Did This NEW Theory of Gravity Solve the Expanding Universe? Claudia de Rham [Ep. 419]
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 06. 2024
- Join my mailing list briankeating.com/list to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA 🇺🇸 will WIN!
The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is one of the fundamental questions in cosmology.
Scientists believe that dark energy is driving and accelerating the expansion; however, there is a discrepancy between the predicted amount of dark energy in the universe and our theoretical calculations based on the properties of fundamental particles.
To get to the bottom of this, today's guest, Professor Claudia de Rham, proposed a new theory of "massive gravity" that could solve this “impossible” riddle.
Claudia de Rham is a Swiss theoretical physicist at Imperial College London. She is known for her work at the intersection of gravity, cosmology, and particle physics. She won the 2020 Blavatnik Young Scientist Award for reviving the theory of massive gravity and has made significant contributions to understanding dark energy, dark matter, and gravity. Her research focuses on modified theories of gravity, including massive gravity and Galileon gravity.
Join us as we explore the true nature of gravity and the beauty of falling!
Key Takeaways:
00:00:00 Intro
00:01:14 Mass of the graviton
00:08:16 Judging a book by its cover
00:15:14 Could AI experience the joy of falling?
00:20:02 The speed of gravity
00:22:50 How would a breathing mode manifest itself?
00:34:02 Extra dimensions
00:39:55 Do we need a quantum theory of gravity?
00:44:54 Nothing happens at the Planck length
00:50:22 Quantum nature of gravity
00:55:28 Outro
Additional resources:
➡️ Connect with Claudia de Rham:
💻 LinkedIn: / claudia-de-rham-b2b4b3274
➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:
✖️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 CZcams: czcams.com/users/DrBrianKeatin...
📝 Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/list
✍️ Check out my blog: briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/
🎙️ Follow my podcast: briankeating.com/podcast
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #claudiaderham - Věda a technologie
If you could speak to Einstein for an hour, what would you talk about?
My theories , of course.
Of course I would not presume to speak to Einstein. But ...
Does Einstein believe David Hilbert should get the credit for preceding him in the General Theory of Relativity? Did Einstein deliberately work with his trusted friend, Marcel Grossman, rather than preeminent experts in differential geometry, to avert them possibly publishing earlier? Was David Hilbert at the lecture where you described your work in progress, or not? Did Herman Minkowski mention differential geometry as the appropriate mathematics (besides the space-time invariant)?
Aside from that, what in particular did Einstein like to play on the violin to promote intuition, as he once indicated he did? Was Einstein playing the violin, in association, when he had the happiest thought of his life?
About how you've turned your channel into clickbait
It ranked 4/6 in all known methods, but has yet to be refined: P(n) = -2.5209 + 9.9152 * n + 0.2009 * n^2 - 0.0032 * n^3. And this is only one of three others in conjunction with TOE, which is like 9 formulas in one structure defining every irrational number, h, c, and G… each with their own identity in respect to other constants and irrational numbers present in the universe.
I’d talk with Einstein about singularitatsfreie Losungen und Dunkel Materie/Energie. I’d also recommend he’d read John Moffat’s book “Reinventing Gravity.” He’d love it!
Einstein was wrong is always clickbait.
Except we know he is wrong somewhere, we just cant figure out where..
Yes. Except if talking about Quantum Mechanics
Of course because he livid during low technology times so some things he guessed are wrong! Today Physicists also guessing many things they pretend things are correct which but not proven or measured!😅😢
“No it’s not” - Bohr
“Nope. Absolutely nope” - John Bell
Einstein is the modern Aristotle.
So convincingly wrong
The main "philosophy" in science is: "All models are wrong but some are useful". This is true in general. All models are just models and therefore always "wrong". A picture of a car or a toy model of that car of course IS not that car. They can represent some aspects of the car but not the car as a whole. The picture might be much more detailed because it's a high resolution image, but it's just a 2d projection of the visual aspect of that care from just one angle. The toy model is an actual 3d representation.
Mathematical models also just "describe" certain phenomna we can observe in nature, they don't explain or "prove" what it actually is. Newtonian gravity is a model that still works just as well as it did when Newton came up with it. It's still used to this very day most of the time when relativisic effects don't really matter. General relativity describes the same observations differently with a higher precision and as a result can explain more of our observations, but not all of them. Even if we had a theory that seemingly fits all observations "perfectly", there may be some error behind the 20th, 100th, 10000th decimal place.
In pure math we actually have figured out certain identities to 100% accuracy. However that doesn't mean we actually have the value. We just know how to calculate it. Any appoximation of pi is wrong. You can never write down the "correct" value pi since it has an infinite decimal expansion. Just by this fact, any model that uses pi anywhere in it's calculations will be "wrong" as well.
Keep in mind that gravity has infinite reach. So every particle in the universe attracts every other particle. That may includes potential mass outside our observable universe. The effect would probably be very tiny, but would still make a difference.
"If I ignore that one number, and live in a different universe, it all almost works"
I've analyzed all the chalk writing on her blackboard and realized it's exactly the same formula as a recipe for spaghetti sauce my mother deveoped 40 years ago when I was 9 years old. How Claudia got it I have no idea because it was passed down through my family and I was told it was a family secret! The secret is now out!
Sounds pretty conclusive of a Flying Spaghetti Monster to me!
🤣
@@Nimbulus85you beat me to that one! 😂✌️ Personally I know the flying spaghetti monster well. He is the Stead I ride at the speed of thought when I visit people I knew in past lifetimes, on Earth, or future ones on different planets.
Of course I cannot be sure, they may be future lifetimes in the past, on Earth and past lifetimes on other worlds.
However whichever way you cut the plum pudding, the realms of the pan dimensional multiverse appear to be occupied by the flying spaghetti monsters conscious ropey threads, and hyperconscious-nest of sauce. 😉🧝♀️🎇
Sweet. I thought my wife stopped by and wrote it on her board since it looks exactly like a shopping list. Thats what i get when she asks me what she wants for dinner.
But it doesn't give me a clue as to where I can buy all the quantum tomatoes needed for the recipe.
It's always fun to hear people stuck in a rabbit hole talking about 'thinking outside the box'. None of them would ever dream of thinking outside of mathematics, because,... what could possibly exist outside math, right? And how do I explain it to my boss ? So, rather than having to define the box to think out of, the choice is to fantasize something that would explain a lot if it existed,... but doesn't allow itself to be observed. A quantum particle with an uncollapsable wave function. An omnipresent quantum mechanical superposition that influences other superpositions, but itself never manifests. Great ! Now all we need is the math on that, or to put it in other words, find a way to explain it to my boss.
The wild thing is I think this way of analyzing is why we can't make real leaps in tech because the theory is so divorced from the practical now...
