This video followed law of conservation of knowledge as My knowledge before watching the video and after watching it remained constant , only my entropy increased
Depends whether a viewer knew nothing about, and was curious to hear something about, constructor theory. In that case, if this short video made them curious enough to look up constructor theory on the internet, then mission accomplished.
I appreciate the interview with Chiara. I felt like the interviewer should probe more into concrete examples of constructor theory and specific problems she is working on. I understand the field is very new but I'm sure she has plenty of brilliant examples and metaphors that she never got the chance to communicate. Great video, but like the other early comments, I would wish it was more lay-friendly.
Agreed. The film seemed very broad and abstract (duh theoretical physics) in the sense that it felt more like she was saying this is what we hope it can do without explaining how it was any different from theories that are currently in play. It basically boiled down to, this theory will explain way more but I won't explain how.
I'm assuming she doesn't want someone to publish a paper on it before she and her team does but still wanted to (or had to) talk about it because it's from Oxford
It sort of implied that they were working backwards from what is observed, but along with the unrelated imagery it was all hard to fathom. The video mostly made me want to go elsewhere to learn about the subject.
*I had a thought:* I thought, "The crazy thing about people like her is they face the risk of dedicating their entire lives to something that could very well turn out to be a dead end." And then I realized that I had just perfectly described my own pursuit of money.
If they reach a dead end, that'd be awesome. Because that'd mean that we were wrong and we need to come up with newer approach to this problem. I don't think there's a dead end to the persuit of money. It's just you'll die before you start living if all you care about is money. If you're really making good amount of money, please invest in good quality drugs and hookers. Then it won't feel like a dead end!!!
@@Kaiwizz A dead end doesn't mean they were wrong either, maybe they just couldn't make it, and it also doesn't prove the current physics is right. So in terms of accomplishment, Science can truly leave you with nothing in this aspect.
Is she saying "inflammation" or "information"? It sounds like inflammation, but inflammation on the biological level isn't that interesting beyond immunity and keeping it controlled.
If you're that distracted by what you're seeing, this entire video is likely going over your head. Just listen to what she's saying, instead of finding yet another thing to complain about online.
@@Silverjerk What you're shown is distracting because when they cut away from her you expect the video to be relevant. The mind wastes effort trying to tie the meanings of voice and image together. In visual communication it is implied that if the communicator shows you something... it matters. Ignoring this expectation is poor production that would have been avoided by either staying with the video of her or only using voiceover on a still image throughout.
And what is that something she is saying specifically apart from it's new and radical and better? I usually know what 5 minutes is about, even if I don't understand it, when it comes to physics but this introduction lead me nowhere.
@@noelshaback7191 Well, the rest of the Meditations are concerned with proving how we can know all kinds of things and still sometimes get things wrong. Descartes even thinks he can prove the existence of God and explains why God would have no interest in tricking us into false beliefs. So I would say that Descartes definitely did not just diverse himself crazy in questioning everything, he searched for a base from which he could secure all further knowledge. Whether he was actually successful is a different issue and one where it is easy to disagree with him and many have done so brilliantly.
@@der1767 He did that because he went crazy because he kept questioning every level of foundational belief he had and that's what lead to the famous "cogito ergo sum" where he finally established a secure footing on existence, so you're right, but in doing this, Descartes did drive himself into a sort of insanity.
@@noelshaback7191 okay, I guess we are on the same page, at first glance it sounded like you were one of those people who haven't actually read stuff and then go around talking about it. When people talk about things like philosophy, psychology and economy that seems (at least to me) to be way more prevalent than in the natural sciences like chemistry or physics, so I'm both trying to not accodentally spread any trash myself and look out whether other people actually understand what they are saying (insofar as I can judge within my own field of expertise).
When I read, "...at the heart of constructor theory is the concept of counterfactuals - statements about what's possible and what's impossible..." I immediately thought of the 1st law of thermodynamics and the statement, "a perpetual motion machine of the first kind is impossible." I've always found those two statements, the impossibility of a perpetual motion device of the 1st kind and the 2nd kind, very fundamental, prohibitive and enabling. It was at that moment that I fell in love with thermodynamics.
I am a Physics major in college and I don't find anything new in this video other than the name "contructor theory", but this is probably meant as an introduction so I doubt it was meant to tell anything specific about the theory
2:18 starts with explanation. Constructor theory defines reality between what is allowed with what is not allowed. The observed physical transformations or "tasks" are queried with why. It's a new way to approach the understanding of physics that can unify other theories. It's like taking a step back and looking at everything in a different way that doesn't challenge any previous theories and allow for newer understandings.
I really find completely new approaches in order to resolve long-standing issues within physics refreshing. Also, I personally cannot see a clear path forward without these new radically different theories. It will be very interesting to see where constructor theory takes us!
Thats because science is trying so hard to prove things God made WITHOUT acknowledging God himself. The reason there is no clear path forward is because it all starts and ends with GOD. And until scientists acknowledge there's a lot they don't know and can't know without the God factor they will never see a clear path forward beyond what it knows now hence why the need for a new radical theory to explain physical laws. Ironically it still all points to God
@@devint5943 Apparently you have no idea the very many scientists who have made breakthrough, world-changing discoveries, who were devout in their religion. There is no conflict between science and religion. Only people who create conflict.
@@berndlehmann2030 i dont understand how these people function... Its actually not difficult to define God... what is more difficult is defining it in a way that is consistant with science... But even that can be done JBP does some great work in that regard - however such definitions have nothing to do with the standard model of physics. And people who bring God into scientific (in regard to physics) debate are just morons who first of all dont understand science and second of all dont understand God
This is something I'd like to learn more about - it seems very interesting, but I wish there was a more in-depth (but still at an science nerd layman level) video on it, that went on to more detail with examples of how this approach is applied.
I’ve realized why I like to listen to videos like this (which I don’t understand...like Calculus, “The Mechanical Universe”, etc) It’s because I experience a form of ASMR when listening to physics, higher math, quantum theories, etc. It’s very relaxing and peaceful.
I think the examples come from quantum thermodynamics - my concern is that the laws of thermodynamics already work by saying what things are forbidden - so determining the laws of physics by saying what is and isn't possible isn't exactly new.
@@chicawhappa They argue that the first law of thermodynamics rules out any process that violate the conservation of energy, and that they are somehow the first people to come up with this "constructor" principle. Get's even more ridiculous when you look at the second law! Hardly a rewrite of the laws of physics.
I agree, she didn’t extrapolate and give any NEW examples on what this theory gives us, or what NEW things we could discover. No maths, no thought experiments or examples to demonstrate this “new” concept.
"A universe where everything is allowed is not as interesting as one where only some things are allowed and others are not." Sounds like a mathematician.
This literally told me absolutely nothing. Just a bunch of marketing for her theory without the slightest amount of information about what the theory ACTUALLY IS.
@4:30 she states that general relativity (also known as E=MC squared or the relative understanding of Time and Space) and Quantum Theory (aka reality) clash as in they contradict their properties in the field of modern academics. They simply don't work well together. So what she is describing is that there must be a field or a new equation to complete the two for future physics.
@@orangewave8866 and i assume she believes constructor theory is that bridge of the gap. the problem is that we still don't know what the theory is lmao. it's presented as a solution to a problem but they didn't even explain what the solution was
@@thegreatdream8427 2:18 starts with explanation. Constructor theory defines reality between what is allowed with what is not allowed. The observed physical transformations or "tasks" are queried with why. It's a new way to approach the understanding of physics that can unify other theories. It's like taking a step back and looking at everything in a different way that doesn't challenge any previous theories and allow for newer understandings.
Geez.. this is like a movie promo trailer. It's just to pique your interest without telling you anything much what the theory is all about. Good job, Quanta. Now we all want to read your magazine.
LOL an engineer wants an ABC brakedown to understand a physics model that's still in the works but couldn't understand the gist in a 5 minute video. Good one 🤣👏
Am I correct in thinking the reason particles are fundamentally unpredictable and cause these strange effects is because basically, every quantum particle is Entangled with another one, across the entire universe? I have been casually trying to learn about this all for a couple years now and I barely remember classical physics and certainly don't understand quantum physics stuff. Yet.
