Rethinking the mystery of gravity
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2024
- What would you think if someone said gravity might not exist as a fundamental force? Prof. Janna Levin explored that mind-bending topic on a recent podcast and breaks down what that means to NBC's Gadi Schwartz.
» Subscribe to NBC News: / nbcnews
NBC News Digital is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver compelling, diverse and engaging news stories. NBC News Digital features NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, TODAY.com, Nightly News, Meet the Press, Dateline, and the existing apps and digital extensions of these respective properties. We deliver the best in breaking news, live video coverage, original journalism and segments from your favorite NBC News Shows.
Connect with NBC News Online!
Breaking News Alerts: link.nbcnews.com/join/5cj/bre...
Visit NBCNews.Com: www.nbcnews.com/
Find NBC News on Facebook: / nbcnews
Follow NBC News on Twitter: / nbcnews
Get more of NBC News delivered to your inbox: nbcnews.com/newsletters
#Gravity #Science #Mystery
Right after the Terrence Howard interview on JRE 😂😂😂😂
Exactly!
Terrence Howard can't even use the word gravity in a sentence coherently. This is a different thing.
came here to say this same thing
@@DanLyndon Actually this is exactly what Terrence Howard said...
Bro that’s what I’m saying !!!
Terrence Howard: “I’ve been trying to tell y’all mayne”!
No he hasn't. His ideas are completely unrelated to any actual science. This may sound vaguely similar to something he said, but it's not at all the same when it comes to the details. It also isn't a new idea, it's been a feature of different areas of theoretical physics for decades to consider gravity to be emergent. Terrence Howard, on the other hand, is part of the electric universe cult, which is just the most incoherently stupid bunch of nonsense ever.
It’s a reason they have actual scientist on the show and not Mr Howard
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Gravity clearly exists. Go jump off a cliff and tell us what you feel
@@rashadd2615because you have to be white and have initials after your name to say the same thing and be respected for it? Is that the distinction here??
It makes perfect sense; just folks get confused on the meaning of "fundamental" within this context. "Not fundamental" doesn't mean "not real", it means "emergently real". In the same way as a bird isn't a flock of birds, and a cell isn't a human; but if you put enough of them together in the right way, you get this new thing which while not fundamental to its individual parts, is emergently real to its collective parts.
Perfect explanation.
She SAID gravity is NOT "REAL", quit LYING for her!
It is a Holistic Interpretation, meaning it isn't OBJECTIVELY REAL. like a human isn't objectively real, but rather a human is ab massive collection of electrons swirling around quarks, which are the objectively real particles
Yes but the concept of the flock is not real. It's an abstract idea to label and identify.
You're exactly right brother, you need a large mass to bend and warp the spacetime manifold to create this pit or well of attraction for objects to fall into, which is what we call gravity.. it is "emergent" as you say, without significant mass you don't have much gravitational force, it's so weak because it requires so much mass to really have any effect compared to the other forces.. it's kind of a pseudo force, just a result of the warping of spacetime
Ever since Terrance Howard went on Joe Rogan
He was quoting Walter Russel a lot from Secret of Light, but some of what TH says is incorrect.
@@sireel i think time will tell. you cannot discredit his patent and use of his own discovery as a foundation for his works. he is actually one of the few in a while to actually apply what he is talking about to the real world, like tesla, davinci, and other science thinkers. while the rest of the science world people, just theorizes and is afraid to step away from the norm. i would say in a world where no one knew nothing and you had to choose between the sciences, terrences makes more sense, when applied to the natural world
@@MiguellolTV I agree with the Walter Russell stuff, Tesla thought he was right, too. By "kook" I meant all the restraining orders and claims of having degrees from schools TH didn't go to, etc., - On Wikipedia.
Being on Joe Rogan is an immediate red flag…
Like Michio Kaku went there exactly when people really started to question if he speaks really science, or just BS clickbait to propagate his own fame.
@@MiguellolTV Time?? The time is up.... i guess it must just be new to you.
czcams.com/video/YeAQw9YJGtM/video.htmlsi=-S67EnxoQ0rvdJ9x
Ive learned the only thing Neil Degrass Tyson is an expert in is : interrupting people while they talk.
