While I was aware that AdS was a space with negative curvature, this is the first explanation I've heard that actually describes what that means in a way that makes sense to me. Absolutely fascinating discussion. It's wonderful that we have podcasts like this. The balance between technical depth on one hand, but the willingness to explain concepts that a physics student would probably be aware of on the other makes this sort of thing highly educational for people learning about this stuff in their own time.
Entanglement of spins can be explained by an interaction, but it is a superluminal interactions that results in information being transferred from particle to particle, but the way it works is that because you could have had two results conveying the information from the first lab to the second, the distribution of outcomes are effcted in lab two in a way that looks completely random in lab two unless you knew which effect your particle was subjected to. In quantum mechanics it is baled into the products, but from a more classical point of view you can locally account for the correlations by such an interaction. The crutial point is that such an interaction involves only a rotation of the source of em fields or other fields not moving them, so you can have a superluminal interaction changing a charged particle faster than light through the fields underlying the em fields without substantial change in e and b other than what would look like random fluctuations pretty much. Its completely plausible, in quantum field theory the predictions are robust to any timing between the measurements of the two sides, but it is an open question whether this is true in nature, we would not have seen the difference yet given the experiements that have been done. Basically the effect of the first parrticle on the second is to put it in an eigen state along the first particles axis, changing the probability of measuring the other axis and that axis as well from 50 to cos^2 theta this is pretty easy to do with a superluminal interaction in a classical setting, but it isn't a mechanism of quantum mechanics, it is a toy model of a classical theory that gives the same predictions as quantum mechanics for bell pairs measured in this simple way with free choice of measurement direction. You can't create what is called a non contextual map of predetermined values for all possible measurment directions, for both particles unless when one particle is measured to be in a particular state with respect to a choosen direction, some interaction between the particles makes the other one determined for that direction as well, then you can have a simple function for predetermined values of what the second will be for any given direction, after the first measurement has changed it, even if it is impossible before. The reason is that the non contextual map tries to give predetermined values for each individual particle independently of what measurment direction is chosen, in that case there is no such map, but when the first interacts with the second, the interaction can depend of what direction the first is measured in, therefore predetermined values are again possible, and for all options of measurement direction as well, only ofc in a deterministic world only one direction will be chosen. Works the same way with more complicated states, it just males to so the dependence on chosen measurement directions is introduced when a particle is interacting with that measurement direction, therefore it doesnt rely on any form of strange conspiracy like the particles all along carrying information about what the other will be measured with and so on, that is why it is interesting, because then bells theorem doesn't disallow local variables to explain it deterministically, ofc it will be non local in the same sense as Newtonian gravity when it is instantaneous but it doesn't need to be and we might discover that quantum mechanics gives the wrong answer for some versions of a bell test, where the timing is simultaneous, and therefore bature through this interaction breals lorentz symmetry. It is completely feasible, we haven't ruled it out so it is interesting. I sort of don't believe in the classical/quantum destinction, i think quantum systems are just related to classical systems that are way more complicated than have been considered before.
Feynman “ when you are talking you are not learning”. Therefore, am silent whilst I learn about ADS/CFT , black holes and holographic theory., from the legendary and eminently likeable Prof Maldacena! . Wow Robinson … quality , banger videos! Thanks! Nice jacket btw ! Hey Pins 🐈! Ps. Oops my bad … Taniyama-Shimura-Weil “conjecture” …. Now a theorem ! My previous comment. 😂 Geeseling b
And important fact is that an interaction like that doesnt allow you to send information because it is an interaction that depends upon which outcome you got, so without some not to say when you got this or that result it will still look random, so no major change there.
In these theories entanglement vs no entanglement corresponds to a coupling or no coupling of this force, sort of, it isnt really that simple for realistic versions of such a force. But if you had for example a bunch of charged particles in a material there are a bunch of different ways they could all be coupled, for example if one is struck by a gamma ray and is kicked out some more distant particle in the metal could revice a tourqe on it that happens faster than light, something along those lines would be true, but in general materials the entanglement will distribute more of less evenly and locally because they are constantly interacting, so such effects should be very rarely pronounced. When i have more details ready for release you can see for yourself, it has interesting implications but it is not possible to send information faster than light without basically building a warp drive or something like that, it is in line with standard theory where ot needs to be not to break everything. The broken lorentz symmetry for example changes the fields and the maximum speed of light or matter in the vacuum pretty much not at all locally, it doesn't change the dipole moments of any particles and it is pretty nice over all.
Excellent discussion, but I'd have liked to have heard Prof Maldacena's take on the vacuum catastrophe. It seems to me that a theory of spacetime should include a theory of vacuum. It looks to me like zero point energy isn't quite right here, and the cosmological constant seems to be giving a better idea of what's going on when no one's watching.
woooo I like the description that the bondary is in the remote future! It like the cosmic background that we have today, it's a 2D but it describe a 3D space and we can build the physic at that time.