Actually, Einstein made lots of mental exercises, imagining different kind of scenarios... Then he put the maths on his ideas.
@@matiasd.7755 That goes if you're Einstein and have a happy void in front of you. We have questions that need an answer ASAP, and the limitations of math in providing abstract descriptions are slowing us down.
@@Berend-ov8of i think it's limitations on the human intelect. Not related to understanding new concepts but difficulty to develop them. But we do go on. Every idea that gets discarded is a step closer to the truth. And I feel the next theory will represent a huge leap in the human understanding of the universe And perhaps, that's why it's getting difficult to find it. I just hope that once it's found, we make a good use of it... And I think math is very suitable for abstract ideas as well as concrete descriptions.
@@matiasd.7755 Okay, so you know you can't put two and two together unless you can tell them apart, right? Well, math doesn't, so there goes math, out the window. Now what? "Every idea that gets discarded is a step closer to the truth." I hear you, but some serious ideas might need discarding.
Terrence Howard already had this figured out while still in his mother’s womb.
🤣
Too bad he couldn't get a patent on it. He tried to tell his mom at the time but she mistook the request for morning sickness.🙃
That explains the smell.
And he wrote down the Grand Unification Equation when he was 5.
Hehehehe
When scientists want to talk about "dynamic cosmological constant", it'd be easier to phrase it as "dynamic cosmological expansion". IMO.
Duly noted.
Everyone speaks in observations/acronyms now 😢
Agreed. No point calling it a constant if it is not constant. Also, the constant isn't a 'fundamental'. It is just a parameter in an equation.
No reason to rephrase that. So what you're weakness in research is an inherent handicap of focusing on the larger issue, instead of selling the worthless ocd dynamics of your past upbringing.
@@SubwayStreetvendorblocki-hn1wy - Um, what? I can't even parse what you're saying.
I'm saying that it's awkward when some scientist says _"a dynamic cosmological constant - but it's not a constant since it's dynamic"._ I understand *why* they'd want say it once, just to make sure people know what the scientist is referring to. But it gets weird to repeatedy say _"the cosmological constant - but it's not a constant"._ If their position is that it's not a constant, then STOP CALLING IT A CONSTANT.
@@garanceadrosehn9691 The smart ones say "Einstein's cosmological constant". Then they can just say it's not but they just call it that to make it easier to understand.
I would have liked some discussion of how a graviton could possibly have mass.
I think gravity is an artifact created by the properties of all fields.
To say dark energy = saying pixie dust
I still haven't made my mind up, which of the two i find the most likely to be true, pixie dust or string theory.
Yes, but Churchland’s comment is perfect! And while it might not be appropriate here, they have minds young enough and they may be curious enough, to breakthrough on more than one front. Choose: AI/AE or quantum gravity? It has the logical structure of a false dilemma. It’s like Einstein choosing between the photo electric effect, Brownian motion, or relativity. Either or? No! Both and!
Einstein Was Wrong !! - Because: Multiverse. ...and Marvel...
Solve the universe? Well maybe you could understand it. It won’t buy you coffee, though. Come to think of it, it won’t buy anyone else coffee, either. So what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do about it?
Are you sure?
Where does Coffee come from, if not the universe?
Flamboyant thought, what if gravity is actually a compressive force that pushes matter together, it would explain the fact that the universe expands equally in all directions and more rapidly the further out we look. Don't flame me, like I said, "flamboyant".
Does this not imply that everything would be identical, other than gravity would be a negative push in the direction of a mass, proportionate to the masses and the distances, as apposed to a positive pull, proportionate to the masses and the distance?
How would it change our thoughts on black holes?
Gravity is a combination. A combination of positive matter pushing things together and accelerating time, and negative matter (which is the matter that you and I are made of) pulling things together and slowing down time.
The universe isn't expanding. Redshift was misinterpreted.
As long as astrophysics concensus is according to A, B and C below, it will get nowhere solving these bigger expansion problems, imo.
A. An object is physically time dilated in a gravitational free-fall (which is contradictory to the equivalence principles). Note, a circular gravitational orbit is not a free-fall (such an orbit does not follow what gravitation "wants to do" with the object).
B. There is relativistic Doppler shift from gravitationally accelerated free-fall motions of objects in the universe.
C. The Clock hypothesis is true = non-gravitational acceleration as such does not have any effect on physical time dilation, only velocity as such. The Clock hypothesis can immediately, mathematically, logically and brutally be debunked as follows:
- It is a mathematical fact in the Lorentz factor, used in the Special Relativity (SR) time dilation equation, that the squared velocity variable there is equal to: 2 • acceleration • distance. Which is an equation originally derived by Torricelli (v squared = 2 • acceleration • distance, assuming initial velocity = 0), later incorporated among Newtons equations of motion. What that means is that the SR time dilation equation is not valid (can not be used) for calculating time dilation for time intervals where acceleration does not take place. Which means that the so called Clock hypothesis is false, which assumes that acceleration as such has no effect on time dilation. Instead, it is ONLY accelerated motion (but not gravitational acceleration with free fall) which creates physical time dilation. v^2 is an acceleration variable, not a velocity variable. And this solves the twin "paradox" as well, it now becomes fully physically understandable.
Total bunkum. If you disagree then submit a paper describing your claims to a reputable scientific journal. Note hat this paper must make verifiable predictions that differ from current theory. See it torn to shreds.
@@rogerphelps9939 Max Planck: "Science evolves one funeral at a time".
• Concerning point C above.
The Clock hypothesis is doomed. That is not a whimsy crackpot statement. Anyone with a very basic math education and some ability to think logically (interpret math physically) can realize that above, from my reasoning.
People with university degree can read this short paper (brilliant physicist).
"On the Question of Acceleration in Special Relativity" (P. Millette)
Conclusion in the paper: "Because of time dilation in accelerated frames of reference, the astronaut twin
will age less than its earth-bound twin, but only during periods of acceleration, while during periods of
unaccelerated constant velocity travel, there will be no differential aging between the twins".
• Concerning point A above.
Let's get really physical here, imagining two objects as atomic clocks. The strong equivalence principle then says:
"The rate of change in atoms in an object positioned fixed in a gravitational field (it is then mechanically accelerated "upwards"), is the same as the rate of change in atoms in an object similarly mechanically accelerated in a non-gravitational environment (and while accelerated, moving in an absolute sense)".
The time dilation equations in Special relativity and General relativity are the same, with different physical variables in them. Take the escape velocity equation. Square both sides of that equation. You now have v^2 (velocity squared) on the left side, and no root expression on the right side of the equation. Replace the v^2 in the Special relativity time dilation equation, with the right side of the squared escape velocity equation. You now have the Gravitational time dilation equation as a result.
So what does this mean physically ? It means that these time dilation equations describe the same physical process/phenomenon (down to the atom level), but with different physical variables in them. Both equations describe a mechanical acceleration process.