That guy just likes to hear himself talk
Yes
I been saying this for years😂
ADHD bruv
You just couldn’t find any other reason to hate on him huh😂
debating gravity always has its ups and downs
Are you saying its a very heavy topic with lots of gravitas?
I’m sorry. This falls short.
It definitely is a weighty topic that keeps pulling us back into the conversation
It’s kept me at rock bottom lately
Its a heavy topic innit ?
Terrance Howard - there is no such thing as gravity, its just electricity and magnetism. We literally are on an enormous magnet with a huge magnetic field
That is completely different from what she's saying. Magnetism doesn't explain gravity.
And T.H. Is utterly wrong but nice try trying to glue two totally different theories together and tie him to an actual scientist.
@@ianlassitter2397Your opinion on TH doesn’t matter since you have no credibility to gauge if he is right or wrong Ian.
@@DANGJOS yes I don’t remember everything exactly but it’s more so him talking about the phenomena similar to that of pressure conditions within a limited space with two forces fighting against each other (magnetism and electricity) making it act as gravity and the shapes within that struggle of the space are inherent to the structure of what has been referred to as the flower of life. That structure only exist when relating to certain levels of matter hence why a large earth generates more of it
@@ChiquitaSpeaks But that doesn't really make much sense. Electricity and magnetism don't really fight each other, and that explanation seems vague. Putting words together can sound cool, but where are his equations? Where is the logical flow that leads us to believe that what he's saying should even apply to gravity. It's nowhere near enough.
Terrence Howard got the masses talking.😂
This is different. It is that one particle or one molecule by itself is not recognizable as a lake or a ocean. But when you take vastly more molecules it is water. She is saying gravity works for macro but breaks down as we dont have a generally accepted idea for individual particles. Let alone sub atomic particles.
A general idea of quantum gravity.
Terrence Howard is a delusional narcissist. He spews BS from head to toe
Startalk is a show that has been going on since 2015, these guys don’t care what Howard is thinking. Lol
oh please
sounds like Terrance Howard called it. Interesting timing of this interview
Billy Carson is another pioneer thatll hopefully rewrite current fake history & beliefs
Explain further how this idea connects with anything Howard said.
@@rashadd2615he tried to explain that gravity isn't a cause it's an effect. Much like they just explained here.
@@greyfenix7123 He made a similar claim but don’t think their 2 explanations were anywhere close to one another
_Howard is a plagiarist._ *He mimic's what he hears on the internet & tries to integrate it with his nonsensical false narrative.*
Glad to see science being shared on MSNBC 👍
If only they would do the same with the clot shot.
Except they keep using the term “black hole” which is racist
That is just Neil Degrasse doing his magic. Neil is a star, now he is putting his fellow physicist in the light. We like Neil but we know if Neils mind is blown that means something. I watch star talk all the time, this interview was probably one of the first in a long time where Neil's mind was blown and couldnt even explain it.
That is because you will not catch my Dad watching JRE. But he will be on the news channel. What a shame!
Terrence Howard just said that. . .
Exactly, he said gravity isn’t a force or a cause, it’s an effect.. Now Neil degrasse and his colleagues immediately start saying “Oh by the way, gravity isn’t a force”
What do you mean now? Do you think they just thought of this recently?
they're about to admit the world is flat lol
Stop that dude is a hack.
Do you really think Terrence Howard originated this idea? Jeez
My favorite idea about gravity is that it's an effect of entropy. PBS Spacetime did a great video about it.
i still find that channel way too technical
You wouldn't happen to have a link to that video would you?
@@randyt700 czcams.com/video/qYSKEbd956M/video.htmlsi=ciphU8guzXO33H6S
Terrence Howard just said this…. 😑
Don’t let people gaslight you into saying he wasn’t saying this because I see some comments saying he’s still wrong
Seriously. Is it because he's not white or doesn't have the useless initials after his name that the same theories are treated with completely different reactions?
