No matter what happens in my day, I can't help but smile when I see you doc, I guess it's because physics is everything and that matters :)

@AMikeStein

3 жыл бұрын

That matters... I see what you did there. :)

@johnimusic12

3 жыл бұрын

That's all that matters.

@Jabranalibabry

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnimusic12 agreed brother

@Jabranalibabry

3 жыл бұрын

@@AMikeStein 😉👊

@beatozeze

3 жыл бұрын

Actually smiling matters whatever physics you are talking about...

Dr Lincoln: after discussing hypothetical models of physics, can you also cover some of the famous failed ideas, and why they has failed? These would be very educational both as case study, and also because time to time I see some of these resurfacing in some arguments.

@lordkekz4

3 жыл бұрын

I'd love to see that too!

@lordkekz4

3 жыл бұрын

@MichaelKingsfordGray I think there are mostly just ideas rather than fully fledged theories, because it could become clear in the process of building the theory that the underlying idea(s) are flawed. Both would be interesting to see though.

@juzoli

3 жыл бұрын

@MichaelKingsfordGray Hypotheses are ideas which doesn’t contradict any facts, have some supporting evidence, but not proven. Theories are the hypotheses which are proven. Since I explicitly said “failed” ideas, it cannot be either of the above.

@markblocker4981

3 жыл бұрын

@@juzoli , people have been known to adhere to theories which contradict known facts, see the case of phlogiston.

Those Koala puns were unBearable

@not2tired

3 жыл бұрын

and marsuperb

@gwyllymsuter4551

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, it 'Leaves' the mouth with a bit of a gummy aftertaste

@Justwantahover

3 жыл бұрын

Is that cos a koala is an "unbear"?

@billd.iniowa2263

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, let's koala the whole thing off.

@nmccw3245

3 жыл бұрын

Referring to this marsupial as a bear is a kolaquialism.

Hi Dr. Lincoln, thanks for another great episode. Instead of just extra spatial dimensions, what would it be like if there are extra temporal dimensions? What would an extra temporal dimension even mean and are there any theories which talk about them?

@Bassotronics

3 жыл бұрын

@ *Adithya Ramanujam* Those dimensions exist when Virtual particles pop in and out of existence.

@MrGonzonator

3 жыл бұрын

If you consider time as the direction of causality (literally the expression of all of physics only manifests through time by action and reaction in the temporal dimension) then there it's very hard to imagine a metric by which you could perceive anything other than linear time. That would be action without physical cause. That's literally supernatural.

@FutureChaosTV

3 жыл бұрын

As I understand it time is just the movement of our 3 dimensional space through a 4 dimensional space. The movement and resulting causality is what we experience as time. So, time is emergent like gravity. I might be very wrong though in my understanding.

I like how you answer the tough questions, to the point and intellectually honest.

Dr. Lincoln and Fermilab, thank you for making all this wonderful and often esoteric information about the fundamental nature of our universe so accessible to even folks like me who aren't knowledgeable about either math or physics! It really is a joy to watch these videos and get informed about these fascinating topics!

You remind me of Jack Horkheimer and I always half expect you to end your videos with "Keep looking up!" Your videos are great and I really find it a treat to get to hear from someone really at the heart of new research.

I hope this series keeps going forever

"Likeability is imporant". Don, man, you got it all XD.

Knowledge isn't a destination, wisdom is applied knowledge, the journey is everything - thanks for taking us forward with each episode - you are the best!!!

11:00 Thank you! This is such an important point even - especially - in school. When you have the sort of teachers where students leave school and say they hate physics (maths, ...). The proudest moment I think I ever had was when some (high-school) students, after the year was done, came to me and told me they liked coming to my physics class (and this was not the "physics nerds" but "normal" students). I hope I made an impact on their lives that they won't be parents that tell their children that "they also hated physics in school and it does not matter if their child is good at it".

What exactly is spin? And what does it mean 1/2 spin, 1 spin, 2 spin

@XEinstein

3 жыл бұрын

No one knows. That's the short answer. It's surely not a rotation of a particular, but rather one of a particles properties. Like mass, charge and spin. But we have no idea what charge or spin are. Or what mass is for that matter.

