These Experiments Could Prove Einstein Wrong
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- Check out the math & physics courses that I mentioned (many of which are free!) and support this channel by going to brilliant.org/Sabine/ where you can create your Brilliant account. The first 200 will get 20% off the annual premium subscription.
Einstein’s theory of general relativity has made countless correct predictions and yet physicists are constantly trying to prove it wrong. Why? What would it be good for to prove Einstein wrong? And how could it be done? In this video I go through the most promising experiments that physicists currently work on which could prove Einstein wrong.
You can support me on Patreon: / sabine
The new constraints from gamma ray bursts:
arxiv.org/abs/2109.07850
The new Afshordi paper on black hole echoes
arxiv.org/abs/2201.00047
Aspelmeyer et al's quest for massive superpositions
www.nature.com/articles/s4158...
Using entanglement to look for quantum gravity
journals.aps.org/pra/abstract...
Adelberger et al's most precise measurement of the one-over-R-squared law journals.aps.org/prl/abstract...
Test of the equivalence principle with different Rubidium atoms:
journals.aps.org/prl/abstract...
0:00 Intro
0:22 Why might Einstein have been wrong?
3:10 Experiment 1: Speed of light
5:08 Experiment 2: Speed of gravitational waves
6:27 Experiment 3: Black hole echoes
9:16 Experiment 4: Superpositions of masses
10:39 Experiment 5: 1 over R-squared law
11:40 Experiment 6: Equivalence principle
12:40 What would it be good for?
13:40 Sponsor message - Věda a technologie
![[Vowel]물고기는 물에서 살아야 해🐟🤣Fish have to live in the water #funny](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3G9MH063Cx4/mqdefault.jpg)
Well to be fair, Einstein knew his theory of GR was incomplete because he spent the last 30 years of his life trying to find a theory that combined it with electromagnetism, so proving GR wrong would still just be proving Einstein right.
Exactly, his work isn't wrong; just unfinished.
@@zacharycarrier2890 It might even just simply be correct and complete. Quantum Gravity is popular with scientists because most of them want a grand unified theory including gravity. But I think, Gravity simply is not a force, only the result of spacetime curvature. This universe is not complicated, but simple and elegant. And absolutely beautiful, if I may add.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 there are several reasons why people want it, physicists want a theory of quantum gravity because we still dont know what happens at the center of blackholes, a theory of quantum gravity would help because at centers of blackholes gravity would act on very short distances like between elementary particles, and QFT can't describe it. Another reason is that during the big bang, like the very moment of big bang quantum gravity effects (im not sure about the details) had to have taken place and QFT can't really explain it. another reason is that one of the best theoretical frameworks ever in physics describes every force, every interaction and every particles properties to 10 or 15 decimal places like it so accurately describes everything but it just leaves out gravity? I'm sure there are more reasons but im not a physicist (yet! hopefully :D) also why would a bunch of the smartest folks on earth spend their entire lives on trying unite quantum mechanics with GR lol
@@zacharycarrier2890 I think cosmologists should focus more on the properties of spacetime. Maybe by probing spacetime itself (if at all possible) we can gain knowledge that can let us undeniably conclude what the true nature of gravity is. Is it an emerging property caused by warping of space plus time, or is it a quantum field?
"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" Wolfgang Ernst Pauli
OK, so they managed to measure specific gravity at a scale of 52 micrometers? That, in itself, is worthy of applause.
With a coupling strength 10 ^ 36 times weaker than the electromagnetic force, that is indeed an accomplishment on par with the sensitivity of LIGO. Maybe they used a LIGO derived technology to accomplish this, but that is just a guess, nothing more.
I think is was an amazing accomplishment.
that's all good and well, but it's at the large scale that things tend to go a bit pear shaped, like the fact that gravity as we understand it, doesn't behave well on the outer portions of galaxies, so to make up for that discrepancy, what do they do ? they invent some hidden mass to account for the problem, they call it dark matter, and it's a complete sham, the theory is the problem, the math, you modify your formula to fit the data, you don't invent more mass that simply isn't there !
@@psycronizer That's not what dark matter is, we simply don't know what it is, and that's the name we've given to it. It being just more mass is just one of the many hypothesis
57
Superb, as usual! Thanks for explaining the logic behind experimental results, what they prove, what they fail to prove, and why they encourage further work in the same direction. This is a great source once again..
Now explain why you knew this and still enslaved another human being and we'll be on the same page, heathen
This was a really interesting video. I have no background in physics, but the presentation is so well done, and evidence so clearly explained, it is easy enough to follow for someone like myself. Thx for sharing.
SEE 😂
I prefer the phrase 'Einstein's theory of relativity is incomplete' because it obviously is an accurate way to work with gravity on the macroscopic scale.
Using "wrong" in the title gets more views.
Then we might as well relabel most wrong theories as "incomplete"
But the distinction is meaningless, they both mean the theory makes falsifiable predictions. Nothing more, nothing less.
Is Newton's theory of gravity "incomplete"? No, it's wrong. Still useful, because at Earth-size level it allows for easy calculation of everyday measures that don't require greater accuracy. But still wrong on it's basic tenets. Probably the same is going to happen to Einstein's theory.
@@lorenam8028 As others have brought up in the comments section of this video, Einstein actually scoped his theory on the premise that it emerged from whatever quantum mechanics found the root cause to be. He assumed personally that this would come from a common root between electromagnetism, electroweak, i forget which was going on in Einstein's refinement days.
In order for him to be wrong, which is not impossible, there would have to be a specific claim that he made in the theory that proved to be false. I just don't see that as likely given the unassuming approach he took.
@@kiraPh1234k exactly, what in Einstein's theory falsifiable? By the time he died, he assumed that gravity emerged from a more fundamental root shared with the other forces, such as electromagnetism. His theory explicitly only talks about objects large enough to exabit gravitational behaviors, and would only be found incorrect if objects that exabit gravitational behaviors other than he describes are found.
Cool video. I think it would be more accurate to say the theory might be incomplete. Example, we still learn Newton’s laws, even though we know they are incomplete. Why? Because if you want to know how far a child’s rocket is going to go, using Einstein’s theories doesn’t mean you’re smart, it means you might be a masochist.
Einstein’s theory is only wrong if it’s replacement is simpler, easier to understand, or easier to apply for all useful circumstances. Engineering perspectives. Lol
I agree. For a “wrong” theory, GR has endured a long time and explains a lot of observations. In other words, it perfectly good within its domain of applicability, as are Newton’s 3 laws of motion. Einstein was wrong to assume the value of the cosmological constant Λ, but that is a parameter of the field equations that needs to be determined by the boundary conditions. At the time, no one knew that the universe was expending. GR was not wrong.
Right, they each work in their respective domain. If we get a theory of quantum gravity it will only expand on Einstein and we will still apply his ideas but to places where a quantum gravity theory is unnecessary.
Exactly! Every time she says "wrong" it feels like the clickbait title (which I can forgive) is being repeated.
"If you want to know how far a child’s rocket is going to go, using Einstein’s theories doesn’t mean you’re smart, it means you might be a masochist."
Brilliant! I'm adding this to my quote collection.
I prefer to use the word incomplete. It's not wrong, it is an approximation.
One thing I appreciate a lot about Sabine's videos is that she mentions so many scientists from all over the world. Most English language videos on science give the impression that 99% of research is carried out either in the USA or UK. I belive there is no malice in this: of course youtubers in America are much more exposed to press releases from their own country, but still...
Wait...other people around the world do science?! 🤯
@@cxa011500 -- No, we only do science here in America and in England and in some parts of Hong Kong. Remember that you heard this here on the internet which means it has to be right!!
@@fizzy4149 no no no , I’m here today as a representative of the internets to tell you all that only Europe , America and Japan do sciences. Everyone is else just pretends to do science .
its called ignorance especially when you consider mathematics, physics in Germany ...
It is true however that both USA and UK feel superior and their theories are portrayed as more popular and gain more funding.
