A Massive Problem All of Physics Completely Missed
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 апр 2025
- Main episode with Jacob Barandes: • Harvard Scientist: "Th...
As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit www.economist....
Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): curtjaimungal....
Listen on Spotify: tinyurl.com/Sp...
Become a RUclips Member (Early Access Videos):
/ @theoriesofeverything
Support TOE on Patreon: / curtjaimungal
Twitter: / toewithcurt
Discord Invite: / discord
#science
"Time is an illusion, and lunchtime doubly so."- Douglas Adams
Exactly. There is no time. Just a change in the energetic state of the system.
Time is a necessary parameter that allows motion through spacial dimensions.
@utee72 spacial dimensions aren't real. They are mathematical artifacts. Thought experiments. There is ZERO evidence for separate spatial dimensions.
Ah, our Doug was sharp as a knife. On the other hand, the most accurate clocks scientists can get, rely on a very particular form of decay.
Nonsense. Time is not a real dimension. Onerock failed in reifying time which is only the present, the NOW. Time is not a continuous 'process' of the past, present and future.
Jacob is one of those ppl that like to hear themselves talk; the main character of his stories.
Mute the video. It becomes directions to the bus station, along with warnings for specific hazards along the way. Note: some climbing may be involved.
hahahahahaha
You're right ... Odd, he doesn't look Italian 🤣
@@BaronLucidit happens to all salesmen facing a challenge.
Guy on the left: Your lips move, but I can't hear what you're saying. I have become comfortably numb.
Omg thanks for the laugh XD
😂
I love the way Curt interviews. He allows guests to speak without interrupting.
Jacob makes that an easy thing to do.
lol
In this video
That's because Curt is completely lost, like everyone listening.
@@triplec8375 I guess it would have been hard to find a spot to interrupt ha ha
11:47 goes ‘Uh-huh’. His first muttering in this video. I totally agree with Curt 😅👍
I move my hands just like that when I stub my TOE
Watch it again at 2x. 😂 it’s even better
ahauahag 😆
Ah think thats what INEZ said 😮
🤣🤣🤣🤣
We assumed space is empty, it isn't. We assume electron is a article but we have not proved it, we have assumed time is a factor but it's relative to space, we assumed subatomic particles are particles and we test them as such.
Our assumptions limit our theories, and our focus on dogma or profit driven progress is limiting our science.
Not, Mainstream physicist are not assuming what you believe - you as a "We' - believe what They assume as You believe that - They as your "We" - are assuming about the construct called"Space " ....
An advice: Learn about wtf mean "Background Independence' in physics for grasping better why Mainstream physicists don't assume what you believe they are assuming.
"We assumed space is empty"
We haven't assumed that for at least 80 years.
"We assume electron is a article but we have not proved it"
That was proven at least 120 years ago.
"we have assumed time is a factor"
What is that even supposed to mean?
"but it's relative to space"
Time is relative, yes. But it's not "relative to space".
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Well he was right in that your path forward is limited by your axioms. But he just didn't know what the axioms actually were. 😉
@bjornfeuerbacher5514 no we have proven electron exists, we have not proven its a particle same as we have not proven its mass. Stop spreading missinformation..
Just as photons represent themselves as particles ad waves there is till a chance that on the quantum scale the electron is an energy field representing itself as a particle like nature, doesnt mean it's the same as matter, hence why it can't interact with other matter directly just like light, and has not been caught with current quantum and classical physics models. Hence either its not a particle like light, or our models are wrong and we need to improve. Eitherway electron is still elusive as we have no way of probing subatomic with non invasive tests
Gapology -_-
“All of physics missed this!“ Proceeds to list things physicists talk about often.
Stuff that people are talking about now, "Missed" is past tense.
@Turksarama yea but you're responding to a paradigm cultist. They literally can't understand how things can be missed and then confuse the present for the past.
No. They don't talk about a probabilistic universe in a stochastic manner. Very few does. Most physicists talks about a quantum universe, which is fundamentally probabilistic, but not in a relativistic manner, which is a deterministic universe. Quantum mechanics are not just fundamentally probabilistic, they are fundamentally flawed, just like this guy says. Markovian randomness in not the same as classic probability theory, and they are in turn different than probability in quantum mechanics.
Goes back to 1915....lol
I'm totally flabbergasted that you seem to have not read the papers on Stochastic versus Probabilistic Quantum Field Theory by Professor Borat of Kazakhstan Open University. Thank you.
I was confused when he used Stochastic (Random, ie you can't predict it), and probability (Something that can be predicted to an extent) as a singular noun. Shouldn't you just say probability, and if all these probabilities affect each other, as Bayesian network/graph?
@@timfitzgerald8283 yeah i stopped the video exactly after he said that. bro's attempting the infinite rizz.
@@davidstringer8711 What's a kayakastan
Says who? You are welcome.
@@timfitzgerald8283 A process being stochastic doesn't mean that nothing can be predicted about it. It means it evolves within the parameters of random variables that follow some probability distribution. If it were impossible to derive any useful information from stochastic processes, there wouldn't be an entire domain of knowledge dedicated to studying them. You're being overly pedantic.
Trying to make GR probabilitic is like after going to the bottom of your rabbit hole, you deciding you need to dig another rabbit hole.
@@willnitschke yeah, man!
It's more like going from Thermodynamics to Statistical Mechanics and Information Theory by showing how Einstein got both his physics and math wrong about Hermann Weyl's ideas. Edwin T. Jaynes has often referred to Quantum Mechanics as an empty mathematical shell in need of physical principles. Mendel Sachs derived QM from a spinor variation of GTR. A.K.T Assis derived gravitation as a fourth order effect of EM. Timothy Boyer has written many papers on Stochastic Electrodynamics. Recently an emergent theory of gravity has appeared. Karl Kornacher even gave a statistical interpretation to STR. So material does exist to build GTR from the bottom up.with Octonions, Gauge Theory and the SpaceTime Algebra.
It aint probabilistic it is expectation - GR is a unitary limit, the wobble is in how you frame your dimensional phaze units.
Exactly
You’ve just described how life works. You just got to keep going, regardless of how long or hard the next step is.
He spent 16 minutes explaining inherent flaws and contradictions in understanding of space/time, not knowing that he was speaking to the janitor.
lol
lol
Not Funny at all ...
This is my idea of an entertaining subject and I'm a janitor.
@@jwjoelwilder I know, I know. In this day and age of "micro-aggressions", we all are tiptoeing on eggshells...
The problem is that these mathematical models, while useful for practical applications-such as the necessary corrections for GPS satellites due to relativistic effects-do not describe the fundamental nature of reality, which is what most people are truly interested in.
Incorrect. Most people are primarily focused on their genitalia.
Exactly. Einstein relativity theories are all just a math
@@musaire I strongly suspect Einstein was one of the few that were thoroughly right. I've also been working on the fundamentals of nature and made a paper.