@nillamichieli5678

3 жыл бұрын

Spin affects a particle's orientation, iinm. That is why it was called spin.

@r000tbeer

3 жыл бұрын

Like a record. Right round, round round.

@ChrisConnett

3 жыл бұрын

I'll echo that we don't know what it IS, in the sense of breaking it down as something more elementary; but it is a fundamental property. The notion that solidified its meaning (or lack) for me was that it has units of angular momentum, which is conserved in interactions. The unit of particle spins is ℏ (Planck constant on 2π).

@KasiusKlej

3 жыл бұрын

Spin, which is measured using kilograms, meters and time, is like a vector, that governs the behavior of fundamental particles. In that form, no one knows what a spin is, but when you divide the spin of an electron or spin of a photon by Planck's constant, you get dimensionless units of 1/2, 1 and 2, by which you measure "polarization of light" and "ability of the electron to be at the same place as another electron" and other weird quantum stuff like that. Spin is as abstract as mass and charge are. Although we have no idea what mass and charge are, except that they come in analogue kilograms and quantized couloumbs, we have even less idea what spin is and how it comes dimensionless, except we know that spin is as fundamental property as mass and charge are. Perhaps by this relation with Planck's constant, spin is some sort of quantum nature of things themselfes.

Amazing, amazing video! Thanks for the clarity!

Always a pleasure - thanks, Dr. Don!

"whisper at a rock concert" - I *love* this analogy. Thank you for the concept upgrade!

Fermilab is a national treasure, we are very fortunate to have all our national laboratories. Dr. Lincoln ably represents them, in my never humble opinion.

Thank you very much Don, from Uruguay, time before and after Don Lincoln, unique explanations

Some great insights about science communication, thanks Don. More public lecturers could benefit from taking this on board.

Your points about science communication were great!

I Appreciate your series!

Great video, cleared up a lot of misconceptions

Idk why the algorithm hasn't been putting this on my feed! Sub/notified/shared, great content.

@john-paulsilke893

3 жыл бұрын

KZread is pushing old media.

@abhirassharma

3 жыл бұрын

Stop watching cat videos and it will show up

@Dr_VVho

3 жыл бұрын

@@abhirassharma damnit ...how did you know it was cat video?

Your a brilliant commentator, one who I have always enjoyed receiving educational dialogue, within your presentations.

Hi Don.. didnt know u had a ted talk.. checking that out now 😁 Just did on 2 of them.. great stuff, Don.. engaging and full of rich, understandable info.. certainly not easy to do in front of a lot of people and on a big show.. congrats!! Totally delayed but well deserved.. thanks.for bringing science closer to the general public!! 👏

you're the best Don! love your videos!

It would be very nice if gravity had something to do with the weak force Usually the forces cancel from a distant viewer. But since electrons are usually orbitating an atom about 1% speed of light. The relativistic time would make electrons be pulled by other atom protons and vise versa, creating a universal pull. This could be why gravity is so weak. I know the weak force has a short range and many other thing, i just found the idea cool.

Great video as always. 👍

Gravity as a force itself is incredibly weak indeed, but it can interact over virtually infinite distances - Shapley attractor, dipole repeller, etc and all that "big" stuff!

@Ken-no5ip

3 жыл бұрын

Gravity’s effect diminishes but never quite reaches 0 like the graph of 1/sqrt(x)

@ericeaton2386

3 жыл бұрын

The electomagnetic force also has infinite range though, it's worth noting

@jimgraham6722

3 жыл бұрын

Not sure I can agree with Dr Lincoln. Singularities surely demonstrate gravitational bending of spacetime overwhelms all other forces. The big bang and accelerating expansion of the universe leading to a big rip, suggests the properties (forces and fields) of the universe that we see around us today are merely transient emergent properties of singularities living out their singular lives.

Thanks Doc.

I’ve heard it in documentaries that the small dimensions are spacial dimensions, and that there are 8 or 9 spacial dimensions and one temporal dimension. I’ve always wondered why these were classified this way, and time isn’t treated just like another dimension. Thanks, love the show!