@@IamGodSon It's about a kings and his shadow obscuring the view of 1 of the 10 Gates in his kingdom, right when the book all about the gates was being written, so only nine were mentioned, and 1666 was a cold year so to try and keep warm he showered in gasoline then set light to himself, turned out it was a little bit too hot, and unfortunately he melted like a massive candle, which ironically made the king move revealing the tenth gate which turned out to be a window after all. I highly recommended it, as It's my favourite book about gates. Don't do what I did though, and accidently order... The Book of windows 10 by Bill Gates, it's not about gates or even real windows with those transparent viewing panels they have installed, non of that good stuff, anyway hope you enjoy it, i'm off to have a petrol shower.
Mysticism from 1666 (the year and number has like we know numerology-religious meanings) was based on the same as the nine semidivine realms of the Yggdrasil of norse mythology of the vikings and ancient baltic/nordic goths. That is, all that and the kabbalah came from the same source. It is basically gotten from the old jewish hasidic tree of life.
Okay - That's fairly fascinating. That's the first time I have heard of this "constructor theory".. After hearing her talk about how there's problems between standard particle physics and quantum physics, it certainly makes one wonder why they haven't been trying to concentrate on that tension between the two models and trying to find some way to unify them and tie them together. Fascinating video! Thanks for this!!
As long as these theories are working to provide applications in the real world independently, they can be applied and would be used. I think you mean, *Quantum Physics and General Relativity there, because she was talking about the Unification of the theories that explain the Microscopic world and the macroscopic world. These theories together give rise to the proposed, 'Grand Unified Theory' which combines and explains all the Fundamental Physical forces together. Usually, we didn't have had the need to combine both laws but along the lines, Quantum Computers would need this unification. Btw, General Relativity and Newton's Gravitation laws work on entirely different principles, but they still provide the same result to any of the calculations. The only thing that changed was how those equations translate but they still provide the same result. We blow rockets into the space and to the moon using Newton's calculations to this day since they are mathematically easier unlike Newton's and provide the same approximate result. Most scientists don't like dealing with General Relativity Principles when applying gravitation laws to the physical world.
There's a link to an article in Quanta - should be able to find out more information from that. I'm watching this during lunch and just skimmed through it.
Interesting! I checked the wikipedia article for a little more information on constructor theory, just to help me to understand. This sounds really fascinating!
So did I. After delving into it, i cant say i'm a fan of the theory. If "current theories of physics based on quantum mechanics do not adequately explain why some transformations between states of being are possible and some are not" then this theory doesn't solve that at all. "A task is only possible if a constructor capable of carrying it out exists, otherwise it is impossible.' We would require knowing all possible constructors to prove this theory true, and that is.... improbable. It should be called possibility theory, but that is essentially quantum mechanics. They just added a layer on top which says we believe this is impossible, and believing and knowing are two separate things.
I agree that in order to resolve yet to be discovered phenomena like quantum gravity or the accelerating expansion of spacetime there has to be a new approach. A good start would be to throw out concepts like "infinity", "singularity" or "nothingness" out of physics for good and to replace them with models which are logically sound.
"Quantum theory and general Relativity don't jive with each other so we're trying to come up with a unified theory". ....."What do you have so far"? ...."Nuthin".
@@colors6692 wow, didn’t chiara (the person in this video) author a book recently? Could it be called? The Science of Can and Can't: A Physicist's Journey through the Land of Counterfactuals Is this marketing for her book? Or are you just stupid, pretty sure your stupid. Hahaha moron, I do more then watch videos....it’s called reading.
@Chiara .. @2:59 ...conservation isn’t preservation. As Constructor theory seeks to speak to the original derivation/etymology of the terms, I just wanted to point out the error of that term is all.
She talked a lot, but really didn’t explain anything. There has been claims before of someone finding a better way of explaining reality. Good luck with that.
She'll run afoul of the problem of induction; kinda sounds like she already has. She claims constructor theory will uncover general principles that can then be weaved into a new more comprehensive theory. The problem is that she'll need to explain how those fundamental principles mutually support eachother and why. Maybe she can.
It isn’t surprising that mainstream theoretical physics goes from a theory that works based on probabilities so that it cannot ever be wrong, to another which also works towards not being able to be wrong. Cushioning of the ego has become more important than productive physics.
This concept seems to be to define boundary conditions between OK and IMPOSSIBLE. It seems to me a kind of Holographic Universe concept where you define the edges of these OK/IMPOSSIBLE regions to develop an understanding of what is inside each region, where many different regions using different laws overlap to create regions of OK results for any study. In fact, it seems to me that defining such boundaries can be done directly from experiment without any mathematical law being created until AFTER these boundaries are defined.
So correct me if I'm wrong but is her description of the basics of constructor theory similar to Sherlock Holms' statement, "Once you eliminate the impossible, everything else, however improbable, is possible?"
What are you talking about? This is how theoretical physics has always worked. Axioms have always been core to it. Even Einstein explained things in them
@@teacul Yes and no. Yes because mathematics is already built upon axioms, and that mathematics is used in analytical mechanics (dynamical equations + initial conditions). No because she literally said that CT constructs its OWN axiomatic statements, which must be different from the axioms in mathematics. If they weren't then she'd just rewrite a framework that is tautological with analytical mechanics
@@MarioRossi-kv5py I have a math degree. I think you're a bit confused. Mathematics isn't a single set of axioms. There have been various attempts to create a single set of axioms for all of mathematics, but they've failed and we kinda actually got a proof that says it's impossible to have a single set of axioms for all of math. Instead, there have been many different sets of axioms proposed as a basis for different fields of math. Some are more helpful than others, but none are more "correct" than others. In Physics, there's been various attempts to do the same. What people don't seem realize is that math and physics are just abstractions of observations of natural laws that we then later try (and often fail) to axiomatize
My first impression is that constructor theory is Stephen Wolfram's ideas (as detailed in his book 'A New Kind of Science') about treating the whole of physics as a collection of computational systems but looked at from a different perspective. Feel free, everybody, to shoot me down in flames if I'm wrong.
Wolframs idea was interesting, but he really didn't go about it the right way, and his cellular automata just didnt yield much of interest compared to group symetry or other leading edge math techniques. I honestly have no idea what the woman in this article is proposing other than some vaguelly interesgting philosophy.
@@shayneoneill1506 I actually think you are completely wrong. Wolframs Theory is truly the real ToE and is able to unite all physics (QM and GR), all mathematics, and even the things physics ignores like “why do fractals exist” and complex systems…with just a single phrase: “reality is a computation.” Constructor Theory seems representative of Wolframs Ruliad: the space of all possible rules, languages or axiom systems.
I am intrigued. Constructor theory immediately reminded me of mathematical axioms. As an aspiring physicist, this field is of incredible relevance and interest. I'm hoping to learn more about the holographic principle (without string theory) and information (so topics such as the Bekenstein bound). But I agree with Dr. Marletto: the physical descriptions of information and entropy I've found appear very imprecise. Constructor theory may offer a more concrete description within my lifetime and career, which I look forward to. Thanks for sharing this interview, Quanta. Right on point.
From the transcript, with line numbers (it's double-spaced, so the numbers go up by 2 per line): 01:10 the deepest question is whether it's 01:12 possible to find 01:14 a more fundamental mode of explanation 01:16 for physical reality than the one we 01:17 already have So they're asking a question; they don't have the answer but they're working on it. Who isn't? And when was anybody not? From this transcript excerpt and even the entire interview snippet in the video, so far there's only a question. That's not a theory. And even if they answered the question as posed, "is it possible to find ... an explanation?" the answer would only be Yes, or No. Neither of those is a theory either. Sounds like it's quite early, and the conversation is ahead of the thinking. Maybe.
Why did you actually go through the trouble of getting the timestamps on each sentence rather than just pointing out the initial 1:10 timestamp, though? To be fair, they probably have some resemblance of an answer, they just didn't explain it in this video, which is a bit of a bummer
She stated the meat of the theory at around 2:34. It's a fairly simple worded theory, and I believe it is because of this that it may be both overlooked, as well as disregarded.