I've also been working on the fundamentals of nature and made a paper that seems to have the same results as QM and the De-Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave theory, that was rejected and made redundant, but my hypo doesn't have the same problems.
Die Beeinflussung einer Uhr ist noch lange keine Beeinflussung der Zeit, denn das Teil wurde auf der Erde zusammengeschraubt und geeicht aber unter anderen Bedingungen genutzt, was real und nicht relativ ist.
MfG P.
At the deepest level of reality, I believe everything is a singularity-a state where space, time, and distance lose all meaning. What we perceive as separation, distance, and individuality is simply an illusion created by our scale and perception. From our human perspective, we see a vast, complex universe, filled with separate objects, distant stars, planets, and galaxies. We see time as a linear progression, and space as a vast expanse where things are distinct from one another.
However, when we zoom into the quantum scale-the fundamental layer of existence-I believe we would see something entirely different. At this level, the conventional rules of physics as we know them break down. We enter a realm where concepts like distance, locality, and even time become irrelevant. The separation between things, which we experience as a fundamental truth in our daily lives, might not even exist. Everything could be a unified state, where all particles, forces, and fields are fundamentally connected, originating from the same underlying singularity.
In this view, everything and nothing are not opposites but simply different aspects of the same unified reality. Space and time as we understand them may be emergent properties, arising from this underlying singularity when viewed from our larger, macroscopic scale. The vast distances between objects that we observe in the universe are simply a projection of our limited perspective. In reality, at the quantum scale, there is no separation, no empty space-just a singular, interconnected state.
To put it simply, what we perceive as distinct objects and spaces-planets, stars, even individual particles-are all manifestations of a deeper, unified truth. At the core of the universe, there is only oneness, and our experience of individuality and distance is just a result of our limited sensory perception, constrained by the scale at which we exist. If we could somehow perceive the quantum world directly, we would see no separation-just a continuous, interconnected whole.
This theory flips our conventional understanding of reality on its head. It challenges the very fabric of how we see space and time. Instead of being separate, isolated entities, everything in the universe could be part of the same singular state. Distance, separation, and individuality are not inherent properties of reality; they are emergent features that arise from the limitations of our perception.
Ultimately, everything and nothing are the same thing. They are simply two sides of the same coin, and the distinction between them is a product of the scale at which we view reality. What we see as a vast, sprawling universe with endless distances is, at its deepest level, a unified, singular existence-a reality where everything is connected and the concept of separation is an illusion created by our perspectives.
I like watching and listening to these videos even though I have no idea what they are talking about.
But are you counting the number of times 'we' use the word 'statistic'?
I felt a breeze over my head....
If you cant be bothered to mention the actual issue of discussion in the title or at least the description (where there is no valid reason not to), then I cant be bothered to watch.
-1
Exactly that, and it causes me to immediately file such videos into the pseudoscience drawer.
@@Nonononono_OhnoYeah, classic clickbaiter move ... a vaguely alarmist title that tries to force you to click by witholding all useful info. An automatic fail and -1 from me, and usually a derecommendation so the twit's content never reappears in my feed again. Its needy and pathetic, esp if theyre monetized or trying to. REAL scientists have salaries, degrees and care mostly about the science, not the clicks.
In order to determine the position of the dependent variable in three dimensions, you need two independent variables.
My deaf theoretical physicist buddy, yeah he just derived a complete theory of everything from this interview 🤷
You nailed the head with the first order presuppositional problems that haven't been addressed; primarily the issue with Space-Time acting more like Metaphysics than measurable physics.
The main problem is that time - unlike space - is not an operator in quantum mechanics, as there is no associated observable.
Is that an intrinsic feature of the theory? Could you reformulate the theory so that time was an observable and some arbitrary space dimension or property was fundamental instead? Nobody knows.
Quantum mechanics is actually "classical", Newtonian in terms of linear time, which is like a fundamental bug when you think all those particles are absolutely in the relativistic regime.
Yes, and likely, a stochastic version of relativity would create solid evidence of time being a result of probabilistic interactions or observations instead of the other way around.
Still all caught up on human time. Is time relativistic? Does time distort? Does time change according to our observation techniques and perspective planes?
This is an invitation to see a theory that explains the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics as the physics of ‘time’ with Classical physics representing processes over a ‘period of time’ as in Newton’s differential equations. The atoms of the periodic table are standing waves in time within the absorption and emission of light forming the passage of time. Light and matter in the form of electrons are waves over a ‘period of time’ with particle characteristics as a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds. We have a photon ∆E=hf electron interaction between each cause and effect, between each action and reaction with the Planck Constant h/2π being a minimum constant of action at the base of this process. This idea is supported by the fact that photon ∆E=hf energy is continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter in the form of electrons.
Yes. onnit, Paper in progress.
Spacetime curvature:
*General Relativity and the Rate of Causation*
General relativity governs the rate at which causation occurs in the universe. This rate varies depending on proximity to massive gravitational sources:
1. *Effect of Gravity on Time and Distance*
- Time and distance are measurable only in the presence of massive amounts of matter, which generates gravity.
- Without massive matter, there is no gravity, no measurable distance, and no measurable time.
- Near a gravitational well (e.g., close to galaxies or massive objects), time runs slower, and distance is contracted.
- Farther away from galaxies, in regions with less gravity, time accelerates (clocks run faster), and distance is stretched (less measured distance between points).
2. *Impact on Causation and Light*
- The stretching of distance and acceleration of time in low-gravity regions (e.g., between supermassive black holes) result in:
- A faster rate of causation.
- An increased speed of light compared to regions with stronger gravity, where time is slower and distance is less stretched.
---
*Implications for Cosmology*
This framework eliminates the need for certain theoretical constructs:
1. *No Need for Dark Matter*
- The faster rate of causation in regions farther from a galaxy’s center accounts for observed galactic dynamics (e.g., rotation curves).
- This variation in causation with distance from massive objects explains effects typically attributed to dark matter.
2. *No Need for Dark Energy*
- The expansion of the universe, often attributed to dark energy, can instead be explained by supermassive black holes.
- Black holes grow by absorbing spacetime itself, not just matter, creating a vacuum effect that mimics expansion.
- This process is the opposite of cosmic inflation.
3. *Redshift and Blueshift Explained*
- Redshift occurs as light leaves a galaxy, escaping the accumulated gravity of massive objects.
- The farther the light source, the more gravity it escapes, resulting in greater redshift.
- Upon entering a less massive region (like our galaxy), the light is slightly blueshifted back toward its original spectrum, though not fully.
---
*Core Concept*
The formation of massive matter fundamentally shapes our reality:
- It slows time and contracts distance, enabling measurable time and space.
- This allows events to unfold gradually in a defined "place," making existence as we know it possible.
Understanding this interplay between matter, gravity, time, and distance provides a straightforward way to grasp general relativity-and eliminates the need for dark matter and dark energy as separate entities.