6:08...We have now two *_koalafied_* 🐨 scientists with a cool sense of humor that are great science communicators-Dr Don Lincoln and Max Tegmark. 🐻 🍯 🤣

Brian Greene Theories explained. I like how Don Lincoln evaded talking about string theory speculation. :)

Physics professor to math department: Hey I'm working on a difficult theory, do you mind if I borrow another dimension? Math department: Sorry you already borrowed all of the ones we had. We can't loan any more out until you return some of the ones you have already.

@markblocker4981

3 жыл бұрын

Math department is naturally always keeping track of inventory. However they should never run out of infinity so they can afford to be generous with it. Theoretically.

@shatterthemirror8563

3 жыл бұрын

@@markblocker4981 Do they really claim infinite dimensions, or just infinity in any one dimension?

@dlevi67

3 жыл бұрын

@@shatterthemirror8563 Look up Hilbert spaces

@markblocker4981

3 жыл бұрын

@@shatterthemirror8563 , there are an infinite number of positive integers, an infinite number of negative integers and an infinite number of numbers between each integer. And that's just the rational numbers. Add in the rest and it should suffice for an eternity, maybe a pair of eternities. We won't be running out, ever.

@shatterthemirror8563

3 жыл бұрын

@@markblocker4981 You're confusing numbers with dimensions.

This was a nice start! I hope you can say more about this particular subject, and the effects of those extra dimensions interacting with the cosmic inflation, meaning space time results. If there is possible to us to have "space time bubbles", we can also have some, at least, minimal rules variations inside those bubbles, is not true?

this is the best explanation of gravity and extra dimensions!!!

this is what ive been looking for all my life

As a chemist (people almost as cool as physicists) I spend a lot of time in front of people freezing things and blowing things up in the name of education. Thanks for the book and science communication recommendadions. Always looking for ways to share a love for science.

I've been loving this series. Could you give us some insight about the hypothesis of spacetime (or one of its characteristics, like possible curvatures) arising from quantum entanglement? What are the things this hypothesis could explain?

Does this man have a podcast? I need this in my life

Thank you so much for another fantastic video. Really appreciate you giving some insight into the reason why extra dimensions are being considered for the unification of the forces. One thing that has always perplexed me about black holes. I have heard that if you could look backwards as you fall into a black hole, you will see time speed up behind you as you fall into the compressed time/space interface before the event horizon. If that is the case, wouldn't someone from the outside just see you slow down and then stop altogether before you fall in? How does a black hole actually move in space, if directly around it is a slither of space/time that has effected stopped in some kind of weird time stasis? Obviously I am mistaken but I cannot see the way out, it is like I am stuck in that field right now! OMG!

Please keep these videos going

Fantastic science communicator ❤️

Did you hear about the Koala that opened up a space themed restaurant? It was named Mars, Soup, & Eels .

@CraftyF0X

3 жыл бұрын

Oh boy...

@markblocker4981

3 жыл бұрын

That's absolutely horrible, I LOVE IT.

@john-or9cf

3 жыл бұрын

Okaaaay, that went right over my head!

@dlevi67

3 жыл бұрын

@@john-or9cf Marsupials

@john-or9cf

3 жыл бұрын

@@dlevi67 OMG! That’s awful! 👍

Followup question about quantum gravity and graviton: As I understand, we have the curvature of spacetime caused by mass (or mass is caused by the curvature?), and we have particles with mass, and since particles are quantized, mass is also quantized. Do I assume correctly, that quantum gravity (assuming it exists) is basically the description of how a single elementary particle exactly curves spacetime? And in this sense, graviton is just the smallest quantum of this effect of how a smallest particles curves spacetime. Because in this case, the warp in spacetime must also be quantized, if mass is quantized. With this, we can talk about graviton without defining it as a literal force.

@mrspock2al

3 жыл бұрын

Zoltan, you stated this much better than me. In my simplistic understanding what we perceive as gravity is actually curved space-time. And, according to Einstein, there is no "force" of gravity. So, I'm really confused about Dr. Lincoln calling it a force. Isn't that a left-over from old Newtonian physics? In other words, shouldn't physicists be exploring the reason that mass affects space time instead of referring to it as the force of gravity?