@@carlosmspk One has to wonder about somebody who questions a self-explanatory courtesy explanation. And NO, they've got nothing. If they had it, you'd have heard it ringing off the rooftops.
@@asc_missions3080 Sorry, my English is not at such a level that I can understand what a "self-explanatory courtesy explanation" is. But I'll take your word for it, if you've done your research on her's, you're already more informed than me
@@Puddlef1sh I think after living in the UK for twelve years and having had dozens of Italian friends while living there, I have the Italian/English accent pretty well figured out.
We think therefore we are? Travel without moving is the answer to navigating the universe, (you don't go to it, you bring it to you) I haven't worked out how to do it quite yet.
no way! i’ve been working on a similar theory. although i am only 20 yrs old and am still at uni. but hopefully sometime i get to discuss with her about my work!
I admire your enthusiasm and desire for wisdom and discoveries. I will highly recommend you the new book, which is able to explain all the fundamentals within the boundary of the Law of Physics - something which nobody else has done to present day - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@dancingdoungnut No, Stephen Hawking didn't produce "TOE". "TOE" has to explain all fundamental elements, all fundamental forces, including Gravity, and the correct atomic structure. "TOE" must unify Quantum Mechanics and Newtonian Physics. This book answers all these questions with facts. The author is your current correspondent.
An intelligent physicist peeking into the un-chartered territories in fundamentals of the universe, possessing a book from Harry Potter's realm. my mind is so confused what to do with the concept.
Some specifics would be nice. How do you go about determining what is possible and what not? Are we not in probabilistic universe, where anything is possible, if you have enough time to wait for it to happen? Burns my brain. Need to know more.
Of course this is a powerful method. It allows one to posit what is impossible and derive things from those assumptions. But how can one know that anything or class of things is impossible? BTW, is this method related to Bejan's constructal law?
Of what i understood about this video it's that constructor theory its one that unifies relativity with quantum theory in a way of explaining some laboratory events that exist, and contradicts each other (relativity and quantum). Something its missing, we do not have the complete picture and a new way of thinking is needed. A way of doing this, is to construct/create a theory in parameters of what is impossible and what is possible. Am I right?
What is the 'real' difference between you and 'empty' space? Is Space itself the commonality of macro physics and quantum mechanics? Is it space itself that should be looked at as the parallel between the two fields?
Ah ha!! I do believe you may have broken through to a new paradigm of understanding, at least for club heads such as myself! Brilliant! And now, if I could understand where things might progress from here.... if only I could figure out where 'here' is ...in a 'feezikal' sense, of course....
Very cool to know some brave physicists are looking into this. Reminds me of the book "Collapse of Chaos", by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen. Rather than constructors, they refer to attractors. It's a really interesting concept for looking at physics in a new way. For those second guessing this, give Collapse of Chaos a read.
I hate to say this, but your background soundtrack is really an annoyance as it interferes with the speaker's dialogue. Her accented English requires some concentration - and you haven't provided any closed captioned or subtitling. Sounds like an interesting subject, but I'll cut this video short and look for other sources on Constructor theory.
The moment you mentioned "what is forbidden" I remembered Counterpoint. Counterpoint kinda works the same way: Every mix of notes is ok, the forbidden exceptions are .
sounds hype to me, every year we have an x number of proposals for the theory of everything, that explain more or less the same number of events than the current model
Do you mean Sabine Hossenfelder? I imagine that she would listen to this and say it sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook designed to chase after research money. To me it sounds more like ideas to incorporate into the programming of an "expert system" to help researchers eliminate dead ends in scientific inquiries faster. Nothing about it sounds like an alternative theory to the "theory of everything" or the "grand unified theory".
Do you think Hitler would have been more realistic if he wasn't so effeminate and had a better excuse than "shopkeeper nation" for leaving his rear end wide open?
Is it just me or does it sound like Constructed Theory isn't a theory at all? It doesn't try to explain a specific phenomenon, it's just a change in methodological approach that outlines what is and isn't possible (and how is that different to a law of physics anyway).
it is VERY different. from what I understand, it's essentially the opposite of how we do things currently. we generally start with some physical observations and then try to come up with explanations for them. for example, we see objects fall to earth so we come with gravity. sometimes, we do the opposite where there is a big leap in theoretical physics and it takes practical theorists a long time to demonstrate real-life proof of the concepts. for example, exotic theories like string theory, supersymmetry, etc would currently fall into this category for now as we don't have good physical evidence for them yet. what she describes seems to be more like how geometry works where u start with certain core ideas and then try to explain how everything broader than that works based on those fundamental ideas/constraints. that's at least what I got out of this.
@@REIwAlexY I don't have an opinion on the subject, but according to some theorists who do, string theory has so far been just a form of mathematical self-titillation. Actually, I believe they use the "m" word, known more politely as unproductive or a dead-end.
It sounds kind of hypey and not that significant to me. Basically trying to figure out theoretical possibilities and impossibilities that apply in a broader manner, "holistic" laws rather than only "reducionist" ones, or reducionist constraints on a given "system." Not necessarily useless or anything, maybe it can result in some interesting or fundamentally important findings, analog to saying that a perpetual motion machine is impossible but for more things. But one article I've read on another magazine was basically 99% fluff around how some physicist was wrong in saying that the laws of physics must somehow have a propensity to producing biological adaptations, which the article says is a profound mistake, and then basically tries to explain in a constructor-theory framework how the fundamental laws themselves don't need to have anything to do with biological adaptation for it to evolve. Which should be sort of obvious and more clearly explained by the most cursory, high-school-level explanation of natural selection. Perhaps the closest thing to some kind of contribution of this "phrasing" approach was to "explaining" the origin of life itself, speaking of the process of abiogenesis as nothing but a long process of "natural selection" that in the end more fundamentally needs "information" and energy, things that exist in physics in general, not only at the biological level of organization. But again, somewhere else I once read or heard a less pretentious-sounding and clearer "borrowing" of natural selection to help explain the origin of life itself, phrasing instead that in a pre-biotic environment generating "not-quite replicators" those who came closer to being "almost" replicators also had an inherent "semi-reproductive" advantage, producing more things that are closer to achieving "full" replication, that would eventually be "self-sustained." I like this line of phrasing more than one with things like "information," "recipe," which to me sound almost "anthropomorphic," and ideally avoided in this topic specifically, even if the notion of "laws of information" is ultimately useful. Perhaps "information" here specifically is ideally rephrased in some way that conveys more of a "random" and natural origin for it (including natural filters or selection), for the "quantification of physical properties," instead of phrasings that inherently convey an "intelligent" origin of it. But not only "constructor theory" sticks with using "information" but speaks of "recipes" and even "knowledge." I'm sure creationists will be delighted to exploit the potential of this kind of phrasing to suggest that "the most advanced theoretical physics, promising to unify quantum mechanics and special relativity, make clear that the universe and life requires the Knowledge of an Intelligent Constructor with his Recipes containing Information in order to be adequately explained, rather than pure randomness." Apparently some people on the comments even bring up aspects of "artificial intelligence" and "computational physics," which are also likely to be turned into something like, "obviously, the computation of the universe is nothing but the mind of God, with an intelligence that's not artificial, but miraculous. Finally physics has catch up with the bible."
I don't believe, that attempt to change the Law of Physics is a wise idea. There is a new book, which within the boundary of the Law of Physics is explaining the entire Universe - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
I have a feeling they’d frustrate each other by constantly using the same words to mean different things. But it would be fascinating to watch. I’d prefer it as a Portal interview, I think. If they were co-interviewees, it could be a train wreck.
Wow. Fantastic stuff. Very exciting. This is the extreme edge of physics where it becomes a lot like philosophy, and I like this because I am way better at philosophy than I am at calculus.
@@johnkeck They are medicine that are abused recreationally (entheogen) but they will absolutely enhance/redefine your perspectives and a lot more scientists could benefit.