Great video. I am totally clueless about physics or the mathematics involved with it, but love listening to physicists and conceptualists who discuss the subject. I guess it's because they take me places that I don't experience in my daily life
VLCEK vs EINSTEIN, Exceptional experimental evidence, Critique of the basics contemporary physics
czcams.com/video/jAi7Wz18pUE/video.html
SEE 😂
@@JasonsMove
It's all made as an answer at the time trying hat nobody would question .
In today's times
All his theories have been proven wrong.
For 3 Decades he and other sphuedo scientists have been trying do hard to fabricate story fairytales that the earth is a aball and spinning
YOU CAN NEVER PROVE A LIE.
Progress in science is always by proving the old theories are wrong, or at least, incomplete.
Agree
Yup. I came to the conclusion that scientific theories are valid over a certain frame of time-space configuration.
Unless it’s THE science and it is verboten to question it.
We still use Newton's equations in many cases, because they are good enough for that use. IMHO, Einstein will never be proven *wrong*, but we certainly know that relativity is incomplete.
@@kevincummings1763 We can’t say never, all science is provisional. Einstein is not special here. We are all human and thus our knowledge is always incomplete. We will likely one day discover new aspects of reality that overthrow everything we think we know now.
The future is full of possibilities.
Trying to prove anything wrong is good because it advances science and it shows people are thinking outside the box. This is especially important as all sciences are in their infancy. GO science go !!!!!
Einsteen left us with flexible time and space. You cant do physics this way...cant measure anything.
@@dotanwolf5640 You can measure the curvatures.
@@dotanwolf5640 of course you can do physics in general manifolds, it is just more complicated.
@@dotanwolf5640 Time and space dont curve randomly.
The whole point of General relativity is to express how spacetime curves, according to the energy present - and how things move according to this curvature.
In case you haven't noticed, we haven't stopped doing physics since it has been discovered that time and space are flexible. On the contrary, it helped us to understand plenty of things.
science isn't about being wrong or right, that is subjective. Science is simply knowing what is true! For instance, you can cross the road at any time, and have done so may times, that is true. It is also true a car is more likely to stop before hitting you than a truck stopping you from reaching the other pavement. Having failed to cross the road it is true your passage was interrupted therefore using cross is an error since the criteria for crossing the road was not met.
Hi Sabine, Was wondering if Gravity waves also show the Doppler effect or is it just limited to photons? I love your stuff and look forward to new content.
G Waves should exhibit Doppler Effect and the formula describing the effect quantitatively should be (in nearly flat space-time) upto the first order of small quantities, same as that for Doppler effect for EM waves in vacuum & flat space-time.
3:02 it is so funny to me that quantization predicts its own demise in singularitie(s)! Looking forward to breaking down this concept as the video progresses & will be most likely watching it over again. Thanks for the video.
Einstein’s theory make so much sense that I wouldn’t be surprised if the real solution is that Quantum theory needs to be reformulated to fit general relativity.
Look into objective collapse theories, Penrose talks about how gravity does not need to to be quantized, but quantum mechanics needs to be gravitized.
was also wondering about this but i don't know much about quantum stuff.
We have to ask if general relativity and quantum mechanics themselves make sense to universe! Both have to be reformulated, even Einstein would agree!
It's not about one or the other having to be reformulated. Both theories are spectacularly successful at making predictions in their domains. If we have a new theory, it's not like the old theories suddenly stop working. Newton's laws still "work" at the level that they work, they just get more inaccurate as you get to larger scales of gravity. It'll be the same with Relativity and QM. They'll both keep working until they don't at some scale we haven't experienced yet, and then we'll have a new theory that absorbs them both. Note that the experiments that Sabine discusses are all at very difficult measurement scales.
Agreed. And ER=EPR conjectures are incredible advances along exactly your proposed direction. If ER bridges explain entanglement I bet they can also explain superposition, and then the only "quantum" postulate left that is unexplained by GR is particle phenomenology, but spacetime Clifford algebras can probably show non-trivial spacetime topology is endowed with the Standard Model symmetries (this weird, slightly mad, dude called Bernd Schmeikal has done some very primitive work on this), so right there you've got the three critical aspects of QM all explained in terms of GR (but with non-trivial topology, which implies closed timelike curves exist). CTCs are not a problem provided only elementary particles can traverse them, but that is quite likely the case, since only minimal ER bridges are gong to be stable (those that cannot Hawking evaporate). BTW, this explains superposition: if an elementary particle (degree of freedom in spacetime topology) can traverse a wormhole, then it can effectively be "in two places at once". Causal consistency over a cobordism takes care of conventional Hamiltonian time evolution causality. But you cannot get _exact_ (deterministic) Hamiltonian evolution in the presence of CTCs, it must be described probabilistically, and that yields a quantum logic, but all explained by GR + wormhole topology.
Note the employment of Hilbert spaces is _not_ "quantum mechanical". Hilbert space is what _any_ measurement theory will employ (in one way or another) even in classical mechanics. CM is however not a measurement theory, it employs a phase space description, since the uncertainty principle is trivial in CM. If you formulate CM as a measurement theory you would use a Hilbert space, but all the commutators would be arbitrarily close to zero, because Planck's constant in CM is phenomenological, you can make it as small as you like with good enough classical measurement devices (fantasy of course, but in principle that is how CM works to avoid HUP).
What if Quantum Theory isn’t totally correct as well. Then physicists would be trying to create a theory from two incomplete existing theories.
If QM remains as a theory that can be interpreted, then is that a sign it’s not complete as well?
QM is for sure incomplete. Incompleteness is the very nature of any scientific theory. Because for any theory that covers each detail you would have to know and measure everything first. And still there are many things out there that we don't even know of.
Science is all just theories. The important question is, who is observing science? If my perception is superior to other living creatures then I am God, if my perception is no different than them, then we are making up everything.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Isomorphism:- two differing or equivalent descriptions of the same "space" or state.
Homology is dual to co-homology.
Increasing the number of dimensions or states is an entropic process -- co-homology.
Decreasing the number of dimensions or states is a syntropic process -- homology.
Syntropy (homology) is dual to increasing entropy (co-homology) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
From a converging, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
All observers have a localized, focused, convex, finite or syntropic perspective.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
The Big Bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- Non null homotopic.
The Big Bang = a negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic.
Points (singularities) are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Duality creates reality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Classical is dual to quantum:-
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
@@johnscaramis2515 Wrongness*
What a genius this man was. He had no computers, no simulation-programs, no electronic devices, no internet. Just his brain…
and he had a good mathmatician.
And the brains of the giants on whose shoulders he stood.
@@amoramor105
Yes, his wife.
And that the funny thing is it is true !
Einstein was rejected at a swiss university because he failed all tests.
Please watch on CZcams: ... 100 Million Einstein Lies ...
Just so. William Thomson, whose researches got him a peerage as Lord Kelvin, announced that he could not account for the observed "horsepower" of the sun by any thermodynamics known.
He closed that essay by stating that there was no problem more worthy of a physicist's attention.
Madly enough, given the simple fact that the speed of light is known and finite, Einstein's pure "thought experiment" exploring the consequences of there being a maximum speed 'c' for all possible transmission of physical information, explained both the zero result of the Michelson-Morley experiment to measure our planet's speed in the "luminiferous aether" and the mechanism that could power the sun.
Concerning Redshift: We already know that the vacuum of space contains a quantity of red dust, which has been evident on many Solar System-transient asteroids, such as Oumuamua. The presence of that dust *may* be responsible for the observed Redshift, rather than any changes in distance between us and any observed galaxy. It would also account for increasing Redshift the farther you observe, as the greater the distance, the greater the amount of dust between us and the target.
Considering that the predictions of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and the Equivalence Principle were systematically confirmed, it is not correct to say that Einstein's theory is wrong. At most, we can say that it is incomplete. The correct quantum theory of gravity, whatever it may be, must necessarily result in the General Theory of Relativity within the classical limit.
Yeah but "Was Einstein Not Quite 100% Correct" is a boring video title.
Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological!
Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Isomorphism:- two differing or equivalent descriptions of the same "space" or state.
Homology is dual to co-homology.
Increasing the number of dimensions or states is an entropic process -- co-homology.
Decreasing the number of dimensions or states is a syntropic process -- homology.
Syntropy (homology) is dual to increasing entropy (co-homology) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
From a converging, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
All observers have a localized, focused, convex, finite or syntropic perspective.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
The Big Bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- Non null homotopic.
The Big Bang = a negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic.
Points (singularities) are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Duality creates reality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Classical is dual to quantum:-
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
explain why einsteinian crosses are blue
It would simply become Einstein's law of general relativity
And it would be continued to be used in 90% of the uses it is used today because it is simply good enough
@@Oberon4278 If is not 100% correct, is just wrong. 2+2=3.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999958 is still wrong!
Thanks Sabine for emphasizing the importance of always being willing to reflect and reconsider. This logic to seek more evidence to arrive at having knowledge that is inclusive of all situations needs to be practiced in all areas of living.
A bit long winded (sorry) but spot on.
Not exactly her style when talking to Closer to the Truth. Seemed very dismissive and arrogant to Kuhn.
I get the hint. And we all hope the disease of narcissism can be detected earlier.
It's a shame she doesn't reflect and reconsider her continued asking of closed questions in her titles and thumbnails. It is truly stupid, and violates Betteridge's law.
i would love a video in depth on gravitational waves! this is the first that ive heard that they are conclusively a wave and can be measured... i wanna know more of the specifics!
Nicely complex and easy listening without fogging the real issue of clarity progression, which is very difficult to achieve and still maintain interest. Thank-you.
Just came to say I think Noomi Rapace should play you in a biopic. Be a fascinating movie I'm sure.
Or maybe Renee Zellweger?
sabine versus predator vs aliens.😨
@@nsfeliz7825 I'd watch that. She'd have some spicy quips to take 'em out with.
I don't agree with the prevailing wisdom that general relativity has to go because of quantum mechanics. That seems to privilege quantum mechanics too much imo. They're both such fundamental pillars of physics that nevertheless are incompatible. I suspect that quantum mechanics and general relativity will both need to be modified in the end.
Or, gravity is truly not part of the fundamental forces but simply an emerging property of spacetime when it is warped. That is still a very good possibility, and to be honest, I think GR & QM will never be reconciled. And that would be perfectly OK, in my books. The trinity of fundamental gauge forces (or fields to be more precise) has a nice ring to it. And they have been neatly unified into a GUT. Also the massive difference in coupling strength between gravity and the gauge trinity is a big clue if you ask me.
Its because the big is made up of the small. So you know QM is great at the small but it needs modification to describe the big. GM won't be wrong, it'll just be what the quantum gravity equations reduce to in the classical limit. Like how Newtons equations come out of GM in the classical limit
@@rickymort135 I don't buy this dichotomy of small versus large. Quantum mechanics and general relativity, in principle, should both apply at all scales. There is nothing within either theory that screams, "I only work at certain scales." They appear to be equally fundamental to our understanding of the universe (and comparably successful in their domains of applicability), which is why I think they both will need modifications. The principles of quantum mechanics break down when applied to spacetime, and the principles of general relativity break down when applied to singularities, which we believe are quantum mechanical. That is why we need a new theory.
@@jmcsquared18 you don't realize but we're largely saying the same thing. I never said there was a dichotomy. Neither theory will be replaced instead there'll be new theory that reduces to QM equations in the quantum limit and GM equations in the classical limit. Just like GM produces Newtons equations in the classical limit
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 This is what I was thinking all the Time, our universe is so complex and we don't understand 95% of it
Had to review "Understanding Quantum Mechanics #3" to stay abreast of the subject. In fact, I review that one quite often so I clearly understand the salient points as they relate
to your latest videos. Thank you.
😂SEE WHAT I MEAN??
Great video! I believe that science is never settled, just what we experimentally proved or theorized at a point in time.
Sabine, once again you've presented a great video covering a burning question of fundamental physics.
I have one comment, somewhat of a nit really, about your statement that Einstein originally believed the universe was static. I believe his original equation showed a non-static universe, but because the universe was believed at that time to be static, he introduced a "fudge factor" called the cosmological constant to make it so. After Hubble showed the universe was expanding, Einstein took out this constant, and physicist George Gamow reported that Einstein once described the cosmological constant as “my biggest blunder.” To be fair, there is some disagreement about whether Einstein actually said that, but as you pointed out, after Hubble's discovery, everyone abandoned the static universe.
And yet, Einstein's cosmological constant was later shown to be associated with the energy density of space itself and the concept of dark energy.
Since I can't make heads or tails of the maths, I'm coming to favour the wild-eyed idea that as the universe expands, singularities get stretched out like 10+ dimensional Lichtenberg figures. Where the branches collide, there's a chance of creating new singularities, which allows the "stretching" and "collision" processes to repeat indefinitely.
@@Grizabeebles Probably we need to consider ideas from Julian Barbour - What is Time? to understand a ever changing universe within specific form
I still see a possibility that the universe might be static. It has been proven that optical cables absorb energy from photons as light passes through giving a smaller frequency. The same is possible for space since there is a lot of dust between galaxies.
@@martinsoos I don't see the connection. Can you elaborate, please?
@@timjohnson979 -- I don't know what SoosV is getting at, but if you think about photons as vibrating 1-dimensional strings being stretched as the universe expands, then wouldn't features of the vibrations such as frequency, amplitude and wavelength of a string that has to cross enormous distances be different compared to a string has has to cross vastly less distance?
It is already an observable fact that distant galaxies appear to be receding away faster than the speed of light. And that the vast majority of red-shifting in the light of galaxies is due to the universe itself expanding at an ever-accelerating rate already well in excess of the speed of light.
And what happens in the far, far future of an expanding universe once the path of a photon between its origin and termination points achieves lengths comparable to that of cosmic strings?
Could you do a video about Quantum Gravity vs. Gravitized Quanta? Gravitized Quanta is where quantum effects are modified by gravity rather than the other way around where gravitational effects are changed by quantum effects.
Nice video. Thank you and your team. In general, I explain the equivalence principle as a postulate/axiom (self-evident truth) considering gravitational mass equal to inertial mass. Secondly, Ernest Mach explained inertia as the interaction of one particle with the Universe around it. Therefore, in a Universe with a unique particle, there is no inertia. If Mach's idea is correct, does Einstein's general relativity theory follow Mach's principle?
Here are a bunch of ways that Einstein could be wrong...but each time we do it, it turns out he's not.
Fascinating topic, presented simply and undestandably as always. Best of all, Sabine always includes the "why this is important". Thank you!
Very interesting, thank you. Paradoxically, they applied the "minimun-coupling principle" by taking the symmetries of electromagnetism and generalized it by applying into mechanical system. The proto-qed ( a.k.a Maxwell's equations ) was the mathematical model used to create the SR mathematical foundation. Then they do physics and created GR. The irony is perhaps that the QED and the QCD will conciliate with G in the SR domain first, precicely by explaining the absence of g in the SR domain.
Even if Einstein was "wrong" the contribution of GR to science and understanding of the universe is essentially so ludicrously great it has thus far shown to be impossible to surpass. Also, even when the "new and improved" theory comes along, many will be using the current theory for a good long time in regimes where the quantum effects are not relevant.
Exactly. This looks like a bait title for science deniers, which are many, just to make views.
@@vincenzo7597 Or, for people that understand that there's no such thing as settled science. Science is about challenging constantly and to keep striving to learn more and explain the universe around us, large and small.
@cchavezjr7 I am not convinced, in fact I am of the belief that we are very close to the point where everything that could be discovered, has mostly been discovered, simply based on the statistical impact our population size has on discoveries. I mean if something has a 1% chance of happening it likely has happened about 70 million times. Now of course we don't live in a world of uniformity, so even if the chance of something occurring is only 1 of 7 billion, it likely will happen, and very few things have a chance lower then that to happen. And if it something purely related to science related, then in that case there is more the 8.8 million scientist in the world, thus anything that has a one in 8 million chance of happening is likely to happen, thus my conclusion is that we are very close to the limits of the unknown sciences in my opinion.