@michaelsommers2356

3 жыл бұрын

@@mrspock2al If you look closely enough using quantum field theory, none of the forces are really forces in the classical sense. They're still called forces, because what else are you going to call them? It's just a name, anyway, and names don't matter. That which we call a rose ...

@juzoli

3 жыл бұрын

@@mrspock2al These are all models not reality itself. Some models are better to make predictions about one set of things, other models are better for other things. Calling it force, and calculating with it as a force would math easier in many areas. Astronomy is not one of those areas though...

@mrspock2al

3 жыл бұрын

@@juzoli Thanks for the reply. My interest is astronomy and I do tend to look at things from that perspective.

@juzoli

3 жыл бұрын

@@mrspock2al Even within astronomy, if you are calculating planetary orbits, treating it as force will give you easier math. Trouble comes when we are calculating the trajectory of light itself, or gravitational waves, or the expansion of universe.

Thanks Don

Dr. Lincoln, could you perhaps address the question in one of your future videos whether all atoms will eventually decay into elementary particles? There are so many different factors to take into account from entropy to possible recombination (not the epoch) to the expansion of the universe to the unimaginably long time that it would take for most of the elements to decay that I am not able to come up with a definite answer myself. Much appreciated! (I actually posted this in the comments of the previous video but I missed the critical window of opportunity of a few days, so I'm posting it again.)

Thanks for the video! Would love to hear your opinion and/or explanation of ads-cft correspondence. Juan Maldacena is a genius but I have a tough time following his explanations

Hi Dr Don, I truly love your videos and your awesome taste for puns. I was wondering, we have been looking (and still are) for extra dimensions of space to explain the weakness of gravity. But could it be possible that the other forces are working in less than 3 dimensions at the quantum scale? I am not sure if this would apply to the EM force since it spread to all direction infinitely... but since the weak and the strong force only apply to very short distances, maybe everything is 2D at their scale?

Hello Dr. Lincoln! Thank you for all. Why we keep on listing 4 forces, and we don't include in the list also that one derived by Black Energy?

this one was super fun!

Hello. Thanks for great videos! My question is: are there any theories, that describe laws of nature on fixed grid, something like cellular automata or more complex structures with local interactions?

If the Higgs Mechanism is responsible for giving matter its mass, do we still need a quantized model of gravity? If mass is what bends spacetime, and gravity is matter travelling along those bends, does that mean that gravity is an emergent inertial force and not fundamental to the standard model? I love your videos and explanations!

Great episode, as always! My understanding about energy is that it can depend on the observer speed (like kinetic energy). If this is the case, does that mean that the space-time curvature is also observer dependent? Thanks!

I could just about bear your puns, Dr Don. Why not bare all, and start to sell t-shirts like the ones you feature on your videos? Proceeds could be used to help defray (declaw?) the cost of Fermilab experiments. Your explanation of where extra dimensions could lurk was very helpful. But then, perhaps I'd previously been hibernating. I wish that extra dimension/dimensions would appear next to my bathroom scale.

Hey there Mr. Fermilab, I recently learned about the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment and I can't help but wonder: What would happen if I were to tie the choice of containing the wich-way-information to the outcome. Similar to the grandfather paradox. So basically when the particle appears as a particle it would take the way to obscur the wich way information and if it appears as a wave it would take the way to contain it?

Dr. Lincoln, my question is based on what you mentioned in this video. If we assume that gravity is transmitted via gravitons, how do they appear? Who emits them, and does the emitter lose mass? And if the minimal energy is defined by Planck's constant, what happens if the energy of a graviton is much smaller than that?

The other messed up thing about academics, aside from talking at you expecting you to learn at the penalty of a bad grade, is that you are paying them to do it, but they don't act like it

Veritasium: gravity isn't a force!!! Subatomic stories: lol nope!

As usual, very interesting video Dr. Don! Doesn't the gravitational force depend on whether or not a given planet has an atmosphere? Is the force of gravity the same throughout the universe? Thanks.......

Hi Don.. is it possible to test the existance of those extra dimensions gravity spreads to? What else do they contain besides the (possible) placeholder for gravity?