@1:20:00 I'm not totally sure, but I believe in AdS/CFt duality it's so different it's not funny. Time is treated (more or less) as a classical parameter in AdS/CFT, you can treat it as global. In a putative gauge-gravity correspondence for our actual de Sitter cosmos there is no such global time, so you cannot just "project" a 3-D future boundary backwards and have the rest of 4D spacetime "emerge". There is no meaning to such a notion, or there are at least serious problems with such a view. I personally would think it is a "no go". In our universe spacetime does not emerge from some degrees of freedom on a boundary. That's what I'd gear up my toolkit to prove, not the converse.
I would like to ask Prof Maldacena what is his take on Roger Penrose’s saying on string theory? Sir Roger thinks it leads to an unnatural inexistent universe with more dimensions that the observable one. His exact words were that he works in real physics in a real universe. I really enjoy listening to prof Maldacena and Penrose, but they are diametrically opposed! Cheers from Argentina to the podcast!
Everything interesting is in these critical extreme states . I don't understand why we can't grant a young gen to re allocate values like in inertia frame of reference i know it just pushes complexity into the largest scales but it would help restore an unhealthy relationship with our modeling to see us map such a reality
In all feilds of study we have this similar problem where we can't follow the evidence where it leads and impose a top down outside in prescription without changing evidence to fit.
When J.M states quantum gravity and string field are useless for things like iphones, i imagine B.G stating every human only needs afew kb of data. It is certain that quantum gravity and string theory will be used practically such as iphone280 which allows travellers to communicate over distances greater then the C/s2 timescale. J.Ms most interesting comment was as you increase energy at smaller scales down to the planck level eventually a blackhole is an emergent property of energy density over the planck scale and you begin to grow the size of spacetime. I imagined while listening to J.M the dynamic topology of a single planck scale as a spherical tesseract in which gravity (G)emerges variant from the fluctuation of the planck sphere boundary as a 5D(ads/cft), inside the planck sphere must exist 6D which is a toplogical region free of Dr.Einsteins 4D limitations. The S5 toplogy for a combined 11D must give way to a12D which is how the local 6D planck sphere relates to a cosmic level 12D planck field.
"Quantum gravity is important for understanding certain processes in the universe." Does a good understanding of quantum gravity make quantum field theory somewhat easier to understand? Consider 4 conjectures: 1. There are 3 fundamental levels of physics: classical field theory, quantum field theory, & string theory. 2. String theory has enormous economic value because string theory makes quantum field theory significantly easier to understand. 3. The main problem with string theory is that the string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. 4. String vibrations are approximately confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice. Are the 4 preceding conjectures wrong? Google "pavel kroupa dark matter" & "leech lattice dark matter compensation constant".
The idea of the block universe where all of time is accounted for sounds to me like another multiverse assumption with not a great deal of creditability.
Very interesting, always a pleasure to listen to Juan. The only critic is the unbearable amount of publicity, every few minutes the conversation is interrupted. I understand publicity is necesary for making a profit, but it is unbearable in a 2hr video to have publicity interruptung enery 3-4 minutes. I watch lots of chanels and none have this problem, every thing else is excellent congratulations.
Einstein's view of the singularity isn't discussed very much, almost never. His view about singularity emanates from the charge, so he repeatedly favors a neutral particle (neutron, neutrino) that won't develop singularity.
Whoa whoa whoa, hold on a minute. Did I just hear Maldacena, correctly, and apparently also very late, very much so? It sure did sound an awful lot like he said that the recent, very hyped, extremely important supposed discovering and measuring the required phenomena to declare Einsteins gravitational-wave theory,
Whenever someone mentions string (a nebulous) theory, I wonder How viable it'll be once someone space/time is emergent and there aren't fairies dancing on the head of a pin.
I think I need a bigger brain! Still I get the impression that, while we have come a long way, we are a way off understanding the fundamentals of our universe.
![Who Wrote a Short Story That Seriously Disturbed a Teacher? | Dirty Laundry x Smosh [Full Episode]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bvHAy_rKoEI/mqdefault.jpg)
Juan Maldacena is fantastic
While I was aware that AdS was a space with negative curvature, this is the first explanation I've heard that actually describes what that means in a way that makes sense to me.
Absolutely fascinating discussion. It's wonderful that we have podcasts like this. The balance between technical depth on one hand, but the willingness to explain concepts that a physics student would probably be aware of on the other makes this sort of thing highly educational for people learning about this stuff in their own time.
This is 🔥 thanks for bringing string theorists to the podcast
Amazing guest! Prof Maldacena is amazing. Congrats!
Wonderful! Thank you Juan. Thanks Robinson. ✨ Many salutations for your coming solstice festivities 🎊
This was great, will probably go over it all over again.