@@atlanciaza I doubt it honestly. We are such a tiny speck in a HUGE universe. It's actually unfathomable how large it is that we can't even process it in our minds.
I do believe we are on the verge of major breakthroughs and it seems we go in large jumps and they happen more frequently. I think the main thing we find is for something we finally learn, the more we learn there is we don't know at all.
@@atlanciaza Scientists said something similar over 100 years ago. I doubt we have discovered less than 1% of what is yet discoverable. Just look at what we've learned since Hubble. I hope I live long enough to learn about what the JWST will teach us.
Hi Sabine, I like so much your videos. About this in particular I have a question.
What about this work?. "Quantum States of Neutrons
in the Gravitational Field" of Claude Krantz (January 2006, available on the web).
If the orbits of neutrons in the gravitational field are quantized, it would be proof that Einstein's General Relativity is wrong?
Neutrons are inherently quantized. Gravity has nothing to do with that.
I wouldn't call it wrong, but limited or incomplete - we don't call Newton wrong, we even teach children that they can sum speeds. Latter, in high school and college, we say to same kids "listen, we told you that you can sum speeds, but that works only for low speed ..., we have more complete theory now and you are old enough to understand it".
Maybe the world will step beyond General Relativity to Applied Relativity. You can by dropping the circle below the electromagnetic force to control nuclear you've unified: g = G Me/r ^2(1e -/+ Ef/Eo) Ty Sir Isaac Newton. String Theory has no machine as Applied Relativity does. Drop the weight onto check valve Mechanical Equivalent of Heat in water as James Prescott Joule dropped the weight in air, you'll maunfacturable the Sir Isaac Newton Machine stated impossible in Print by Newton.
Thanks for all your content Sabine, it is distilled beauty. Please keep doing it forever :-D
It is crazy to think that there is a theory that holds up to any test.
As a programmer, I find this simply amazing. The reason why is, I could write a simple program and it would still have some edge case I never accounted for where it fails.
Well, actually, no theory holds up for any test...
non sense, we are just very poor in knowledge and technology to do any real examination and study.
That's because software is a man made system which is inherently flawed. We should be able to describe nature which is mechanical. We will not be able to define nature as long as we subscribe to theories that break the cardinal rules of science: 1) Infinity, nothing and eternity are concepts that can never be proven and are therefore not useful. We knew this over two thousand years ago.
2) If we use the concept of time for measurement purposes, it must be defined as a constant (Newton), just like we agree on the length of an inch or any other measurement.
Going astray of these axioms lead to outlandish theories like relativity. Remember, mathematics are abstractions of reality and it is all too easy for mathematicians lose sight of what is real amongst byzantine symbology and social circumstances.
I think I get where you're coming from (complexity), but ambiguity is not acceptable in science.
When you consider how well tested GR is, at best, it would be proven incomplete, which is where we've been at for some time.
This is a major communication problem physics has. Newtonian mechanics are called wrong, but are in fact just incomplete. Newtonian mechanics and GR agree perfectly in a certain range of parameters. We really should call it incomplete or limited range to avoid arguments about how science is always wrong so any crazy idea is valid.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Isomorphism:- two differing or equivalent descriptions of the same "space" or state.
Homology is dual to co-homology.
Increasing the number of dimensions or states is an entropic process -- co-homology.
Decreasing the number of dimensions or states is a syntropic process -- homology.
Syntropy (homology) is dual to increasing entropy (co-homology) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
From a converging, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
All observers have a localized, focused, convex, finite or syntropic perspective.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
The Big Bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- Non null homotopic.
The Big Bang = a negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic.
Points (singularities) are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Duality creates reality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Classical is dual to quantum:-
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
@@AxMi-24 Newton's theory just don't give the EXACT SAME RESULTS as GR, thus is wrong.
Stop with the religion please.
@@ThePowerLover They agree in a certain range of parameters. GR covers a wider range but if you don't need that wider range Newtonian mechanics are perfectly fine.
I think that General Relativity probably is not wrong, but certainly is incomplete and somewhat misunderstood. For example, it explains why we perceive things as we do, but not why things work as they do. Quantum Mechanics mostly does the opposite, or tries to do so, and basically the two theories do not speak to each other.
True! they're each valid within their respective context and therefore are: 1) invalid in each other's context and 2) cannot be valid free of context (or valid within a universal context, if you will) because no mathematical model can be constructed free of context.
Neither describes 'why', instead they describe "what and how".
Any ideas of Einstein were wrong, even some things in SR, like his dogma of the limit of the speed of light and the fabric of space and time. This fabric couldn't exist, because from Lorentz's relativity equations we know that when the time is stinging the space is dilated, and Vs/Vs.
@@user-dialectic-scietist1 Actually, the limit of the speed of light, if you take into account particle physics, in particular the rules of electromagnetic interaction, would explain time dilation and all the paradoxes, but also hint at the possibility that time may be absolute after all, time voyage could be impossible and spacetime may be only a mathematical construct.
When will these snobbish scientists start taking witnesses of the unexplained (paranormal) seriously? At least five people including myself saw an evil looking reddish/orange glowing beachball sized head with huge red eyes in the house I grew up in between the late 1960s and mid 1980s among many other strange things that happened there and in the community including numerous UFO sightings and bizarre animal deaths. What are they hiding?
I always get a shiver when Sabine pronounces Einstein...
One place we should really be looking deep into this is the link between the existence energy and matter in a specific place and How *exactly* it causes spatial distortion. I suspect once we understand that properly that it will disprove gravity all together (as it is classically described). Then we could move onto searching for the equations to more directly describe quantum spatial warping.
Basically all "gravity" has ever been described as is "the tendency of masses to move toward each other"
So there is frightfully little to be 'disproven" there.
The tendency to "explain" gravity by saying it is caused by "mass warping space", in fact does little to explain gravity.
One cannot toss a bowling ball on a trampoline and claim one has explained gravity in any significant way. (That exercise only demos that a medium may be warped, but little else). Employing gravity in an attempt to explain gravity is quite hilarious
A billion schoolkids think they understand gravity becauseof that demonstration, but 10,000 physicist know we do not really understand gravity much at all
Sabine , you are great
Thank you so much for your efforts 😄
😂 Ikr but at least it's something ☺️
Why isn’t the question, “Is quantum mechanics wrong?”
It is. Scientists are constantly trying to prove quantum mechanics wrong. It's just that a scientist only has so much brain and so much time to spend, so some scientists focus on GR, and some focus on the Standard Model of QM.
That requires rolling too many heads. In the challenge to relativity, there’s only one head to roll!
@@guyg.8529 why not neither?
@@josephslaviero Why not go to college and find out?
@@spaghettinoodle6734 Something that is incomplete, is not explanatory either. A wheel, does not a car make.
Science like life is to see what’s over the next hill,and if you come up with a solution that seems nobody had yet figured out though technical advances do help,but intuition also adds to this. Your sharp as ever. Thanks for everything.
"General Relativity basically predicts it's own demise." 3:03 Isn't that just another way of saying it's internally inconsistent?
I thought asking lots of questions was a good way to actively engage with these videos. 😸
Sabine, I'm not sure if it is appropriate to say a theory is wrong. That implies there are "right" theories, and as we all know, every scientific theory is "wrong" (incomplete) and perpetually waiting to be proven to be so.
What I'm trying to say, lay people will always misinterpret such a statement, when it is much more clear to say, that a theorie's limits of applicability have been found or hints of what a more complete modell will look like. Just because we found cases where the theory fails, does not suddenly make it useless, it still covers most cases with exquisite accuracy, in the case of general relativity, same goes for newtons laws.
