The way I look at it as a rank amateur is Gravity is also quantized. Every other energy manifestation has a wave particle duality. Light, electrons etc. Now that the Gravitational Waves have been detected, Occam's razor suggests that this energy also has a particle associated with it, Graviton. We may never get to detect it, but maybe we can see it's interactions with other forces close to a massive Gravitational construct... Something like a Black Hole perhaps.
Seth Lloyd and Robert Lawrence Kuhn, thank you. This is the first time I’ve encountered anyone promoting Einstein’s original pre-Minkowski-conversion view of space and time as networks of clocks and clock-derived rulers. The 1905 Einstein was adamant about the need to use material clocks to define space and time, and it was only after Minkowski, his old professor, publicly browbeat Einstein into using classical continuum manifold maths that he abandoned lumpy clocks. As you say, Professor Lloyd, all forms of spacetime, including curved spacetime, instantly become granular with finite, quantum-aware resolution if the only definition you can use for them is fine-grained clocks. I hope you have written some papers on this. I will certainly take a look.
If I follow this correctly, he's saying we should only worry about quantizing actual physical clocks for each individual experiment/question we may have, rather than a broad mathematical generalization of quantized 'spacetime' writ large?
@@erawanpencilyes. Both quantum physics (QFT) and general relativity explicitly assume that an infinitely precise spacetime fabric exists _independently_ of any matter of clocks within it. Lloyd returns to Einstein's original Hume-inspired 1905 special relativity definition of space and time: Neither has any meaning if you cannot measure it with an actual device.
@@samwall9922, I think “publicly intimidating Einstein” would have been a better choice of words. When Minkowski gave his famous and poetically eloquent ”space and time” lecture, the spin he put on Einstein’s 1905 paper was so different from his own that Einstein famously said, “I no longer understand my own theory.”
@@TerryBollinger That makes so much more sense to me. I don't know if this is related but it's always seemed to me that parts of physics don't take relativity seriously... despite the name of the theory, they talk so confidently about the 'history' of the universe or time as if we're living in something that has space and time as absolute structures. It seems like relativity should only be able to give you an instantaneous 'what will I see next' result given a defined input, and wouldn't say anything more about stuff time or space related after that.
String theory. The shotgun approach. One pellet is bound to hit the target if you have enough pellets. Just like 'anything can happen if you have enough time'. Infinite compression is another one with the same MO.
I thought about the same thing when I had to make lava lamps... "water and oil is like string theory and general relativity" except I had to make up what theory could take the place of baking soda and its bubbling effect. 2:24 Isn't it in a location with a vibration quality similar to the tiniest spark of infinite light power, but almost completely invisible to find yet it has a circumference as bold and thick as a crystal fractal cylinder? Also has a type of tiny tiny vibration quality similar to a crystal glass being struck and when obstructing its light beam, the force of its entire length actually disappears far into the deep dark and out through the fabric of time? Cant be sure if it was actually cosmos as it had an opening at the end that seem to look like a tiny full moon. But yes. That would be the correct one. 😊 7:33 i remember the sound travelling experiment as a child. We had to measure the time it took for the sound to reach certain distances. I think about this same thing when I wake up in the morning. How did England do today, are there any things the Americans have set up for todays tasks, will i have to skate over much of it or will i have some elbow in the game today? 😅 8:05 Whats??! Oh come on really...thats our control of time...its not really distance or direction. That string has to have those two things bound to cosmos. Out of our reality and time. Plant a tree today ... how big will it be in 50-100 years. That type of thing. Signed the treaty in 1840, still has full ownership and governace of land... like that 😏
Fascinating listening to these super smart people; although, I feel a bit under the table about what is going on, realizing the tremendous effort it must take to be at the table. Anyway, listening makes my time, a feeling like walking on a gravel walkway in a park, diminutive. My time falls from being a sensation like happiness, sadness, suspicion, or trust; although, I remain intrigued by the psychological obsession humans have with measuring feelings like, love, winning, losing, success, or time. Just would like to make sure that a feeling is not parameterized as a component in the physical universe. (meant for this comment to be here)
One odd consequence of a real-clocks-only spacetime fabric is that singularities may no longer be feasible. You still get observable behaviors near the event horizon, but nothing falls below that level. Intriguingly, recent robust data that black holes "burp up" tidal remnants of stars they supposedly swallowed years ago may support abandoning the singularity model. An alternative would be that matter (clocks) in the event horizon stretch and thus magnify the space metric _inside_ the event horizon so that the interior no longer has room for even one particle. If so, the Big Empty would replace The Infinitely Dense Singularity.
@@TerryBollinger How are you going to put a material clock inside an event horizon that hasn't room for even one more particle? Personally, I think spacetime should be defined in terms of particle probabilities. If it is not possible for a particle to fit in it, it's not spacetime. A point with a zero probability of a particle existing there is never going to show up in any experiment. If your material clocks were fundamental particles, you'd get further with me. I'd still argue that when there's no room for particles, there's no spacetime.
@@ywtcc, when I mentioned “material clocks” I was referring, in particular, to asymptomatically point-like fermions. The event horizon would be a thin but layered beast. I suspect that in the bottom layer, you’d get a quark-gluon plasma mixed with electrons in band-like states. Such banding would keep energetic particles black-hole “cool” in the same way that the X-ray energy-level electrons that reflect light in silver are cool to the touch. I have no problem at all with saying that the interior has zero probability, but I think the scaling issue may prove important for dynamics. The deepest layers of the event horizon would be very slow and very crowded, forcing higher layers to work at a faster time scale, but also have more room. These and other radically different interpretations of event horizons are no longer completely abstract. Black hole data is making this into a real experimental issue, and we're already getting data that seems to say things don't truly fall in after all - but they can lurk for a few years. Over at Apabistia Press, I have a recent (2023-09-22) paper in TAO Physics on this, with a few figures. (TAO is Terry’s Archive Online, in case you were wondering.)