I wish this video had offered auto-subtitles in English. The combination of the sound quality, her voice, and her accent made it difficult and occasionally impossible for me to understand what she was saying. This is not meant as a personal criticism, but as a suggestion for this video and future videos. Achieving good sound quality can be challenging, especially outdoors; everyone's voice and accent are different; and everyone's ability to understand speech over the range of possible voice qualities and accents vary. I hope the creators of these videos will look into this. Thank you.
This made sense to me. What she is working on is an approach to physics and how the world works that is different from the approach we've had for the past, what, 2,500 years. It's clear that the approach we've always had has got us to this point, and that's great, but now we're stuck with two theories that clash and seemingly no common ground, and no apparent way forward. The natural thing to do then is to turn the "object" so you have a different aspect and can look at it in a different way, from a different angle. Saying this differently, our traditional approach to understanding physics and how the world works has stopped working. What we know doesn't explain everything that we see, and we aren't asking the right questions. Change the point of view, change the approach, and the hope is that that new questions will appear that we don't know to ask today.
Hey John Wilson, good point! There is a line in 'The Last Samurai': "A perfect blossom is a rare thing. You could spend your whole life looking for one, and it would not be a wasted life". As long as you do something that has purpose, you are not wasting your life!
This quote is about as vague as the video. What purpose is found in looking for a perfect blossom? "I've not wasted my life", said every wanker looking for that perfect wank.
@@VikingTeddy She explained the foundations of Constructor Theory tho, if you want to know more there is always google, with her peer-reviewed research papers
you do not know physicist, or you misunderstand them, if you say that. The fundamental approach of every physicist, and in general of every scientist, is "we do not really know what is true and it is ok because it does not really matter, but we care how we model the reality, and we continuously put our models at try"
@@giuseppep.1854 Yes, this is how it should be and it is how we speak about theory, however, rarely do we allow our baseline assumptions to be challenged in this way. Many of those baseline assumptions coming from our sensory perception of reality which are forged by evolution and can mislead. However, the mind which itself is a product of evolution has a way of shielding us from our baseline assumptions and because most scientists identify with their minds, the result is this kind of bias. I hope this clarifies my statement.
Something like Occam's Razor? determine what is impossible, to get a better picture of what is possible? Considering Quantum Physics, that's sounds like a pretty tall order
Very interesting, and reflects my own perspective. Traditional physical theories have served us well and continue to do so, in the context of life on our planet Earth and in our Solar System, but considering the more extreme context of the Milky Way, and the wider Universe, do our traditional tried and tested theories still apply? and I very much doubt that they do universally. I always say to my students that we don't know what we don't know, and in my mind that's where quantum theory steps in, to help us understand physical existence on a more pluralistic level.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons. Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
At 2:25 we hear "A universe where everything is allowed is not as interesting as one where [some things are not allowed]", but I intuitively disagree - because the latter can be embedded in the former, and not vice-versa.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
This video followed law of conservation of knowledge as My knowledge before watching the video and after watching it remained constant , only my entropy increased
Depends whether a viewer knew nothing about, and was curious to hear something about, constructor theory. In that case, if this short video made them curious enough to look up constructor theory on the internet, then mission accomplished.
😁😁😁
@@jeremymanson1781 nice 😎
Brutal!! Hahaha
@Science Revolution Interesting :D I like alternative theories.
I appreciate the interview with Chiara. I felt like the interviewer should probe more into concrete examples of constructor theory and specific problems she is working on. I understand the field is very new but I'm sure she has plenty of brilliant examples and metaphors that she never got the chance to communicate. Great video, but like the other early comments, I would wish it was more lay-friendly.
Agreed. The film seemed very broad and abstract (duh theoretical physics) in the sense that it felt more like she was saying this is what we hope it can do without explaining how it was any different from theories that are currently in play. It basically boiled down to, this theory will explain way more but I won't explain how.
Completely agree. This video said a whole bunch of things but also nothing at the same time.
The pH. And the theory is correct. The constructor is you and me. synergistic theory p.h Jacobo Grenberg UNAM p.h.
@@KrisPucci couldn't have said it better 👌
I'm assuming she doesn't want someone to publish a paper on it before she and her team does but still wanted to (or had to) talk about it because it's from Oxford
This told me absolutely nothing specific or concrete about constructor theory.
My thought exactly.
Unfortunately, my thought as well
Its all woowoo
same
It sort of implied that they were working backwards from what is observed, but along with the unrelated imagery it was all hard to fathom. The video mostly made me want to go elsewhere to learn about the subject.
*I had a thought:*
I thought, "The crazy thing about people like her is they face the risk of dedicating their entire lives to something that could very well turn out to be a dead end." And then I realized that I had just perfectly described my own pursuit of money.
They are making money doing it though
If they reach a dead end, that'd be awesome. Because that'd mean that we were wrong and we need to come up with newer approach to this problem.
I don't think there's a dead end to the persuit of money. It's just you'll die before you start living if all you care about is money.
If you're really making good amount of money, please invest in good quality drugs and hookers. Then it won't feel like a dead end!!!
If it isn't tho she's in the history books. That's a cool driving factor
It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive. The years she spent traveling hopefully will be recompense enough.
@@Kaiwizz A dead end doesn't mean they were wrong either, maybe they just couldn't make it, and it also doesn't prove the current physics is right. So in terms of accomplishment, Science can truly leave you with nothing in this aspect.
The music-box-like music in a minor key indicated that what she was saying is important and ground breaking. I just don’t know what she said though.
Is she saying "inflammation" or "information"? It sounds like inflammation, but inflammation on the biological level isn't that interesting beyond immunity and keeping it controlled.
Neither did she.
@@xgriffin22 information
@@OHamil-pl8wu Yes she does, the interviewer just wasn't very good
Basically she don't want a definitive "no" but maybe
Its funny how most of the stock images used are completely unrelated to what she is saying. Seriously undermines the seriousness of the interview
Funny how you expect some stock videos to exist over something so new and still in infancy.
If you're that distracted by what you're seeing, this entire video is likely going over your head. Just listen to what she's saying, instead of finding yet another thing to complain about online.
@@Silverjerk What you're shown is distracting because when they cut away from her you expect the video to be relevant. The mind wastes effort trying to tie the meanings of voice and image together. In visual communication it is implied that if the communicator shows you something... it matters. Ignoring this expectation is poor production that would have been avoided by either staying with the video of her or only using voiceover on a still image throughout.
And what is that something she is saying specifically apart from it's new and radical and better?
I usually know what 5 minutes is about, even if I don't understand it, when it comes to physics but this introduction lead me nowhere.
she says a lot and nothing at all, so yes.. very serious
funny contrast between the modern mac book and this ancient notebook
Where to buy the ancient paper notebook? It’s so cool! I want one!
It's a spellbook, she is obviously a witch, that also explains the quantum field-black magic!
@@andywong2135 amazon
That is a mugbook.
@@golagaz probably not
'Questioning everything is the best way to find the truth'- Rene Descartes.
Descartes also drove himself crazy because he questioned literally everything except the fact that he was a conscious being.
I agree, but then we can only really draw one conclusion 😂
@@noelshaback7191 Well, the rest of the Meditations are concerned with proving how we can know all kinds of things and still sometimes get things wrong. Descartes even thinks he can prove the existence of God and explains why God would have no interest in tricking us into false beliefs. So I would say that Descartes definitely did not just diverse himself crazy in questioning everything, he searched for a base from which he could secure all further knowledge. Whether he was actually successful is a different issue and one where it is easy to disagree with him and many have done so brilliantly.
@@der1767 He did that because he went crazy because he kept questioning every level of foundational belief he had and that's what lead to the famous "cogito ergo sum" where he finally established a secure footing on existence, so you're right, but in doing this, Descartes did drive himself into a sort of insanity.
@@noelshaback7191 okay, I guess we are on the same page, at first glance it sounded like you were one of those people who haven't actually read stuff and then go around talking about it. When people talk about things like philosophy, psychology and economy that seems (at least to me) to be way more prevalent than in the natural sciences like chemistry or physics, so I'm both trying to not accodentally spread any trash myself and look out whether other people actually understand what they are saying (insofar as I can judge within my own field of expertise).