Terrence Howard was speaking about this on Joe Rogan’s podcast. Terrence Howard said gravity is a byproduct. Yall should watch the podcast. For some again.
i had to get back to th periodic table to fully understand his take on some things and he is very intelligent
Conversations about gravity always pull me in.
it’s a heavy topic
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
This isn’t a new idea, I was taught that the laws of gravity break down at the quantum-level while taking physics in college back in the 90’s. This physicist just explains it in a slightly less broad of a term.
Saying the laws break down is the same thing as saying that the equations of General Relativity spit out zero as an answer, which is nonsense. She’s essentially saying the math was never intended to be taken so far in the first place. The problem is we still don’t have any mathematical insights into the inner-workings of a black hole without a theory of quantum gravity.
Yeah, I’m confused on why this is presented as some radical new idea.
I been making this argument for years! The validation that I might not be crazy.
Unless I missed something... did she ever attempt to explain how it grew from the collection of the small interactions?
@@UnknowngfyjohThey kind of did with the water analogy - a single atom of water doesn’t behave like “water” as we know it - as a fluid that flows or has surface tension, etc. Water molecules don’t become “water” until there’s lots of them together. Only then do they become what we know as water and start to behave as we know water to behave.
Another way to think of it is something like cars are made out of metal, but metal isn’t a car. It’s not until you have the right amounts of the right kinds of metal (and plastic and rubber and glass etc.) put together in the right way that it becomes a car.
Or if you’ve ever seen one of those videos of a murmuration of starlings - that doesn’t happen with one single starling. It only happens when you have lots of starlings flying together. Therefore, starling murmurations are not a “fundamental force” of starlings because on the smaller scale of one starling, they don’t exist and can’t exist.
"rethinking the mystery of gravity"... shows the same illustration everyone always uses when they explain gravity lol
If you listen carefully, you can hear my head exploding
Why do interviewers have to act like physics is beyond human comprehension and also ask meaningful follow up questions like "Is there experimental evidence yet to support your claim or when will there be?"
They're clueless, and it shows.
nope, it is all conjecture that gravity doesn't exist on a MICRO level.
Albert Einstein explained everything he said so a child could understand it. Now the scientific community talks down to average people.That's how they are able to keep their jobs
It is a way to teach. There are many ways, and this one involves implicit praise to the viewer, that they might learn something obtuse, which is not widely known.
Gravity, specifically as described in general relativity, is a crazy easy concept to grasp if people decided to actually look into it.
The only thing I know about gravity is that it's a real b*tch after you've had more than three margaritas.
Clearly alcohol is a gravitational amplifier. Lack of sleep too 😂
The universe is so confusing
It keeps humans busy, to say the least.
I fully believe we are living in a black hole, and the Big Bang was the matter in another larger universe collapsing into our universe(black hole) where the laws of physics act differently. I also believe the same thing about the black holes in our universe contain universes of their own. Maybe matter in the bigger universe that created ours was different and protons were the size of suns.
There is, however, a Santa Claus.
nah, he quit due to the inflation and low home affordability.
Jesus Claus.
Elves were getting expensive, so he outsourced to little asian children.
@@moonshoes11 He enjoys children leaving out bread, fish, and a bottle of wine
Janna Levin is awesome. So articulate.
I had this idea more than one time, but since I'm not a physicist it was just an idea. Am I the only one? It feels hard to believe to me that this is the first time anyone else had thought of gravity as an emerging force..
The overall goal is to be able to explain concretely, most likely with maths
No you're not the only one, just write a math proof and be famous
This is a decades old idea. It's nice more people are hearing about it, but there are a bunch of videos about emergent gravity on CZcams alone
I swear physics really is so simple without mafmatics. It would be easier to figure out without the mafmatics in my opinion. Especially considering the math we use might be wrong
She sounds like the kind of professor who might come up with a theory of everything.
Merging quantum physics and classical physics together
I'm starting to wonder of all laws of nature only exist on a macroscopic scale
The confusion to most is the idea of emergence in the first place. Most things we experience are manifestations of many, simple things happening. Also confusion to most is the idea of process itself - related - as we once believed life was a thing not a process.