I believe the center of an electron was first a vibrating graviton compressed into mass by two orbiting vibrating electric and magnetic fields created by the electrons before any decay set in and the nucleus divine activities came into existence. I also believe that vibrating activity helps shape the universe because they have an internal electric magnetic field which is constantly vibrating around the graviton which is the potential nucleus. Here's the punch line the universe is the superconductor for the electron because electrons can emanate heat inside their core causing the entire electron to spin and because of this internal activity every electron in the universe can create a black hole from nothing on a macroscopic level and when they combine they can create black holes on the galactic level while generating a forever magnetic field that can accommodate every black hole in the entire universe. All particles in the universe share the same vibrating activity because they are all related to the electron and because of this everything in existence can levitate Example a space rocket and a crew of astronauts combine is obviously dead weight on land and this is because of Earth acceleration field but the moment everything enters out into space everything becomes weightless because on a microscopic level every electron inside every particle an atom slows down because they are no longer under the earth acceleration field and would immediately begin to levitate. So my point is when electrons speeds up because of the earth acceleration field that creates pressure inside every individual atom we call weight but in reality it is all pure pressure coming from the planet acceleration field.
It doesn't. Spacetime presents itself as "curved". Einstein's keen mind saw this and found a way to create a verbal analog. Those warped whirlpool drawings? That isn't actually happening. Its just an illustration of the behavior these objects are representing. No one knows why objects seem to be moving along invisible curved surfaces. That's the beauty of Einstein, he found a way to describe a why that was so accurate that has matched reality for over 100 years. But its not truth, just like Newtonian physics isn't true, but still highly practical.
How does curved space work at the quantum level? Not well. In his 1964 Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Dirac concluded curved space and quantum mechanics are mutuality exclusive since curving the space of, say, a Schrödinger wavefunction collapses it. Unlike flat Minkowski spacetime, curved spacetime seems intensely classical, according to Dirac. (Shh! Don't tell Susskind!)
Teachers are still teaching gravity as curved space but I don't think leading theorists believe it anymore. They just don't have a clear replacement. The search for the graviton is all they have.
When explaining your ground-breaking super idea, you must make sure not to differ from the existing explanations too much! Who would want to make all that fragile math from scratch again! We are happy that we succeeded once! Questioning the established is destructive.
Could this mean that “real” space and time could be relegated to the world of ideas, leaving us with only the possibility of making necessarily imperfect observations/measurements of things in relationship to each other in the context of our clocks and rulers?
Haha@@seanhewitt603. I’ve actually unsuccessfully contemplated the problem of whether “I” exist in my “ideal” form in the world of ideas, but also as a physical approximation of that idea.
Miracle is physics but one that works with "forces" unfamiliar to current physics/physicists. In addition, since you claim that clock is time, was there no time when clocks were yet to be invented? Instead of being "much much much easier," could it perhaps be that you are 'much much much confused?'
Yes, and the problem is this: How do you write your mathematics if every use of variables such as x, y, z, and t _presumes_ the existence of these metrics as fundamental features of the universe? How, for example, can you describe a clock's parts if you cannot use x, y, and z as the fundamental metrics for describing its structure? Can you imagine the amount of rewriting of the history of physics that would be necessary if x, y, z, and t suddenly became "unglued" as axiomatic properties for describing how the universe operates? Even more pointedly, what variables _do_ you use if x, y, z, and t are no longer fundamental? Einstein did provide one slight hint in his 1905 papers when he refused to define the speed of light as anything other than the _round-trip_ behavior of light. If you look at that issue closely, it turns out that _none_ of these metrics are definable experimentally without using finite-scope closed loops of information flows. Quantum mechanics is not the only physics topic with an observer problem.
3:13 how would you approach it? SL: Well so so yeah I have my own my own quick sodic uh theory of quantum gravity ( I would expect nothing normal ) yeah well actually indeed any theory of quantum gravity is at the moment kind of Qui exotic because to have a really good physical theory you need to be able to compare it with observation and experiment and all attempts at theories of quantum gravity are very far away from that right now so they're all going to be tilting at windmills for a while 3:37 well 3:57 ... so my approach to quantum gravity is kind of simple so we're not going to quantize gravity you'd be amazed how much easier that makes things all the problems that come with trying to quantize gravity go away and then you might say well but heck you're not quantizing gravity I thought you had to have a theory of quantum gravity well this is a completely quantum mechanical theory it just doesn't involve taking gravity and making it quantum so so to show how this theory of non-quantum gravity can be perfectly quantum mechanical let me give an example. 4:30 ... 5:45 ... when you try to make space and time quantum mechanical that's where the trouble arises because in quantum mechanics space and time are not things that you can actually measure so time is not what's called unobservable in quantum mechanics you can't observe it [ why? because it is not belonging to Planck World instead time is one dimensional space of the other world where everything moves over the first universal speed limit, the light speed, when measuring, what you've observed is beyond time, and an instant 3d being, e.g an electon is a stopped or slowed one because of an input of 0.511MeV in the electron quatum field] ...👍time is defined to be what our clocks are ticking out 6:42
He seems to be making the point that "quantum gravity" requires quantum particles? So what happens if there are no particles? He's saying that there is no such thing as quantum gravity. So, what's his ideas for solving the issues around quantum gravity?
