The Myth of The Beginning of Time | String Theory and the Big Bang
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 06. 2024
- Want to stream more content like this… and 1,000’s of courses, documentaries & more?
👉 👉 Start Your Free Trial of Wondrium tinyurl.com/382d3v6y 👈 👈
-------------------------------------------
This video is episode two from the series "Examining the Big Questions of Time".
Stream the full series now on Wondrium www.Wondrium.com/CZcams
Just a few decades ago, scientists were absolute in their determination that time began with the Big Bang. But that’s all been turned on its head with the rise of string theory and other fascinating developments in theoretical physics. Learn how those advances brought the pre-Bang universe to the forefront of cosmology.
00:00 Was the Big Bang Really the Beginning of Time?
04:18 Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
07:22 Is Relativity Theory Always Valid?
09:06 Origins of String Theory
13:51 Quantum Strings Introduce Dualities
17:41 Why Can't We Perceive All Dimensions of Space?
21:53 New Big Bang Theories and Controversy
25:37 Observable Consequences of a Pre-Bang Epoch
--------
Welcome to Wondrium on CZcams.
Here, you can enjoy a carefully curated selection of educational videos from our library of history and science series.
If you’ve ever wanted to travel back in time, wondered about the science of life, or dreamt of exploring the stars, then Wondrium will be your new favorite channel!
If you decide you’d like to learn more about what you love, check out the full experience at wondrium.com/CZcams
There, you’ll find in-depth answers to everything you’ve ever wondered, with mind-blowing surprises along the way.
Your brain is going to love this place!
-------------------------------------------
You can also read thousands of articles from the smartest experts in their fields at Wondrium Daily: www.WondriumDaily.com
And, of course, check us out on all of our social channels:
-Facebook: / wondrium
-Twitter: / wondrium
-Instagram: / wondrium
She has just did, hands down the best lecture. given the very best from start to finish where we are in cosmology and quantum physics today.
I have seen thousands of these and enjoy it although find it difficult to understand she brings everything we know together into beautiful focus.
Thank you for your great comments, Sean! We're happy to hear you liked this lecture so much! ☺️
While i found what she was saying to be very interesting, i don't feel that String theory is a good theory for understanding the Universe, mostly because it makes poor predictions.
If the theory has a bad ' Baseline ' so to speak then the maths/ information that comes out to tell us about the universe will also be wrong.
Something else that bothers me about string theory is that is suggests many things that we will never be able to test, the multiverse being just one of those things.
I think that to prove that these strings exist would also require so much energy to see them that it might cause a black hole.
People speak about things that string theory suggests as if they are real, as if they are facts when often the case is they aren't.
They then go on to make other predictions but i think we should find out if a theory can make good predictions to begin with before continuing on with it otherwise you're wasting time and money on ideas from an unproven point of view which isn't wise at all!.
What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know. - St. Augustine
What do you think it is ?
Idk if I will ever understand any of this , though I try . All I know for sure is that it makes me happy that this video already has so many views and comments, at the time of this comment being written 1 hour since posting
The existing matter could come back to the center of gravity with the help of gravitions, and convert matter into energy. Those energy could collide and make matter and antimatter within a Big Area. I have a theory how the universe could make the fundamental particles. And I think neutrinos are the cause of gravity.
I think most of us don't know the maths, 😜 so most probably don't truly know string theory on that deep level.
I could make no head or tail of the lecture. These days lecture on science is like a political speech by Trump or Biden.
@@smlanka4u j0uģu
"I'm entering a higher dimension now "
Define dimension....
And, btw, Time is abstract. Change, quintillions of individual (quantum) change events, is the fundamental reality. Time is merely how we reference change.
4:35 "the radius is larger because light is faster than the expansion of space". I've never heard anyone say that. Everyone that's addressed that subject say the exact opposite. That space can and is traveling faster than light, especially the further you go out the faster space expands.
Amazing explation. Made me sit and watch till the end. Thanks
Greetings from Sweden!
Love the longer format.
Thank you!
I love the measured deliberate clarity with which you speak. Great job
Light is due to the differential expansion of space/matter.