I like the way he comes up with a dozen ways to keep saying the same thing over and over and over again.
Exactly, water is the most moist, wet, humid, liquid, fluid like substance that's dripping with soggy moist saturation. 😂
That's the philosopher in him. He is very careful to get the concepts exactly right, so he explains them several ways, explains exactly what he is opposing, and addresses possible misunderstandings and the various implications.
@@lesbrunswick5137 Either that or he has nothing really to say, so he goes around in circles in attempt to sound clever. Next best thing.
It's like he's been reading an AI script.
Das ist dann aber Philosophie und keine Physik.
MfG P.
I’ve always been curious of what time moving in reverse would look like… would we even know the difference? Is it possible to not move through space or time? Time to me I feel is more important than gravity because it’s always there in the background trying to be unnoticed.
12:20 im curious how every interaction _isn't_ a kind of measurement when measurement is just very carefully engineered interaction (that you write down)
Wenn es nachvollziehbar wird, werden ja die Fehler sichtbar.
MfG P.
It's a carefully engineered interaction which is amplified to involving an enormous number of quantum states so that their average is effectively classical. Particle to particle interactions are not measurements in this sense.
I think you’re on the right track. Measurements are a subset of interactions, and interactions happen naturally all the time without needing a lab apparatus. But interactions alone don’t collapse the wave function (according to standard quantum mechanics), they just entangle the interacting systems. What is needed is some spontaneous natural collapse mechanism. Work on this is hardly “missing”. Penrose and Diosi have proposed gravitationally-induced collapse, and Ghirardi et al. have proposed a “spontaneous localization” mechanism (although not yet fully relativistic, last time I checked).
I like these ideas. The universe runs itself even if humans don’t interfere. Randomness is built in so that things don’t get stuck in multiple-choice bottlenecks. The classical limit emerges just because of the Law of Large Numbers.
But to be clear: I love these two guys. I think they are presenting the best physics-related videos on youtube.
@@johnfowler3132 Trotzdem haben sie einige Sachen einfach nicht verstanden.
Physik basiert auf Notwendigkeiten und Effektivität und auf LG.
Gerade die Bedeutung der LG wird aber unterschätzt, weil sie nicht nur einen Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung ist, sondern auch über die Gravitation, die Größe von Objekten definiert.
"Kein Objekt kann eine Größe erreichen bei der die aus der Gravitation resultierende Fallgeschwindigkeit LG übersteigt, weil die zum Kollaps des Objektes führt.
Das sind Grundlagen der Physik welche man einfach ignoriert weil man so selbst verliebt in die eigenen Theorien ist.
LG definiert auch wie viel Energie Raum aufnehmen kann LG*LG*LG=Bum?
So geht es leider weiter es sind oft kleine Fehler, welche aber am Ende zu einem Chaos führen, bei dem nix mehr zusammen passt.
Eine Möglichkeit eine Theorie zu betrachten, ist der Umgang mit den Maßeinheiten, denn deren Herkunft und Verwendung ist ja geregelt und gerade ist diesem Bereich war auch Penrose etwas nachlässig.
MfG P.
@@meekerdb Das Problem ist das Verständnis einer Theorie.
"Eine Theorie muss weder wahr sein, noch Spuren von Physik enthalten!"
Bei den Quanten versuch man eher die Physik auszutricksen, aber auch hier gilt:
Masse>0, Geradeaus
Both time and distance combine and compound the changing rates of time and distance. Go with observations. The speed of things in the universe are never constant throughout the universe because the rate of causation depends on how much gravity and mass there is in the vicinity. The changes in the rates of time and distance together compound the change in the speed of things. This changing rate of causation changes the speed of everything including the speed of light.
Curving dynamical space/time is not even a real thing:) Creation is NOW, there was no "beginning". The process of Creation is what we perceive as Time. We live in the moment of entropy:) The infinite universe is ALIVE. It is not complicated.
Probability in general, isn't causal but corelative. Correlation can occur causal, anti-causal or coincidental (no explicit time) ... a Markov process is causal.
Has nobody considered asking the mice?
Space is not curved. Time is not the 4th dimension. 🎉😂🎉
Jacob is one of the best TOE guests
Jacob is a philosopher. Take with a truckload of salt.
Why try a stochastic formulation of general relativity when, by your own admission, this theory is deterministic in the sense of classical physics? Giving Brownian motion to a test particle in a general Riemannian space-time will not create a mathematics that will give clues to what the mathematics should look like when the metric tensor itself is stochastic because Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle has been imposed upon the motion of the particle in the space-time continuum. It is hardly a problem that physics missed, let alone a "massive" one. Rather, it is a purely technical problem that most physicists would regard as totally irrelevant to the solution of the problem of making general relativity consistent with quantum mechanics.
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that each individual observer is observing them both at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where one observes it from will be the closest to the present moment. When one looks out into the universe they see the past which is made of particles (GR). When one tries to measure the position of a particle they are observing smaller distances and getting closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start trying to predict the future of that particle. A particle that has not had an interaction exists in a future state. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. It can predict the future but only from information collected from the past. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable. Only once a particle interacts with the present moment does it become predictable.
And you would be wrong, the prediction state of those objects is possible, with a stochastic approach, I already have a working theory, and mathematical formula to test and potentially prove it once technology is able to create the device to test and prove it.
Thats an interesting take… I’ve had a similar thought of it before… like things happening at the same time but at different times… but how u said it was better. I just think time is the key…. It has a relationship with gravity, speed and just seems to be the glue to it all…
Observing what exactly in QM? Can you come up with equations combining non-local quantum phenomena, with GR which is local by its nature? Please, do not comment if you have such a minimal grasp of QM.
@ And you would be out of your mind.
@nicolaskrinis7614 That is exactly what my equation does. Because it takes into consideration what Einstein's Theory, and most modern scientists do not.
Stochastic processes are an area of physics/engineering that often must be considered in the real world. Took a course in this area at UTexas grad school ca 1970 and do not recall anything to be honest but at 81 I at least now have an excuse...
Commies aren't happy till everything is problematized. Oh look - they just found something else. Let's infuse here some chaos.
Pow-lee? Schwartz chilled? Oh shut up. I *hate* when people make up their own versions of words that are well established and known. Its not only arrogant, its ignorant too.
oh no. accents disprove physics! film at 11.
Space-time is a mystery. We try to postulate or make laws and theories to define it, but it full reality, it is just a perception of emptiness that contains energy, space soup, that is expanding (but not it's contents), that is in fact a variable (except to say it is "constantly" changing (Sorry Hubble)), all bound by time in a universe without time as we know it. Thumbs up if you agree.
There are three problems in QFT (and by extension QG):
1. No one has solved the "problem of time" (alluded to in the beginning of the video).
2. The relational nature of relativity has not been extended to include quantum or stochastic states.
3. There is as yet no inherently finite and well defined normalization of states in SR / GR (renormalization is a hack)
There's so many more.