If there are no particles, what happens is _there is no spacetime._ You fall back to the (surprisingly old, pre-Faraday) direct-particle-relation model in which spacetime is nothing more than a set of unforgiving relationships between independently existing entities such as "particles." Where the particles exist is... wow, a good question, and part of the broader "how do you replace x, y, z, t" issue. The result is not that hard to imagine since it works the same way a tiny computer or game box simulates indefinitely large spaces. It's all about relations, not "real" space. Interestingly, clock-fabric spacetime would make quantization of gravity easier to detect, not harder, because gravity becomes a direct relationship between particles -- an entanglement, to use the xyz-space quantum term. Rummaging... yeah, I posted a short page on that eight months ago: "Quantum Gravity Experiments at Potentially Low Cost," Terry Bollinger 2023-02-18. The idea is that gravity between two very lightweight masses becomes a small, finite number of entanglements. However, looking back, expressing it as "entanglements" is... too superficial? It must address the local-loop observation issue and new (sigh) maths that work below xyzt. (A 3-space of distance-squared metrics -- "Lorentz area distances" -- does at least seem to capture one valid embedding of the causality network. Each local inertial frame unit "breaks down" or reinterprets the three symmetric distance-squared metrics LxLyLz into a local-only xyzt 4-space. The squared distances prevent causal contradictions while allowing the universe to evolve and provide large-scale state change, even if a bit grumpily.)
I think he is just saying that like time, we really can't put our fingers on space (and therefore gravity). I think he justifies this by saying it is due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We can only try to understand their impact on us, matter and energy, via the measurement techniques and devices that are used to designate distance, time, and gravitational effects.
In your preface, you negate the possibility of discerning 'Quantum Gravity." As you open with, Gravity is an artifact of the time/space continuum. That alone precludes Gravity from being a primary force. Since Gravity is NOT a primary force, Gravity has NO intrinsic Quantum Characteristics.
You are all looking up the wrong tree. The secret to the nature of reality was discovered at least as far back as ancient antiquity, and then kept hidden. Plato talks briefly about it with his origin of forms. He doesn't elaborate ON PURPOSE.
Astronomy looks like it's trying to provide a use case for a theory of quantum gravity. Dark matter, dark energy, inflation, are some of the mysteries that are begging for better explanation. The spacetime of quantum mechanics is flat, infinitely divisible, and collapses when measured. The spacetime of general relativity is curved, interacts with mass by some unknown mechanism, and is built up from point like events. It looks to me that the points in general relativity appear as planes of uncertainty in quantum mechanics. Conversely, I'm not convinced that any of the points in quantum mechanical spacetime are in a macroscopic, general relativistic spacetime. The spacetimes appear to be misaligned. It takes a measurement to turn a quantum mechanical system into a statistical point in general relativity. Personally, I think both theories aren't getting it quite right, and there's some underlying theory which explains how QM and GR work so well in their particular domains, while also providing a better description of edge cases, such as near singularities, or empty space. My thought is maybe we're not contextualizing the measurement precisely. When measuring a quantum mechanical system, we're not just getting information to predict how the system will evolve, we're also getting information to describe which quantum mechanical system we're in. AND, we're adding energy to the system, in both directions to do so. Gravity could just be a small measurement error, the logic of which, on a large scale, becomes inescapable. On the other hand, maybe the whole enterprise of defining spacetime as infinitely divisible vacuum is coming to an end. There could be some constructionist definition of spacetime, something like a path integral formulation, such that spacetime is constructed from potential particles. Surely, if there's no possibility of a particle existing at a point, it's not worth considering that point as part of spacetime. It's never going to be in the experiment!
And the guy heard about last's year physics nobel prize, huh? Gravity is force that maked something local, right? And local is only true from standpoint of local, just from the observers perspective, not from standpoint of truth. . Interesting specation, local opinion of local mind... One mind...
Sounds like a lot of difficult work to do, but that's a lot better than a bunch of scientists pretending they are philosophers (philosophy is not a bunch of fancy academic ideas, philosophy is something you live). He likes things that work and is proposing work to be committed to. I like it.
Sorry but wrong. Modern day crap philosophy may be what you are describing but the origin of the word and it's original meaning was a scientific understanding of reality, hence the suffix of the word sophia meaning wisdom.
(3:30) *SL: **_"I've looked at their careers for decades as they try to quantize gravity and failed._* ... We're all guilty of spinning the nonworking parts of our theories to make them seem more plausible. Someone who has a solid 80% of a working theory will suddenly turn into Shakespeare to prop up the 20% that's problematic. String theorists will resort to Hollywood-type special effects just to "bring back to life" parts of their theory that were dead on arrival. *My theory on gravity:* The universe is an "eye-for-an-eye" arena and there are no "free rides." For every particle there is an antiparticle, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form. We know that gravity is directly related to mass. We also know that the amount of energy released appears dramatically more prominent than the tiny amount of matter that contains it, yet on paper they are equal. So, let's apply this same standard to space and mass. Space may not be an empty arena, but rather a mathematical gridwork for counter balancing everything held within it. If an object has x-amount of mass, then the surrounding space must compensate with x-amount of pressure against that mass. In other words, mass wants to occupy x-amount of space and space wants to reclaim the newly occupied territory. ... It's like sticking your finger into ballistic gel and feeling the gel trying to push your finger back out. It may be that you're never going to find a graviton, a force, or anything "physical" that represents "gravity." Instead, it's more like a financial accounting process. Space loans itself out to mass (like with a mortgage), and then forecloses on the mass just like banks do over time. ... So, the only way to defeat gravity is to find some other way to _"pay off the loan"_ to stop the foreclosure. ... Find a way to turn off the grid and you can go anywhere you want ... _and at any speed!_
I am talking to humanity. You can not say to me you don't understand. Tell me you are not ready for addiction recovery or for peace in the world, but don't torture me saying you don't understand the meaning of "to end all the wars in the world and atheism and religion the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news". What could possibly mean that is not what it means? You may think I speak weird and that's because I don't know how to talk or what to say anymore because nothing works. I talk the easiest possible doing my best. I have developed a style of writing to keep you reading til the end or until you understand. Would you memorize and understand the atheist logical fallacy to preserve knowledge useful for future generations? The greatest knowledge of all time is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I have tried everything doing my best and I failed. I am tired. My loving poems are getting shorter due to mental and physical exhaustion. Let me know when you want what you say you want.