It also means, when no mechanical force is applied on objects (in a gravitational or hypothetical non-gravitational environment), the objects are in free-fall, and the physical time dilation is zero. The gravitational circular orbit is a special case with centripetal acceleration involved, therefore time dilation.
• Point B above follows directly from point A. Without physical time dilation, the physical relativistic Doppler effect is zero (no such frequency change from non-time-dilated atoms)
The analogy of the rainbow to show that the speed of light is not constant and tying it to gravity was great. I am an engineer not a physicist but I love your podcasts as I am challenged and like learning new things!
On a different note - I tried reading Gravity’s Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon, decades ago. Could not get through it. Always wondered what he meant by the title.
Newton and Radiohead already did it
Yes, he was wrong about so many things, but he was still more right about gravity than everyone else for 100 years.
the whole video is a commercial, not science
Enjoyed the interview. There have been many researchers over the years (going back a decade at least) working on massive gravity, the heyday a few years before GW170817, which severely constrained these models (gravity and light propagation speed measured in parity via a neutron star merger). Any surviving models have been further constrained by solar system ephemerides and lunar laser ranging. Another problem with these models is that they admit ghost modes that do not cancel, and instead of abandoning the models they are recast as “effective field theories” where at certain scales the ghost modes are ignored. So they are not clean theories. In general a time dependent cosmological constant appears as a result of adding a massive vector field to GR, which changes the cosmology but requires further constraint to fit existing observations. This is why Moffat’s MOG (scalar-vector-tensor) has gotten more traction than any of these modified GR theories. His theory modifies GR at large cosmological scales, fits large scale observations and passes local GR tests (reverts to GR on small scales). Brian, you should have John Moffat on before he passes, he also has written many many many papers and books over the years, and deserves an interview. He also wrote a general audience book years ago on GR and MOG, Reinventing Gravity. Seems to be a trendy pursuit, I am giving it my try in the next year as well.
What is the status of your experiment?
Right from the start the Cosmological Constant has been a fudge factor to make the rest of the equations work. It has varied tremendously over the years and has never had to accept that gravity has a particle attached to it. The measurement of the expansion of the universe is an intersection of various scientific theories that are believed to be true (known to be true with a very high confidence in isolation) when all put together.
Fudge factor? The Cosmological Constant is the single worst predictions ever that's off by a 120 orders of magnitude. You would have to be an Augustus Gloop the size of Betelgeuse to swallow that kind of Fudge.
theyre collectively responding to terrence howard now🤣🤣🤣
Who?
This was, if nothing else, an informative dialogue between our ways of observing the universe (with all our evolutionary sensory limitations) and describing our observations the universe *with new testable predictions*. There is no "win" here, just the dialogue
I love how her status as a theoretician nevertheless leads her to pay attention to experiment at all times. Even while scuba diving. And Oh, she's SO good in her thoughts about AI!!
Gravity is simply density and buoyancy - if that is too difficult to understand then I don't see how you're new theory of gravity will make it any easier.
Thank You Dr. Keating for a great podcast with Claudia de Rham! 👍👍👏
You cannot say anything is wrong unless you can prove yourself to be right, and science should never welcome such conviction.
Why is there only one dimension of time? If there is multiple dimensions of space, maybe time has multiple dimensions?
Very good question indeed !
There’s only one dimension of time that we know of. Anything is possible, but we can’t declare shit to be true that we have no evidence for. We only see evidence of time flowing on one direction.
Time is handy when observing things that change. If you take a picture and then another one as fast as the camera can operate you will see the pictures differ.
You will not need time to operate the camera. Only a flywheel that ejects photographic plates.
Even if you do not have the concept of time you will have recordings that differ when you watch them.
What will you say to your friends when the comment the pictures are different?
You would say for each rotation of the flywheel a picture was taken. In the first picture you see a newborn child and in the next a teenager. It all depends on the speed of the flywheel.
(A notofication bell is hit by a pin on the flywheel. No concept of time needed to know a picture is available for inspection.)
Another photographer may have an atomic clock, but with or without, the pictures show the same result - an alteration - a difference.
Well Einstein called it space time so no, time is not different from hight, length and width. 😃
with disturbances between energies (which spread in forward spirals),
vortices arise, which make these energies appear as matter,
and in energy fields such as the Higgs, a torque is exerted on these vortices,
this torque creates an apparent mass, a quantitative gravity,
Right, gravity is quantum vacuum frame dragging caused by spin.
@@max0x7ba 👍🏽👍🏽 🤔
I think the whole problem is a huge misconception. Gravity is not caused by large mass. Large mass is the result of gravity. Gravity is not actually a force. It's the shape of space. Every sphere in space has a bubble it exists in, because matter had no choice but to fall into that bubble, when it gets too close. Space, I believe is like a huge, invisible ocean, with ebbs, flows, and tides. We just can't see it, nor detect it.
Am I wrong? The universe is very good at making spheres. It's been doing that from the very beginning. And it also absorbed all of the energy from the big bang. So it's pretty much the most powerful thing there is, even though we think of it as a null empty void, wherever there is nothing. But there is no such thing as nothing. Space itself is the force. Cause and effect cannot be the same things. Think of the Earth as a black hole that doesn't suck quite as much. ✌️
Claudia de Rham is amazing. But one question I have is caused by 3 dimensions and time as interdependent. A pure 3d universe would be static and at absolute zero temperature. It seems to me that time depends on movement and thermodynamics are generated by movement and clustering of matter through atoms, molecules and things. As a result, can we speak of 3 dimensions in change causing emergence of 2 dimensions of space and time. Can gravity be the result of this emergence and manifest either as space or time and that gravity is therefore an emergent property or dimension by itself and not a particle?
Here we go again.
Hello, great work snd interview, thank You.
From some time to now, I hace been looking in the arithmetics fundaments as our biggest trouble.
One side of this questions is:
How we pass from a linear:
x^2= 4 if x= 2
In the linear number line, as x^2= 2 times 2 that is 4 in linear numerical "line" to "use" x^2 or x² as a "Flat area", a 2 dimensional "idea and stuff".
Same in x³ or x⁴.
If this "jump" from linaer numbers, as positional number system at real line, to areas, volumes and soace-time conjugate, is something that "becomes" linear vectors at 2D (x,y) or 3D (x,y,z) and linear tensirs and twistors or something else in 4D conjugates.
I belive the trouble is, in some fundamental mode, is to considerate a theorem as an axiom in numerical arithmetics fundamentation. The theorem, a "truth" than can be obtained "from an axiom", that we all have considerare as axiom is:
Multiplication and "its" inverse as divition as an axiom, when multiplication is "a theorem", because is:
A lazzy addution or sum, as in:
2+2+2+2= 2x4
Or:
Ad 4 times 2 to "it self" or "4 times ad 2 to our empity set or set".