It’s not that gravity is weak, it’s that it spreads out to every possible point in the universe By doing so the force exerted becomes infinitesimal in terms of strength, but nearly infinite in range In terms of spacial dynamics this is an anchoring effect, one that gives mass an interactive function, that mass come from the particle itself as its collective structural data, and this part of the effect would lock down particles themselves by the constant pull from all the Higgs particles at once However From its temporal dynamic we get its inverse effect, a tethering function that simultaneously locks particles to certain anchors based on proximity and mass effect, but also provides a certain range of motion for each tethered particle based on the forces acting on it and from its anchor’s mass effect The spacial dynamic of gravity is always detectable in any frame of spacetime, and appears to give particles each a mass, but it really only gives the mass present in each particle it’s effect (which includes the ‘massless’ particles, which really just have infinitesimal mass, and interact as if they had no mass) The temporal dynamic, on the other hand, exists right outside of these frames, and only there, providing the actual ‘gravity’ spacetime curving effect, and also provides a ‘float’ effect that lets particles move during the temporal phase between each spacial plane And yeah, I know, that sounds crazy, but not much crazier than Quantum Chromodynamics or naming certain quarks ‘Strange’ or ‘Beauty’, but I can accept this theory is wrong, it’s definitely incomplete, and lacks mathematical proof, relying mostly on logical reasoning derived from my research into this, and I have no formal training in physics or experimental data collected to back it up But I do know two things One: the answer to quantum gravity is in its temporal interactions And two: The Higgs field doesn’t give mass, but it does give mass its different effects, so it certainly appear to do so

Hi Dr. Lincoln, I was wondering if scientists have thought of any experiments to test for LQG or string theory? Thank you

I can't thank you and your team enough for all the things I have learnt from your simple explanations.

Thank you for making complicated topics so accessible to novices like me. I wish I had this as a resource when I was growing up. Also, doesn't gravity already act in four dimensions where other fundamental forces act in three?

"At galactic scales only gravity matters" - there are number of papers available describing the effects of magnetism at galactic scales including some describing the influence of magnetism in galaxy formation.

@jorgepeterbarton

3 жыл бұрын

I mean, they would not be emitting light without EM, and without EM maybe a lot more black holes...is it not the opposing force to prevent neutron stars and black holes? Dont black holes fire massive gamma rays etc.

Instead of protons, can quarks, leptons and bosons be accelerated and smashed into bits to find smaller particles?

Hi Don, are the circles of the theoretical 4th dimension related to the 4 dimensional holographic spacetime that Juan Martín Maldacena published a paper about? Will you do an episode about the holographic principle like PBS Spacetime did?

Don, what is your position about radical interpretations in particle physics, like it-form-qubit or amplitudeology?

Hi Dr. Don, Could the asymetry of matter and anti matter in the early universe be linked to the universes preference of "handedness"? Or would that have been a factor in the high energy state of the universe at that time?

Hi sir.... is the energy level of the different forces permanent in extreme temperatures or does it change?

I was willing to *_bear_* with those puns, because I know this will be a good video.

Hello Don, great video as always! Would it be conceivable that a theory of everything just can't exist and there would be some sort of threshold at which relativity / quantum theory takes over (at both sides of the threshold, respectively)

Dr. Lincoln, who made the opening and closing music AND animation. Thanks.

Hello, Dr. Lincoln, I'm a loyal viewer and a fan of TED. As such, your TED Talk caught my attention. For whatever reason, I was unable to find the video in their archive. Would you be so kind as to provide a link? Thank you.

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/p5qT0KeqpsjWmrQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/aXiWqLyElMiokbQ.html

Possible extra dimensions in quantum where most of gravity goes to reduce cosmological constant for dark energy expansion of space in universe 10 power -120; that gravity is countering dark energy in extra quantum dimension.

I think on gravity as the flow of space-time. It is only exists if there are material too and there is a frame of reference. If there is no matter there is no scale and 3d space collapses to singularity. The main reason space-time is flowing to a certain direction because to be a place where there are more energy have higher probability. Therefore the wavefunctions of the different particles get asynchronous. A particle gets more likely appearing closer where its likelihood are bigger. It seems the wavefunction itself is somehow bind to space-time and its defining local reality but it can have motion and even momentum (what is the Dark mater?) what is not restricted by wave propagation.

