his inability to physiologically handle what is being force fed into his consciousness. It’s like seeing God.
Roger is pure class to entertain, in good faith, Eric - as others would not.
Quantum gravity already exists. It is called space particle dualism or SPD-quantum gravity. It is needed because newton and Einstein were wrong in assuming that gravity is proportional to mass/energy. It is proportional to baryon count.
And of course singularities are just as nonsensical as event horizons. Quantum mechanics demands an absolute frame of reference and Penrose knows that very well.
I'm just an ordinary person that loves all things science. I know just enough about astrophysics and quantum mechanics to get me into a bit of trouble, I'm sure. But, what if we're missing some piece or pieces of Mathematics, quantum mechanics, or some deeper understanding of GTR. Have theoretical scientists gone down the wrong path. Does matter even fall into a black holes ( yes, I'm aware of the Nobel prize). Are black holes a pure spacetime construction. Did the inflationary hot big bang model happen as we all think it did. I have silly theories of my own. I have even created a 9 space dimensions universe with 1 or 2 time dimensions (might travel in opposite directions like a primary and secondary) theory that I'm sure nobody wants to hear. Well, I better quit typing and go to bed before somebody thinks I'm some kind of koook. Anyway absolutely love the video. Gonna be sure to watch the full version tomorrow. ❤
Gravity is a tricky thing it's not supposed to have SI units even, consider the alphabetical table let S (entropy) be 19 and 11 be the Boltzmann constant then 19 mod 11=8 @ entropy 1atm , boltzmann constant 1.380649×10^-23 multiplied by the avogardo number is 6.02×10^23= 8.3 beware numbers were switched up playfully or the universe is not straightforward?It might be that even our physics constant are not even close enough but the standard equation should be (entropy/Boltzmann constant)*Avogardo number to get an absolute number as a solution which should relate to 8 or symbol h. In the Einstein model E=5 m=13 c=3 hence its the best because it also follows Fibbonacian sequence 1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55 etc there is always a different perspective to looking at things.
J. R. R. Tolkien, who is widely regarded as one of the greatest writers of the fantasy genre, invested an extraordinary amount of his life into crafting the lore of Middle-earth. He created a rich world that feels very real to the dedicated fans of his work, who spend hours arguing over the smallest details of Middle-earth's fictional history. If Tolkien had believed he was somehow psychically channeling the history of a real world that actually existed in the past, and his fans were drawn into that delusion by Tolkien's masterful command of the English language, they would all be regarded as lunatics 😂
Old conversation, and the phone ringing throughout. Please stop both of these practices.
Mr. Keating, none of them are completely wrong. There are layers!!!
The earth is flat locally the same as the speed of light is the same locally but not on a larger scale. The earth is round and the speed of light depends on the measures of time and distance which change depending on the amount of gravity in the surrounding area. This means that distant starlight arrives instantaneously from distant galaxies which aren’t as far away as they appear to us to be with our measures of time and distance and the time is also passing by at a much faster rate since there’s no matter between us and distant galaxies to slow down time or shorten distance according to general relativity which is now an observation and not just a theory. …and things approaching a black hole look stopped to us because of how slow they are moving.
If we leave the planet and visit the planets and stars it will be because of these two mathematicians
If we ever have an ‘intelligent’ conversation with a none human intelligence, it’s these two men I want asking the questions and taking the notes.
Never thought I’d see these two together thinking aloud.
If chess is the gymnasium of the mind. These two are for my mind - like a full on marathon ran backwards. Humbling and inspiring In equal measure.
Thanks Dr Brian.
what do you think about Roy Kerr's newest article, stating that things with rest mass do not necessary end up in the singularity in fact singularities do not exist? arXiv:2312.00841
"There is no proof that black holes contain singularities when they are generated by real physical bodies. Roger Penrose claimed sixty years ago that trapped surfaces inevitably lead to light rays of finite affine length (FALL's). Penrose and Stephen Hawking then asserted that these must end in actual singularities. When they could not prove this they decreed it to be self evident. It is shown that there are counterexamples through every point in the Kerr metric. These are asymptotic to at least one event horizon and do not end in singularities. "
These are undeniable two of the smartest persons around when geometry and spacetime is concerned. We may add Roy Kerr into the mix as well. Kerr’s recent seminal work on the ring shaped singularity inside a rotating black hole deserves far more attention, because all BH all rotating, none are static. I’d like Roger and Brian’s take on Kerrs work on these ringularities and discuss what happens to the cosmoc sag a* ringularity if turning into a 2D naked version thereof. It has consequences for grasping the structure of our own galactic plane and thus the distortions of any light reaching us from beyond our galactic plane. What could be more consequential than that??. Any chance to have a team up / discussion between these 2 epic black hole oldtimers on your show Brian? It would be an event for the ages, no matter what …
If anti-de Sitter space curves outward from the soup can why do inflation diagrams for CCC stop without completing the donut? The a-dS torus shape reverses due to Newtonian gravity reassertion as inflation momentum wanes. A donut frosted by galaxies can communicate via ER=EPR phenomena with two loci for BHs to connect via wormholes and/or collect dark matter for Oppenheimer recombustion.