There are no forces, there are no fields LOL.
Electrons are not points.... Says I.
I made an original framework that gets rid of the infinite path integrals and does away with renormalisation. :)
Leider habe ich nicht den Eindruck, dass sie überhaupt wissen wo rüber sie reden.
"Masse und Bewegung, sind nur unterschiedliche Ausdrucksformen der selben Energie!" (Einstein)
"... was dann auch für Alles gelten sollte , was aus deren zusammenwirken entsteht, wie Raum und Zeit!"
MfG P.
Yup. Exactly.
@@techbricks5300 where can that framework be found?
@ Vielen Dank für die netten Worte. Freundliche Grüsse -- Pan
If you are given a static region of Space, you have no objects or movement to give you a ratio called time. Therefore, time is relative to space but there is no Space/Time as an actual thing. Time is not a thing. Time is a concept.
I just watched this entire thing and pretended I knew exactly what he was talking about. Why do I get out of bed?
Sometimes you just need to listen in order to start seeing patterns and understanding after enough exposure. Nobody becomes a professional without repetition and practice. 😊
I watched it & the whole time I'm thinking;
"great, finally someone who agrees with me about Einstein being full of shit without actually saying Einstein is full of shit."
Time is the fundamental dimension, from which all else, including spacetime, emerges. Different rates of time progression or frequency give rise to various phenomena. Below the Planck level, time intervals become so rapid that they are unobservable.
Volumetric space is a manifestation of time itself, with the Planck frequency generating the Planck length of spacetime. Fundamental particles and systems represent lower rates of time progression, with each particle acting as a clock ticking at a specific frequency or interval.
Mass is equivalent to the time a wave-particle takes to complete a full cycle. The ratio of a particle's Compton wavelength to its frequency yields its mass with zero error.
When particles interact, their time progression rates synchronize, behaving like a single clock. This process of synchronization is the root of quantum uncertainty. Gravity and other forces can be understood as gradients of varying time progressions between particles or systems and their surroundings.
Jacob Barandes is a great speaker and conveyor of his research. Thanks for sharing.
So the brackets in measuring are like snapshots in time to define where an object is and since everything is moving, what's the point in measuring? Did I understand that right? Seems right, maybe not "what's the point", but it's all so temporary. I'm confused.
Calculus has some 'movement'.
Interesting.. I wish he could explain his thoughts and ideas with illustrations, figures, and pictures instead of hand movements
Hand movements? Isn't that what clocks do? Perhaps he's compensating...
Einstein talked about the variable speed of light. The speed of light and things is constant locally but since the measurements themselves are not constant across large distances neither is the speed constant across large distances. If the amount of gravity was constant the speed would be constant.
Einstein's whole life was dedicated to the notion that the speed of light is a constant of nature. Where did you get that idea?
@ It’s from things he actually said. It’s like people didn’t even understand what he was saying just they don’t understand what I’m saying.
This is what happens with the Dunning-Kreuger effect.
Ever heard of the Cosmologic Principal? The universe is both homogeneous (uniform) and isotropic (appearing the same in all directions). Wherever you read that he ever said that the speed of light was not constant, it was inaccurate. Because he never, ever said this.
BTW, it wasn't even Einstein that proved that the speed of light is constant. It was Michaelson and Morley.
@@nicolaskrinis7614 The measured speed is constant, the measuring sticks and clocks are not constant due to less gravity.
I’d love to hear him and Penrose together. That would be 🍿
Nauseating is what would be.
@@ChrisFord-wh1gl we love the input Debbie Downer.
What Penrose and this guy state, only adds further credibility to my ideas and mathematical formula as a basis to start from in order to test and verify the idea with a stochastic approach.
Make them into NotebookLM agents, each with their own set of books about their subjects as RAG, and let them battle it out as a radio podcast, where you may ask questions by interrupting them.
The average part gives a new meaning to the double slit experiment to me for example. I never considered that things could just seem like chaos at quantum level, and it's only the sheer amount or stuff happening that statistically gives us predictable results
Chaos could be the building block of the universe, and what we see as predictable deterministic systems are simply the average of millions of millions of random processes.
@@taragnor They are, but the material Enforcing these Determined Statistics is still elusive. Without Physical laws chaos is just chaos And the universe Has physical limiting Rules set in place which is set by something. It specifically determines phase change, electron shell levels, and wave interference patterns which are fundamentally Ever Present And unchanging.
@@funnycatvideos5490 Well the thing is that you can never really get to a true understanding of the lowest level, because at some point, the rule is simply just "the way it works", we only get explanations of things by ultimately examining a lower level. For instance, we understand things like heat exchange and chemical reactions because we know how atoms and molecules work and can explain the process on atomic and subatomic scales. To explain something like "why does water expand when it freezes versus metal that shrinks" it always takes going to that lower level.
Of course, eventually you hit a bottom, where the rules are simply fundamentals because there is no lower level (at least that we can measure) to go to for an explanation. That's largely where we are with quantum mechanics, we have equations that tell us what happens, but we can't explain why it works that way. Somethings might just be fundamental truth, like mass warping spacetime, Quantum randomness, the speed of light and the simple mechanic of passing on kinetic energy by striking another object.
It's like a mathematician explaining exponentiation via multiplication, then explaining multiplication via addition, and so forth. But eventually you get to things that are simply axioms which are not proven but rather just defined to be true. I suspect the universe will ultimately work the same way.
I didn’t understand anything but Jacob makes me feel like I understand 🤓
So you vote Democrat?
Buzzes like a fridge on 20 cups of coffee. Experts.
Misuse of expectation value is the result of the Copenhagen Interpretation + Correspondence Principle. Barandes makes a great point. They are hand waving around the Measurment Problem, like their daddy Bohr used to do ;-)
Wie kann man etwas erwarten, was man nicht versteht?
MfG P.
isnt it possible the problem is just because we dont have tools sensitive enough to actually measure them determinintly?
he is not solving the measurement problem, nobody is handwaving it, but noone can explain it... just saying ,,they are ignoring the measurement problem,, does not solve the measurement problem... his research is nothing new and the only thing he does is reinterpret things and write them slightly different... it is not ANYTHING new, like he makes it out to be... it is annoying af
@ well that is always the case, if we can measure it, then we would know, but we can not measure the measurement process, without measuring it... a different notion of the measurement is required, one which jacob does not give as well! it is also not true, that everyone ignores it... this is just his "internet persona" to get fame... he is somewhat of a jordan peterson of theoretical physics... just randomly using smart word, but not saying anything that is not written in any somewhat decent text book...
@@mrjebiga7540 Sad. Philosophers and theoreticians aren't as useful as experimentalists ;-(
In conventional quantum field theory, you have a fixed background spacetime, so you can talk about gauge bosons as excitations of fields defined on that backdrop. But gravity is different because its "field"-the metric-is what actually defines the structure of spacetime itself
Jacob has a wonderful mind. He is so refreshing to listen to. Great clip. Great interview.