🎶"We've only just begun..."🎶
Einstein’s equations of General Relativity spit out zero as an answer at point of a singularity inside a black hole, which is nonsense. She’s essentially saying the math was never intended to be taken so far in the first place. The problem is we still don’t have any mathematical insights into the inner-workings of a black hole without a theory of quantum gravity. I get the logic of what she is saying but we need be able to describe a singularity mathematically. The same problem exists on that end of the spectrum even if we let General Relativity off the hook.
That's because the entire basis of cosmology I'd off. Gravity is an effect of electricity and magnetism. No need for dark matter, energy, higgs bosons and all the other BS they come up with. There's a reason why they can't figure it out. They're wrong.
A singularity doesn't exist. Infinity doesn't exist. You can keep squeezing something to basically nothing. Think about it. You can only squeeze something until you have every proton and electron so close together they can't move. Then what.
Singularities just occur when you apply the wrong type to a problem. They are a signal from reality telling you that you can't use this equation to describe this situation. You can't use fluid dynamics to describe a problem involving relativist phenomenon, such as the motions of a liquid at ultra high speed. That's what it means to say that 'the math breaks down.' The assumptions that the equations have built in no longer apply. General relativity is a great mathematical framework for a certain domain of problems, but can't be applied indiscriminately. The existence of singularities means we need a more sophisticated notion of what is going on.
Can you remove an object from quantum entanglement and if so, what would happen to the object? How would it interact with everything else?
Are you driving towards gravity modification?
My friend once said,, "I've a gut feeling that image kinetics doesn't exist. "
This is so beautifully and understandably explained in these two clips, although mostly by analogy.
I would love to know more about what kind of experiments or observations are behind this hypothesis. How do they know or hypothesize this?
But I probably wouldn't understand it anyway even if they told me 😅
Just a point of clarification for the record, the “planet” you see is reduced to a point like object in the math and the visualization only really allows for 2 dimensions of interpretation.
It’s crazy I was saying this a decade ago, thank you for greater minds trying to explain and rationalise for the masses.
What’s actually mind blowing is how… mind blowing this seems to be for the science community. Idk i kind of always assumed this was the case after learning that gravity breaks down at the quantum level. We’re a part of an ever expanding universe and new complexities are introduced at every level, right?
Not expanding and nothing new is introduced. They just have no clue how it works.
I love Janna Levin ✨
Totally makes sense. Thank you.
I understand this, a basic approach to gravity, because just the other day 5 18 24 I refined my 'letter' concerning the origins of gravity
Time = Gravity = Time
Time doesn't exist - gravity = magnetism
There is definitely a gravitas to this argument
Gravity worked pretty well on me a few times.
All the time!
She didn't say it doesn't exist. She said it is emergent as opposed to fundamental. It makes sense scientifically, in the mean time don't worry, you're not going to float away.
@jayrusell3796 Yeah, me too. Especially when I used to drink.
That’s because you are a macro-organism.
@@keysemerson3771I imagine that was a gravity joke not commentary on Janna’s points
Georges Seurat would thank you for describing what gravity means using the collective of his "dots" which shows his painting as what it is. Very eloquent way of describing a theory of gravity. 🙂
I think gravitational waves' background energy oscillates at the quantum level. they permeate all of space at the smallest of levels/spaces/times.Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
That's like saying the ocean is not fundamental
But it isnt.
Pretty interesting analogy. Like saying one water molecule is not “wet.” I don’t know enough to say how accurate another physicist would say the analogy is, but I can wrap my head around it. But I suspect there are equations that can describe wetness in fluid dynamics or whatever the field is called. It’s just fascinating to speculate that what we call gravity has the same relationship between describing it in the aggregate versus describing it at the tiniest possible scales.
Fascinating. Just learning about emergence theory. Is this an example of it? What about unification theory? How does that tie in, or does it? Interesting stuff 🙂 Thanks for sharing.