Space expands spherically.
Matter expands radially.
Difference is apparent speed of light.
(Spherically expanding spacetime creates "spooky action @ a distance".)
Greek and chriistin philosophers are a wonderful guide to modern physics.
Time reversal before the big bang. I would like to see entropy reversal in that universe. How does a system become more organized without adding energy to it?
Anyway, I guess I have not paid much attention to string theory since the late 80's a few presentations here and there. No experiments to back it up makes it difficult to contend.
string theory is philosophy dressed up and masquerading as science....its rubbish.
Entropy increase with time only stochastically (counting microstates consistent with a given macroscopic description). So in the mirror time region entropy does not "reverse" it goes in the same way with respect it its time direction as it does in our part of the twinverse. (If you believe in this model.)
If you solve that, you can representate a perfect cyclic universe.
I LOVE THIS LECTURE ALTHOUGH I DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND. IT IS MY FIRST INTRODUCTION TO STRING THEORY. HOW WONDROUS TO CONTEMPLATE THE UNIVERSE FROM PRE-BIG BANG TO TODAY. THANK YOU.
Yes, but it's nothing to shout about.
{:o:O:}
What I know is, in order to go backward in time, one must go forward in time. The state of yesterday can only be changed to the same state of yesterday requires moving forward in time to change its state to yesterday or any state for that matter. Even when an equation shows that a negative is possible for time, in reality it means different that "negative time", just like when Dirac added relativistic effect to Schrodinger equation, it produces "negative mass" but what it means reality is that the particle has a negative charge ... anti-hydrogen and positron are result his Dirac work, it is not "negative mass" but negative charge.
Excellent narrator ---- clear and precise speaking -
Not much good if you don't understand what she's talking about, might as well be talking Klingon.
Kaplah
She's doing great at reading material someone wrote for her.
A real Gem!
Thank you
Thank you for this information
A very reassuring concluding statement. Thanks for the good night's sleep. 😀
THANK YOU...!!!
You have explained understandably well...!!!
Just like you have said :
If the future is infinite... then the past is infinite too.
So, THEN THE FUTURE IS THE PAST AND
PAST IS THE FUTURE...!!!
MEANS THE END IS THE BEGINNING AND
THE BEGINNING IS THE END...!!!
HERE TIME AND SPACE BECOMES THE SAME...!!!
This is a learner' s perspective...!!!
THANKS AGAIN...!!!
a logical progression of fusion in cores of massive stars is its atoms will be subjected to extreme gravity and pressure, becoming a neutron star after a super nova. I’m following that logic that at certain mass, gravity will crunch neutrons to their building blocks where gravity is the only prevailing force. If that’s what gravity is. Remove all the fields and forces occupying otherwise empty space time, that keep quantum particles at their arms length, and you can fit the entire universe on the head of a pin. More or less. Time as we know it is all there is and it’s in a stand still unleashed at this point residing over gravity. There is no space, yet
This actually clears up of questions I have been asking, two theories now, which one? But the possibility that the big bang happened after what? lol I think I will stay the strings of a violin, keep chopping it down to a size of a dot. I am really kidding, although I do find field of physics amazing. Those brain cells explode with equations are way beyond mine. Obviously, I enjoyed this documentary very much. Thank you♥️
A collapsing spacetime still has conformal symmetries, so the strings conformally rescale, they do not shrink relative to each other. No one yet knows what the exact conformal symmetries are yet, since we do not have a proper completed theory underlying particle phenomenology yet, but the basic idea should still hold. So you would get strings all the way down (or whatever structure the particles actually are, if not strings).
Beautiful explanation
Great thought provoking lecture.
If correct it seems space as well as the fields and particles it brings with it, is simply an emergent property of time, it comes, it decays away, but is still consequent to time. Time itself, endures.
Sort of makes sense, to me at least.
Time is simply the MEASURES we invent to understand DURATIONS ... the DURATIONS exist .. TIME DOES NOT ... it remains a conceptualization manufactured by minds ... a FANTASY.
@@profanetruth17yes! Thank you! I always drop a comment about time not existing and get roasted for it. Now I got a buddy!