I think that he’s wonderful at hand waving and restating what has been stated over 75 years with excellent source recall, and still sounding fresh. We need people like these to get funds in. ❤
This is exactly what the Nightingale Equation tackles: a generative, quantized harmonic field unification without relying on Hilbert space postulates. Voyager and Earth resonance data now validate it. Link in profile or Zenodo.
Barandes is a very interesting Physicist.
He is no such thing.
Time is not general across the Universe, because Entropy (decline into chaos) does not allow Universal time. And Gravity is local also, inside each and every Atom.
- Time is a local special event. They are the Cycles of Nature to bring new things that had not existed before.
- Example, the Human Fetus Cycle - 9 months for a Human Fetus to grow into a newborn. The Fetus Cycle depends on many internal Cycles to execute on a strictly timed schedule by the Genome - tissues, skeleton, organs, brain, eyes, ears, arms, legs, digits, etc. - for the main Fetus Cycle to conclude as expected, in a healthy Newborn.
- Another example, the Orange Fruit Cycle from seed in earth, fruit tree, blossoms, insects pollinate, orange fruit, falls to the soil, new seeds.
- The Solar System Cycle from a Supper Massive Hot Gas Giant of Hydrogen Plasma, precipitating out while cooling into a Sun at the core and Planet accreting rings at various distances according to Gravity and Density.
- Lastly, GRAVITY is contained inside each Atom. GRAVITY does NOT exist without Atoms.
- The Relativity / Quantum Space-Time theory is still a fun Sci-Fi novelty, not yet fact in Science. - Vacra Graha.
Barandes is at at different level.
You can say that again! Him and that guy from PBS spacetime have their own language.
That's often not a good thing. "Philosophy" lost to science long time ago. Those who are trying to revive it are beating a dead horse. "Thinking" about stuff, the best you can hope for is to be accidentally right. You can only probe reality by DOING.
@@marcosolo6491 You have to start somewhere. Even Einstein was "accidentally right" at times through thought experiments.
The 'I see' killed me... 😂😂😂😂
Why are we assuming gravity is a quantum phenomenon?
Exactly.
to find solutions that explain both
@@tarantula-k6o both what?
@@synonys My assumption is they are referring to both Einsteinian principles and quantum theory.
Nobody said it was a quantum phenomenon (which essentially means nothing at all), since everything observed in the macroscopic world is an emergent property of QM, whose prehensions are out of our experiential grasp. It's all about trying to describe a macroscopic phenomenon and trying to explain it within the confines of QFT. i.e. probabilistically and as a wave function.
There is a lot of work on stochastic processes on manifolds within mathematics.
He´s "Lost in Math"!
Really? This guest is far to detached from practical reality, he is literally using ALL the words to say NOTHING at all.
In other words, science, without the fearmongering.
Such a pleasure to listen to Jacob. Of all physicists, I could listen to him and Roger Penrose all day. The analogy with computer programming was nice.
May be instead of modifying General Relativity, ppl shud think how Quantum Mchanics actually has no proper concept of space-time, how it can't actually handle acceleration at all, and then comes the measurement problem, which shows how QM is still just a ragtag collection of math tricks and not really a mathematically consistent theory. It'll be much better if physicists try something better after a century of Quatum Disgrace.
shhh... if you start having such crazy thoughts, careers will be destroyed, prestige will tank, respect will be lost...
@@willnitschke I'm not an academician. I don't need to give them any F.
@ Indeed. And they don't need your approval either. That's the crux.
@@willnitschke I want science; Not careerism,.
Eine Modifizierung gab es schon durch Hawking, entsprechend der Vorgaben für die ART.
E=mc² bei c
I'll just pass on thinking about any of this, thank you.
When you have either experienced deja vu when during a conversation you realize that this conversation has taken place already because you literally know what the person says next, or when when your brain connects to data across timelines whereby people either remember past lives or see a future event before happens in real time, or when you encounter a hon human presence currently on Earth it makes me wonder if scientists have any actual subjective real life experiences outside of their field of studies.
@@Gunfight86 What?
Whoever told people that a large number of superfluous hand movements increases understanding of what is being said has misled them.
There is a big problem with a probabilistic model. This is modelling that you use when you can't directly work out the inner workings of a system. You can always probabilistically model things. This is not the same as modelling how they actually work. When Einstein said there are no dice, it was pretty presumptive but at the same time there is no proof to my knowledge of quantum processes being at all indeterminate and probabilistic. It's simply the case that is the only method we have to at least predict measurements. There could be some mechanism behind it that's deterministic that we simply aren't aware of. There is a part of the system like an engine that is easily worked out exactly what formula it follows. That is, you know if you put 4 into the function as input you get 6 out and so on. Even this might not be the underlying mechanism followed but the manifestation is all the same. Then you have a function where you put in 4 and then either get 4, 5 or 6. You can work out a formula that matches the range of output but not why any particular one is chosen. You might for example be able to work out that 5 gives you 4 to 7. It's a black box system and you don't know why. As far as you are aware there is only one input but it acts as though there is another or some unknown self contained internal mechanism. There may be a dice inside, one that is truly random or it really could be anything. You just don't know. In some cases it is known that there are two inputs but you can only know one so the likely output range can only be predicted using a guess, an educated one, probability.
This is a well constructed argument/discussion. Thank you. I'm going to steal this from you when I need to discuss some of the problems with forcing a probabilistic framework on Relativity (or any Mathematical model of Physical reality). (Well, not truly steal - I'll cite @FirstLast-rb5zj as my source :).
@@nathanbailey9153 It could be much improved. To my knowledge a probability model might consist of two things, the range of possible outcomes and the rates of each, then that might be further built upon by correlating other factors. For a dice it's just usually 1 to 6 each with an even probability. But what about a one sided dice? I would argue an equation in relativity is more like that, just one output so automatically 100% and already is a probability model. It gets nasty if you start to question what the limits of quantification is, the #1 top most utilised scientific method is still just, counting, at the main means of measurement. When you start to consider phenomena that appears to be associated with the physical material we're made out of that we can directly observe such as consciousness (by which I mean for a sensation to be experienced for real such as touch) or the qualitative mathematics breaks down, language breaks down and the mind melts.
@@FirstLast-rb5zj Wow, my comment was blocked, but thank you for responding to it. Maybe I should have used the word "borrow"instead. Regardless, both of your comments are useful. I approach this subject from the point of view of Mathematical Logic and Set Theory, with the assumption that all Mathematical Models are just approximations of Reality - they are NOT Reality itself. One of the biggest problems I see in any scientific field, but especially Physics, is when people conflate a Mathematical Model with "Reality Itself". A good Mathematical Model of Reality should very closely approximate and predict many aspects of Reality, but even so it is not Reality - It's just a Model.