The 'mystery' of gravity is something most will find difficult to believe
I'm a biochemist. Terrance Howard wasn't saying anything that made any sense but people that don't understand the most rudimentary concepts in science think they have the wherewithal to give their 2 cents about how "brilliant" his perspective was.
I'm going to give the science laymen a very easy example. You know your job very well, right? You understand how it functions in your field pretty well, though you may not know everything about it. Imagine a person comes in and starts talking crazy about it in ways you know are incorrect, however, because the local population doesn't understand much of anything about your job, they think this person is incredible even though you know this person is wrong about the procedures, nomenclature, functionality and explanation of your job. Now you've got to convince people that know nothing about your job that this person saying these crazy things are incorrect... 🥴
Spot on and explains the sad reality... most Americans are math, physics, and science illiterate...
She said this a week before Terrance said what he said. Im not saying he saw her Interview but it is weird that he was speaking on no gravity as well.
Right after the episode on jre is crazy to me lol.
if quantum is behaving at that level, fractal reality or quarks , either or, then it would be apparent to me that the mystery still be unsolved. Rather more fundamentally I would say its not only a consequence, like water, rather a principle that gravity is still a possibility that energy can come together to create gravity as a structured energy or wave rather than gravity as a consequence of the whole of reality.
Is it a source or a consequence? I couldnt imagine for example gravity being a particle or a wave like neutrons or quarks, however at that level I have to ask absolutely absurd questions that are which not so absurd. If I am to create certain rules.
I have special interest in wondering if gravity is a thing, or a wave rather than a consequence.
I like the description of "matter" being "frozen" light. Light being tied to Electromagnetism might be another explanation. Chilling!!!
Light literally is electromagnetism!
Even my Dog understands Gravity
ball goes up ball goes down
She didn't say it doesn't exist. She said it is emergent as opposed to fundamental. It makes sense scientifically, in the mean time don't worry, you're not going to float away.
Go ask your dog to calculate the inner curvature of a black hole if he understands gravity that well 😂
@@askani21 Dog say light is like tail and black hole is like mouth. No matter how much tail try to get away, it eventually gets eaten!
In short, the laws of physics change at the smallest scales. This isn't a revelation more of a potential framework for thinking
They don't when you understand that the universe is electric.
The leading edge idea that blows my mind is that quantum entanglements are the threads that make up the fabric of spacetime.
Terrace Howard said it first
?
Terrence Howard called it..😂 gravity might not exist as a fundamental force..😮🤯
Love seeing deep science and Jana Levin being showcased but at 3:43 why wouldn’t you show the dots
So all 4 fundamental forces are actually all emergent properties then?
Good point. Could very well be! I applaud to the idea!
Terrance Howard has said the same.
I just wanna copy and paste this link to this video on everything Terrance Howard is on inside the CZcams world lol
Our limited knowledge considered; we know nothing.
We know quite a bit. You might not.
Where's the center of the universe? If we can find that answer then we know everything until then we know nothing at all
@@Choppalini You'll be happy to learn we actually know that answer!!!
The center of the observable universe is always the location of the observer! We only get to see up to 46.5 billion lightyears, because beyond that point, space is expanding faster than the speed of light. So we'll never see beyond. But an alien on the other side would see his own observable universe, a radius of 46.5 billion lightyears around him.
But if you're looking for the actual geometrical center of the entire universe, from what we can observe it looks flat. If it's truly flat, it's infinite in all directions, therefore it has no center. But to confirm it's flat, we'd need to calculate its curvature with infinite precision, which is impossible, so maybe it's slightly curved. If it is, it might take the 4D shape of a cylinder or a donut. We could go in a straight line and get back to where we started without turning! But there would still be no center.
I hear many people get confused about a center because of the big bang. If that's your case, just know that the big bang didn't happen from one point: it happened everywhere all at once. It's not a single point exploding, rather the distance between each particle getting bigger and bigger super fast. The big bang is the expansion of space between stuff, everywhere. So, no center.