When I read, "...at the heart of constructor theory is the concept of counterfactuals - statements about what's possible and what's impossible..." I immediately thought of the 1st law of thermodynamics and the statement, "a perpetual motion machine of the first kind is impossible."
I've always found those two statements, the impossibility of a perpetual motion device of the 1st kind and the 2nd kind, very fundamental, prohibitive and enabling. It was at that moment that I fell in love with thermodynamics.
they are scammers
I am none the wiser after having watched this through again.
If a highschool kid finds a book in advanced mathematics, one schould not be to hard on oneself for not understanding...
@@MrNinjadre Oh I'm not being hard on myself. Just stating a fact. :)
Dude, I have a whole material science degree and I still didn't quite get this video.
I am a Physics major in college and I don't find anything new in this video other than the name "contructor theory", but this is probably meant as an introduction so I doubt it was meant to tell anything specific about the theory
Custodian at a public school for 20 yrs 🤔...same wtf👍
The interviewer should have pressed her to explain what constructor theory actually is.
Explanation starts halfway through.
@@HallyVee I couldn't find it. Got a time stamp?
@@Jehannum2000 No. If you can't divide 5:42 in half you shouldn't be seeking simplified explanations for theoretical physics theories.
The interviewer probably was also confused as hell 😂
2:18 starts with explanation. Constructor theory defines reality between what is allowed with what is not allowed. The observed physical transformations or "tasks" are queried with why. It's a new way to approach the understanding of physics that can unify other theories. It's like taking a step back and looking at everything in a different way that doesn't challenge any previous theories and allow for newer understandings.
I really find completely new approaches in order to resolve long-standing issues within physics refreshing. Also, I personally cannot see a clear path forward without these new radically different theories. It will be very interesting to see where constructor theory takes us!
Thats because science is trying so hard to prove things God made WITHOUT acknowledging God himself. The reason there is no clear path forward is because it all starts and ends with GOD. And until scientists acknowledge there's a lot they don't know and can't know without the God factor they will never see a clear path forward beyond what it knows now hence why the need for a new radical theory to explain physical laws. Ironically it still all points to God
@@devint5943 Apparently you have no idea the very many scientists who have made breakthrough, world-changing discoveries, who were devout in their religion. There is no conflict between science and religion. Only people who create conflict.
@@devint5943 pls define god
@@THE-X-Force I totally agree
@@berndlehmann2030 i dont understand how these people function...
Its actually not difficult to define God... what is more difficult is defining it in a way that is consistant with science...
But even that can be done JBP does some great work in that regard - however such definitions have nothing to do with the standard model of physics.
And people who bring God into scientific (in regard to physics) debate are just morons who first of all dont understand science and second of all dont understand God
I love this subject matter. I don’t understand anything you are saying.
lmao
Almost nothing was said, unfortunately.
Same! 😁
🤣
Your post is the most honest of all.
This is something I'd like to learn more about - it seems very interesting, but I wish there was a more in-depth (but still at an science nerd layman level) video on it, that went on to more detail with examples of how this approach is applied.
Yea she has nothing jua mumbo jumbo
they are scammers
I’ve realized why I like to listen to videos like this (which I don’t understand...like Calculus, “The Mechanical Universe”, etc)
It’s because I experience a form of ASMR when listening to physics, higher math, quantum theories, etc. It’s very relaxing and peaceful.
I just want to know what is inside that cool looking book
A bunch of stuff that you and I cannot understand.
omg, I want this book, and Chiara is also pretty fascinating
I can see this being sold for like 80 dollars at CB2. It's sort of cringey...
She's got a bunch of numbers written down in there, including mine.. 😎
@@SineEyed hahahaha
This is dope. Would have been good to hear examples she found most interesting
I think the examples come from quantum thermodynamics - my concern is that the laws of thermodynamics already work by saying what things are forbidden - so determining the laws of physics by saying what is and isn't possible isn't exactly new.
@@timemechanic5055 That's the part which confused me. What's *new* about this? This is normal process.
@@chicawhappa They argue that the first law of thermodynamics rules out any process that violate the conservation of energy, and that they are somehow the first people to come up with this "constructor" principle. Get's even more ridiculous when you look at the second law! Hardly a rewrite of the laws of physics.
I agree, she didn’t extrapolate and give any NEW examples on what this theory gives us, or what NEW things we could discover.
No maths, no thought experiments or examples to demonstrate this “new” concept.
check their website, it links to a lot of articles
This is a only teaser for reading further in the magazine. Please make an explaining video also!
"A universe where everything is allowed is not as interesting as one where only some things are allowed and others are not." Sounds like a mathematician.
The underlying assumption being that the universe is conveniently understand able.
Sounds like a realist to me. A universe with no laws would have no people.
@@timhallas4275 It would probably be filled with just random chaos.
@@toshirokardevaand2772 1 million degrees C. I would call that Hell.
@@toshirokardevaand2772 Chaos about what then??
At 2:34 when the sun starts to shine again gives a different more dynamic feel to the whole scene.
This literally told me absolutely nothing. Just a bunch of marketing for her theory without the slightest amount of information about what the theory ACTUALLY IS.
What do you not get? It is not defined by dynamical laws as these don’t consider the individual motion of particles in the system
@4:30 she states that general relativity (also known as E=MC squared or the relative understanding of Time and Space) and Quantum Theory (aka reality) clash as in they contradict their properties in the field of modern academics. They simply don't work well together. So what she is describing is that there must be a field or a new equation to complete the two for future physics.
@@orangewave8866 Yes, and everyone who has ever actually picked up a science book already knows that.
@@orangewave8866 and i assume she believes constructor theory is that bridge of the gap. the problem is that we still don't know what the theory is lmao. it's presented as a solution to a problem but they didn't even explain what the solution was
@@thegreatdream8427 2:18 starts with explanation. Constructor theory defines reality between what is allowed with what is not allowed. The observed physical transformations or "tasks" are queried with why. It's a new way to approach the understanding of physics that can unify other theories. It's like taking a step back and looking at everything in a different way that doesn't challenge any previous theories and allow for newer understandings.
That book looks like it contains the secrets of the Universe
🤣🤣✌️
No. The secrets of the previous universe, the one that Penrose thought we could see in the cmb.
yeah, too much of a stereotype in fact
So true
Yet there's only writing on the first four pages, almost like it's new.
Interesting. Coming up with a new way to look at a problem almost always leads to new understanding.
Geez.. this is like a movie promo trailer. It's just to pique your interest without telling you anything much what the theory is all about. Good job, Quanta. Now we all want to read your magazine.
As an engineer, I was hoping for some tangible example of constructor theory. This felt like vague marketing - aspirational but not informational.
LOL an engineer wants an ABC brakedown to understand a physics model that's still in the works but couldn't understand the gist in a 5 minute video. Good one 🤣👏
Can someone tell me what's inscribed on the table's surface area?
Am I correct in thinking the reason particles are fundamentally unpredictable and cause these strange effects is because basically, every quantum particle is Entangled with another one, across the entire universe? I have been casually trying to learn about this all for a couple years now and I barely remember classical physics and certainly don't understand quantum physics stuff. Yet.
No, that's not the reason.
She's probably got in her possession, the book of the nine gate's, of the kingdom of shadows. Written before 1666.
What's the book about?
@@IamGodSon 😉
@@IamGodSon ask Lucas Corso, he might even find you a copy ;)
@@IamGodSon It's about a kings and his shadow obscuring the view of 1 of the 10 Gates in his kingdom, right when the book all about the gates was being written, so only nine were mentioned, and 1666 was a cold year so to try and keep warm he showered in gasoline then set light to himself, turned out it was a little bit too hot, and unfortunately he melted like a massive candle, which ironically made the king move revealing the tenth gate which turned out to be a window after all. I highly recommended it, as It's my favourite book about gates.
Don't do what I did though, and accidently order... The Book of windows 10 by Bill Gates, it's not about gates or even real windows with those transparent viewing panels they have installed, non of that good stuff, anyway hope you enjoy it, i'm off to have a petrol shower.