Pure information in wondrium channel of course congratulation
How do the Planck length and LS in string theory differ?
Not my field, but I grabbed this from Wikipedia:
In theories of particle physics based on string theory, the characteristic length scale of strings is assumed to be on the order of the Planck length, or 10^−35 meters, the scale at which the effects of quantum gravity are believed to become significant.[15]-
* I think L_s is a symmetry between the smallest and largest scale. ( Again not my expertise but that's what I deducted.)
A fine illustration of the problem with non-physicists explaining physics. This is a collection of metaphors without explanations along with some serious errors. Skip this, and listen to Sean Carroll’s podcasts and CZcams videos for a deep discussion that’s still accessible to non-physicists, and Sabine Hossenfelder’s CZcams videos for shorter, but intellectually honest, explanations. Both are PhD physicists and are widely respected as scientists and as teachers.
You must be a geologist, given your handle. handle = name
Very, very interesting.
@12:20 that's an exaggeration. Angular momentum quantum numbers arise from rotational symmetries, not from mass _per se._ It is only _measurable_ angular momentum that requires a mass, which the symmetry breaking in QEWD provides. It is not an effect of "quantum fluctuations" (which is a meaningless word filler phrase).
This lady gives the best explanation I have ever seen although I had to stop think rewind more than once but I think I got it !?!? EH
The use of the term 'Blasphemy' is ironic considering the quasi religious nature of String Theory.
String theory is not religious in the least, it's a mathematical framework to describe reality at the most fundamental level.
This was the best physics lecture I've ever listened to! It really brought a lot of things I was either confused or unaware of into a fundamental understanding for me.
Continue your exellent job tank you
Thank you so much, Francisco!
Life is Eternal,
most precious Sign/Ability of Life,
is Motion, (The Movement-Principle)
Time is the 'shadow of Motion', (Stuff-side)
time do Only Exists in the Minds of Living Beings,
(Life-side)
Amount of time, is Motion compare to other Motion,
(Perspective-Principle)
wat is the processes of chemical assembly of elements to produce a living organism ?? has this been reproduced in a lab env??
I love this topic and lecture. I must admit that it was very recently that I was forced to accept that The Holy Bible is not the absolute truth. Even though I had been introduced to string theory and quantum physics, I couldn't let the Bible go. However, it became clear that my beliefs were stunting my growth. Then I cried. For an extremely long time. After my long cry.... I was free from limitation! Now, I can learn about everything without hesitation.
there is absolutely room for the truths of the Bible to coincide with the theories represented. remember - theories, at best.
You can think of the Bible as metaphor ... explaining things to more primitive civilizations in a very simplified form that they could comprehend -- kind of like telling little kids that the stork brought them. Who can say what a "day" of Creation is, anyway? Or the true nature of the Creator?
Time is an emergent property of existence in a constant radial trajectory of expansion. We (all local matter) are existing in a co-moving unilateral constant speed, which is undetectable. We can only sense deviations, from this universal constant, as motions.
Wonderful episode, well worth the time watching; but I would have been even happier if the name of the brilliant lecturer was properly given in the video title.
Scientific Mythologist?
@@alphalunamare Laura Helmuth / Scientific American / Scientific Mythologist
I'm curious. What is the observational evidence that supports the validity of String Theory?
She mentions that we have to be careful in discussing space expanding, as space is both infinite and unchanging. It’s the things in it that are moving further apart. That only makes sense because it can’t expand into nothing. Considering that, why does the theory of the singularity necessitate that nothing existed before? Why couldn’t it be like an explosion in an empty room? There was something there, and then it exploded into a lot of things. That would make more sense since so far science says matter can’t be created, only transformed. That one rule, unless it’s wrong, negates the idea of there ever having been nothing. So, point to Aristotle. I also don’t see that we’ve proven that this isn’t an endless cycle. Things are expanding currently, but who’s to say there isn’t a limit to that, that at some distant future point things won’t reverse? I also wonder if some questions might be answered by looking at it from the point of view of another field. For instance, if we took the Seussian approach - an entire world or even universe can exist on a dust speck. Maybe our universe is just a dust speck in a larger universe. Or from a biological perspective, maybe our universe is a complex cell or collection of cells in a larger body. For that matter, maybe the quantum realm really is a separate universe incased within our own, and maybe our universe is a quantum realm inside someone else’s macro universe. When it comes to theoretical science, I think they need to have more imagination. The truth is out there, but it’s probably far more fantastic that any science, philosophy, or religion has ever dreamed.