If we go this path:
Addition inverse is Divition and same Ditirion inverse is Addition
And multilication is a "lazzy theorem of addution" as in algebra substraction is a "lazzy theorem to addition", because:
Algebraic addition is more fundamental, as in:
4+(-3)= 1= 4-3.
We see that substraction and multiplication, as we have learned, we all, are theorems from an deeper as fundamental axiom:
Addition inverse is Divition.
So:
Ir we "take" the possible existence of a Real Singularity as Wholeness and Complete "Something" where all BeComes, we need to invert the axiom:
Divition of the Wholeness means add "fragments, fractions to the Wholeness wuth out change its Wholeness".
Here egyptian as pythagirean arithmetics can give Us:
2 really is 1= ½+½
Same if we write:
3 is ⅓+⅓+⅓= 1
4 is ¼+¼+¼+¼= 1 and same "until" and too in:
1/∞+1/∞+1/∞....∞/∞= 1.
I belive this is why "matgematical convention" can give us, in out calculator:
n^0= 1
But this "Cinvention" can not "satisfy":
n^x= a → n= a^(1/x)
Because if n^0= 1, so:
n= 1^(1/0)
And at n/0 all arithmetic and math goes mad, or "impossible".
This can get Us to considerate another "equation" to aproach singularity:
1= 0= ∞
The original and fundamental Singularity is One, Absolute (as zero, 0 or ∅) and Infinite (∞).
This is why we can "think" abour allways we crash with "something" that needs arithmetical cinvention and/or physical "normalization" we are "touching and crashing" with a "The Real Singularity" apparition, a phenomenon that "tiuchs the real", as in Donal Hoffmann's aproach to reality an the Real, the Real Singularity as Wholeness and Obe-Selfness.
If we look that complex numers are "more real" than real numbers in real line (remeber how we jumo from linear 1D to 2D, 3D, etc. by tradition and "cinvention") to use to analyze and describe and decrypt, descifrate gravitional issues and quantum realms, here the "arithmetical convention" about "imaginary and irreality" of √-1 or: -1^(½) can show to us that our cinventions in class, groups/set, number theories are in the very hard "troubles abd issues" in physics and arithmetics, and, to arithmetics, its "frankenstein likes children": mathematics, albmgebeas, calculus (limits) and them all.
If multiplication and substraction are theirems from duvsion and addition, exponenciation and rooths, logarithms, eaven Ln and e, neperian and natual or Eulerian, and every else, too.
Is a fact in number theory that:
All reals can be obtained by continued/continuum fractions, so, there is no more than 2 kinds of "Rational numbers":
The single fraction ones
The multiple fraction ones, with "clases" of or kinds of "multiple fraction numbers", as limited, as 1.125, periodicaks, as 1.2355555555..., non periodical π or e, cinvergents and duvergents, but al Fractional, all rational "extended", but "lazzy notation" has been used as axiomatic, when is just: theorematic.
José Antonio Palos C. © 2001, 2014, 2019-2022, 2924, 2024.
Should be thought of as "Into The I'm Possible" 😉
Impossible is more fun because it makes us change our minds on impossible things!
Great podcast. I'm still pondering gravitational waves but simultaneously mulling entropy. I really enjoyed Claudia's bright mind and spirit of exploration.
Thanks for listening
@@DrBrianKeating Fat asz Brian, stay out of my personal data, and stop using it for psyops campaigns.
What she proposes is *hypothesis.* A theory is "a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based upon a body of evidence and has stood up to repeated testing and scrutiny."
It's funny you have to remind that in a science channel. Maybe it's an oversight or an intentional clickbait, who knows...
It’s amazing how many scientific commentators don’t know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
Sir. With all due respect, the colloquial usage of the word “theory,” is valid and interchangeable with “hypothesis.” There is no misunderstanding between the host and guest on these terms. Most people understand when the scientific definition and the colloquial definition are being used.
A theory is a general explanation, and a hypothesis is a specific prediction that follows from it. She's good
Thank you for pointing out this common mislabeling. Words matter.
Don't think Neil Turok would agree.
To describe a particle as a wave is a precision description of function, and an accurate location of effective field, depending on what, how and why you choose a particular instrument and methodology of measurement.
E=mC² logarithmic condensation of Bose-Einsteinian Quantum-fields Mechanism, and it's not even wrong conceptually, just another parallel coexistence assessment of QM-TIME Completeness.
Thank you both for your time, it is really appreciated.
Liked this pod cast episode! Claudia is undeniably highly intelligent and talented and open to new ideas. Noticed her Freudian slip describing LIGO as a one-way comms tool. She also kind of hinted that GW’s aren’t limited to C. Indeed. A longitudinal wave resulting from a transverse wave of the same fabric isn’t limited to the same speed, whether local C or otherwise, which is why a functioning GW telescope will never observe a cosmic event at the same time an EM telescope does. And which is why 2 GW detectors on Earth, despite being far apart will receive signals virtually simultaneously, regardless angle or origin.
As for the Dark Energy and Dark Matter stuff discussed; both these subjects are not worth spending Claudia’s precious time on, as neither are real. Redshift of furthest galaxies is an internal galactic optical illusion, caused by the fabric of our Milky Way galactic plane (not an exterior doppler effect). There is no cosmic accelerated expansion, so no DE needed. DM likewise is a solution to a non-existing, purely perception problem. There is no lack of gravity (e.g. in case of galactic rotation curves in outer stars), but there is the anomaly of non-homogeneous distribution of spacetime grid inside the typical galactic grid, causing us to think stars are further out then they actually are in spatial terms, thus lower rotation speeds.
As for her quest to understand gravity; The answer is not in complex new theories; The answer is in the incorrect equivalence assumptions by Einstein. He was the master of correlation, but not causation. Einstein’s GR requires there to be a spacetime grid in order to work. Einstein’s SR denies and even excludes there being such a ST grid, claiming as a result all speeds are relative. Einstein later admitted in his 1920 Leiden lecture there must be a physical ST grid for GR to work, but he refused to insert this grid back into his SR, denying speed contracts frontal spacetime, instead using incoherent terms like, ‘length’ contraction or time ‘dilation’. After 100 years we need to call it for what it is; frontal spacetime contraction, explaining 50% of gravity. The other 50% comes when we extend SR with a mass axis (opposite to the time axis, as per substituting E=hf into E=MC2 ) and an energy axis (opposite to the space axis, as per Heisenberg’s dpdx>=h/2). This is the full and true picture of basic fundamental phyiscs; if we speed we contract frontal spacetime and literally wrap this fabric in a standing wave of quanta of energy (inverse space) and mass (inverse time) around the object. The compensating speed in this other quadrant [-J/kg=-Nm/kg=-m2/s2] is what causes the virtual accelerating grid experience we call gravitational ‘force’. Insertion of i2=-1 as per complex numbers required. So this is all gravity is; the effect of the speeding object on the grid and the dual reflexivity of the grid impacting the speeding object. Einstein was just plain wrong in SR or he lied. Let’s just stick to ‘wrong’.