😊
My answer is gravity is magnetic polarity
_"We _*_might no_*_ longer have something that can be described as gravity."_ How about moving away from what looks to be pure speculation? Simply because the current descriptions of "gravity" may not *do justice* to the actual phenomenon or phenomena, doesn't mean gravity cannot be a force(s).
Maybe like pressure? Maybe a perceived and actual mass when compressed, can be different from each other even if there is no transfer of material, like liquid vs. gas. Idk?
It was speculated to be a force 4 centuries ago, but we still haven't found its force carrying particle, nor any evidence it is actually a force.
We don't have any good reason to call it a force. It's just an old habit, and frankly it's calculated the same way as a force in Newtonian physics, so it's still taught like that in school.
@@askani21
The traditional view of gravity maintains that it is the outcome of the _coordinated_ actions of several elementary quantum objects; I am not sure where the idea that gravity originates from a single "elementary" object or _"force-carrying particle"_ came from. Gravity is a force if it is "energy" with an effect [in this case, described as an "attractive force"] that _compels_ or _influences_ behavior or action. Its nature as a force remains unaffected by endless debates over whether it qualifies as a "fundamental force" or not.🙂
@@Lamin_G Oh, I didn't notice a distinction between force and fundamental force. I'll check it out, thanks!
not sure why his mind is blown by this information. This makes a lot of sense, especially how Dr. Levin explains it, but it's something that has been talked about for a long time.
What if they were all wrong about the gravity force? The issue of it being a weak force has always had me thinking it’s more to it. I understand the simple act of raising your hand, or jumping, or escaping the atmosphere, and leaving the planet or fairly easy actions. Making gravity a weak force at that level, but when we get to the universal level it changes in my opinion. Gravity keeps everything in place Galaxies, Blackholes, Suns,and Planets. Sometimes packing huge amounts of matter into insanely small balls of energy, and formed the universe itself. If they are wrong about what gravity is , I prey I’m around when it is figured out, and changes the world. Terrance a Howard says he has the answer. I’m here for it.
So no gravitons?
Graviphons, maybe. Subtle standing wave interactions between fundamental particles that are weaklings compared to the known forces, but because it is at a vastly smaller dimensional level to the fundamental particles they are unaffected by the larger dimension forces. Gravity goes on its merry way unimpeded and while it is weak for a single particle to particle interaction, the effect of several trillion trillion particles all mingling nearby each other is going to project that tiny insignificant action into something that can be seen in our everyday dimension.
Yeah she could've just said that lol
😂😂😂
You’re being left behind. You need to keep up 😂
No I believe gravitons are predicted by the math but are unproven
Terrence Howard really about to break the internet
No he not this is different from what he was saying.
1x1 is 1 x (one number of times). If mangos cost 1 dollar each and I buy 1 what is the total?
@@kitjones6896 Gravity
Besides the Walter Russell stuff he's quoting from Secret of Light, he's a kook. Look up his Wikipedia.
@@sireel using Wikipedia is like using CNN. Good lucking finding anything other than what you're being told.
You cant touch love but somehow you can feel it.
Sure you can….it just a few bunch of “Physical-Molecules” that the brain secretes…
It can be chemically synthesized and touched….
Love is a chemical reaction in the brain, and it can be measured.
@moonshoes11 depends how you define love. The chemical reaction you're referring to I'd more appropriately label as affection.
But I love a good smart-assy CZcams comment and yours is great!
@@Theanonymousbystander
you are using grammar as an escape…..but it’s not going to work….
Love ( or whatever you call it) Is caused by a “physical” chemical compound…
Ie.. without chemistry, you won’t have Any types of love…
@@jimliu2560 Do you even know what grammar is?
I don't think I'd take any scientific credibility from someone who doesn't know the difference between grammar and vocabulary. Thanks though!
if you want to really know more about this, you need to talk to Tai Okami , he has a full complete theory on this that is profound and world changing. What she is so eloquently explaining is only the surface level of what Tai's theory is.
So Terence Howard ISN’T crazy like people are trying to make him sound????
The painting example is 💯
Gravity is love, and love is gravity....
Electricity is more powerful than Gravity
I hypothesized this after learning basic college chemistry. It's a wonder to me how this is even a debate anymore. You think someone would have proved it with mathematics.