What is time? Time is something that can be used to describe changes. If everything is static then there is no need of time. So time is a state variable. It is man-made, mathematical, non-physical variable, to describe the state changes of the universe. It is independent from space. The existence of universe doesn’t need time, it is our human being that needs time to describe the changes of our universe.
What clock measures is the synchronized events. Atomic clock measures atom vibration events, electronic watch measures quartz frequency, watch measures mechanical vibration events, the earth spins a turn as a day, moves a turn around sun as a year. We humans use different synchronized events to express different time.
Very good comment. Nice to meet someone else who knows what clocks measure.
Mythology - understand just one particle and you know it all!
Starting point: magnet and electricity (not the textbook version).
Our universe will end a cold empty death infinitely, there's no room for some re-colapse into some new bounce universe, penrose ciclics universe's only chance is if somehow the collapse of the fine constants due to the end of time/interactions rips spacetime in a way that spawns new universes at some point. We know string theory is wrong because we can percisely calculate energy levels of gravitational waves as any on extra dimension will eat up some amount of energy from the wave. No energy is lost, no extra dimensions exist, (just our xyz plus time dimensions).
If light is faster than the expansion of the universe... What happens to light when it reaches the boundary of the universe... if it passes through that boundary, where does it go? If not, does it bounce? Is it destroyed? Does it stop existing?
By definition there is no edge of the universe, it is everything that exists. The beginning was the same size as it is today and will be forever, it’s our concept of measuring it that’s flawed and makes it nearly impossible to understand it in everyday terms…
It's kinda obvious that the word 'beginning' has a frame of reference of time itself. So you can't say the beginning of time.
There is a particle for everything. "The inflaton" and it's not a joke. It will soon be over.
Keep in mind, we have example zero examples of “nothing”.
infinite acceleration as opening sequence of an infinite universe where planets are fed with solar wind and stars and galaxies are fed with cosmic radiation
(infinite acceleration eliminates time --> time is inertia)
I tried following along but it started to get way over my head about halfway through
The universe is an oscillating time cone. A wave interaction that reaches a phase relationship, making matter possible for a time, thus serving the 'disconnect' required for consciousness to observe itself via seperate vessels/units/humans, and any other intelligences in existence.
Is that another way of saying, “we are all star stuff, the universe made manifest trying to find meaning within itself”? Or the similar theory of the God Game - God turned itself into the universe and everything in it. That was the Big Bang. Eventually, when enough of the sentient elements recognize this, it will all coalesce. Multiple universes are just different versions of the game. There’s also Poe’s Eureka, the last thing he wrote, which he considered to be his magnum opus, but was greatly panned in his time. Some of the science we now know was off, but other parts were remarkably visionary.
@BecomingLizzyBlue in a way, yes.
Nice comment. I'm also trying to highlight that 'movement' is illusory, and hence so is time. When we stay still, is when we really move....
my favorite new scientific term, "the pre-bang"
Dinner & a movie …?
What if the universe didn't start off at a small infinitely dense state? What if it started off just extremely dense? The time where the universe was even denser, would have been the so called 'inflationary epoch', and I am proposing that it didn't start off this dense. Would that help explain the confusion that scientists have about the 'inflationary epoch'? With that said, the universe may have been like a seed waiting to explode (that was as dense as the time 'just after' the 'inflationary epoch')! The universe was in some other state of operation before the Big bang.
"Time is the dressing room of eternity.
In a few fleeting days of life on this planet we are given the opportunity to prepare for Eternity."
~Rev. Billy Graham~
So you run and you run to catch up with the Sun, but it's sinking, racing around to come up behind you again.
The Sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older, shorter of breath, one day closer to death...