Hello from Kazakhstan. We can create an educational and practical device and practically master Einstein’s theories of relativity or obtain, for example, new physics: Postulate 1. Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. Postulate 2. The speed of light, regardless of the source, within the “framework of the dominant gravitational field” This is determined experimentally using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope (based on Michelson's experiment 1881-2015). Using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope, the straight-line speed of vehicles can be measured. There is a company in China that makes (fiber optic angular velocity meter) they will be able to create a hybrid device. Please, can you come to an agreement with them? I guarantee payment at cost on my part.
2:56 ... the approach requires enormous amounts of data processing before even trying... human brain might not be the right calculator for this task...
May I ... “Believe means to accept something to be true especially without a proof or the certainty of the authenticity of the given proof”. Since you seem to know us, let’s assume that you also know the fact that we have an undeniable proof for God existence, therefore we don’t believe “we live in God” although we believe in people like you who think that it’s not right to mock others. By the way, You shouldn’t get us wrong, our little laugh is about manifesting our indifference towards illogical speculations with zero evidence ( blind belief = pseudosciences) . Whatever our little laugh might be perceived as “mockery and so on...” , we don’t care, western scientists playing geniuses must halt their insanity otherwise the moral values and economies of their countries will be doomed in the very near future. Regards.
@@hakiza-technologyltd.8198 perhaps you could state all the evidence you have of your god's existence? That would be great. If you fall to do so, and I think you will, then maybe you could show some humility towards the scientific method
That’s just a draft and not even 20% of the scientific proof we have and I bet you can’t prove us wrong... it’s not wise for you to engage someone you don’t know... the big response is to come with the already in process scientific publication of “the direct proof to the yangs mill’s existence and mass gap” www.dropbox.com/s/c69trrjillfr23r/HAKIZA-1%20%28draft%29%20-1.pdf?dl=0
If guys keep out phich proceendings his Quantum mecânico is nill evidence phich. What he shows his phich proceendings though experiences? Because he doesnt understand phich proceendings. He blah blah is ant phich experiences.
Hard to think about anything but his hair. From one bald guy to another: just shave it. If you wanna peacock, get cooler glasses. Scalp tattoo if you’re really spicy.
*"It's like watching Charles Manson answering a question!"* ... Seth Lloyd (mathematical engineering) is in my top-five list of physicists. He's very articulate, funny, and "clear." He doesn't cloak his thoughts and theories using a complex lexicon and he dumbs everything down for the common listener. ... That's a rarity in the ego-driven, "look how smart I am" realm of QM.
The problem is that gravity is huge and can’t possibly be explained by miniscule quantums. Believe me,I know what I’m talking about. There are no such ththings as a boulder sized burbles.
Seth is brilliant in his simplicity 👏
That makes him just ordinary genius
The explanation about the impossibility of quantizing gravity given by Prof Seth is brilliant and convincing. Thank you for the video!
The way I look at it as a rank amateur is Gravity is also quantized. Every other energy manifestation has a wave particle duality. Light, electrons etc. Now that the Gravitational Waves have been detected, Occam's razor suggests that this energy also has a particle associated with it, Graviton. We may never get to detect it, but maybe we can see it's interactions with other forces close to a massive Gravitational construct... Something like a Black Hole perhaps.
Seth Lloyd and Robert Lawrence Kuhn, thank you. This is the first time I’ve encountered anyone promoting Einstein’s original pre-Minkowski-conversion view of space and time as networks of clocks and clock-derived rulers.
The 1905 Einstein was adamant about the need to use material clocks to define space and time, and it was only after Minkowski, his old professor, publicly browbeat Einstein into using classical continuum manifold maths that he abandoned lumpy clocks.
As you say, Professor Lloyd, all forms of spacetime, including curved spacetime, instantly become granular with finite, quantum-aware resolution if the only definition you can use for them is fine-grained clocks.
I hope you have written some papers on this. I will certainly take a look.
If I follow this correctly, he's saying we should only worry about quantizing actual physical clocks for each individual experiment/question we may have, rather than a broad mathematical generalization of quantized 'spacetime' writ large?
@@erawanpencilyes. Both quantum physics (QFT) and general relativity explicitly assume that an infinitely precise spacetime fabric exists _independently_ of any matter of clocks within it. Lloyd returns to Einstein's original Hume-inspired 1905 special relativity definition of space and time: Neither has any meaning if you cannot measure it with an actual device.