Loved this episode so much. Thank you robinson for that ❤
Thank you so much!!
Entanglement of spins can be explained by an interaction, but it is a superluminal interactions that results in information being transferred from particle to particle, but the way it works is that because you could have had two results conveying the information from the first lab to the second, the distribution of outcomes are effcted in lab two in a way that looks completely random in lab two unless you knew which effect your particle was subjected to. In quantum mechanics it is baled into the products, but from a more classical point of view you can locally account for the correlations by such an interaction. The crutial point is that such an interaction involves only a rotation of the source of em fields or other fields not moving them, so you can have a superluminal interaction changing a charged particle faster than light through the fields underlying the em fields without substantial change in e and b other than what would look like random fluctuations pretty much. Its completely plausible, in quantum field theory the predictions are robust to any timing between the measurements of the two sides, but it is an open question whether this is true in nature, we would not have seen the difference yet given the experiements that have been done. Basically the effect of the first parrticle on the second is to put it in an eigen state along the first particles axis, changing the probability of measuring the other axis and that axis as well from 50 to cos^2 theta this is pretty easy to do with a superluminal interaction in a classical setting, but it isn't a mechanism of quantum mechanics, it is a toy model of a classical theory that gives the same predictions as quantum mechanics for bell pairs measured in this simple way with free choice of measurement direction. You can't create what is called a non contextual map of predetermined values for all possible measurment directions, for both particles unless when one particle is measured to be in a particular state with respect to a choosen direction, some interaction between the particles makes the other one determined for that direction as well, then you can have a simple function for predetermined values of what the second will be for any given direction, after the first measurement has changed it, even if it is impossible before. The reason is that the non contextual map tries to give predetermined values for each individual particle independently of what measurment direction is chosen, in that case there is no such map, but when the first interacts with the second, the interaction can depend of what direction the first is measured in, therefore predetermined values are again possible, and for all options of measurement direction as well, only ofc in a deterministic world only one direction will be chosen. Works the same way with more complicated states, it just males to so the dependence on chosen measurement directions is introduced when a particle is interacting with that measurement direction, therefore it doesnt rely on any form of strange conspiracy like the particles all along carrying information about what the other will be measured with and so on, that is why it is interesting, because then bells theorem doesn't disallow local variables to explain it deterministically, ofc it will be non local in the same sense as Newtonian gravity when it is instantaneous but it doesn't need to be and we might discover that quantum mechanics gives the wrong answer for some versions of a bell test, where the timing is simultaneous, and therefore bature through this interaction breals lorentz symmetry. It is completely feasible, we haven't ruled it out so it is interesting. I sort of don't believe in the classical/quantum destinction, i think quantum systems are just related to classical systems that are way more complicated than have been considered before.
Feynman “ when you are talking you are not learning”. Therefore, am silent whilst I learn about ADS/CFT , black holes and holographic theory., from the legendary and eminently likeable Prof Maldacena! . Wow Robinson … quality , banger videos!
Thanks! Nice jacket btw ! Hey Pins 🐈!
Ps. Oops my bad … Taniyama-Shimura-Weil “conjecture” …. Now a theorem ! My previous comment. 😂 Geeseling b
What a titan !
Thanks for sharing Robinson ! 🪿
Puss delivers the goods again! Thanks.
Cats have a very strong self interest in the outcome of Quantum discussions.
Love professor Maldacena
Does the bulk QFT also emerge from the boundary CFT along with ADS?
Amazing, thanks for this conversation
Looks like I have some studying to do.
And important fact is that an interaction like that doesnt allow you to send information because it is an interaction that depends upon which outcome you got, so without some not to say when you got this or that result it will still look random, so no major change there.
In these theories entanglement vs no entanglement corresponds to a coupling or no coupling of this force, sort of, it isnt really that simple for realistic versions of such a force. But if you had for example a bunch of charged particles in a material there are a bunch of different ways they could all be coupled, for example if one is struck by a gamma ray and is kicked out some more distant particle in the metal could revice a tourqe on it that happens faster than light, something along those lines would be true, but in general materials the entanglement will distribute more of less evenly and locally because they are constantly interacting, so such effects should be very rarely pronounced. When i have more details ready for release you can see for yourself, it has interesting implications but it is not possible to send information faster than light without basically building a warp drive or something like that, it is in line with standard theory where ot needs to be not to break everything. The broken lorentz symmetry for example changes the fields and the maximum speed of light or matter in the vacuum pretty much not at all locally, it doesn't change the dipole moments of any particles and it is pretty nice over all.
Excellent discussion, but I'd have liked to have heard Prof Maldacena's take on the vacuum catastrophe.
It seems to me that a theory of spacetime should include a theory of vacuum.