Mysticism from 1666 (the year and number has like we know numerology-religious meanings) was based on the same as the nine semidivine realms of the Yggdrasil of norse mythology of the vikings and ancient baltic/nordic goths. That is, all that and the kabbalah came from the same source. It is basically gotten from the old jewish hasidic tree of life.
Fascinating! But...what do the letters say on the edge of that table??? ..."truth?"
Okay - That's fairly fascinating. That's the first time I have heard of this "constructor theory"..
After hearing her talk about how there's problems between standard particle physics and quantum physics, it certainly makes one wonder why they haven't been trying to concentrate on that tension between the two models and trying to find some way to unify them and tie them together. Fascinating video!
Thanks for this!!
As long as these theories are working to provide applications in the real world independently, they can be applied and would be used.
I think you mean, *Quantum Physics and General Relativity there, because she was talking about the Unification of the theories that explain the Microscopic world and the macroscopic world. These theories together give rise to the proposed, 'Grand Unified Theory' which combines and explains all the Fundamental Physical forces together.
Usually, we didn't have had the need to combine both laws but along the lines, Quantum Computers would need this unification.
Btw, General Relativity and Newton's Gravitation laws work on entirely different principles, but they still provide the same result to any of the calculations. The only thing that changed was how those equations translate but they still provide the same result.
We blow rockets into the space and to the moon using Newton's calculations to this day since they are mathematically easier unlike Newton's and provide the same approximate result. Most scientists don't like dealing with General Relativity Principles when applying gravitation laws to the physical world.
they are scammers
*sees video*
"hell yeah, sounds interesting!"
*finishes video*
"ummmm...yeah...wha-"
I managed to understand this but am curious where it's headed. I wonder if there's more on this available online.
There's a link to an article in Quanta - should be able to find out more information from that. I'm watching this during lunch and just skimmed through it.
On google, "constructor theory," between quotes, gives 9500 results.
Interesting! I checked the wikipedia article for a little more information on constructor theory, just to help me to understand. This sounds really fascinating!
synergistic theory by Mexican p.h of UNAM. Jacobo Grenberg
So did I. After delving into it, i cant say i'm a fan of the theory. If "current theories of physics based on quantum mechanics do not adequately explain why some transformations between states of being are possible and some are not" then this theory doesn't solve that at all. "A task is only possible if a constructor capable of carrying it out exists, otherwise it is impossible.' We would require knowing all possible constructors to prove this theory true, and that is.... improbable. It should be called possibility theory, but that is essentially quantum mechanics. They just added a layer on top which says we believe this is impossible, and believing and knowing are two separate things.
@@D4narchy One might as well say,, "whatever happens happens. Whatever doesn't doesn't."
I agree that in order to resolve yet to be discovered phenomena like quantum gravity or the accelerating expansion of spacetime there has to be a new approach.
A good start would be to throw out concepts like "infinity", "singularity" or "nothingness" out of physics for good and to replace them with models which are logically sound.
"Quantum theory and general Relativity don't jive with each other so we're trying to come up with a unified theory".
....."What do you have so far"?
...."Nuthin".
Once you figure it out you can apply duality to carve out new inroads toward greater understanding of spooky Obstructor theory.
Spooky obstruction at a distance.
She’s has some interesting perspectives on things. I’ll consider getting her book.
What book?🤣Did you even watch the video!
@@colors6692 wow, didn’t chiara (the person in this video) author a book recently? Could it be called?
The Science of Can and Can't: A Physicist's Journey through the Land of Counterfactuals
Is this marketing for her book? Or are you just stupid, pretty sure your stupid. Hahaha moron, I do more then watch videos....it’s called reading.
@UCUHEmZRwCQXtfADnFoZYadQ There is no such book! I have also reported you for verbally insulting me!!
@@colors6692 its ok. you made yourself look like the fool
@@accelerator5524 Why is it Ok? Muppet!!
I'm sorry did I miss the part about the Theory That Could Rewrite the Laws of Physics!
Money talks, bullshit walks. This video is the BS part.
@Chiara .. @2:59 ...conservation isn’t preservation.
As Constructor theory seeks to speak to the original derivation/etymology of the terms, I just wanted to point out the error of that term is all.
Can someone explain the writing on the rim of the table and the carvings on the tree?
She talked a lot, but really didn’t explain anything. There has been claims before of someone finding a better way of explaining reality. Good luck with that.
kinda of the point she was making lol
She'll run afoul of the problem of induction; kinda sounds like she already has. She claims constructor theory will uncover general principles that can then be weaved into a new more comprehensive theory. The problem is that she'll need to explain how those fundamental principles mutually support eachother and why. Maybe she can.
Who cares? She’s a total Fox!!!🦊
It isn’t surprising that mainstream theoretical physics goes from a theory that works based on probabilities so that it cannot ever be wrong, to another which also works towards not being able to be wrong. Cushioning of the ego has become more important than productive physics.
Humans in general love things that create a sense of familiarity and certainty. Everything we do is an attempt at avoiding the unknown.
She's one of my favorite physicists. Very cool
Sheldon Cooper is my favorite.
@@steveblixt9437 ya, he's in my top 5. I'm looking forward to his contribution to the dark matter problem after switching from ST.
This concept seems to be to define boundary conditions between OK and IMPOSSIBLE. It seems to me a kind of Holographic Universe concept where you define the edges of these OK/IMPOSSIBLE regions to develop an understanding of what is inside each region, where many different regions using different laws overlap to create regions of OK results for any study. In fact, it seems to me that defining such boundaries can be done directly from experiment without any mathematical law being created until AFTER these boundaries are defined.
they are scammers
So correct me if I'm wrong but is her description of the basics of constructor theory similar to Sherlock Holms' statement, "Once you eliminate the impossible, everything else, however improbable, is possible?"
omg, I want this book, and Chiara is also pretty fascinating
Hitting physics from an axiomatic pov damn this lady really going full pure mathematics on our asses
From what I understand it sounds like logic applied to first principles.
Such is mathematical physics...
What are you talking about? This is how theoretical physics has always worked. Axioms have always been core to it. Even Einstein explained things in them
@@teacul Yes and no. Yes because mathematics is already built upon axioms, and that mathematics is used in analytical mechanics (dynamical equations + initial conditions). No because she literally said that CT constructs its OWN axiomatic statements, which must be different from the axioms in mathematics. If they weren't then she'd just rewrite a framework that is tautological with analytical mechanics
@@MarioRossi-kv5py I have a math degree. I think you're a bit confused. Mathematics isn't a single set of axioms. There have been various attempts to create a single set of axioms for all of mathematics, but they've failed and we kinda actually got a proof that says it's impossible to have a single set of axioms for all of math. Instead, there have been many different sets of axioms proposed as a basis for different fields of math. Some are more helpful than others, but none are more "correct" than others. In Physics, there's been various attempts to do the same. What people don't seem realize is that math and physics are just abstractions of observations of natural laws that we then later try (and often fail) to axiomatize
My first impression is that constructor theory is Stephen Wolfram's ideas (as detailed in his book 'A New Kind of Science') about treating the whole of physics as a collection of computational systems but looked at from a different perspective. Feel free, everybody, to shoot me down in flames if I'm wrong.
Wolframs idea was interesting, but he really didn't go about it the right way, and his cellular automata just didnt yield much of interest compared to group symetry or other leading edge math techniques.
I honestly have no idea what the woman in this article is proposing other than some vaguelly interesgting philosophy.
@@shayneoneill1506 I actually think you are completely wrong. Wolframs Theory is truly the real ToE and is able to unite all physics (QM and GR), all mathematics, and even the things physics ignores like “why do fractals exist” and complex systems…with just a single phrase: “reality is a computation.”
Constructor Theory seems representative of Wolframs Ruliad: the space of all possible rules, languages or axiom systems.
Who wrote the MUSIC in this? It's wonderful. Thanks for sharing.
On the shallower side of reality, I absolutely love her hair! It forces me to be drawn in to her eyes when she speaks and to listen more intently.
I am intrigued. Constructor theory immediately reminded me of mathematical axioms.