Her whole concept is about trying to clear misinterpretations and hypes therefore so I see no problem there. Yes, everything we know is "wrong". But it doesn't matter. What matters is what our knowledge may work for.
I did watch wondering: where is the epistemiological boundary where we can go no further? We know some things as definately uncertain or unmeasurable or nonabsolute do we not? We also may have ways around it but what if we never get past this?
@@paulgoogol2652 It is exactly in light of what she is trying to achive, that I think my point is quite important. I think a good chunk of her target audience are lay people and telling them a Theory is wrong, without proper context, is certainly not in line with that.
@@jorgepeterbarton At this time i don't think there is any good answer to that. If you really think hard about epistemology in science, it is to certain degree very uncomfortably utalitarian. If a scientific theory is mathematically consistent, specific enough and has predicitive power, that is the best we can do and it seems worrying about what "really" is out there is meaningless / ill-defined. Maybe people in the future will find even more reliable ways of producing knowledge, but as you said, maybe this is the best "stumbling in the dark with a candle" kinda thing we will ever achive.
Thank you for bringing new ideas and learning to the world! I am only amateur, if that, but I wonder what James Webb Telescope could find using Einstein's theories as a stepping stone. What do you speculate from JWT's different modes of observation that could be discovered in relation to what you present here? I imagine they might discover new forms of energy we did not know of before for one (I think there are 13 so far, right?), and maybe prove or re-verify various quantum theories. That would be an interesting video too, JWT's potential influence on Einstein's theories. Are there functional quantum computers yet? I wonder too with AI, even with applications of mechanical AI combined with quantum computing what areas they could delve into with new eyes. It seems a few years ago radio astronomers discovered a repetitive signal that really excited them, and later it was discovered it was I think from gravitational waves, right? I suppose interviewing scientists would greatly increase the cost of your videos. That new radio telescope in China is amazing! Thanks again for the magnanimous work you are doing for the world.
The planet Mars is neither traveling in the future nor the past, light is instantaneous, you've been viewing the universe in real time. Either Einstein was an idiot savant, just plain stupid or a confidence man that made his living swindling his subjects. I for one believe the latter is true. Special Relativity is Einstein's Biggest Blunder! First Principles Persp... czcams.com/video/CcnyiLFqL-Q/video.html via @CZcams
Please watch on CZcams: ... 100 Million Einstein Lies ...
Okay, here's what we need to do. I like this video. We need to see if gravitational waves can escape or not from black holes, and also we need to convert light into gravitational waves. And, this should be done with neutrinos, which we will figure out, after doing the math, but dark matter is still an interest, and wonder, that feeling in our consciousness is disentanglement, and also we need to have the next mechanics, not of probability, like quantum mechanics, but something like classical but better. Thanks again, Sabine H..
Great video Sabine!
May I please request a video that explains asymptotic safety in gravity to the layperson?
I've read as much as I can about it, yet I STILL can't explain what 'asymptotic' means, what non-perturbative renormalizability means, what exactly quantization is, what exactly quantum scale invariance and ultraviolet completion is, what non-gaussion/reuter fixed points etc all are. I basically don't understand any of the terms you need to understand it! lol
So it goes without saying that I also don't understand how it solves the problem between GR and quantum gravity, yet the fact that it correctly predicted the mass of the Higgs boson has me incredibly interested in it, especially combined with my own thoughts that there seems to be a problem with scale.
i don't think many people want einstein (yes, him again) want him to be wrong, but i think he has to be if we're to progress in quantum physics. as always, great talk.
nooo - we all hope einstein is wrong -- why --- Faster than light travel possibility hope
@@tonyug113 Frankly I'd be excited at anything remotely approaching light-speed.
Quantum physics is "wrong" because it does not incorporate elastic space-time. The problem is in QM, not in GR.
The first thing I thought in college was wouldn’t it be cool to prove the theory of relativity wrong.
I am not even a physicist. Testing theories is how we learn. It is not a matter of want but intellectual need.
Well to be fair, Einstein knew his theory of GR was incomplete because he spent the last 30 years of his life trying to find a theory that combined it with electromagnetism, so proving GR wrong would still just be proving Einstein right.
This has been a goal of scientists since he published his theory, LOL! I mean, just because it's withstood this length of time doesn't mean it won't get overturned next week, or next month, but they're gonna have to hunt really hard for how to do that! 😄
A fascinating video, Sabine! As if I'm ever disappointed in your videos. Never happen! 😄 Thanks for what you do. I appreciate it, and I know many others do, too. ❤❤
See!😂
Is not just his work, he gets credited but is work of Hendrik Lorentz, Eisntein just formulated it in a better manned so people understand it better
Could the discrepency between the two values of the hubble constants found by different methods be caused by a very small difference in light speed at different wavelength ?
Would it make sense to have a, "these experiments could prove quantum mechanics wrong" video next?
Edit: Looking back on this comment a month later, I realize it should probably be rephrased as, "prove the standard model wrong" instead.
How about testing Einstein's other "equivalence" principle: that the force felt during acceleration is indistinguishable from gravitational force? In other words, experiment with very tiny elevator cars, or with very tiny scientists free-falling from buildings.
Sounds like a job for apeture science
Well done...your consistency of thought is rewarding to watch…. .a comment ….should or can one say, probably obvious to some geologists that the equivalence principle …can not be used to explain how a placer gold deposit concentrates its mass in an eroding stream channel…nor ….. How a near shore ocean current concentrates gold in the trough of a migrating long shore sand ripple. Both use water currents (fluid dynamics) past and present flowing at a geologic atmospheric planet surface interface that can be modeled on a (space x time) graph or drawn on a geologic map.
2:51 i reckon the inside of a black hole would include alot of "macroscopic quantum mechanics" and completely "defy" the uncertainty principle. because anything that happens inside cannot exit, so the wave functions that go in will mix with the ones inside but not collapse. the macroscopic quantum mechanics might even be extremely "messy" and even move back and forwards through time lol.
I wouldn’t say it’s “wrong”, it depends on the context in which it’s used. Just like Newton was “wrong”, but we can still use it.
Yeah physicists create models of the world which follow the experimental evidence at the time. That's all they were ever trying to do so its hard to say what they did was wrong, really.
I might have been in Plato's cave this whole time, but still my equations perfectly describe the shadows
Newton's laws worked well enough as long as we were limited to travelling at speeds below or about the speed of sound and not too far from the surface of the Earth.
We may well find that Einstein's laws of motion are just a slightly closer approximation to the truth than Newton's.
Newton being close to being right has caused lots of issues.
Take the earth's core dynamics for example.
the earth's surface acceleration is roughly 9.8m/s2
scientists believe that at about the halfway point, (PREM model) this acceleration begins to decrease to zero at the center of the earth because of all the matter above you cancelling everything out...
So, we've gone generations with scientists regurgitating this nonsense of a weightless core as fact without really delving into the reality of what is taking place.
First: The Earth's core super rotates. That means that it is spinning FASTER than the crust in the same direction of travel. That should make your head explode as there is nothing Newtonian to explain such a phenomenon. in spite of immense friction and in the vacuum of space, the strata of the earth spins at dissimilar rates with the slowest rotation being at the crust and the fastest being at the center.
I've seen some lame arguments about 'Coriolis' effects are driving the super rotation etc, but it's barking up the wrong tree.
Back to Einstein. The surface acceleration of the earth is roughly 9.8m/s2. As this is a function of curved space timelines, we must acknowledge that the lines don't stop at the random surface of the planet. They plunge straight down to the center.
If we have 3 clocks, one in unaccelerated deep space, one on the surface of the earth under modest acceleration and one at the center of the earth under even greater acceleration, we will see that the clock in deep space ran the fastest and the clock at the core of the earth ran much slower than either the surface clock or the deep space clock.
In general relativity, acceleration is measured in how far an object will accelerate in its fall
While that takes care of falling objects, general relativity also applies to large objects in rotation. Because the clock at the center of the earth is running slower than the one at the surface, the core breaks free and for the same measured 'time' travels further, Super rotates.