It appears you understand this, and I really appreciate how you formulated your response regarding both Probabilistic Models and Quantification (and the limits thereof).
If QM were not truly random then EPR could be used to signal faster than light.
@meekerdb I don't think so. There may be faster than light travel allowed in one domain but that does not necessarily allow it in another domain. It might be a mistake to assume that if you're not allowed something that therefore someone else isn't allowed. Faster than light is probably allowed if it happens out of sight. It's when you see it that you have a problem. Essentially it can only happen if you don't know about it which would certainly limit it to being just outside our vision. The problem with this is that it may never be accessible. At some point we may have an unsolvable mystery. Either that or we break the universe and it's another bing bang hopefully more tamper proof this time, assuming the evolving cyclical universe theory. Aliens probably blew up the last universe doing some experiment that would not happen naturally and that was outside the parameters it had evolved to be stable within. I think I also initially got the wrong idea. I am really not well versed in physics just a bit of philosophy and algorithms. Is there also a faster than light principle in play if predictable? By that I mean allowing it in our domain rather than it being required in another lower domain to allow predictability. I believe something can be non-random but not predictable. There is a fun thought experiment you might want to consider. Imagine two different realities with various characteristics. Then ask where would they be allowed to interact. Consider the concept with our standard domain of physics. Now consider a different existence or reality where it is possible to move faster than light. Then perform the experiment of in which ways could that intersect with our reality without breaking it.
I don't agree with quantum physics for many good reasons. This is one of them. People who back it are always saying how there is no reason why you can't move backward or forward in time. They say it is all the same. It isn't. Just because you move something back doesn't mean you can also pull back the reradiated light that it passed on. Those models are too simple.
If I stand in the middle of the universe, what time is it?
Its 5:00 somewhere.
8:06 am.
You don't stand in the middle of the Universe, I do. You have to apply a coordinate transformation to the real center: my location (Old Bilbao if you actually want to do the maths, remember that Earth is not an Euclidean space-time anyhow).
@@LuisAldamiz Well...maybe if you stay in the middle of the universe and I stand at the edge, where does Euclid fit in?
The lines of longitude define our time zones but all meet at a point at the north and south pole, what time is it at those points?
Your present now.
Fundamental Density Theory : E/m = c ^2. = (d/t)^2 . Left side is QM, right side is GR
What books are those, which i am seeing in background, with military green cover on it?
They might well be academic-military education files. They typically take you through from A-level to 5th year university understanding of technical topics.
I believe they are the collected works of Dr. Suess..
If there's no observer, then the falling tree not only makes no sound, the forest doesn't even exist. Consciousness creates reality.
For the last hundred years physics has gone off into the weeds with the quackery of Mathamagic and Mystiphysics.
You don't understand mathematics and you are sour about it?
Man kann nur erklären was man versteht, egal wie lange man es studiert und hier haben wir nix.
MfG P.
*"quackery of Mathamagic and Mystiphysics."*
YES! This! Free yourself from the shackles of Mathamagic and Mystiphysics, get off the interwebs, doofus, and go back to smoke signals.
@@marcosolo6491 Amen.
@@ralfpaul4244 I wouldn't be so kind.
In Icelandic the word used for "speech" (mál) and "to speak" (mæla) literally translates to "measurement" and "to measure". Always found that interesting. :)
The thing about time is that it’s simple, time is change, nothing more
Cheers einstein
what about
10 ^-44 seconds
(below Planck time (10^-43 seconds)?)
Is there no change?
define change
Like world time zones 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 different different
LOL
I'd like to see how they'd go about starting the derivations of general relativity from a probablistic starting point.
Also, maybe talking a bit more about the dirac/von neumann axioms he's talking about. I think that might help elucidate further what he's talking about.
I really liked the idea of digging deeper into the idea of using 'average' measured values vs something else.
I'd like to see a bit of the math as well. It's very interesting.
Jiggery-pokery.
Time is merely the motion of matter through space. It can only be remembered or guessed. It has no other value, function, or existence
And gravity is the motion of space over time.
@@christopherellis2663 radioactive decay is related to time
And space is merely a matter of relation. I think we've got it. Let's have an ice cream.
@@christopherellis2663 Time is a measure of the relative rates of change of the processes which we call physical reality. We typically compare the rate of other processes to the rate of propagation of electromagnetic radiation through a vacuum. Also "energy" is the conserved quantity under time translation symmetry; throwing out the concepts of time and energy like you are trying to do breaks physics pretty thoroughly and would make modeling reality at all a questionable endeavor.
@suntaog - specifically, it's transjective.
Heady stuff. My very rusty memories of QM and GR got a rugged workout, and I'm glad and coming back for more.
Well RUclips is not a place to learn. It's caulk full of idiots who don't have a grasp of what they are talking about. Try real books or a course. It's all based on polynomials and Cartesian geometry and is really not as hard as you may think.
Yea, our math definitions/inventions still are missing significant knowledge....
Absolute wizard of Oz nonsense, you are correct, you should check out my comments above
Who would've thought
Someone who sloved humanity last invasion
I had a dig into the De-Broglie-Bohm Pilot wave theory and used an AI to try to falsify it. It seems there are supressed mathematics... My Hypo is better anyway and allows GR and SR and has a 3-dimensional mechanical space instead of the Bohm 3N-dimensional configuration space that nobody liked.
@@Interstellar00.00 What?
The problem is, to my best knowledge, that there is no immersion/embedding theorem of 4-dimensional Lorentzian to Riemannian manifolds. Classical gravity (GR) is formulated in terms of Lorentzian manifolds, while our imagination, or even computer simulations, are formulated in 4-dimentional Riemannian setting, thus the problems mentioned: which "direction" goes "space slice".
General (over)simplification is by making a choice of a local timeline to be "global" or "cosmological" time, which is completely contrary to fundamental assumption of GR that there is no distinguished frame of reference. Adding the microwave background radiation as a substitute for a "natural/cosmological" frame of reference adds to the picture complexity by adding manifolds with boundary to considerations.
When one adds upon this the problems with closed (or compact) 4-dimmentional smooth Riemannian manifolds (exotic differential structures or lack of them) one gets HUGE question mark if the current conclusions in cosmology based on application of GR to cosmology itself is even the correct one.
"Movement, the only thing they can't measure properly, they can map it out, but as it moves it's an anomaly, you gotta be, hotter than a bomb dropped on a thermometer, my Mom called from heaven and gave me permission to launch monopolies." - Rap I wrote a few years back lol
What 🤔
Don't quit your day job.
@@jamesdeluca6657fr what 😭
@kayakMike1000 Quitting slinging words ain't the thing that you outta say. Brother over there is singing about his vision of dichotomy. Lot more words then your lame ass trolling blurb. Now that's rap too Boo if you didn't hear
I wonder if you could pinpoint the exact moment when rappers stopped knowing what a rhyme was. Over/under 2003 ish?