DONUTIVISM
Sorry, enthalpy. Donutivism.
Nothing personal against Professor Penrose but there’s a reason why physicists and mathematicians usually do their best work in their 20s and 30s. It’s human nature to grow more invested in past patterns as we get older
Did you discuss Kerr's paper on singularities in this podcast?
This so awesome. What an honor and gift.... Inspired me to memorize the periodic table
Whether or not to include the "or not" every time one says "whether". Or not.
(Pro Tip... don't do it. The idea that there's a negative alternative is implied by the use of "whether")
The mechanism of gravity is in-plain-sight. Open your eyes, and your mind, and you will indeed elicit the mechanism. It is indeed quantum in origin, but it is not what you may think. A, not a theory, but a Model of Everything will be published in 2024. It answers most, if not all, open problems in physics - with all the numbers to prove it; so it is not just a rhetorical argument. Also, singularities do not exist. They are a purely mystical notion with no basis in reality. Think about it; infinite gravity in infinitesimal space must predict the instantaneous contraction of the entire Universe. How is that compatible with a reality within which a Universe does indeed exist and therefore, not subject to the dire effects the singularity predicts?
No singularities. Don’t need quantum gravity. Gravity is emergent from quantum
I think it makes more sense to look at singularities as limitations of the theory itself.
My respect to all of you ❤😊 Of course, singularity is unreal. It is a flaw of the theory. We should find a new mathematical formalism to construct a full-fledged theory of quantum gravity.
Penrose: the water is boiling.
What happened before the water started boiling or, how it started, is irrelevant.
The water is boiling now and thats all that matters..........
All he's said is he doesn't know bugger all in a lenthy manner.
Brother you mis notated who is who. 7:02
We have 60 to 70 years where no one has published any decay rates of dates that contradict. If your lucky they noted but didn't mention it in what published. This is a lot of list data .evolutionary human family tree just suddenly changed recently radically different than we've been feed for generations.
For the sack of all that is good in science we need to fix things like this in those disciplines
You're not discussing the ontological structure of what causes gravity/wavefunctions (QM)/physics constants to exist. I don't know what kind of future humanity has if the physics community can't come up with some new experiments that can probe a greater understanding of how nature works.
And when talk about the big bang, who is to say there weren't MULTIPLE big bangs. What happens at the singularity of a black hole? well if you keep crushing, turns into a quark and then... well, turns into space time itself. So while blackhole recycle matter, they also generate the very fabric of spacetime for existance to exist on?
At what point in this video did they actually talk about quantum gravity?
Thank You
the regulated consumption of matter implies that it is a whirlpool rather than a waterfull.
My three favorite physics bros!🍿
Weinstein isn't a Physicist
? He is a mathematician who tries to pass himself off as one.
@@dredrotten he certainly knows all lot about physics and talks about it. I have heard him speak volumes on physics so he is considered a physics bro in my mind.
Singularity in equations always point out where the theory breaks down for example the Ultraviolet Catastrophe which led to the discovery of Quantum Mechanics.
💯 agree with Penrose's analogies of Weyl and Ricci curvatures.
Could singularities. Before the Big Bang, black holes etc simply be the place where our universe crosses over to the 5th dimension?
For various reasons I think there's a kind symbiotic ebb and flow between gravity begetting QM which begets gravity and so on, due to more fundamental information dynamics that post inflationary transitions set up. That is I think it is a bit of an illusion that gravity and QM are strictly simultaneous or fundamental aspects of reality that will answer the bigger questions in of themselves combined.
If we assume that antimatter is a spacetime background and matter is a spacetime foreground, could that explain quantum gravity?