Cheers Doc Interesting you picked the correct (Dutch) pronunciation of my username, good intuition!

The thing about whether or not gravity is a force seems not to be discussed properly in popular science. I'm not sure if I'm still misunderstanding, but it seems to me that gravity is an interaction not between particles with energy densities, but between particles and spacetime, which would square both with QFT and the basic concept of GR, that gravity is a warping of spacetime. The reason the math doesn't work isn't necessarily because those two concepts are incompatible, but maybe because the _way_ warped spacetime is described as discrete (if infinitesimal) vectors in GR, rather than truly continuous curves (which would make the math insane, I'm aware) is what actually causes impossible infinities. Idunno, this is my vague guess from watching too many science videos; I'm a linguist, not a physicist. I do still have trouble with the extra dimensions idea. Not in the Flatland sense, which seems perfectly reasonable, but specifically the curled cylinder dimensions. What does it even mean for a direction of freedom of movement to be curled relative to other directions of freedom of movement? It seems to me to be a fun mathematical trick, and, while some of those have turned out to have experimentally-provable implications (antimatter, dark energy), most turn out to be shortcuts that are later filled in with better math or simply math that coincidentally happens to have a surface resemblance to a piece of some _other_ math that actually describes reality more properly.

Nice videos!! How many extra dementions do we need to make gravity comparable to the other forces??

This is late but in regards to the hunt for a larger more general theory have you looked at Wolframs computational model or hypergraph system? Having looked at it I was particularly struck by the continuum limit formalism where with a sufficiently large array of relations and possible ways that system can evolve it naturally results in the set of relations producing a framework of "space" and the possible ways the system could evolve producing an analogous framework of branches representing the ways the system can evolve. Ultimately what strikes me of this model is that both of these turn out to be represented by Einstein's field equations in this continuum limit. The GR component is familiar but the QM part representing the Feynman path integral amazingly appears to follow its own coupled set of Einstein's field equations where the wavefunction becomes a "probabilistic" branch space of all possible states/outcomes with the possible measurable outcomes being projections of the wavefunction in a way reminiscent of Flat land. If this were to be the case I can't help but ponder whether it is possible that gravity could possibly be leaking out between other parallel branches. As cosmological tests of extra dimensions gravity could leak into often rely on the assumption that these extra dimensions will effectively slow down gravity's speed or propagation I have to wonder how the larger analog to the speed of light for branch space would impact such a result. As the analogous counterpart to the Ricci tensor is complex Hermitian there would logically be both dilution into and out of these branch states. Thinking about the distribution of matter including the mysterious dark matter this suggests the possibility that leakage into our dimensions could be an explanation for not only the weakness of gravity but the existence of dark matter. The halo nature then of dark matter then could beprobabilistic

I have a theory about expansion of universe. My biliefs are that the whole universe along with space time is expanding and outside the universe there is no space time which means both singularity and regions outside the universe is identical. So the universe expands by the same laws of how space time falls into the black hole. This makes perfect sense I guess. So the boundaries of universe are moving at infinite speeds and because the universe is infinite it cancels out so that finite distances inside the universe moves at finite speed. According to me universe started as a point and expands to infinite size within 0 seconds because the boundaries are moving at infinite speeds. So that state where the universe is infinite but still infinitely hot we call it beginning of big bang. Then universe expands from infinite size to infinite size, but the finite distances separate at finite velocities, cooling it... Does it make any sense??

Any thoughts on the 3rd dimensional upper limit GeV being the plank length of the 4th dimension? Graviton at 7.5e+21?

Initially, the possibility of extra, unobserved dimensions seems like it might be plausible. But in the example used in this video, the assumed extra circular dimension involves a combination of already observed existing spatial dimensions. So it is not really a separate extra dimension. Instead, what needs to be determined is which of the dimensions we can observe are fundamental to all the other dimensions we can observe, as is done in my unifying physics theory, matter theory.

Hi Don , if gravity can escape to other dimensions ,what stops the other forces from doing the same?