I didn't know about the browbeating thats interesting
@@samwall9922, I think “publicly intimidating Einstein” would have been a better choice of words. When Minkowski gave his famous and poetically eloquent ”space and time” lecture, the spin he put on Einstein’s 1905 paper was so different from his own that Einstein famously said, “I no longer understand my own theory.”
@@TerryBollinger That makes so much more sense to me. I don't know if this is related but it's always seemed to me that parts of physics don't take relativity seriously... despite the name of the theory, they talk so confidently about the 'history' of the universe or time as if we're living in something that has space and time as absolute structures. It seems like relativity should only be able to give you an instantaneous 'what will I see next' result given a defined input, and wouldn't say anything more about stuff time or space related after that.
String theory. The shotgun approach.
One pellet is bound to hit the target if you have enough pellets.
Just like 'anything can happen if you have enough time'.
Infinite compression is another one with the same MO.
What an engaging guest
I thought about the same thing when I had to make lava lamps... "water and oil is like string theory and general relativity" except I had to make up what theory could take the place of baking soda and its bubbling effect.
2:24 Isn't it in a location with a vibration quality similar to the tiniest spark of infinite light power, but almost completely invisible to find yet it has a circumference as bold and thick as a crystal fractal cylinder? Also has a type of tiny tiny vibration quality similar to a crystal glass being struck and when obstructing its light beam, the force of its entire length actually disappears far into the deep dark and out through the fabric of time? Cant be sure if it was actually cosmos as it had an opening at the end that seem to look like a tiny full moon. But yes. That would be the correct one. 😊
7:33 i remember the sound travelling experiment as a child. We had to measure the time it took for the sound to reach certain distances. I think about this same thing when I wake up in the morning. How did England do today, are there any things the Americans have set up for todays tasks, will i have to skate over much of it or will i have some elbow in the game today? 😅
8:05 Whats??! Oh come on really...thats our control of time...its not really distance or direction. That string has to have those two things bound to cosmos. Out of our reality and time. Plant a tree today ... how big will it be in 50-100 years. That type of thing. Signed the treaty in 1840, still has full ownership and governace of land... like that 😏
Fascinating listening to these super smart people; although, I feel a bit under the table about what is going on, realizing the tremendous effort it must take to be at the table. Anyway, listening makes my time, a feeling like walking on a gravel walkway in a park, diminutive. My time falls from being a sensation like happiness, sadness, suspicion, or trust; although, I remain intrigued by the psychological obsession humans have with measuring feelings like, love, winning, losing, success, or time. Just would like to make sure that a feeling is not parameterized as a component in the physical universe.
(meant for this comment to be here)
When he said “don’t worry this is the only think I’m going to take off” lol 😂 thanks again for not taking off your shirt
I happen to believe in the String Cheese Theory. And also the General Theory of Beef Jerky.
I believe in Einstein's theory of Special Needs Relatives.
😂😂😂
I thought this was a serious chanel
@@alexlang2086 It is Alex. I'm a pantheist and I still have a sense of humor.
String theory will always be incomplete
As long as he can use his theory to tell what's going on in a black hole and the singularity at the big bang I'm satisfied 🤓
One odd consequence of a real-clocks-only spacetime fabric is that singularities may no longer be feasible. You still get observable behaviors near the event horizon, but nothing falls below that level. Intriguingly, recent robust data that black holes "burp up" tidal remnants of stars they supposedly swallowed years ago may support abandoning the singularity model. An alternative would be that matter (clocks) in the event horizon stretch and thus magnify the space metric _inside_ the event horizon so that the interior no longer has room for even one particle. If so, the Big Empty would replace The Infinitely Dense Singularity.
@@TerryBollinger How are you going to put a material clock inside an event horizon that hasn't room for even one more particle?
Personally, I think spacetime should be defined in terms of particle probabilities. If it is not possible for a particle to fit in it, it's not spacetime. A point with a zero probability of a particle existing there is never going to show up in any experiment.
If your material clocks were fundamental particles, you'd get further with me. I'd still argue that when there's no room for particles, there's no spacetime.
@@ywtcc, when I mentioned “material clocks” I was referring, in particular, to asymptomatically point-like fermions.
The event horizon would be a thin but layered beast. I suspect that in the bottom layer, you’d get a quark-gluon plasma mixed with electrons in band-like states. Such banding would keep energetic particles black-hole “cool” in the same way that the X-ray energy-level electrons that reflect light in silver are cool to the touch.
I have no problem at all with saying that the interior has zero probability, but I think the scaling issue may prove important for dynamics. The deepest layers of the event horizon would be very slow and very crowded, forcing higher layers to work at a faster time scale, but also have more room.
These and other radically different interpretations of event horizons are no longer completely abstract. Black hole data is making this into a real experimental issue, and we're already getting data that seems to say things don't truly fall in after all - but they can lurk for a few years.
Over at Apabistia Press, I have a recent (2023-09-22) paper in TAO Physics on this, with a few figures.
(TAO is Terry’s Archive Online, in case you were wondering.)
I believe the center of an electron was first a vibrating graviton compressed into mass by two orbiting vibrating electric and magnetic fields created by the electrons before any decay set in and the nucleus divine activities came into existence.
I also believe that vibrating activity helps shape the universe because they have an internal electric magnetic field which is constantly vibrating around the graviton which is the potential nucleus.
Here's the punch line the universe is the superconductor for the electron because electrons can emanate heat inside their core causing the entire electron to spin and because of this internal activity every electron in the universe can create a black hole from nothing on a macroscopic level and when they combine they can create black holes on the galactic level while generating a forever magnetic field that can accommodate every black hole in the entire universe.