This general relativistic phenomenon is what gives us our magnetosphere and assures that as long as the planet is rotating (not tidally locked) it will have a dynamic core that won't cool and freeze up
Sabine, you are so clear and concise! Thank you so much!
The mass in Einstein’s energy-mass equivalence equation has two possible interpretations, whether it is limited to the invariant mass, or it applies to all energy. This paper argues that all of the energy (kg m²/ s²) has a mass (kg: a degree of weight and inertial resistance). The inertial mass is a mass that was further scaled the gravitational mass to be increased with kinetic energy. The inertial mass of elementary particle in an atomic system also varies similarly by scaling. Thereby the scalable inertial masses of elementary particles constituting the atomic add the gravitation that cannot be ignored as compared with the Coulomb force. We call this effect “Inverse fourth power (1/r⁴) gravity” to distinguish it from universal gravitation of the universal gravitational constant. Using these mechanisms, we explain the proton radius puzzle and the statistical error found with the muon anomalous magnetic moment. This paper demonstrates a new way of integrating general relativity and quantum theory by separating the scalable inertial mass and the gravitational mass.
Black holes seem like one of the more feasible ways of seeing the intersection of General Relativity and Quantum theories, having enough mass for the gravity to be readily observable, but also having predicted quantum effects on a scale that should be observable.
The real issue is how many of our current expectations of quantum gravity need to be wrong in order to discover a variation in the dynamic equilibrium otherwise known as the 'gravitational field' at a distance of 52 microns. Particularly considering that variations of this type would likley hard to detect at what 1000 or a million planck lengths.
A better way to discover this actually is to create Ligo detectors so sensensitve that they can resolve granularity in wave data.
After listening to this entire video, I think that gravity waves may actually travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
@@stephenlangsl67 I thought the same a couple of years ago, but there is no significanr difference, If light traveled slower than gravity waves it would mean they had a rest mass,mand we kniw thats impossible.
Thank you for your work Sabine 🙏❤️
Sabine, I have a request. Could you do a video on how/if solar acrivity affects radioactive decay?
Whatever replaces GR (I have a candidate :) must reduce to GR when the fields are weak, for the right definition of weak. But not only that, it must provide a new context, the way GR provided a new context to that of Newton. GR reduces to Newtonian single-potential gravity in the right limit, but it provides a completely new context, the idea of spacetime curvature, so that spacetime becomes a dynamical object, not just a stage as in quantum field theory. The new theory will have to maintain background independence like this, which means any attempt to go back to spacetime as a stage on which quantum gravity fields play is bound to fail. Theories like MOND are probably phenomenological approaches to the real solution, when it comes. There is also so the serious problem of using GR in the wrong way, by linearizing it. Some of us believe this is the real issue with rotation curves, that the gravitational model is wrong because all the non-linearity is artificially removed. When you do a similar thing with fluid flow, by discarding the vorticity, you get a theory that has aspects of fluids but completely unreal behavior. Feynman called it the theory of "dry water" :) See Cooperstock's work.
I find the fact that quantum mechanics trying to prove general relativity wrong but failing oddly interesting. GR has predicted far more things correct then QM at least that I've heard of. GR isn't fully correct as even Einstein was looking into ways to expand it but I feel it seems the fact its so accurate yet constantly under challenge far more interesting in long term prospect then QM. Both explain things the other doesn't but I feel QM is far more likely to have a fetal flaw then GR in its mathematics.
The fallacy is number of things predicted has nothing to do with how strong the theory is. It simply Quantum mechanics has a lot more influence on things we do for practical reasons. But we don't even have one Quantum Mechanical theory agreed on. Right now each Quantum Mechanical theory runs into areas if fails because they are incomplete on the face of it. Relativity only fails right now on things we probably can never actually observe. In other words Relativity only fails in theory not in experiments so far.
@@milferdjones2573 Adding to the confusion is that every numerical prediction of QM that can be tested succeeds to ridiculous numbers of decimal places. Where QM fails it does so dismally, but where it succeeds it does so brilliantly.
@@milferdjones2573 *_"But we don't even have one Quantum Mechanical theory agreed on."_* - The theory is standard and agreed upon: QFT. What is not agreed upon is how to interpret the mathematics in terms of some sort of intuitive physical mechanism/principle from which the mathematics/behaviour should emerge, and currently, we have no way to test any of the reasonable candidate interpretations.
@@markfergerson2145 *_"Where QM fails it does so dismally"_* - Where does it fail?
@@JivanPal It can't handle gravity.
Thanks for the interesting video!
1:48 How a thoery proven (within its usability boundaries) can be wrong? It may be incomplete, but not wrong. Similar with Newton's gravity law. It works perfacty well at speeds much lower than c and fails at speeds close to c. Does it make it wrong? No, it is just incomplete. GR is much better model than Newton's gravity, but also incomplete.
2:00 Is it a problem of GR or quantum mechanics? Both are proven to be valid and yet both fail at extreme cases. Seems like both need an update.
3:26 Does GR really use speed of light? If I recall correctly, limit is for information transfer, and it happens to be speed of light. So proving different frequencies have different speeds would prove Maxwell equation wrong, but not GR. What am I missing here?
3:50 Was it Einstain or Maxwell? The equation for speed of (any) EM wave pops out from Maxwell equations, and it depends only on on vacuum permeability and permittivity and nothing else. In particular is does not depend on speed of source of the wave. Einstein was first who started considering seriously consequences of this.
The "wrong vs incomplete" thing makes no difference. They both only mean that the theory makes falsifiable (and then falsified) predictions.
Yes GR uses the speed of light, this is why we have the speed of light constant 'c'. This speed limit affects all causality, regardless of its name. Yes this is also the maximum speed of information transfer.
I would think proving lightspeed varies based on frequency would prove GR wrong since GR assumes that the speed is based on nothing but the masslessness of light. It predicts the same effect on all massless particles.
The other things, I do not have answers for. Though I think many would agree both GR and quantum mechanics need work, hence the search for a unified theory.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Isomorphism:- two differing or equivalent descriptions of the same "space" or state.
Homology is dual to co-homology.
Increasing the number of dimensions or states is an entropic process -- co-homology.
Decreasing the number of dimensions or states is a syntropic process -- homology.
Syntropy (homology) is dual to increasing entropy (co-homology) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
From a converging, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
All observers have a localized, focused, convex, finite or syntropic perspective.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
The Big Bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- Non null homotopic.
The Big Bang = a negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic.
Points (singularities) are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Duality creates reality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Classical is dual to quantum:-
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Hello Ms. Sabine...amateur cosmology enthusiast here...is it remotely possible that planets and stars can in a subtle way vibrate, exude, gravitational waves through space? Is it also possible that there is a specific frequency within a gravitational waves? Is this possible or no?
I love it when she says " That's what we will talk about today", means something good coming.:)
Einstein was wrong about how right he was. 🥸
I guess the most complete way to put this is ,Einstein’s theories were (like Newton’s) *incomplete*.
My “understanding” (or lack thereof) was that classical physics is sort of the average of quantum mechanics. Even if there is some truth to that, I’m sure that’s an indulgently oversimplified explanation at best.
That seems kinda intuitive...
@@71sephiroth By all means, indulge yourself. You won’t be far off however the truth turns out.
@@clayz1 HAHAHAHAHAHAH GOOD ONE. Depends on the stds. :')
"My 'understanding' (or lack thereof) was that classical physics is sort of the average of quantum mechanics". There is certainly some mathematical truth to that. Basically the laws of quantum mechanics often reduce to the classical laws if you replace ordinary quantities (like position, momentum etc.) with their expectation values (or average values, essentially). This is reflected in a theorem which Griffiths calls the "generalized Ehrenfest theorem". See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_theorem (the "generalized" version is the equation in the second box).
GR is so powerful that it proved it's own creator wrong in different interpretations and also mathematically predicts it's own limitations.
GR religion
@@yaoooy it’s the absolute opposite of a religion. Religions are constructed so that disproof is explicitly forbidden. Scientific theories can be shown to be confined to some limited regime via a single solid experimental result.