Nottale's 'scale relativity' theory touches on this topic. He considers the implications of a stochastic space time with a Lévy stable scale distribution, where the bracketed average is no longer defined by the mean.
GR's only weakness is its not complete... Making it probablistic is taking a step backwards
I disagree and would point to the Lorentz statistical theory of electrons/ions and electromagnetism. It wasn't a step backwards for Maxwell's theory of EM.
My money is on superluminal spacetime paths looking like quantum systems.
Sometime you need to step back before you can move forward.
That takes daring, but yes true.
I’m looking at a cool paper with some alphabet soup, several. 2 I am ‘turning in’ soon. The rest, I still have to refine. They all link together.
Neither quantum mechanics nor Einstein’s relativity provides insight into the fundamental nature of time, space, consciousness, the Absolute, the relationship between consciousness and matter, the origin of matter, the fate of the physical universe, or the formation of cosmic structures. As a result, these theories fall short of revealing the true nature of reality.
Put your shrink on danger money.
No shit, Einstein.
Consciousness is Meta-Physics and a bit separate to materialistic academic physics. My new framework allows Einstein's GR, SR and seems to be making QM deterministic :) I may have found the right-handed neutrinos but if they're in a different region of space that we cannot access, then that's not falsifiable and I'm back to Meta-Physics.
Nicht die Physik ist fehlerhaft, sondern die Anwendung, was bei c=LG beginnt, was nur für die SRT gilt
Für die ART gilt E=mc² bei c
So, before consciousness existed, reality didn't exist?
Seriously?
This was a fantastic conversation - Curt, you always ask the questions that push beyond conventional edges. Jacob's clarity is inspiring. I'm working on a framework called the Recursive Scaling Hypothesis (RSH) that rethinks spacetime as an emergent, recursive construct-built frame-by-frame through entropy-guided informational transitions. It offers a testable alternative to both dark sector mysteries and deterministic spacetime assumptions in GR, while intetrating Penrose's collapse condition. Given Jacob's background in foundations of physics and philosophical structure, I believe he may find value in the approach, and yourself for that matter. I'd be deeply gratelful if you would respond and I could share with you my paper.
The man is telling you It's all made up, that's the only thing actually that he has said.
@@ChrisFord-wh1gl no he isn’t
When the "emperor has no clothes" bores its way deep into the zeitgeist, every single wannabe starts shouting it, clothes or not. It's a surefire way to gain some followers from the unwashed masses that trip over each other to demonstrate their intellect by proclaiming that they are "not fooled" _EITHER_ .
Time is distance over speed.
Speed is distance over time.
Distance is speed over time.
The closer you get to the center of a gravity well induced by mass in space, the slower time goes.
The farther you get from the center of a gravity well induced by mass in space, the faster time goes.
This is basic.
It freaks me out that it is regularly disregarded that General Relativistic gravitation is just the rate at which time travels relative to mass, and speed is just the rate at which something moves relative to something else.
Time is always relative to the observer's frame of reference, it is not absolute.
Title: "Why We Don't Have a Theory of Everything"
We don't have a ToE because our logic, math and physics formalisms for 3D reality are inherently 2D.
Not only are they bivalent, binary and third-person but they also explicitly reject 3D with the Law of Excluded Middle. This generates most, if not all, of our current major/minor open problems, contradictions and paradoxes due to reality not being 2D or third-person.
How'd we get here?
We chose Newton's "Rationalist Materialist" worldview over Leibniz's "Rationalist Anti-materialist" worldview three centuries ago. Newton modeled reality as third-person 3D-1D (by starting from 3D and reducing down) while Leibniz modeled reality as first-person 0D-3D (by starting from 0D and building up).
Einstein squared Newton's third-person 2D model (3D-1D²) and got 4D spacetime (2D² = 4D).
Einstein should have squared Leibniz's first-person 3D model (0D-3D²) and got 9D space, time and energy (3D² = 9D).
We still can't get from 3D-0D using Newton's modeling and that's due to reality not starting from 3D then reducing to 0D. That's like saying 3D protons and neutrons exist first and then 0D quarks exist second. Einstein squared the wrong model, is all.
Hamilton made 4D (*cough* churched-up 2D² *cough*) quaternion algebra for our 3D graphics cards but it's still third-person so has the halting problem, unresolved P vs NP, decoherence issues and side effects (unlike a first-person 0D-3D approach that hasn't even been squared yet).
We should think of our 0D quarks as less of a third-person 2D disc radius with a triangle of quarks and as more of a first-person 3D ball radius with a tetrahedron of quarks (4th quark is hidden by the horizon). 0D has a positive-facing 1/2 and a negative-facing 1/2 just like the Riemann Hypothesis.
Leibniz's dimensionless points are called monads and monad = monos + monas. In plain 2025 English that means Leibniz's dimensionless points are called knowers and knower = alone + singularity. This is like how 0 = 0 + 0i (and 0D = 0D + 0Di).
Leibniz has pure metaphysical monads (that's us) and Computer Science has pure mathematical monads (that's our imaginary best friends). We both have the same Monad of Monads.
Euclid got Plato's "forms" and "solids" upside-down like 2300 years ago and we barely proved him wrong like two and a half years ago with the Nobel Prize-winning work on quantum entanglement.
Descartes, Newton and Einstein thought the observable non-zero dimensions were the forms (locally real) but now we know they're the solids (not locally real).
Leibniz said 0D is necessary and more real (locally real) because it has no predecessor (indivisible) while non-zero dimensions are contingent and less real (not locally real) because they all have an immediate predecessor (divisible). Smart person, that Leibniz.
We can immediately use the holographic principle if it's as a projection from 0D instead of the traditional attempts as a projection from 2D. This is because 0D is the only dimension with a boundary/horizon (the point itself).
When tools are calibrated they're "zeroed-out" and Euclid, Descartes, Newton and Einstein's modeling outright rejects calibration with non-zero starting points, reduction-based thinking and the Law of Excluded Middle.
We should go back and do 0D-3D² as first-person scientific modeling of observable reality to solve all our current "unsolvable" (from a third-person perspective) problems.
We can even do 0D-3D³ for all reality with 13 positive dimensions and 13 negative dimensions but we can talk about that later (along with how 2/3 of our quarks are heading one direction while 1/3 are heading the other direction similar to how space and time are heading one direction while energy is heading the other direction plus 0D inner horizon being pure order while 10D outer horizon being pure chaos).
3D-1D² (1D-4D spacetime) is limited, incomplete and boring.
Just as a symphony arises from silence... dimensional lines (1D), planes (2D) and volume (3D) are formed from dimensionless points (0D).
Time itself emerges from timeless quantum equations.
Dimensional is natural and dimensionless is non-natural which is quite important when we recall how singularities are non-natural phenomena.
0D pattern body = indivisible form (made)
3D physical body = divisible solid (created)
We're limiting our greatest thinkers with these 2D dualist formalisms (and terminology since math is a language) for 3D trialist reality and this is pretty much why we don't have a Theory of Everything.