As an aspiring physicist, this field is of incredible relevance and interest. I'm hoping to learn more about the holographic principle (without string theory) and information (so topics such as the Bekenstein bound).
But I agree with Dr. Marletto: the physical descriptions of information and entropy I've found appear very imprecise. Constructor theory may offer a more concrete description within my lifetime and career, which I look forward to.
Thanks for sharing this interview, Quanta. Right on point.
From the transcript, with line numbers (it's double-spaced, so the numbers go up by 2 per line):
01:10 the deepest question is whether it's
01:12 possible to find
01:14 a more fundamental mode of explanation
01:16 for physical reality than the one we
01:17 already have
So they're asking a question; they don't have the answer but they're working on it.
Who isn't? And when was anybody not?
From this transcript excerpt and even the entire interview snippet in the video, so far there's only a question.
That's not a theory.
And even if they answered the question as posed, "is it possible to find ... an explanation?"
the answer would only be Yes, or No.
Neither of those is a theory either.
Sounds like it's quite early, and the conversation is ahead of the thinking.
Maybe.
Why did you actually go through the trouble of getting the timestamps on each sentence rather than just pointing out the initial 1:10 timestamp, though?
To be fair, they probably have some resemblance of an answer, they just didn't explain it in this video, which is a bit of a bummer
She stated the meat of the theory at around 2:34.
It's a fairly simple worded theory, and I believe it is because of this that it may be both overlooked, as well as disregarded.
@@carlosmspk One has to wonder about somebody who questions a self-explanatory courtesy explanation. And NO, they've got nothing. If they had it, you'd have heard it ringing off the rooftops.
@@asc_missions3080 Sorry, my English is not at such a level that I can understand what a "self-explanatory courtesy explanation" is. But I'll take your word for it, if you've done your research on her's, you're already more informed than me
@@carlosmspk It just means I was trying to be helpful to people who might be new to these communications.
She speaks the best English I ever heard from an Italian. However, I didn't understand much of what she said.
I think you may not have an ear for accents.
@@Puddlef1sh I think after living in the UK for twelve years and having had dozens of Italian friends while living there, I have the Italian/English accent pretty well figured out.
We think therefore we are? Travel without moving is the answer to navigating the universe, (you don't go to it, you bring it to you) I haven't worked out how to do it quite yet.
4:57 what is that with the blinking lights?
Glossy, vacuous, multimedia marketing without a single compelling result included. Wow.
"Premature Physics" may be a better title.
no way! i’ve been working on a similar theory. although i am only 20 yrs old and am still at uni. but hopefully sometime i get to discuss with her about my work!
I admire your enthusiasm and desire for wisdom and discoveries. I will highly recommend you the new book, which is able to explain all the fundamentals within the boundary of the Law of Physics - something which nobody else has done to present day - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@valentinmalinov8424 Thank you! It is my passion in life. That sounds like an excellent read. Is it by Stephen Hawking?
@@NoRealRain Thank you, it means a lot!
@@dancingdoungnut No, Stephen Hawking didn't produce "TOE". "TOE" has to explain all fundamental elements, all fundamental forces, including Gravity, and the correct atomic structure. "TOE" must unify Quantum Mechanics and Newtonian Physics. This book answers all these questions with facts. The author is your current correspondent.
@@valentinmalinov8424 I meant the book, not the actual theory of everything
An intelligent physicist peeking into the un-chartered territories in fundamentals of the universe, possessing a book from Harry Potter's realm. my mind is so confused what to do with the concept.
she is just a megalomaniac with no brain
Some specifics would be nice. How do you go about determining what is possible and what not? Are we not in probabilistic universe, where anything is possible, if you have enough time to wait for it to happen? Burns my brain. Need to know more.
Of course this is a powerful method. It allows one to posit what is impossible and derive things from those assumptions. But how can one know that anything or class of things is impossible? BTW, is this method related to Bejan's constructal law?
I’m the one that carved the word F*CK into the edge of the table.
Inspiring and beautiful. I am starting a notebook immediately.
Only thing I understood from this video that you guys shifted from how is it possible to why is it impossible right?
nice
no
Of what i understood about this video it's that constructor theory its one that unifies relativity with quantum theory in a way of explaining some laboratory events that exist, and contradicts each other (relativity and quantum). Something its missing, we do not have the complete picture and a new way of thinking is needed. A way of doing this, is to construct/create a theory in parameters of what is impossible and what is possible. Am I right?
What is the 'real' difference between you and 'empty' space? Is Space itself the commonality of macro physics and quantum mechanics? Is it space itself that should be looked at as the parallel between the two fields?
OK OK OK, but is she going to return that book to the Hogwarts library? because Dumbledore wants it back.
I totally understand everything you said 👁👁
In simple she said Physics of the 'small' (Quantum Mechanics) and the 'big' (General Relativity) do not scientifically agree with each other...
@@infiniteuniverses7479 yeah..... and.
@@danielperfiloff9142 That's all she wrote.
For some reason, when one pronounces it “Feeziks” I give them more credibility.
😄😆
And sounds sexer than maths! lol
@@bcarnett5930 weird fetish but ok
Ah ha!! I do believe you may have broken through to a new paradigm of understanding, at least for club heads such as myself! Brilliant! And now, if I could understand where things might progress from here.... if only I could figure out where 'here' is ...in a 'feezikal' sense, of course....
wich kind of notebook is that? leather and recicled paper?
I'm really curious, does anyone have any idea what book is on the table in front her? Or is it even a book?
My eyes aren't so good anymore.
Very cool to know some brave physicists are looking into this.
Reminds me of the book "Collapse of Chaos", by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen. Rather than constructors, they refer to attractors. It's a really interesting concept for looking at physics in a new way.
For those second guessing this, give Collapse of Chaos a read.
they are scammers
Reminds me of the Hermetic approach. Thoth style. Very nice
I hate to say this, but your background soundtrack is really an annoyance as it interferes with the speaker's dialogue. Her accented English requires some concentration - and you haven't provided any closed captioned or subtitling. Sounds like an interesting subject, but I'll cut this video short and look for other sources on Constructor theory.
Why don't you aim for a shortcut? Just go directly to the final. There is a new book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Her Sandwich Constructor Theory is to die for.
The moment you mentioned "what is forbidden" I remembered Counterpoint. Counterpoint kinda works the same way: Every mix of notes is ok, the forbidden exceptions are .
sounds hype to me, every year we have an x number of proposals for the theory of everything, that explain more or less the same number of events than the current model
So... you want a theory of everything that doesn't include everything? LOL smart 🤣
You can tell she is serious about her work because of her leather-bound rough paged edged old-timey looking journal
I can hardly wait for a translation of this from my favorite cousin, Heidi Hausenfrauer!
Do you mean Sabine Hossenfelder?
I imagine that she would listen to this and say it sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook designed to chase after research money.
To me it sounds more like ideas to incorporate into the programming of an "expert system" to help researchers eliminate dead ends in scientific inquiries faster. Nothing about it sounds like an alternative theory to the "theory of everything" or the "grand unified theory".
Do you think Hitler would have been more realistic if he wasn't so effeminate and had a better excuse than "shopkeeper nation" for leaving his rear end wide open?
Any details please?
I love her leather bound book, does anyone know where to get one like it?
Amazon. Just do a search for "journal." It will be on the first page.
Is it just me or does it sound like Constructed Theory isn't a theory at all? It doesn't try to explain a specific phenomenon, it's just a change in methodological approach that outlines what is and isn't possible (and how is that different to a law of physics anyway).
it is VERY different. from what I understand, it's essentially the opposite of how we do things currently. we generally start with some physical observations and then try to come up with explanations for them. for example, we see objects fall to earth so we come with gravity.
sometimes, we do the opposite where there is a big leap in theoretical physics and it takes practical theorists a long time to demonstrate real-life proof of the concepts. for example, exotic theories like string theory, supersymmetry, etc would currently fall into this category for now as we don't have good physical evidence for them yet.
what she describes seems to be more like how geometry works where u start with certain core ideas and then try to explain how everything broader than that works based on those fundamental ideas/constraints.
that's at least what I got out of this.