Einstein was relatively grateful for the Prorestants in America, the good Presbyterian. Keating may think that's true or somewhat true. If there is a GR quantum point energy, then it took both Orthodoxies to find or rediscover such an equation. Yes, it's < m_P.
This is a brilliant discussion, thank you!
We can't say that the universe expand faster the futher we look.
We can't ignore that we see far away galaxies back in time, so what we really can say is that the universe appear to expand faster but it's an error to compare the distance without include the fact that we have to wait almost 14 billion years before we know where they are now.
Gravity didn't need a new theory since it's still doing its regular thing.
Einstein was not wrong, he just skipped some big steps. His equations let you predict, but he provides no physical mechanism by which matter and space interact, leaving you guessing as to what causes gravity. Is it emergent or fundamental? Einstein offers nothing to answer this question.
There’s a simpler solution. Perhaps we don’t understand red shift. Since light is a transverse wave, it’s only logical that it would be stretched by alternating perpendicular gravitational fields as it travels through the universe.
Do I understand correctly that what it effectively means is that light is essentially getting refracted and thus stretched while passing through gravity wells? That should check out o.O
Falling with style are beautiful.
49:13 “A purely algebraic theory is required to describe reality." (Einstein, January, 1955).
On the “dark” invariance:
0.in RT the main invariant is the 4-interval (a mathematical description of the constant c), however, it could offer another invariant value based on another physical constant.
1.Comparing with Einstein's equations of 1915, we find a=-c^3/16πG. Strictly speaking, in order to determine the constant a, it was necessary to make a transition to the Poisson equation. Thus, a rigorous derivation of Einstein's equations can be given.
The transition to the non-relativistic limit allows us to determine a constant factor for the integral of the gravitational field according to: R[(0)^0]=(4πG/c^2)p; Δφ=-pc^3/4a=4πGр.
And a=(1/16π)m(pl)w(pl).
2.Therefore, the Poisson equation can be written as: ∆g(00)=8πGT(00)/c^4, where g(00) is the time component of the metric tensor (for a weakly curved metric the time component of the energy-momentum tensor: T(00)~=pc^2).
This equation is true only in the non-relativistic case, but it is applicable to the case of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, when Einstein's equations have only solutions with a time-varying space-time metric. Then the energy density of the gravitational field: g^2/8πG=T(00)=pc^2 [~=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4=
=1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (~500 quanta/cm^3)],
where the critical density value determining the nature of the model is: p=(3/8π)H^2/G. Hence it follows: g~πcH.
3.Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space.
And according to the strong equivalence principle: g=|a*|=πcH [=r(pl)w(relic)^2], and
w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. Thus H=1,72*10^-20sec^-1!
{By the way, at t(universe)= πт(pl), w(“relic”) was =w(pl); at 1/”H”= t(universe)=380000 years, w(“relic”)/2π was =3.5*10^14 Hz}
4.Intra-metagalactic gravitational potential:
|ф0|=πGmpl/λ(relic)=[Gm(pl)/2c]w(relic), where the constant Gm(pl)/2c is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i) = (½)S(pl)w(pl) = h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction.
{The basic formula QG of the quantum expression of the Newtonian gravitational potential is: ф(G)=-Ф(i)w, where w is the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational (~ vibrational) field.}*
5.From Kepler's third law follows: M/t=v^3/G, where M/t=I(G)=[gram•sec^-1] is the gravitational current. By the way, in SR: I(G)=inv; this follows from the Lorentz transformations: m=m(0)/√(1-v^2/c^2) and ∆t=∆t(0)/√(1-v^2/c^2). Hence, obviously, we have I(G)=m/t=m(0)/t(0)=inv.
However, а*=-2πcа/M(universe), what is F=M(universe)а*=-2πса=-с^4/8G=-(⅛)F(pl).
6.In the case of the Universe: I(G)=M(universe)H=m(pl)w(pl)/8π=c^3/8πG=-2a (~ the "dark" const~inv), where M(universe)=E/c^2 is the full mass of the Universe, and the total energy E is spent on creating a phase-quantized space-time:
m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H
{
w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H.
7.That is: Δφ=-pc^3/4a=
рс^3/2M(universe)H^2.
And
Δφ=4π[с^3/Gm(pl)w(pl)]H^2=
4πH^2; which is evidence of a phenomenon: spontaneous Lorentz transformations.
Thus;
Δφ(0)/Δφ=w(pl)^2/H^2~10^126, where Δφ(0)=4πw(pl)^2; the “best” prediction.
------------------
*) - Apparently GR was an overlooked QG:
this assumption follows from the Schwarzschild solution and can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment.
1.The gravitational radius (or Schwarzschild radius) is a characteristic radius defined for any physical body with mass: r(G)=2GM/c^2
Consequently: 2E(0)/r(G)=F(pl)=c^4/G=ε(pl)/r(pl): with indicating the mutual quantization of the mass (energy) and space-time: m(0)/m(pl)=r(G)/2r(pl)=n,where n-total number of quanta of the system; the tension vector flux: n=[(1/4π)(Gћc)^-½]gS ( const for all orbits of the system: n=0,1,2,3....).
2.Moreover, the parameter r(0)=r(G)-r(pl)=(2n-1)r(pl), defining the interval of the formation of the system, at n=0, when r=r(G)=0 (for example, the state of the "universe" before the Big Bang) turns out to be a quite definite quantity: r(0)=-r(pl).
In the area [(-rpl) - 0 - (+rpl)] there is an implementation of external forces, "distance": (-rpl)+(+rpl)=0 (≠2rpl).
3.On the Kruskal diagram of the hyperbole r=0 corresponds to the true Schwarzschild feature, the features V and VI are not even covered by the global (R, T)- space-time and correspond to the "absolute" vacuum; then the singular areas above and below the hyperbolas r=0 can be formally treated as the energy source (external forces).
That is, the frightening "true singularity" is actually a superconducting heterotrophic "window" between the proto-universe (the source) and physical bodies*.
4.As a fundamental theory, GR has the ability with just one parameter: r(G)/r=q to predict, explain new physical effects, and amend already known ones.
Photon frequency shift in gravitational field Δw/w(0)=q;
the angle of deflection of a photon from a rectilinear propagation path =2q,
the Newtonian orbit of the planet shifts forward in its plane: during one revolution, a certain point of the orbit is shifted by an angle =3πq, for a circular orbit (eccentricity е=0); in the case of an elliptical orbit - for example, for perihelion displacement, the last expression must be divided by (1-e^2).