Since gravity can be understood as the consequence of a distortion of the space-time fabric, is not gravity weak on the analyzed scale simply because the mass on that scale is too small to generate any relevant effect, different from the other forces? As you said, on large scales gravity is what matters. I mean, why is this view of the problem not enough and we need additional things to explain? Thank you Dr. Don!

Could you do an explanation of the exclusion principle?

I've been waiting for an opportunity to ask this question for some time: Could the bending of spacetime by concentrations of mass (such as a planet) be explained by a displacement (rarefaction) of the fields in the standard model? For instance, it seems to me that an excitation of a particular field associated with a fermion excludes (by the Pauli exclusion principle) all other fermions of that field from occupying the same quantum state. Is there perhaps something else like that at work that might help explain gravity or the bending of spacetime?

Given that rs/r for an experiment at the surface of the earth is about 10^-9, is there any reason to believe or expect that earth's gravity affects high precision measurements made on the surface of the earth? Such as the muon g-2 experiment? Do we know the Feynman rules in Rindler coordinates?

@robinswamidasan

3 жыл бұрын

For the muon g-2 experiments the General Relativity correction turns out to be very small, well below the present sensitivity. See: "Quantification of GR effects in muon g-2, EDM and other spin precession experiments ", arxiv.org/pdf/1803.01395.pdf

Hey Don. I'm always confuse from this kind discussions about gravity been a Force when it should be simply the consequence of the curvature of space and time flowing. Why we keep considering gravity a Force?

@jorgepeterbarton

3 жыл бұрын

Is to unify it with QM and the disrepencies. However it may be possible QM is unresolved OR general relativity needs modifying not ignoring?

Hi Dr. Lincoln, knowing that the spacetime dimension is curved under the General Theory of Relativity, does it directly imply there's more dimension that the 4D spacetime itself? just like 1D loop which actually 2D, or 2D ball surface where actually there hidden 3rd dimension of radius. If so true, then the gravity itself that create the extra dimension.

Hello Sir, Im so curious about science but also about how many T-shirt you own? Another video, another T-shirt😉 Love your videos, best teacher ever

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

>100

nailed it on the little bears

I have recently stepped on Veritasium video about speed of light being always the same in all directions is an un-proovable assumption. Do you know of any ways to measure speed of light only in one direction without having it do a round trip?

Hi Dr Don, if quarks move inside protons and neutrons at nearly the speed of light then a) where do they get the energy to do so and b) do they ever accidentally bump into one another?

What if Quantum foam works something akin to tiny hooks in spacetime and forces from energy/mass pull on the Quantum foam which in turn pulls in spacetime?

@COTU9

3 жыл бұрын

@RDE Lutherie Like Quantum Velcro baby!

@MrGonzonator

3 жыл бұрын

Is that why my latte foam always gets caught in my moustache?

@COTU9

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrGonzonator no need to be foaming at the mouth, it's gone before u can check if there is any

Can you please help and explain the visualization of general theory of relativity? The curved space is understandable, but what about the time dimension? What exactly happens? Also, the Avatamsaka Sutra describes enlightenment as an awareness of the "interpretation of space time continuum"

I think the problem is you're confusing Koalas with Drop Bears. Big difference! Drop Bears will rip your head off!

@PazLeBon

3 жыл бұрын

gummy bears could aid recovery

1:50 I wonder if you multiply the relative force by the distance over which that force is reduced by 50% whether you would get figures that are very similar...?

Hi Dr. Don, Amazing videos. One question Could the higgs boson be the graviton? I asked that because the deformation of space-time is due to the mass of the object, so if the boson gives the mass, it would be possible

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

No. The deformation of spacetime is dependent on the energy density, not the mass. Even massless photons, which do not interact with the Higgs field, cause spacetime curvature.

@kingsizemaster

3 жыл бұрын

@@ozzymandius666 As far as I concerned, Photons by themselves cannot bend space-time, but they can when particles exachange photons in some EM interaction. Also, if a photon might curve spacetime, that could mean there's a relation between photons and gravitons

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

@@kingsizemaster As far as GR is concerned, photons do bend spacetime.

Hi Don could there be an additional fourth dimension into which our three dimensional space i.e. universe is expanding? Like the 2D Surface of an inflating balloon expanding into the 3D Space? Thanx this is Matt from Germany