It looks to me like zero point energy isn't quite right here, and the cosmological constant seems to be giving a better idea of what's going on when no one's watching.
woooo I like the description that the bondary is in the remote future! It like the cosmic background that we have today, it's a 2D but it describe a 3D space and we can build the physic at that time.
Great work! ^.^
Why doesn't inflation apply to strings? How is it we do not see many cosmic strings???
@1:20:00 I'm not totally sure, but I believe in AdS/CFt duality it's so different it's not funny. Time is treated (more or less) as a classical parameter in AdS/CFT, you can treat it as global. In a putative gauge-gravity correspondence for our actual de Sitter cosmos there is no such global time, so you cannot just "project" a 3-D future boundary backwards and have the rest of 4D spacetime "emerge". There is no meaning to such a notion, or there are at least serious problems with such a view. I personally would think it is a "no go". In our universe spacetime does not emerge from some degrees of freedom on a boundary. That's what I'd gear up my toolkit to prove, not the converse.
I would like to ask Prof Maldacena what is his take on Roger Penrose’s saying on string theory? Sir Roger thinks it leads to an unnatural inexistent universe with more dimensions that the observable one. His exact words were that he works in real physics in a real universe. I really enjoy listening to prof Maldacena and Penrose, but they are diametrically opposed! Cheers from Argentina to the podcast!
Penrose says the photon got lonely. So others jumped in to keep it company
Juan maldacena?? Where do u get the pull ?
Everything interesting is in these critical extreme states . I don't understand why we can't grant a young gen to re allocate values like in inertia frame of reference i know it just pushes complexity into the largest scales but it would help restore an unhealthy relationship with our modeling to see us map such a reality
In all feilds of study we have this similar problem where we can't follow the evidence where it leads and impose a top down outside in prescription without changing evidence to fit.
When J.M states quantum gravity and string field are useless for things like iphones, i imagine B.G stating every human only needs afew kb of data. It is certain that quantum gravity and string theory will be used practically such as iphone280 which allows travellers to communicate over distances greater then the C/s2 timescale. J.Ms most interesting comment was as you increase energy at smaller scales down to the planck level eventually a blackhole is an emergent property of energy density over the planck scale and you begin to grow the size of spacetime. I imagined while listening to J.M the dynamic topology of a single planck scale as a spherical tesseract in which gravity (G)emerges variant from the fluctuation of the planck sphere boundary as a 5D(ads/cft), inside the planck sphere must exist 6D which is a toplogical region free of Dr.Einsteins 4D limitations. The S5 toplogy for a combined 11D must give way to a12D which is how the local 6D planck sphere relates to a cosmic level 12D planck field.
"Quantum gravity is important for understanding certain processes in the universe." Does a good understanding of quantum gravity make quantum field theory somewhat easier to understand? Consider 4 conjectures:
1. There are 3 fundamental levels of physics: classical field theory, quantum field theory, & string theory. 2. String theory has enormous economic value because string theory makes quantum field theory significantly easier to understand. 3. The main problem with string theory is that the string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. 4. String vibrations are approximately confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice. Are the 4 preceding conjectures wrong? Google "pavel kroupa dark matter" & "leech lattice dark matter compensation constant".
I think juan is correct, ads cft is beautiful
ESE ACENTO
If you interested in this topic and black holes, try to bring Subir sahdev to the podcast
The idea of the block universe where all of time is accounted for sounds to me like another multiverse assumption with not a great deal of creditability.
Very interesting, always a pleasure to listen to Juan. The only critic is the unbearable amount of publicity, every few minutes the conversation is interrupted. I understand publicity is necesary for making a profit, but it is unbearable in a 2hr video to have publicity interruptung enery 3-4 minutes. I watch lots of chanels and none have this problem, every thing else is excellent congratulations.
You mean advertising, publicity is the wrong word
Einstein's view of the singularity isn't discussed very much, almost never. His view about singularity emanates from the charge, so he repeatedly favors a neutral particle (neutron, neutrino) that won't develop singularity.
44:24. Are the physics satisfied that that is where the world sets. An Intersection And the entire Universe responds to that formulation
Whoa whoa whoa, hold on a minute. Did I just hear Maldacena, correctly, and apparently also very late, very much so? It sure did sound an awful lot like he said that the recent, very hyped, extremely important supposed discovering and measuring the required phenomena to declare Einsteins gravitational-wave theory,
41:00
Whenever someone mentions string (a nebulous) theory, I wonder How viable it'll be once someone space/time is emergent and there aren't fairies dancing on the head of a pin.
I think I need a bigger brain! Still I get the impression that, while we have come a long way, we are a way off understanding the fundamentals of our universe.
Nonsense.
Gravity is not a force.
Dude please relax with the amount of ads you put on this video… way too many
Buddy :) it isn't him it is market dependent to some degree, if you are in the us some videos gets a lot of adds on them.
Ublock origin, youtube revanced extended