5.The parameter q is not necessarily a measure of the deviation of the metric from the pseudo-Euclidean one, since in the quantized phase space q=πr/L, where L is the length of the phase path and πr^2=r(G)L.
GR/QG predicts a new physical effect: w/w(pl)=q; expression for gravitational radiation from a test body.
6.This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present.
7.From this, generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^½ (w)=-[h/4πm(pl)]w.
8.Final formula:ф(G)=-[w/w(pl)]c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, r(n')=nλ/π=(n+n')2r(pl)l , the corresponding orbital radius, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (space-time); - obviously, the quanta of the field are themselves quantized: λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl) = 2πc/w, where n'/n=M/2∆m: system gravity unpacking ratio, n'- the orbit number (n'=0,1,2,3…).
Extremely educational interview. Thank you for your hard work.
Greetings, Dr. Keating and Dr. Rham. ACCELEROMETER PHYSICS GRAVITY was discovered by James Carter in 1968. He discovered it before the expanding universe was accepted as a scientific fact in the year of 1970 and long before the acceleration of the expansion was accepted as a scientific fact in the year of 2000.
Spin 3/2 is a tensor product of three 1/2 spin transformations, which is equivalent to the transformation permuting three targets.
I cannot agree that curvature of space is the cause of gravity rather than the effect of gravity. Something like WIMPS makes more sense for me.
Very good idea, Brian about using LIGO to call the quantum bluff once and for all.
This longstanding frustration might be resolved.
The new sensing methods would have many other enabling applications also.
Are you prepping a proposal?
Great interview with Claudia, finally some refreshing ideas on the nature of Quantum Gravity
It's always nice to have experimentalists and theoreticians talking to each other. I'm reading THE FABRIC OF REALITY, and I get the impression that a possible approach to quantum gravity might begin with quantized time. David Deutsch makes the case that interference effects can only really be accounted for in a multiverse. Supposing that gravity waves would interfere with each other, or produce interference effects comparable to what we observe with light (or electrons), it would follow that those effects, too, would be best explained in terms of a multiverse, would they not? If you're on the same page as David Deutsch?
I'm kind of new to your channel, this was nice 😃. It felt like a very relaxed and friendly introduction to some of her work and ideas, like when you get to talk with professors over the coffee break at a conference. Thank you both for sharing your thoughts and knowledge :).
How wonderful to listen to these scientists who play with serious science. and dare to go where no one has gone before.
Maybe over vast distance the quantum flux density is not constant.
Interesting. But the easy assumption would be a constant mass/ energy of the graviton? If so, wouldn't it act like some sort of viscosity or binding tensor on space-time? Or it could, for some reason, act like negative viscosity... maybe just a round-about saying there needs to be an energy source for accelerating inflation.
Why is the physics community avoiding the question: what is spacetime made of? What is the mechanism that causes quantum mechanics and relativity to exist?
the regulated consumption of matter implies that it is a whirlpool rather than a waterfull.
I unfortunately have lost a lot of my vision.
Any possibility of an audiobook in the future Claudia?
Much love to quality scientific content Brian.
Does this imply that a graviton is a particle-like entity? If so, how does it propagate out of a black hole to affect mass around that black hole?
Oops
Exactly. I wonder what Einstein would say about the graviton. Would have to remodel spacetime as just another quantum field. How does relativistic time and length dilation emerge from such a field?
I agree. That is why I don.t see it as a particle at all.
Gravity is geometry, not a particle, but I know nothing.
Look at the Higgs particle for a moment. It is so short-lived that we have not detected it, only the particles it decays into. So "particles," such as the electron, do not get their mass from a sea of Higgs, but from interacting with the Higgs field. The Higgs field has an allowed energy level, that we can call a particle. This does not mean the particle is doing all the work. If you can view something as a graviton, it still might be better to work with its field. Sure, you might be able to come up with a picture, working only with particles.
Just brilliant talk, Ludovico lami, conduct an experiment to quantize gravity that is very promising......all the best
I enjoyed listening to Claudia de Rham. I like her approach in being very realistic even as a theoretical physicist.
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@DrBrianKeating ...even if it is BS!
please explain to me this question; If gravity is not a "force" but just geometry, the shape of space time, a force carrying particle does not need to be invoked so why do they keep looking for the graviton?
To try and harmonise it with the concept of the virtual exchange particle considered to relay the other known forces. Such as the photon being the intermediary of the EM force. One day they might have to rethink the latter concept (of virtual particles) but rather than do that they look for the graviton.
My friend, they are full of conflicting statements and conflicting properties. The same question you can ask - How possible the normal "Positive Gravity" co-exist with the "Negative Gravity" of Dark Force? They must annihilate each other and only the dominant to remain? - There is only one book where is no such conflicting statements and weird property - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" Regards
Gravity is negative force, it simply attracts objects, making their path distorted to curvature and finally to orbit. Gravity is the ability of physical tensors to consume others if to speak by panpsychism theory. Gravity represents material manifestation of time where one unit is the complete cycle of a satellite, so we can tell not only about the period of energy wave but also a curvature of fermionic lifeline. Science today is just stupid or old fashioned, we must learn how does it work from life and free will perspective.
Thank you again Dr. Brian. Another excellent episode.
Good set of equations on blackboard.
I would like to recommend running a corrected version of the Michaelson Morely experiment which I think might have been flawed because it assumed a stationary non-orbiting aether.
Science has advanced a huge amount since this experimen was done. No need for aether of any kind.
@@rogerphelps9939 I respectfully disagree because of "dark matter", invalid expansion rates, lack of proof for quantum supremacy, and lack of arriving at a unified theory.
Loving the conversation so far!
About the "could a.i. so what Einstein did?"
We need to compare us to an a.i. as if we were machines to better understand how we do what we do to see if an aí could ever do the same.
Most examples talk about subjective experiences like "could an ai feel the be mesmerized by a sunset?" Or about having new ideas and insights.
A great part of our scientific knowledge comes from us working really hard to interpret all the inputs we receive from all of our various biological sensors.
If a.i. can't replicate how we feel and interact with the world it will never function in a way similar to humans.
It's all a matter of input interpretation
Well how about observing the whole universe first, BEFORE making assumptions IF, how, where and why it "Expands".
As long as we see further and further with every new Telescope, we can't just assume we can prove that expansion. At least not, while other parts come closer. We are NOT stationary. Expanding in RELATION TO US (Thanks for that excuse, EINSTEIN) doesn't mean a whole lot
How long before "gravity is just quantum vacuum frame dragging caused by spin" becomes the prevailing dogma? That's your quantum gravity in plain sight.
People struggle to define the nature of gravity and control it because Einstein flushed aether down the drain on the basis of Michelson-Morley experiment failing to detect aether.