All particles in the universe share the same vibrating activity because they are all related to the electron and because of this everything in existence can levitate Example a space rocket and a crew of astronauts combine is obviously dead weight on land and this is because of Earth acceleration field but the moment everything enters out into space everything becomes weightless because on a microscopic level every electron inside every particle an atom slows down because they are no longer under the earth acceleration field and would immediately begin to levitate.
So my point is when electrons speeds up because of the earth acceleration field that creates pressure inside every individual atom we call weight but in reality it is all pure pressure coming from the planet acceleration field.
And why does matter bend spacetime?
It doesn't. Spacetime presents itself as "curved". Einstein's keen mind saw this and found a way to create a verbal analog. Those warped whirlpool drawings? That isn't actually happening. Its just an illustration of the behavior these objects are representing. No one knows why objects seem to be moving along invisible curved surfaces. That's the beauty of Einstein, he found a way to describe a why that was so accurate that has matched reality for over 100 years. But its not truth, just like Newtonian physics isn't true, but still highly practical.
Since Einstein showed us, at the Classical level, that gravity is curved space, can someone tell me how that works at the Quantum level?
How does curved space work at the quantum level? Not well. In his 1964 Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Dirac concluded curved space and quantum mechanics are mutuality exclusive since curving the space of, say, a Schrödinger wavefunction collapses it. Unlike flat Minkowski spacetime, curved spacetime seems intensely classical, according to Dirac. (Shh! Don't tell Susskind!)
Teachers are still teaching gravity as curved space but I don't think leading theorists believe it anymore. They just don't have a clear replacement. The search for the graviton is all they have.
When explaining your ground-breaking super idea, you must make sure not to differ from the existing explanations too much! Who would want to make all that fragile math from scratch again! We are happy that we succeeded once! Questioning the established is destructive.
0 P_max = (c^90909/(G^22727 Newton^22726)); is a quantum Newtonian gravitational equation, for an Einstein-Newton clock. ⏰
Quantum gravity is temporal compression, which leads to piezo electric discharge, leads to the passage of LIGHT THROUGH TIME...
Could this mean that “real” space and time could be relegated to the world of ideas, leaving us with only the possibility of making necessarily imperfect observations/measurements of things in relationship to each other in the context of our clocks and rulers?
Including the clocks and rulers... not to mention the aware thinking beings questioning the nature of existence.😮
Haha@@seanhewitt603. I’ve actually unsuccessfully contemplated the problem of whether “I” exist in my “ideal” form in the world of ideas, but also as a physical approximation of that idea.
Miracle is physics but one that works with "forces" unfamiliar to current physics/physicists.
In addition, since you claim that clock is time, was there no time when clocks were yet to be invented? Instead of being "much much much easier," could it perhaps be that you are 'much much much confused?'
I like his reasoning. Yet there must be a reason this hasn't been fleshed out yet
Yes, and the problem is this: How do you write your mathematics if every use of variables such as x, y, z, and t _presumes_ the existence of these metrics as fundamental features of the universe? How, for example, can you describe a clock's parts if you cannot use x, y, and z as the fundamental metrics for describing its structure? Can you imagine the amount of rewriting of the history of physics that would be necessary if x, y, z, and t suddenly became "unglued" as axiomatic properties for describing how the universe operates? Even more pointedly, what variables _do_ you use if x, y, z, and t are no longer fundamental?
Einstein did provide one slight hint in his 1905 papers when he refused to define the speed of light as anything other than the _round-trip_ behavior of light. If you look at that issue closely, it turns out that _none_ of these metrics are definable experimentally without using finite-scope closed loops of information flows.
Quantum mechanics is not the only physics topic with an observer problem.
Seth gets it right! We don't quantize space-time, we quantize rulers and clocks! Yea!
SpaceTime does not create gravity geometry creates gravity mass energy creates geometry SpaceTime is the backdrop in which these geometries occur
Someone who gets it 😊
There is not any form of gravity! All is about electromagnetic field. A unique rule for the entire Universe!... beginning from atoms.
3:13 how would you approach it? SL: Well so so yeah I have my own my own quick sodic uh theory of quantum gravity ( I would expect nothing normal ) yeah well actually indeed any theory of quantum gravity is at the moment kind of Qui exotic because to have a really good physical theory you need to be able to compare it with observation and experiment and all attempts at theories of quantum gravity are very far away from that right now so they're all going to be tilting at windmills for a while 3:37 well 3:57 ... so my approach to quantum gravity is kind of simple so we're not going to quantize gravity you'd be amazed how much easier that makes things all the problems that come with trying to quantize gravity go away and then you might say well but heck you're not quantizing gravity I thought you had to have a theory of quantum gravity well this is a completely quantum mechanical theory it just doesn't involve taking gravity and making it quantum so so to show how this theory of non-quantum gravity can be perfectly quantum mechanical let me give an example. 4:30 ... 5:45 ... when you try to make space and time quantum mechanical that's where the trouble arises because in quantum mechanics space and time are not things that you can actually measure so time is not what's called unobservable in quantum mechanics you can't observe it [ why? because it is not belonging to Planck World instead time is one dimensional space of the other world where everything moves over the first universal speed limit, the light speed, when measuring, what you've observed is beyond time, and an instant 3d being, e.g an electon is a stopped or slowed one because of an input of 0.511MeV in the electron quatum field] ...👍time is defined to be what our clocks are ticking out 6:42
He seems to be making the point that "quantum gravity" requires quantum particles? So what happens if there are no particles? He's saying that there is no such thing as quantum gravity. So, what's his ideas for solving the issues around quantum gravity?