Well, to me, since we know now we have non-material quantum fields everywhere, it's more logical to assume that the curvature that creates gravity, is mass curving the quantum in space, not space itself, as space is not a thing. It's just distance between things. But Einstein didn't know about quantum fields in space. If he had, I'm sure he'd come up with a different theory. And to me, there was no BB, and space always existed. But that's another topic. lol...
can we plz have a part 2 of this discussion, like 4 hours long and do it every month plz plz
First, we need to establish if gravity is a force or a curvature of space before trying to unify it with another theory.
Two of the greats! Excellent
Quantum gravity builds everything in the Universe so yes you need Quantum Gravity... next!
Eric, a clue for you; Observer's lens shapes reality: gravitational singularity, or gravitational void? One coin, two faces.
In the not too distant future I can imagine a university lecturer placing many of todays theorists alongside those of Plinny the Elder just to emphasize that making assumptions from so little information and passing it off as fact makes an 'ass out of you and me' = assume
There is no "versus" here.
Good content doesn't use clickbait tactics.
Regarding the “back-in-time” previous post and Penrose CCC( not Russian I think) at the beginning in our direction vs the mirror of our direction vs Penrose Ccc// if “the Penrose “ is on the other side of the BB then there is no correlation to symmetry in the mirror( because it’s not a mirror it’s a Mobius (?) Klein bottle (?)
However in the Mandelbrot version it’s helicoid: toroid catenoid: polar grid disc… minimal surfaces of STE( space-time-energy)
However in just a gigolo … I mean I ain’t got nothing nobody cares for me… no body… I’m so sad and lonely…
Dang I hate it when ..
Eric needs to let gray happen. No one is buying that your hair is shoe-polish black.
Can someone write a book or do a podcast to explain: what is a layperson to do if the physics community overlooks something obvious...
Spacetime is expanding. That means that spacetime is exerting a positive pressure. That means that if anything gets in the way of that, it obstructs the positive pressure. An obstruction to positive pressure is a negative pressure. Matter is an obstruction to the positive pressure of expansion of spacetime. Gravity is not a separate force. Gravity is just the effect of an obstruction of the positive pressure of expansion of spacetime.
If your esteem has you reduced to commenting on this, spare everyone
YOUR exalted theory. "HE MISSED THE TAG!"
Sorry, what real Physics has Weinstein done? It’s embarrassing he’s even on the same podcast as Penrose.
💯💯
You need quantum gravity to explain how virtual particles create vacuum energy.
at 5:45 Every time I watch World Science Festival I find myself wondering whether those guys took too many drugs in college, or not enough.
❤ with love for new experiences. BIG ERROR in measuring the Universe. Let's do the Michelson-Morley experiment on a school bus and determine the speed in a straight line - this is exactly the experiment Einstein dreamed of. Perhaps we will see the postulates: “Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and Dominant gravitational fields control the speed of light in a vacuum.” There is a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, two coils with optical fiber, where the light in each arm travels 18,000 meters, without exceeding the parameters of 0.4/0.4/0.4 meters and mass - 4 kg. ???
Theory, theory, theory...Let's get a machine, an experiment that we can actually use to explore a [ new] technology. Otherwise, it just become a mental exercise. Don't know what it would take to make that happen or even where scientists would begin.
Maybe the “beginning” of the universe was a massive particle decay and we are in one of its stages of decay. Perhaps the expansion will continue until the next decay and maybe the space between relates to its and particle decay
@DrBrianKeating, And of course the elephant in the room Edward Witten is not mentioned.
Lots of respect to Sir Roger and his noble prize but Witten has done more for theoretical physics in the last 50 years than Sir Roger would be able to achieve in 100 life times.
Nobody will debate Edward Witten on Quantum Gravity or super string theory because everyone who has ever debated him get fried, Edward is 1,000,000 times smarter than everyone else on the planet (quote from Brian Green) and a quote from Weinstein. "I am dumb enough not to be afraid to debate anything with anyone on the planet, with the exception of Edward Witten, who I am terrified of!".
Hey - what about CIG Theory?
He is so sharp for his age just as a comparison he is 10 years older than joe Biden.
Well but isnt general relativity a local theory I mean we have some local coordinate system, not defined globally. So why would we want to care about the weyl curvature..?
You have to figure out what the building blocks are of spacetime quantum mechanics/physics constants.
I'll give you a hint. You've seen them before in physics experiments.
I want to hear Sir Roger’s take on Kerr’s paper
Please interview Nima Arkani Hamed.
got exciting but then realized I listened to this one a few times already.
#Centripical-force ... With no movement, no gravity required. With movement we get gravity. A by-product of motion. 😊