Aether was detected by LIGO 100 years later, and is now known as quantum vacuum. It is the medium for light waves (spirals, to be pedantic) and gravity. Gravity is quantum vacuum frame-dragging caused by spinning, from elementary particles to planets, suns and galaxies. Aether is a state of matter/energy beyond plasma.
Einstein was wrong about light being particles travelling in no medium, wrong about constant speed of light regardless of frame of reference, and, subsequently, that gravity is curvature of space.
In 1969 when I was sitting in 6th grade science class a model dawned on me that explains how the universe works. It explains everything from the Big Bang to when the Universe will deconstruct. Whenever science has discovered something new this model predicted it ahead of time. And the model never needs to be modified to account for any new observations. It is not perfect but it is amazing what it can describe or predict on a macro level.
The model only has two components and one process but also has a few effects of the process. I'll use the wording that I knew back in 1969 as I understood the model.
The Model's Two Components
1) Matter
2) A substance that permeates space and is pressurized
The Process
The substance flows into matter imparting a momentum impulse to the matter and is annihilated
GRAVITY
The momentum impulse imparted to matter is gravity
BIG BANG
The pressure of the substance decreases with time and at some point the singularity became unstable and exploded
LIGHT
The substance in a high energy state when it interacts with matter causes photons to be released
ELECTRICITY
When the substance is forced along a conductor
MAGNITISM
When the excess substance flows through a material in which the atoms are spinning in the same orientation the direction of the substance is changed in alternating layers
WEAK NUCLEAR FORCES
The substance forms vortex as it spins into matter that interlock in various but predictable ways
STRONG NUCLEAR FORCES
The substance moves fastest towards the center of an atom where the pressure is lowest thus that is where "gravity" is strongest
INCREASING RATE OF NUCLEAR DECAY
As the pressure of the substance weakens unstable isotopes become more unstable
EXPANDING UNIVERSE (at an ever increasing rate)
The universe is unbounded and the substance is always expanding and taking matter with it while always accelerating
BLACK HOLES
The substance is flowing towards the center of the Black Hole faster than photons can escape
HALO AROUND STARS
Simply caused by the flow of the substance into the star that is in front of a star that is behind
SUNSPOT CYCLE
Jupiter and other solar system objects competing with the Sun for the substance
THE ICE AGE
When our Sun turned from fusion to fission due to the decreasing pressure of the substance there was a lull in it's energy output
THE END OF THE UNIVERSE
When the pressure becomes low enough matter will fly apart
We could test quantum aspects using entangled groups of particles ground to satellite as well as condensed matter states of groups of atoms and effects that might be detectable from gravity.
What is "DARK ENERGY" illuminated? Sitting in a closed room, no window's and having the only light source shut off, and I'd be totally within "DARK ENERGY". On the other hand, if sitting in the same room which is totally to the N-th degree dark. Turning on a light causes the dark to go where exactly. Where prior it was totally suround me, turning on the light, it's totally gone. It's stated that no two thing's can occupy the same place at the same time, Meaning the light and the dark can not exist when the other is present. Turning one a light will cause the dark to go somewhere, and turning the light off will cause the dark to come bace instantainiously. Thus it couldn't have gone very far.
An alt theory of gravity:
It's a omnipresent fluid of so little mass it transmits forces yet isn't one, if not looking for it from existing data-relationships about, it'd be like the Higgs boson search.
Fwiw 🍺
Thoroughly enjoyed this interview
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
"Anything lives in space-time" is like saying anything is on the back of a tortois. 😊
Did you speed up her speech... i cant understand what she speaks at all.
She does have a remarkable accent which is hard to pin down. It’s a mix of Swiss, French Canadian and British English!
@@sirrathersplendid4825 I understand her perfectly at 1.5x
Thank you Claudia, it was wonderful
Could you edit the video and add subtitles...the closed caption on CZcams is HORRIBLE. hearing impaired.
Maybe if you say please
Please and thank you!
Well I DID hear her and the caption seems to follow her incomprehensible pronunciation. So can't follow it either.
@@renep9968I have zero issue understanding what she’s saying
So her theory starts with imaginary, invisible gobbledegook no one can detect which was contrived ad hoc to explain away the discrepancies between observations and theory. What a great foundation.
that is what i thought. she has no need for data in her completely fiction based theoretical research. Old time physicists like Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac and the rest always worked with experimental data. These new type of physicists seem to have no need for the world we live in.
that goes for gravity.
both Newton and Einstein
space fabric is imaginary
mass don't attract mass unless its magnets
you have to go into untestable like the sun and earth "large bodies attract each other" unprovable and begging the question
now you are wondering maths work
yes because its based on observation of motion which is kinematic. they can make equations after measuring things going down.
does not mean the above space fabric or mass attract mass is true
unless you reason these wont be so obvious
@martinblank-cl7sv Really? How?
@martinblank-cl7sv Top teir clown comment 😂. There is no need for debate? 😂. You literally don't have any evidence or proof for anything you believe.
@martinblank-cl7sv I think you have a nail in your head, lol. Stop pretending like you have the answers, and I don't care what any fairytale religion has to say. Like I said, you literally have zero evidence or proof for what you believe, and rambling on more nonsense isn't going to change that fact.
Good one. Gravitational wave analytics will reveal new physics for sure. Exciting times!
You folks should really study Data Physics for it will answer many of your questions.
Would it make sense to pursue the quantization of space vs of that of gravity?
What if the entire Universe is encapsulated in an Enormous Energy Bubble, from which the energy of the matter of the Universe is derived from? That energy field could be impelling
all the contents of the Universe back outwards towards the source energy.
I am not a physicist but the equation Fc/Fn=10^36 = u^2 (i think is right ) ..that means that one of those speeds is extremely faster than the speed of light, 10^27m/s, and I think that the B-Field can change faster than the speed of light under special conditions and the temperature can also have a faster flow, and as a result the change in gravity can also change more quickly!! the material or quasi-material cannot move faster than c. I think the whole universe with gravity should be a thermodynamic system of cold-hot flow
The expanding universe is easy to explain when you have at hand the real fundamentals of gravity.
What if the universe isn't getting larger but getting smaller slower than you are?
Then light would be blue shifted instead of red shifted as everything moves toward you, but it's not.
What If only galaxies that we can see move around inside the giant fillament(that we'veseen exist ) but the universe itself is not expanding? What if red shift can have many causes like Halton ARP proposed and showed actual evidense that it's unreliable in neasureing distance?
I have to think that gravity would have to operate under variation and not be a constant.
Variation in time (time dilation?) due to variation in the intensity of gravity.
I was saddened by the death of MOND, so I am super excited about a new theory of gravity!! Thank you both so much!!