~Pink Floyd~
✌️
As much as this is a fairly nice presentation... I would challenge her to identify the specific particles in a string, and their motion relative to each other, otherwise its just abstract art. Kudos on the phrase "pre-bangian!"
4.3 it says after big bang the distance between galaxies have increase 1000 times.
According to the 1st law of motion, once in motion always in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. What outside force caused cosmic inflation to slow down? Bet ya can't answer that one.
In one form or another energy and matter always existed. There’s no other possibility.
The observable universe is expanding. It doesn’t mean that’s all there is.
is it possible to describe why the first expansion, inflation, stopped so quickly and then go on to expand faster and faster? i have real trouble with the inflation theory. actually its ok. I'm guessing the answer is mathematical wizardry😊
Basically the energy density dropped so when the temperature of the extreme early universe drops below a certain threshold, the decay is complete and the scalar field “settles down” to its lowest energy state, inflation stops, and regular expansion resumes...in effect the bang starts...A critical part of cosmic inflation is reheating: After a sufficient period of inflation the potential dominated state decays (or “reheats”) into
ordinary matter in a hot thermal state.
Just a layman who probably is completly wrong but a lot of info out there like this:
www.kicc.cam.ac.uk/research/cosmic-microwave-background-and-the-early-universe/CMB-ending-inflation
arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0210/0210527.pdf
When rewound the expansion of the universe would lead to the formation of a black hole that swallows everything. The black hole would then be the universe for a brief time. As the movie continues to rewind there is less space available to support the geometry of the black hole. It shrinks until it's contents are exposed, a small ball of energy. I think we are at the beginning. Why don't cosmologists mention this white hole era? Is being spit out of a white hole the same thing as cosmic inflation?
The truth is we still have no clue what time is so we can’t even phrase these questions properly.
"Time is an invention for keeping track of the day and year's passage. Time passing is an illusion created by the harnessing of Earths rotations for time's invention". Bruce Dillon.
We know now that sunrise - sunset is an illusion created by Earths axis rotation. Time passing is also partly created by this same rotation because sunrise - sunset which since Copernicus' discovery is just a label for the axis rotation. Time is also a label for the axis rotation, for example if someone says "sometime" they actually mean "someday" making time merely a label for day and as the day is a product of earths axis rotation, then time like sunrise and sunset is just a label for that rotation.
As was mentioned though the axis rotation prop is only partly responsible for the time illusion, there's also misdirection involved. Misdirection is where attention is drawn to one thing to take it away from something else. In the case of time passing our attention is drawn to the time units which give a reading of how much time has passed but this reading is only a translation of how much of the day and year has passed.
An interesting and amusing point is that misdirection is often accomplished by sleight of hand, with regard to time passing this would be the second, minute and hour hand.
If you're interested there's an article on reddit posted 15 days ago "Defining time". Take care, hope this helps.
My head hurts!
10 minutes in and i have no idea what this wonderful women is saying😔
First I admit to being totally baffled but loving it.
Next, it occurs to me that although the theoretical is necessary to give birth to the practical, what we have here is not really an explanation of the Big Bang at all. Whatever theory is proposed, it has to provide a reason why whatever came before, changed its nature and acquired immense energy in order to give rise to our pre-inflationary universe and then acquired the energy for inflation. I don't see that reason in anything here. I wonder if, in this particular sphere of science, the theoretical will ever produce a bouncing baby of practicality.
And I can already hear the religious lobby, "Aha, the brane we came from was the brain of God" 😂 (sorry, couldn't resist it)
@Shon Mardani you really think you’re on to something, yet you don’t even know what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is 🤦♂️
How is it that the most obvious possibility of intelligent design is so easily dismissed?
Because they don't want to know.
Time space and matter came into existence at the same time 6000yrs
Time has frozen for that clock...