A vast accumulation of charged particles should then result in forces similar to gravity. Same way intermolecular forces work.
Gravity is described as an acceleration, not a force... So how it could be fundamental?
Why did I know this a long long time ago. I can’t be the only one.
If you want to think about it a certain way, gravity is a collective van der Waals force, as opposed to an individual van der Waals force.
Quanta of van der Waals forces, if you will, although renaming "gravity" to "distributed van der Waals force" isn't as etymologically satisfying.
Generally spealing, the 10th house follows the 9th, therefore without "structure" there will be no ways to organise materials to manifest weight.
Thank you Terrence Howard
Neil and Chuck for 2024!
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Shouldn't expect much more from this crowd.
The quantum interactions manifest in what we call gravity
Gravity might not exist as a fundamental force
But are those interactions based on entanglement or wave? If it is entanglement, then what is the mechanism of interaction that causes attraction? If it is wave, what sort of wave functions are created by fundamental particle mass and how do they attract through interaction?
Now how do you influence a proton to collude with other protons to create temperature?
American shows explain science like it's a reality tv
That's the same concept Terrence Howard was explaining, yet people in the science community called him crazy.
The water analogy is useful, but is this really such a unique idea? I can’t pinpoint where from, but this isn’t a new idea to me.
It's a new idea
Lollll Terrance has clearly shaken up the scientific community
The 'rationalizations' make a lot of sense. Would this imply there is no photon "force carrier" for gravity? If so, why would gravity waves 'appear' to travel "at the speed of light"? Coincidence?
Gravity doesn't exist. Ever.
If gravity is not a fundamental force, where does that leave inertia? Einstein theorised that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable over a small range (I presume this means neglecting tidal effects). That requires inertia and weight to be proportional to mass. AFAIK mass IS a property of quantum objects.
This is actually going to be a prevailing paradigm for the explanation of reality. The analogy she gives of a pointillism painting is exactly how the hologram of our 3D reality works. At a micro level, nothing actually exists and there is no meaning. But at a macro level, it’s all there to make meaning from in our consciousness.
Startalk is a great podcast. Neil and Chuck are always entertaining, but their guest on this episode was amazing.
✌️
Quantum particles can’t be influenced by the curves in spacetime because the curves are too large, so that at any local place subatomic particles are doing their thing, that area isn’t curved enough to influence them. If you zoom in on two touching points on a curved line, they aren’t really curved locally. This is how you can have a local group of galaxies moving towards a so called Great Attractor while at the same time the entire universe itself is expanding apart. The local spacetime can be incongruently fluid with respect to the motion of the entire universe.
so how would you explain gravitational lensing where there is a curvature in space time where the path of light around it is visibly bent ?
I have literally always said that gravity isn't its own thing. It's a combination of gyroscopic procession and mass and the directions that we are spinning against the magnetic current, which is holding us down.
You have the magnetic current from the Sun holding us down on the Earth. You have the magnetic current from the Earth, holding us down in the Earth from the Solar System and from the Galaxy and so on. And this combination of electromagnetism and gyroscopic prosession, along with atmosphere, creates gravity. That's why when you go to venus it's not gravity that crushes you it's atmospheric pressure that crushes you
Terrance Howard has started a tidal wave
The macro to micro concept lens?
So the universe is post-impressionistic! 😊Very beautiful. ❤
This a very old idea, set up by Ted Jacobson in 1995. His set up of gravity as emergent is a very well known research topic in physics.
"Gravity emerges from..." ---- d'oh! You mean it just leapt out at you from behind a bush? Or do you mean that the collective interaction between particles gives rise to a cumulative force? And take away the particles and there is no gravity? D'OH!
I give you a thumbs up for being the first person here to mention cumulative force. Apes alone weak, apes together strong.
@@starventure This great ape accepts your opposable thumbs up... and returns one to you for your movie allusion.
This is why there must be so much space in space, otherwise it would collapse
No wonder we've never discovered the Grand Unified Theory. There isn't one.