Love the "Novelty"!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, Einstein was wrong, and everyone who fell for his thought experiment or even the explanations used in the orbits and what not, is FLAWED. The explanation of what gravity is, presupposes gravity to be explained. It begs the question.
Gravity is the result of space-time flow from the micro to the macro. The different rates on time-space on different levels of existence results in gravity. Also, matter is the result un bubbles of space-time where time travels at the speed of light, making it seem solid when interacted with on a different plane of space-time.
Paying attention to the history of mathematical models is a good idea.
And the history of interpreting mathematical models through a wrong paradigm, for example, Geocentricism, to use Feynman's favourite example.
"Extra dimensions" are the new Crystal Spheres, and for exactly the same reason.
Fix the wrong paradigm inherited from Aristotle … and some really interesting areas for mathematical modeling will be revealed.
When talking about internal things, the western world struggles.
Love, "falling like einstein", fear, anger... these are all chemical reactions.
A machine, hypothetically, with ultimate technology, could replicate each one of those reactions.
Let us assume we've reached that level of technology for the sake of this example.
What makes the difference between us and them, is the fact that those reactions are not, ever, filtered.
Machines, or an animals, feel those reactions and react accordingly to their own nature ( in the case of a machine to its set of rules ). It reacts the way it was programmed to ( following its defined nature ).
Even with "shades of grey", in terms of choice making, it would still have to go through ONLY, MERELY, logical connections.
Consciousness is the word that separates us from them.
We have the SUPERPOWER to act DIS-ACCORDINGLY to those reactions:
when you're angry, you can decide to follow that feeling or to calm it down.
When you're in love, you can do the same thing.
You can also find a balance in following certain reactions; what is good to follow and what is not.
Is love good to follow? Probably yes, right? Too much love is good to follow? Maybe not (I'm making random examples).
Point is, that nature seems to have provided us with a tool that can let us understand ourselves.
Depending on the kind of reactions we followed the most in our lives, we tend to become certain types of people.
A practical and shallow example could be the one of a smoker.
Every time you feel like lighting up a cigarette, something must have triggered that reaction. A human can look into that.
Can see itself from outside.
Surely there's a factor of physical dependence from it, but certainly also some kind of thought, or something that might have been seen or heard that triggered some emotions, that then triggered the need for smoking ( the need for provoking another reaction, the one by nicotine, which is finally used to shut those initial emotions up, as all drugs do).
Drugs are there so that we can choose to research ourselves, or to live our lives uncosciously ( which ultimately would be translated into giving up on understanding oruselves ).
Hey!!! ... I'm not saying someone put them there okay? It's just a way of saying that.
And.. also, when I say drug, it can be anything. Even an emotion can be a drug.
Too much love, no good. Too much rage, no good. Too much anything, no good.
Creativity?
A machine could be, and it is already in my opinion, more creative than a human.
Because it can choose from SO MUCH MORE DATA, quicker than any superbrilliant mind in the world.
It is gonna help us A LOT in new scientific discoveries ( I can't wait ).
But, again, creativity is a very misunderstood word.
It doesn't mean that you can physically create something that didn't exist before.
Everything that you create in your mind, is already there.
What your brain does, and also very very well, differently from animals, but lesser efficiently than machines, is to put all of that data together, and in a very personal, specific, and ultimately unique way.
Again, depending on the kind of reactions that you develeped the most, you get a specific and unique set or "creations", or arrangements of a certain set of datas that you developed the most in your life.
Every atom in your body carries so much information. Basically you carry on what your greatgreatgreatgrandfather use to be.
You come out of his body and of your g.g.g.grandmother's body aswell.
What they experienced, is passed on to you, in a genetic way.
But it's still a lot is passed; don't underestimate what the power of trillions of cells in your body carrying each one of them a set of unique levels of information could do.
It's not just the brain thinking for us, and some men know this well.
We are the proof that its results are astonishing.
Each one of us is unique.... and that's pretty hard to achieve given how many we are..
Even though much information is lost, we can still retrieve it in form of research, and that's how creativity works.
So the outcome, as a result, of whatever activity you may be doing, may be UNIQUE ( like a new painting ), but the data from which it carries it from is still set by the unique different arrangement of those trillions of combinations or your own personal trillion cells in your body which are also evolving over time.... so the combinations are just infinite.
A machince's experience is ONE instead.
Information is not bypassed by the "death" of anything... it just accumulates.
It will become better than us at everything.
However, because of that, you can teach it to feel reactions, but it will always interpret them in the same way.
it cannot unbind itself from its own set of data.
Even if it was to randomize its own set of data, to find other combinations for choices, it would be, at that point, driven by "luck" not consciousness.
YOU decide, if you're consciouss and not drugged, not your body or your mind.
If a bad thought comes to your mind, you can discard it. You you're drugged, maybe you'll fight it less.
If you feel angry you can calm yourself down. If drugged maybe not.
A human has the miracolous opportunity to CHOOSE.
To choose to overcome those reactions and take different decisions that are also well fitting in this reality, and not driven by luck ( as a randomized choice would be ).
Free will ladies and gentleman!
The most underestimated tool humans ever possessed.
So we may be not as smart as a machine, but we have a far greater chance: to find out who the heck we are.
These reactions give us hints on who we are.
Random example:
everytime I start a volleyball game I get way too anxious about it.
Before it, I'm fine. Whilst playing I get too agitated instead.
To be looking for the moment in which that chemical reaction is released, can tell you what made it trigger.
So maybe, you find out that it happens as soon as the refree whistles. And that whistle may remind you of some thoughts connected to that sound.
Maybe when that sound was emitted you had a bad experience or something... but at that point it doesn't even matter to find out exactly what caused that. You know it's the whistle!
When it happens again, you try to stay "consciouss about it" and you can decide to give it less importance to perform better in the game.
That's what every sportsman does: to be consciouss of its own emotions ( Messi, the soccer player, is a god at that ).
Differently from other activities, in sport, you can see that more evidently, because the consequences of unconsciouss behaviours are just distructive and can be seen quickly.
When a player gets very angry, you already know what's gonna happen whilst it happens.
But, whilst that happens, do you think he/she knows what's going on? Or that player is just driven by instincts and doesn't even know where or what he/she is?
Thanks for the great interview ✌ Claudia is a truely remarkable person. Wish I could sit down with her and have an idea exchange. 😊
What is the speed of gravity?
Conservation of momentum explains the instantaneous effect of gavity.
Very beautiful cover. I would like that as a poster for my wall.
Great guest. Love the enthusiasm.
..Why are planets spherical?
I like your neon sign 🙂
Would like to hear more from her. All in all, a nice video.
My answer to the title question is no. However , i did enjoy listening to her conversation and thinking about the subjects she brought up and comparing her views to my views.Again, nice video. 🙂
Noted!
Западная цивилизация может запутать любой самый простой вопрос, но никогда не может решить его.