If there are no particles, what happens is _there is no spacetime._ You fall back to the (surprisingly old, pre-Faraday) direct-particle-relation model in which spacetime is nothing more than a set of unforgiving relationships between independently existing entities such as "particles." Where the particles exist is... wow, a good question, and part of the broader "how do you replace x, y, z, t" issue.
The result is not that hard to imagine since it works the same way a tiny computer or game box simulates indefinitely large spaces. It's all about relations, not "real" space.
Interestingly, clock-fabric spacetime would make quantization of gravity easier to detect, not harder, because gravity becomes a direct relationship between particles -- an entanglement, to use the xyz-space quantum term. Rummaging... yeah, I posted a short page on that eight months ago: "Quantum Gravity Experiments at Potentially Low Cost," Terry Bollinger 2023-02-18. The idea is that gravity between two very lightweight masses becomes a small, finite number of entanglements. However, looking back, expressing it as "entanglements" is... too superficial? It must address the local-loop observation issue and new (sigh) maths that work below xyzt.
(A 3-space of distance-squared metrics -- "Lorentz area distances" -- does at least seem to capture one valid embedding of the causality network. Each local inertial frame unit "breaks down" or reinterprets the three symmetric distance-squared metrics LxLyLz into a local-only xyzt 4-space. The squared distances prevent causal contradictions while allowing the universe to evolve and provide large-scale state change, even if a bit grumpily.)
I think he is just saying that like time, we really can't put our fingers on space (and therefore gravity). I think he justifies this by saying it is due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We can only try to understand their impact on us, matter and energy, via the measurement techniques and devices that are used to designate distance, time, and gravitational effects.
Does Seth Lloyd really quantize an atom (being a clock) and light (being a signal) in an extremely curved Riemann space?..
Units of gravity? Units of gravity time? Gravity time would become a unit?
In your preface, you negate the possibility of discerning 'Quantum Gravity." As you open with, Gravity is an artifact of the time/space continuum. That alone precludes Gravity from being a primary force. Since Gravity is NOT a primary force, Gravity has NO intrinsic Quantum Characteristics.
String theory is so simple and so true. But no one really understood that.
String theory is a waste of time/bunk.
You are all looking up the wrong tree. The secret to the nature of reality was discovered at least as far back as ancient antiquity, and then kept hidden. Plato talks briefly about it with his origin of forms. He doesn't elaborate ON PURPOSE.
Should be required listening for all string theorists.. Maybe they can finally get on a track that produces results.
This guy looks every movie scientist that gets killed by his own creation
2:05 string theorist talk about 1^500 different vaccums.....damn that's a huge number...how will ever find out which one it is?
maybe 10...
Throw a dart, see where it lands.
Astronomy looks like it's trying to provide a use case for a theory of quantum gravity.
Dark matter, dark energy, inflation, are some of the mysteries that are begging for better explanation.
The spacetime of quantum mechanics is flat, infinitely divisible, and collapses when measured.
The spacetime of general relativity is curved, interacts with mass by some unknown mechanism, and is built up from point like events.
It looks to me that the points in general relativity appear as planes of uncertainty in quantum mechanics.
Conversely, I'm not convinced that any of the points in quantum mechanical spacetime are in a macroscopic, general relativistic spacetime. The spacetimes appear to be misaligned. It takes a measurement to turn a quantum mechanical system into a statistical point in general relativity.
Personally, I think both theories aren't getting it quite right, and there's some underlying theory which explains how QM and GR work so well in their particular domains, while also providing a better description of edge cases, such as near singularities, or empty space.
My thought is maybe we're not contextualizing the measurement precisely. When measuring a quantum mechanical system, we're not just getting information to predict how the system will evolve, we're also getting information to describe which quantum mechanical system we're in. AND, we're adding energy to the system, in both directions to do so. Gravity could just be a small measurement error, the logic of which, on a large scale, becomes inescapable.
On the other hand, maybe the whole enterprise of defining spacetime as infinitely divisible vacuum is coming to an end. There could be some constructionist definition of spacetime, something like a path integral formulation, such that spacetime is constructed from potential particles. Surely, if there's no possibility of a particle existing at a point, it's not worth considering that point as part of spacetime. It's never going to be in the experiment!
Seth is quantum scientist
He didn't answer the question of what implications arise. He only restated the process of quantising clocks. Too bad.
I didn't know "burble" was A scientific term. 🤭
And the guy heard about last's year physics nobel prize, huh? Gravity is force that maked something local, right? And local is only true from standpoint of local, just from the observers perspective, not from standpoint of truth. . Interesting specation, local opinion of local mind... One mind...
His ideas are correct. Hopefully other scientists will stop wasting time.
They can’t be that stuck doesn’t seem smart
Sounds like a lot of difficult work to do, but that's a lot better than a bunch of scientists pretending they are philosophers (philosophy is not a bunch of fancy academic ideas, philosophy is something you live).
He likes things that work and is proposing work to be committed to. I like it.
Sorry but wrong. Modern day crap philosophy may be what you are describing but the origin of the word and it's original meaning was a scientific understanding of reality, hence the suffix of the word sophia meaning wisdom.
Fist
therefore you missed the r
@@elsawiegers1093 yep. Oopsie
@@oliviamaynard9372embarrassing on so many levels
-bump
@@r2c3 don't worry
loved that talk but professor Lloyd needs a haircut :D
I propose; 1^500 = Gazillion.