This goes way beyond my notions on turboencabulators 😂
They also missed the fact that it is not mass that determines the strength of gravitational pull, it is mass density that determines the strength of gravitational pull. Newton was wrong. Einstein was wrong. There is no possible way to explain how mass density could cause spacetime to bend differently. All of their models are fundamentally flawed.
95% of the standard model is missing.
Regardless, science locally extrapolates a ridiculously small and subjective sample and empirically extrapolates existance as an objective reality
The level of broken logic currently spewed out by academics is staggering.
@RH-w9i How do you know how much of the model is missing if you do not even know what is missing?
@@wesbaumguardner8829 "not mass ... mass density..." What?
@MrMZaccone Why does ice float on water? Is water's mass changing while it freezes?
"The wheels on the bus go round and round." This song describes the bus accurately and consistently exactly like math does, but singing this song IS NOT an understanding of a bus, because wheels going round are NOT causal. The variables in your gravity math are NOT causal, so you are mimicking reality, not understanding it. Angular momentum DOES NOT cause the gyroscopic effect. Acceleration does, and it is acceleration perpendicular to spin velocity. It is a mechanism missed in basic mechanics that most physicists CANNOT see, because they were taught to mimic first. ruclips.net/video/Sip_9ew2RjA/видео.html The Allegory of the Cave should have taught you that your math IS the shadows on the wall. Turn around.
😀, this video speaks clarity. Many of the prestige schools have not learned or been taught the full version of how to calculate it. But its aligned to the creator of the reality we live in today.
I'll make a bold statement. The creator of this reality created an augmented version. For this reality we live in today is to give people a chance to claim the truth. But they would have to surpass God himself. 😀.
The cosmos creates itself eternally. There is no need for a beginning or an ending
An invigorating dose of Jacob Barandes!
Time is a layered structure that holds present, past,future in the same space,but we experience it sequentially because are awareness is limited to rhythm
That's very close to the answer. You need only the Mandelbrot set the double slit experiment to understand the energetic projection we inhabit.
We have three spatial directions because of the way an electromagnetic wave behaves, you have the vertical axis of the waves amplitude the forward axis direction of propagation responding to the frequency and the magnetic field created at right angles (right hand rule) gives you the boundaries in which an energetic projection of consciousness can exist.
It's none of it Real, with the big R. There are no particles Solidity is a matter of polarity not solid things in contact.
@ChrisFord-wh1gl those examples will allow you to understand how the cosmic observation is most relivent in evolution, this is the time at the big unconsciousness loss of intent direction was mistake was made and the true way was lost , you are absolutely brilliant sir !!! Within you look , the water from below will be from above my friend!
What rhythm exactly? Bossanova?
It's the same as water to fish my friend they don't eat,it,or anything like like but to live in it they must and not realize it's there with your same understanding, or in the same sense, it is exactly what dark matter is to us , now we can both agree like 2 cool fish we know it's ther , right so imagine this but in fantastic stacked layers of collective unconsciousness as .
@ChrisFord-wh1gl mandelbrot set is the celebration of all are imaginary unconsciousness collective, and considered all like plank theory aside, finds perfection in your answer
When in general relativity a spatial direction becomes a temporal direction, for example when an object gets very close to a black hole, it simply means that the object has stopped orbiting and is completely in vertical free fall, if I jump off a tower then the ground becomes my future hahaha
Perhaps there are two sets of 4D space-times existing dual to each other. 🤔
Prove it.
@@LuisAldamiz sentiment?
@@caravincent more like infinite
@@hayorge27 wow we've gone full circle ♾
@caravincent - Evidence! Extraordinary claims demand evidence.
Measurement is a physical process that I agree is not happening throughout the approach towards the classical limit. Fantastic elaboration
This is indistinguishable from nonsensical yapping. This guy is always yapping but no major change in physics has happened in decades, so who cares what this guy is saying
A LOT changed in physics in the last decades, you are just a buffoon, clearly not a physicist 😂.
You are focusing too much on very theoretical BS physics ("hello string theory") because of the news on CNN and this kind of shit. Now look at REAL physics, it evolves EVERYDAY, thx to people like me
A little example for you clown: photonics? Let's not even talk about material science...
By that logic you are yapping as well.
This is fascinating. It’s almost as though you feel like understanding the deepest most complex physics concepts is some kind of “right” that you were born with, and therefore if you don’t understand what you’re hearing it must be that the OTHER person is speaking “nonsense”…not that you lack the knowledge and intelligence to do so.
Do you do this with experts in other fields too? Like, if you came across a video of two jazz musicians discussing the merits of tritone substitutions would you comment- “These people are using gibberish words!! This is meaningless nonsense!”…? What about other languages? You hear people speaking Cantonese and you say, “This is nonsensical yapping!” Or do you relegate your vacuum-brained pomposity exclusively for renowned Harvard physics professors?
I mean the irony is that you’ve totally missed that this guy came up with a pretty brilliant idea…rather than stabbing in the dark looking for quantum gravity, which will ALSO by definition be probabilistic, instead devise the simplest formulation of gravity that’s definitely probabilistic and it might turn out to BE quantum gravity. You definitely didn’t get that, though, cuz you were too busy being a snobbish slime.
I think this guy is right. We approach quantum mechanics from a probabilistic point of view, so maybe all of physics should have the same probabilistic approach.
We (e^ipi+1=0), reference frames of consciousness, are the singularities of time (i). We must be -1 to experience the 1, and the 1 to verify the -1. Relativity (spacetime) is i in disguise (Ruv - 1/Rguv = 8piGi), with its solution being white holes (references frames of consciousness) and black holes (encoded information on the event horizon), which we are a projection of. To see the time, you have to be the time. Consciousness is the assumption that is fundamentally implied. Tom Weiler 2021.
Nah
Word.
I like that idea . You have to be the time to see the time. Regardless of what it is it has to be part of you, people tend to depersonalize things at a root level, things in there zone... it's "unhealthy" to feel like your part of the objects around you. It is, unless you're on a journey on purpose. But also it's very hard to do anything practical with the self and science that way, depersonalizing things to fit your emotional affects
gene ray, time cube
Yeah and 1x1=2, man…
It's refreshing to see these things adressed from within...any challenge to physics from a non tier 1 academic was dismissed with prejudice. Reformation is excellent to see
This guy needs a course in science communication. He's just there talking to himself 😂.
Time and space are not seperate things. Time is an abstract concept until you realize that it's a measurement of travel. Take for example, the molecules in water need to become excited enough by heat to boil, so when you make your noodles, you are moving those molecules to a boiling point, and the amount of time that takes is a measurement of how far the planet has moved and a measurement of the travel those molecules need to achieve to reach a boil. There's never a singular point where time passes but there was no motion involved as that is impossible if time and space are the same thing, which they are, and any dilation or compression of time is also an affect on space.