Why did you bring Santa Claus into the conversation? 🤔
If all galaxies started at singularity then all has to be equal. Correct? I don't see an issue
String theory....fun with math and as empty as is the Multiverse
Imagine something, There must be a place to blast the eruption. Like a bomb blast. You need a place to explode to bomb. After the blast you have time within this blast and space within this blast but funny thing is nobody talks about outside of the blast. There is also a space and time. Why? The blast created 2 part of time and space. Inside and outside of the Blast area. Expansion of universe should take in the outside space and continuously make or convert this time and space into its inside part.
Think about that..
See the time of nothingness See the time of indianness See the time of hinduness Matlab see the people see the land see the government and try to see the people again with/ without nothingness See the country see the nation see the state again see the notion of commonwealth of Nations in the light of United Nations with/without nothingness
If the Universe is the Painting, where did the Canvas come from?
The paint store.
Why are the subtitles in Hindi if the audio is in English?
string theory was invented to circumvent intelligent design. there are hundreds of properties that are just right and if either one of them were slightly different life could not exist in this universe.
I know how we are already time traveling
Space and time remain undefined. There is a question of perspective here. You cannot take anything that is learned on the cosmic level and just projected backwards into the infinitesimal on the plank scale. That does not make sense. The Big bang theory is not justifiable on the basis of cosmology. It would have to come from quantum theory, if it is to exist.
No one is saying, but it is obvious that all of the cosmos and all of its phenomenon descend from movement of particles or if you prefer ascend from movement of particles. In movement of particles is where time originates. Any other kind of time is in material. Every movement, on the microscopic scale, has a factor associated with it that indicates it was not instantaneous, that is the time. Every movement of its own time and it's not related to any other movement of any other object. Piecing together all these desperate, unrelated times, in our mind does not make them contiguous in reality. There is no such time to be traced back to a beginning.
1228pm at ist on 11092022
10 to the minus 34, yea like you'd spot that a mile away.
please don't show the Big Bang as a big explosion, it just makes people think it was a big explosion. otherwise great video
How does any of this help us? My guess is there is no answer because no one knows the question.
Galaxies moving apart during inflation? No stars yet but galaxies moved apart.
The universe consists of changing field in an infinite space. Any additional concept must be justified with positive value. Time is observed only through motion. Matter can only be detected through the force produced by the field. Time is a useful concept, but its usefulness cannot be justified because the introduction of time allows differences in time at different locations in space.
Light is not faster than the expansion of the universe. That is either a mistake or she is breaking a new theory here
If your theory and the math doesn't fit, invent a new particle with the necessary properties. I'm not even sure what reality is anymore.
“Inflaton” “graviton” lol
If the equations are too complicated to solve, that is a red flag. They shouldn’t contain any number greater than 3
seems obvious that the bang happened and it happened everywhere at once. please help me picture this.
When did time begin? Obviously, at _t = 0._
This sounds more like philosophy than measurement tbh. I don't understand why physicists hate math so much.
Time, in relation to our planet, has ALWAYS existed, man merely found a method of MEASURING it.
Only because our planet exist
_...relative_ to our perception of it's passing. However, using a constant, it can be calculated, and the calculation does not preclude the possibility of the existence of another dimension of time. In fact, the math is in favor of the possibility.
Time is relative.
Time was not conceived by Chinese natural philosophers as absolute (linear) time. It was more of an impulse than a flow, which was determined by the mythologeme of the first sound. The time of natural philosophers was discrete, not continuous. Indeed, a sound that has arisen in any source with a certain height and intensity will last for a limited time and transmit sound waves through a stationary medium to a known distance. This distance is the space in which the wave propagates, and the time of its propagation is the Chinese cosmos. Therefore, the attenuation of sound leads to a complete loss of the time -space generated by it, and a new sound generates a completely new one. Of course, the visible world is able to exist and exists in the space -time generated by the first sound - the first flash, for a long time, but the energy of this sound - light will inevitably run out in the future, and that is why the Chinese tradition speaks not about eternity, but only about the longevity of the cosmos.
The system cannot pass through any of the stages or phases that represent a cycle. Each moment of time corresponds to a certain configuration of space, set by the ratio of yin and yang energies. Each cosmic situation is thus a unique combination of space-time characteristics. But since the situation is constantly reproduced in the form of a cycle, their transitions into each other are quite predictable and it is possible to "calculate" the next state, just as it is possible to predict the next note in a melody that develops in time according to harmonic laws (Lu Buwei, "Liushi Chunqiu", 240 BC). Indian philosophy, created in the distant past and still living today, impresses with the harmonious correlation of all facets of the universe.