What the above commenters are acknowledging is that Einstein himself already expected this to be the case for GR and was trying to find a more robust theory.
@@ralphclark 🤡 Einstein couldn't even do math, let alone predict. He plagiarized the predictions too though.
Please watch on CZcams: ... 100 Million Einstein Lies ...
And yet if Einstein was wrong then let's see if we ablosh him
A question coming out from pure curiosity and my ignorance of such subjects: why proving einstein is wrong is considered more interesting and promising than the other way around, ie trying to prove and 'complete' quantum theory avoiding involvement of probability or similar issues in physical theories?
i don't think it is considered more interesting. non probabilistic theory that might correct quantum mechanics has been worked on by physicists for years. its a major project and sabines previous videos touched on this.
i think because this is a youtube platform, sabine needed to place titles that catch enough attention immediately, thus "proving einstein wrong". trading dry accuracy for something that people would likely click.
@@geoffrygifari3377 thanks for your clarification!
Hi Sabine, that's interesting. A delay of a couple of light seconds suggests where to look, that is about the range of the Moon. Perhaps it may be splitting the signal somehow.
Given how well general relativity works, I don't think it will ever "go away". Instead it will become an approximation that's "good enough" except in specific circumstances. After all, we still use Newtonian theory for calculations like ballistics where relativistic effects are insignificant.
It's like calculating π. I recall Isaac Asimov writing that the approximation 355/113 was good enough to calculate the circumference of the galaxy with negligible error. Sure you can use all those extra digits for a "more correct" answer, but in practical use, why bother? In fact, for "household" use, 22/7 is "good enough for government work".
Floating Bodies Diagrams describes parallel wave to reference source. Loving your comments, Sir Isaac Newton. Yes drop the circle below the electromagnetic force to control nuclear you've unified. Drop the weight onto check valve Mechanical Equivalent of Heat in water, while James Prescott Joule dropped the weight in air. Manufacturing the Sir Isaac Newton Machine stated impossible in Print by Newton.
1:21 Can you do an episode where the mathematics derived from a physical formula predicted something which turned out be wrong or impossible?
Look up Bode's Law.
@@alexandertownsend3291 i am not sure that was a physical deductive formula. Rather, it was inductive pattern recognition. Of course, any workings without solid basis would justify this request.
One of the classical things you learn when you start learning about general relativity is that there is a connection that is compatible with the metric. Using this idea, you can write down this connection in terms of the metric tensor components. What about writing the matric in terms of the Levi-Civita connection? This will make GR a theory of connections rather than one of the metric. In QFT, there has been a well-tested technique for quantising gauge fields, but that is precisely what the connection is, it's a gauge field. So we have a technique for getting quantum gravity from general relativity.
Hi Sabine!
why there is not the debate's writing beneath the video for us that are hard in hearing?
We can always count on Sabine to make the hard sciences accessable to the masses, and look fashionable while doing so.
Spot on
I think it's incorrect to to say that General Relativity is "wrong", when it has proved to describe several important phenomena. We should rather state that it has limitations, just as classical physics does. If classical physics was "wrong", many things engineers do, from bridges to planes wouldn't exist. It's just that such theories have limitations.
I wouldn't work in this field, but have been following it for a few decades. The main problem I see is that, interesting as it may sound from a fundamental physics point of view, phenomena we can measure just don't ask for such a thing as quantum gravity theory. I'm aware that novel phenomena might become important if a sound theory of quantum gravity ever arose, though. After all, people wouldn't have searched for gravitational waves if the general theory of relativity hadn't been developed in the first place.
Just a nitpick, but GR *is* classical physics, since classical means non-quantum.
Making correct predictions does not mean something is not wrong.
The only time we could say something is not wrong is if it is always correct.
E.g. "The Earth is flat" is wrong, yet it can make several accurate predictions. Isaac Newton's understanding of gravity was wrong, and yet made many accurate predictions. Both of these quickly fall apart at large enough scale, but they can be useful. You don't need to understand Earth's curvature to make most buildings, nor to travel to and from work. You don't need GR equations to understand how strong gravity is on Earth when you're operating as a human on Earth.
It's not incorrect to call things wrong when they make falsifiable predictions.
@@exscape Relativity isn’t classical physics.
@@kiraPh1234k Again: Theories have limitations in their applicability, but are “correct” within a certain framework. Else, every theory is “wrong,” until someone finds the “ultimte theory” that comprises all the others.
@@jjeherrera It is. Check the video at 2:03 if you trust Sabine. Or look up "Classical physics" on Wikipedia.
At the recent Marcel Grossmann meeting, Roy Kerr stated that he does not see a singularity in his rotating spacetime solution and that the belief that it is there is just religious conviction. Maybe you can do an episode on that.
Really interesting video! At 11:00, isn't the team from Washington state according to the header?
I know this is crazy, but what if Quantuum mechanics is wrong? (Saying "wrong" seems inaccurate. Wouldn't it be better to say "complete"? Einstein's correct predictions are still correct, even if a more complete theory is found.)
I've had that thought. Physicists always say they are looking for 'new physics', this would certainly fill the bill :D
Uh oh.... serious trouble ahead. You'll have a very hard time to explain a basic fact like the double slit experiment.
The trouble with modern physics is *not* that we have 2 *bad* theories and neither one is working... We have two brilliantly *right*, over-and-over-proven theories which just happen to not go along each other .
@@stefanguels I can't tell if you are trying to copy or contradict my comment, because your comment contradicts itself. If both theories were completely correct, they would not contradict each other. Saying they are "wrong" seems harsh given their predictive ability, but saying they are "right" is illogical. We must keep an open mind. Until they are reconciled, either one, or even both, theories could be inccurate.
@@fredygump5578 It's not my comment that contradicts itself, it's the basic problem of modern physics. In case you didnt't notice: The whole video is about the contradiction between Einsteins general relativity and quantum (field) theory. Both theories are proven "right" but can't be the complete and general truth at the same time. For all we know quantum mechanics *can not* be wrong (just incomplete), and this is why everyone ist so keen on finding a flaw in Einsteins general relativity (but failed up to now).
And another motive for proving Einstein wrong is the hope of finding some loopholes that will make starships, artificial gravity, and maybe even time machines possible!
You said it ..... I have been saying the same thing for years , well said
11:45;
I was under the impression that the equivalence
principle states the equality of heavy (gravitational)
mass and inertial mass.
What do you think of Andrzej Dragan’s theory of superluminal observers in unusually special relativity and it’s peculiar consequences similar to quantum effects?
0:50 hundreds of observations disproved the red shift as a sign of expansion. We see many galaxies with low red shift physically tied to very highly red shifted quasars which isn't possible unless we start to claim that galaxies a few dozens light years away from us can be linked by plasma filaments to quasars billions of light years away... or we can reinterprate the red shift.
Maybe we need to reconsider the first...
The best part of Sabine's channel is going through the comments and finding the answers to questions the world's best physicists have been baffled by for decades.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Isomorphism:- two differing or equivalent descriptions of the same "space" or state.
Homology is dual to co-homology.
Increasing the number of dimensions or states is an entropic process -- co-homology.
Decreasing the number of dimensions or states is a syntropic process -- homology.
Syntropy (homology) is dual to increasing entropy (co-homology) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
From a converging, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
All observers have a localized, focused, convex, finite or syntropic perspective.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
The Big Bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- Non null homotopic.
The Big Bang = a negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic.
Points (singularities) are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Duality creates reality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Classical is dual to quantum:-
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
I think the search for how gravity works is probably found in what gives rise to most matter and most gravitational effects. Which is the binding energy of quarks in neutrons and protons which is mediated by the gluon, a better understanding of gluons could give us some insight into what causes gravity in the first place. That could be that gluons somehow negates a tiny bit of space, or that they are made out of spacetime that vanishes on interactions with the quarks, who knows what it could be.
Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface
A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting occurs. 720 degrees per twist cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
There is also a Zitterbewegung theory of gravity. To quote from a paper by Carl Brannen published in Foundations of Physics: "We propose that gravitons produce the force of gravity by stimulating matter to emit more gravitons in the same direction. When the velocity
of an electron is measured, the only possible results (eigenvalues) are ±c. A stationary electron must move back and forth at speed c resulting in what is called “Zitterbewegung” motion. This gives the instantaneous velocity of the electron in the velocity basis. Since gravity, over small distances, is equivalent to an acceleration, we compute the effect of an acceleration on the instantaneous velocity of the electron. We obtain exact equations for Einstein’s coefficients for stimulated emission of gravitons. Looking for Feynman diagrams
with the properties necessary to explain the coefficients, we show that the electron has to be composite and propose an old preon scheme with a composite interpretation of spin-1/2. We interpret black hole coordinate systems and apply these ideas to cosmology."
Yeah, that all sounds good, except that electrons are not particles and the predicted effect is not being observed in quantum field theory. :-)
As a follow-up to this, it would be great to hear about theories where gravity itself is the cause of decoherence rather than as a fundamental force that must be reconciled to work with QM
I think Penrose is working in that direction
I remember reading a paper that demonstrated just this, i.e., a quantum systems falling freely in the gravitational field became subject to decoherence as it got squeezed by tidal interactions, i.e., by spacetime curvature. They calculated the expected lifetime of such a system in the earth's gravity and it was something of the order of 10 minutes. You should be able to Google the paper. It was published in a proper physics journal (Phys Rev?).
General relativity showed an expanding universe but Einstein thought he would be considered crazy if he postulated this so he added the cosmological constant to show a static universe. General relativity was even more correct than Einstein thought.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Isomorphism:- two differing or equivalent descriptions of the same "space" or state.
Homology is dual to co-homology.
Increasing the number of dimensions or states is an entropic process -- co-homology.
Decreasing the number of dimensions or states is a syntropic process -- homology.
Syntropy (homology) is dual to increasing entropy (co-homology) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
From a converging, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
All observers have a localized, focused, convex, finite or syntropic perspective.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
The Big Bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- Non null homotopic.
The Big Bang = a negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic.
Points (singularities) are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Duality creates reality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Classical is dual to quantum:-
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
I am sorry. I don't understand a word you wrote.
@@TitanicDundee That is a good sign, admitting that you do not understand something is the first step to a deeper understanding.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of forces).
Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual in physics.
There are 4 forces in physics, gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces -- interactions or forces are dual.
If forces are dual then energy must be dual:-
Energy = force * distance.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Energy is duality, duality is energy!
Everything in physics is made from energy or duality!
The council of Nicaea in 325 AD was set up to answer the question, is the Christ consciousness the same substance as God or a different substance?
Same is dual to different, homo is dual to hetero.
Thesis (God) is dual to anti-thesis (the Christ consciousness) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Questions are dual to answers.
Christianity is based upon duality and not triality or trinity.
If God & the Christ consciousness are made from energy then they are the same substance!
Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality.
A dual process (syntropy) to that of increasing entropy constitutes a 4th law of thermodynamics!
Making predictions to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Opposites, opposame (isomorphism) = duality (energy).
The conservation of duality (energy) will be known as the 5th law of thermodynamics!
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching.
Neils Bohr's famous quip was the best: "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."
But I am sick and tired about people complaining about how Einstein's theory of relativity is a "classical" theory and doesn't play well with quantum mechanics. While all matter may be made of quantum particles, quantum theories of gravity are all irrelevant until spacetime is known to be made of some kind of quanta and someone finally finds a graviton. For all we know matter may be quantized and spacetime is not.
Still, it never hurts to keep trying to poke holes in any theory.
Just wondering, if the force of gravity reduces by the route square of the distance then why do we need to wait for binary star or galaxy cores to interact to a show gravitational anomaly when by the routeing square of the distance of those bodies from us the observer might be the equivalent of two bodies of less than one kilogram of mass rotating at 1 meter apart if we observed it from one meter away?.
My guess would be that the amplitude of the waves makes the gravitational effect observable, rather than the relatively smooth and negligible curvature the objects produce at such a distance. Not that I am a physicist, just inuiting.
But isn't the vacuum a medium too in some sense? Can't the light interact with the particles pairs that come in and out of existence and have its speed slowed down?
Stating the vacuum is a medium is as time is a function of Power, which ends up as Gravity therefore Power. Gravity Propulsion is not Theory. Gravity Assist Secrets JPL NASA Minovitch. Drop the circle below the electromagnetic force to control nuclear you've unified, Faraday.
A fellow by the name of Barry Setterfield thinks along these lines.
@@davidgracely7122 thank you for the reading recommendation.
0:30 This is a thing as an scientist and engineer, I have had huge problems with. Especially when dealing with non academic people's attitude towards failure and being proven wrong. Failing is so normal for us, and failing in something is often a lot more informative than succeeding according to plan in something. Actually, when my projects (especially software) projects instantly work without problems, that is when I get hella scared and suspicious, and will go over the code/project results way more carefully than if it had failed or been nearly correctly set up the first time.
Because I know there must still be problems and bugs, as there always are, now I just don't know what they are!
The problems arise in conversations, I often seem extremely assertive and cold to most non-engineers, since I am so used to be investigative, throwing out ideas and making propositions, theorems and sharing postulates based on our collective knowledge on the subject matter, to pool our brain power together to figure out the most correct statement/path forward. It isn't about finding out who is right and who is wrong, it is about finding out what is the truth/true nature of it/correct path forward
Especially when I worked in tourism for a while, I was sorely missing the honest/investigative peer to peer interaction that is often so so so much easier, especially if the peers are at a relatively similar knowledge level with you, it removes so much useless tension and explanations etc.
Being a non-physicist, I have been watching your videos, mostly criticizing others' research works. You are a very bright physicist. I would like to see your journals where you have proved by mathematical formulae that there are questions about the recent research works. At present it's a verbal diareah. We want to see some real studies about your video topics. Otherwise they are just speculations that are not accepted in Science. Intuition is OK.
we have isolated the gravitaional redshift over a scale of less than 1 mm - see the nature paper "Resolving the gravitational redshift within a millimeter atomic sample" - published feb 2022
Hello Sabine. Enjoy your videos. A short question, but one that has haunted me for decades. Does modern physics rule out Friedrich Nietzsche's notion of eternal recurrence? Thank you!
If Nietzsche’s ER thesis should be understood as a physics claim, then I’d leave this up to people like Sabine. But if ER is instead intended as a metaphysical thesis (as analytic philosophers define ‘metaphysics’), then I’m afraid there’s no way for modern physics to rule it out. Sabine has admitted as much in her past videos: inductive approaches to our existence can never prove or rule out any empirical claim with certainty. But I’m interested in what motivated your question: why does the thought of ER haunt you?
@@kennethshields5546 Because my philosophical disposition sees it as the ultimate nightmare.
@@kalki0273 I understand that it frightens you-I was just curious about why it frightened you. Have you seen the 1993 movie Groundhog Day before?
"Einstein is wrong" is far too much of a stretch. It is one of the best (together with quantum physics) what we have at the moment until another theory comes out to explain the way the universe works better. That is how we human beings get to understand the nature of the universe more accurately going forward. Nonetheless, a great video!
She means there might need to be a tweak to einsteins equations.
Newtons equations are still correct for many applications.
@@nosuchthing8 Newton's theory just don't give the EXACT SAME RESULTS as GR, thus is wrong!
Einstein is god
How do you tell the difference between an object that is "red shifted" and one that simply emits read light?
What if there is no one answer to anything. This certainly is the case with the double slit experiment. The flip flop between the wave and the particle where it is interchangeable. I also feel uncomfortable with the word “wrong” because it has been “right” for so long. It is an ongoing process that continues to be refined. So in the end, his theory might be “refined” to a higher state. For me, the biggest puzzle of all is entanglement. Would love to hear that theory.