(3:30) *SL: **_"I've looked at their careers for decades as they try to quantize gravity and failed._* ... We're all guilty of spinning the nonworking parts of our theories to make them seem more plausible. Someone who has a solid 80% of a working theory will suddenly turn into Shakespeare to prop up the 20% that's problematic. String theorists will resort to Hollywood-type special effects just to "bring back to life" parts of their theory that were dead on arrival.
*My theory on gravity:*
The universe is an "eye-for-an-eye" arena and there are no "free rides."
For every particle there is an antiparticle, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form. We know that gravity is directly related to mass. We also know that the amount of energy released appears dramatically more prominent than the tiny amount of matter that contains it, yet on paper they are equal.
So, let's apply this same standard to space and mass.
Space may not be an empty arena, but rather a mathematical gridwork for counter balancing everything held within it. If an object has x-amount of mass, then the surrounding space must compensate with x-amount of pressure against that mass. In other words, mass wants to occupy x-amount of space and space wants to reclaim the newly occupied territory. ... It's like sticking your finger into ballistic gel and feeling the gel trying to push your finger back out.
It may be that you're never going to find a graviton, a force, or anything "physical" that represents "gravity." Instead, it's more like a financial accounting process. Space loans itself out to mass (like with a mortgage), and then forecloses on the mass just like banks do over time. ... So, the only way to defeat gravity is to find some other way to _"pay off the loan"_ to stop the foreclosure.
... Find a way to turn off the grid and you can go anywhere you want ... _and at any speed!_
Okay
@@user-ri6rn7ti5h Good.
I am talking to humanity. You can not say to me you don't understand. Tell me you are not ready for addiction recovery or for peace in the world, but don't torture me saying you don't understand the meaning of "to end all the wars in the world and atheism and religion the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news". What could possibly mean that is not what it means? You may think I speak weird and that's because I don't know how to talk or what to say anymore because nothing works. I talk the easiest possible doing my best. I have developed a style of writing to keep you reading til the end or until you understand. Would you memorize and understand the atheist logical fallacy to preserve knowledge useful for future generations? The greatest knowledge of all time is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I have tried everything doing my best and I failed. I am tired. My loving poems are getting shorter due to mental and physical exhaustion. Let me know when you want what you say you want.
Hello from Kazakhstan. We can create an educational and practical device and practically master Einstein’s theories of relativity or obtain, for example, new physics:
Postulate 1. Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. Postulate 2. The speed of light, regardless of the source, within the “framework of the dominant gravitational field” This is determined experimentally using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope (based on Michelson's experiment 1881-2015). Using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope, the straight-line speed of vehicles can be measured. There is a company in China that makes (fiber optic angular velocity meter) they will be able to create a hybrid device. Please, can you come to an agreement with them? I guarantee payment at cost on my part.
string theory, what a joke...
2:56 ... the approach requires enormous amounts of data processing before even trying... human brain might not be the right calculator for this task...
Hahahaha... for decades, still there zero empirical material evidence... quantum gravity is just fundamentally wrong.
You're a theist who believes everything was intelligently designed. You're in no place to laugh at anyone, son
May I ... “Believe means to accept something to be true especially without a proof or the certainty of the authenticity of the given proof”.
Since you seem to know us, let’s assume that you also know the fact that we have an undeniable proof for God existence, therefore we don’t believe “we live in God” although we believe in people like you who think that it’s not right to mock others.
By the way, You shouldn’t get us wrong, our little laugh is about manifesting our indifference towards illogical speculations with zero evidence ( blind belief = pseudosciences) .
Whatever our little laugh might be perceived as “mockery and so on...” , we don’t care, western scientists playing geniuses must halt their insanity otherwise the moral values and economies of their countries will be doomed in the very near future.
Regards.
@@hakiza-technologyltd.8198 perhaps you could state all the evidence you have of your god's existence?
That would be great. If you fall to do so, and I think you will, then maybe you could show some humility towards the scientific method
That’s just a draft and not even 20% of the scientific proof we have and I bet you can’t prove us wrong... it’s not wise for you to engage someone you don’t know... the big response is to come with the already in process scientific publication of “the direct proof to the yangs mill’s existence and mass gap”
www.dropbox.com/s/c69trrjillfr23r/HAKIZA-1%20%28draft%29%20-1.pdf?dl=0
If guys keep out phich proceendings his Quantum mecânico is nill evidence phich. What he shows his phich proceendings though experiences? Because he doesnt understand phich proceendings. He blah blah is ant phich experiences.
Be very careful.... Spending your entire life on trying to define quantum gravity may end you up in quantum hell, freezing for eternity...
We can merge them just not how evolutionary mythology wants us to
Hard to think about anything but his hair. From one bald guy to another: just shave it. If you wanna peacock, get cooler glasses. Scalp tattoo if you’re really spicy.
"Quantum Consciousness" is the bridge that connects Quantum mechanics and General Relativity😊
It's like watching Charles Manson answering a question!
And equally as coherent
*"It's like watching Charles Manson answering a question!"*
... Seth Lloyd (mathematical engineering) is in my top-five list of physicists. He's very articulate, funny, and "clear." He doesn't cloak his thoughts and theories using a complex lexicon and he dumbs everything down for the common listener. ... That's a rarity in the ego-driven, "look how smart I am" realm of QM.
The problem is that gravity is huge and can’t possibly be explained by miniscule quantums. Believe me,I know what I’m talking about. There are no such ththings as a boulder sized burbles.
Quantum gravity is a myth!,on that scale change is fundamental.
You are right it is bunk.
Quantum gravity final theory is impossible.
It's just fction.
Your hair-island, so distracting...
Terrible