The red dot that the Hindu woman draws between her eyebrows symbolizes bindu - the starting point from where the universe was born. The universe was born out of fluctuations. Bindu began to emit vibrations, with a gradual change in amplitude, which formed the five elements of the universe: ether, air, fire, water and earth. Everything that exists consists of these five elements. The five elements of the universe disintegrate in the reverse order of their origin. The ether lasts the longest, which revives the rest of the elements.
The subordination of all things is expressed in a single universal law.
“The geometry of space in general relativity theory turned out to be another field, therefore the geometry of space in GR is almost the same as the gravitational field.” (Smolin).
Developing Einstein's hypothesis of a cylindrical world, Einstein's theory of gravitation "migrates" into phase space: due to this, it is quantized.
Final formula: ф(G)=-(½)(w/wpl)c^2, where ф(G) is Newtonian gravitational potential, w - quantal frequency of the gravitational field (space-time)- can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment ( see P.S. ).
From m Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), and without the need to involve the concept of curvature of space-time), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: фG=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^1/2(w).
By the way, to this expression for the gravitational potential: "Containing all information about the gravitational field." (Einstein), you can come according to the classics (G), SR ©, and De Broglie's hypothesis (h), - without GR.
P.S. This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present.
A lead ball suspended on a strong chain from the ceiling of the laboratory can serve as a test body; at radius r=27,6 cm, ball mass is m=1т.
According to the formula for the gravitational potential, the energy of quanta/photons of the field (photons are characterized by different parity and helicity, and it is not quite accurate to say that a photon has an integer spin equal to one) at a distance r from the center of gravity of the test body to the detector (practically on the surface of the ball) =66,3 keV.
The flow: J=0,45*10-8 quanta/сm2c; this is a measurable flux for modern world-class gamma detectors.
And to the question: where does the energy of the field (quanta) come from, it should be noted that, since the effect is ultrarelativistic, the source is a physical vacuum (see on the Kruskal diagram, regions V and VI, which are not even covered by global space-time).
Without taking into account the vacuum, the ordinary Universe cannot be considered (thermodynamically) a closed system.
A non-closed Universe can be represented as an oscillatory system, and if the time t is explicitly included in the differential equation of motion, then it is a non-autonomous system.
Property of string adjust HOTE HII.. EXTREME PHYSICAL ...RESULT DEGA..
ENSTIEN HAS ZERO OBSERVATION REGARDING..
Clap
It's "IN-fla-ton", not "In-FLA-ton"
String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics.
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
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. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). 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 a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. 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" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. 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. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist. The model grew out of that simple idea.
I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
Very biased to have discussed the fanciful exotic scenarios and not Penrose's pretty conservative CCC. The CCC theory works out very generically, and is insensitive to most particle phenomenology. All CCC requires is a conformal rescaling condition, and that only needs proton decay and a positive Λ. CMB evidence for CCC is not required, but would be a bonus (absence of evidence in this case not being the same as evidence of absence).
👍👏👍👏👍
I don't think the universe had an actual beginning. Since Planck Time is the shortest interval of time possible but not zero, the universe could not have had an actual beginning but rather simply existed at the very first Planck Time. No t = 0. Only t = first Planck Time. Also the primordial universe could have been some kind of particle with a gargantuan mass, in an infinite vacuum, that became unstable and decayed releasing all the energy and matter that resulted in the Big Bang.
"The universe did not have an actual beginning."
Steady state?!?
You assume that Planck time existed BEFORE the universe ever came into being... Perhaps, like space-time it was a product of the origin of all things.
Interesting... 🤔
That would fall in line with Reality/existense has no beginning. That would make sense but then you need to solve entropy!
Let's be honest, the biggest myth here is string theory. That it's a theory is a myth, as much as its usefulness. It's not physical.
its a tool.
There is no such as time
🤗