@@REIwAlexY I don't have an opinion on the subject, but according to some theorists who do, string theory has so far been just a form of mathematical self-titillation. Actually, I believe they use the "m" word, known more politely as unproductive or a dead-end.
It sounds kind of hypey and not that significant to me. Basically trying to figure out theoretical possibilities and impossibilities that apply in a broader manner, "holistic" laws rather than only "reducionist" ones, or reducionist constraints on a given "system." Not necessarily useless or anything, maybe it can result in some interesting or fundamentally important findings, analog to saying that a perpetual motion machine is impossible but for more things.
But one article I've read on another magazine was basically 99% fluff around how some physicist was wrong in saying that the laws of physics must somehow have a propensity to producing biological adaptations, which the article says is a profound mistake, and then basically tries to explain in a constructor-theory framework how the fundamental laws themselves don't need to have anything to do with biological adaptation for it to evolve. Which should be sort of obvious and more clearly explained by the most cursory, high-school-level explanation of natural selection.
Perhaps the closest thing to some kind of contribution of this "phrasing" approach was to "explaining" the origin of life itself, speaking of the process of abiogenesis as nothing but a long process of "natural selection" that in the end more fundamentally needs "information" and energy, things that exist in physics in general, not only at the biological level of organization.
But again, somewhere else I once read or heard a less pretentious-sounding and clearer "borrowing" of natural selection to help explain the origin of life itself, phrasing instead that in a pre-biotic environment generating "not-quite replicators" those who came closer to being "almost" replicators also had an inherent "semi-reproductive" advantage, producing more things that are closer to achieving "full" replication, that would eventually be "self-sustained." I like this line of phrasing more than one with things like "information," "recipe," which to me sound almost "anthropomorphic," and ideally avoided in this topic specifically, even if the notion of "laws of information" is ultimately useful.
Perhaps "information" here specifically is ideally rephrased in some way that conveys more of a "random" and natural origin for it (including natural filters or selection), for the "quantification of physical properties," instead of phrasings that inherently convey an "intelligent" origin of it. But not only "constructor theory" sticks with using "information" but speaks of "recipes" and even "knowledge." I'm sure creationists will be delighted to exploit the potential of this kind of phrasing to suggest that "the most advanced theoretical physics, promising to unify quantum mechanics and special relativity, make clear that the universe and life requires the Knowledge of an Intelligent Constructor with his Recipes containing Information in order to be adequately explained, rather than pure randomness."
Apparently some people on the comments even bring up aspects of "artificial intelligence" and "computational physics," which are also likely to be turned into something like, "obviously, the computation of the universe is nothing but the mind of God, with an intelligence that's not artificial, but miraculous. Finally physics has catch up with the bible."
I don't believe, that attempt to change the Law of Physics is a wise idea. There is a new book, which within the boundary of the Law of Physics is explaining the entire Universe - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Getting her and Eric Weinstein in a room together would bring a very interesting conversation to the internet
Not really. His "theory" has very little if any credibility at all.
@@Upstreamprovider aw damn :/
@@Upstreamprovider what do you think about this theory?
I have a feeling they’d frustrate each other by constantly using the same words to mean different things. But it would be fascinating to watch. I’d prefer it as a Portal interview, I think. If they were co-interviewees, it could be a train wreck.
accurately predict something that the current models cannot
and then we can talk
What's with writing on parchment?
Wow. Fantastic stuff. Very exciting.
This is the extreme edge of physics where it becomes a lot like philosophy, and I like this because I am way better at philosophy than I am at calculus.
Bro I swear if physicists like this were to smoke dmt every now and then we'd already have spaceships that run on gravity
Surely how it works because a pothead figured :D Nah dude, I doubt it's that simple.
You have to be on recreational drugs to believe that recreational drugs will endow you with super powers.
@@johnkeck They are medicine that are abused recreationally (entheogen) but they will absolutely enhance/redefine your perspectives and a lot more scientists could benefit.
@@victoryvillain1471 I believe you when you say they will redefine your perspective.
Some of them already do. Psychedelics can open up perspectives, but we're still bound by human capacity.
I wish this video had offered auto-subtitles in English. The combination of the sound quality, her voice, and her accent made it difficult and occasionally impossible for me to understand what she was saying. This is not meant as a personal criticism, but as a suggestion for this video and future videos. Achieving good sound quality can be challenging, especially outdoors; everyone's voice and accent are different; and everyone's ability to understand speech over the range of possible voice qualities and accents vary. I hope the creators of these videos will look into this. Thank you.
Seconded.
Me too
Me Too
Auto-subtitles seem to be available now
switch onthe captions.
She is working on one of the concept of thermodynamics. Its a very deep topic about entropy .
This made sense to me. What she is working on is an approach to physics and how the world works that is different from the approach we've had for the past, what, 2,500 years. It's clear that the approach we've always had has got us to this point, and that's great, but now we're stuck with two theories that clash and seemingly no common ground, and no apparent way forward. The natural thing to do then is to turn the "object" so you have a different aspect and can look at it in a different way, from a different angle.
Saying this differently, our traditional approach to understanding physics and how the world works has stopped working. What we know doesn't explain everything that we see, and we aren't asking the right questions. Change the point of view, change the approach, and the hope is that that new questions will appear that we don't know to ask today.
Hey John Wilson, good point! There is a line in 'The Last Samurai': "A perfect blossom is a rare thing. You could spend your whole life looking for one, and it would not be a wasted life". As long as you do something that has purpose, you are not wasting your life!
This quote is about as vague as the video. What purpose is found in looking for a perfect blossom? "I've not wasted my life", said every wanker looking for that perfect wank.
My goodness, her intelligence and curly hair are making my heart beat a little faster. Brilliant and gorgeous is a magnificent combination.
Creep
Hmm. keep up the good spirits!.
But it could be more useful if it was more informative.
She didn't really say anything. Could have gone in to more detail.
@@VikingTeddy She explained the foundations of Constructor Theory tho, if you want to know more there is always google, with her peer-reviewed research papers
@@MarioRossi-kv5py I'm not smart enough to read research papers, that's why I watch RUclips videos :)
@@VikingTeddy That's fine, you should try that sometimes, just for the gist of it. You may find it enjoyable
We do need better theories, I cringe every time a physicist says they absolutely know something is true or not true...
you do not know physicist, or you misunderstand them, if you say that. The fundamental approach of every physicist, and in general of every scientist, is "we do not really know what is true and it is ok because it does not really matter, but we care how we model the reality, and we continuously put our models at try"
@@giuseppep.1854 Yes, this is how it should be and it is how we speak about theory, however, rarely do we allow our baseline assumptions to be challenged in this way. Many of those baseline assumptions coming from our sensory perception of reality which are forged by evolution and can mislead. However, the mind which itself is a product of evolution has a way of shielding us from our baseline assumptions and because most scientists identify with their minds, the result is this kind of bias. I hope this clarifies my statement.
I have a working understanding of quantum physics and mathematics.
I wasn’t able to take anything away from this video.
Something like Occam's Razor? determine what is impossible, to get a better picture of what is possible? Considering Quantum Physics, that's sounds like a pretty tall order
First thing that comes to my mind after seeing is "Issac Newton!"
Its time to move on buddy!
But it will take alot of time
Me watching the video : I understood...
Me after 5 mins : did I ⁉️ 🤔
Very interesting, and reflects my own perspective. Traditional physical theories have served us well and continue to do so, in the context of life on our planet Earth and in our Solar System, but considering the more extreme context of the Milky Way, and the wider Universe, do our traditional tried and tested theories still apply? and I very much doubt that they do universally. I always say to my students that we don't know what we don't know, and in my mind that's where quantum theory steps in, to help us understand physical existence on a more pluralistic level.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons.
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
At 2:25 we hear "A universe where everything is allowed is not as interesting as one where [some things are not allowed]", but I intuitively disagree - because the latter can be embedded in the former, and not vice-versa.
When the camera panned around that piece of equipment at the beginning all I heard in my head was
*"...No Mr Bond, I expect you to die..."*