Waw, that was a really good prediction! 5:49 October 6th 2020: Sir Roger Penrose won the 2020 Nobelprize in physics "for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity," which he shared with Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez.

@rogerscottcathey

3 жыл бұрын

I thought there were no awards for math.

@HylanderSB

3 жыл бұрын

Her friend may know some of the nominators.

@HylanderSB

3 жыл бұрын

@@rogerscottcathey it’s for physics, but what’s physics these days without mathematics?

@rogerscottcathey

3 жыл бұрын

@@HylanderSB : It is for supporting a mathematical theory with math. Physics has nothing to do with black hole theory.

@HylanderSB

3 жыл бұрын

@@rogerscottcathey I’m so going to regret asking but, how does physics have nothing to do with black hole theory?

She has changed my pronunciation of Einstein.

@JohnVKaravitis

4 жыл бұрын

Are you unable to make decisions on your own?

@joelbecane1869

4 жыл бұрын

@@JohnVKaravitis So you never changed anything in your life ?

@aniksamiurrahman6365

4 жыл бұрын

Einstein - The one gem.

@DerTaran

4 жыл бұрын

Onestone or Astone, but of cause he was a gem too.

@OL9245

4 жыл бұрын

Taran DerTaran : 😂👏

I'm addicted to her channel. She has such a rare quality of expression when it comes to complex concepts.

Penrose definitely deserves the Nobel. He is such a refreshing thinker.

@melvynobrien6193

4 жыл бұрын

He would take that blood money, would he? Nobel was hated in his lifetime for all the deaths he caused through his work. He could hardly go out in public. No person of integrity would accept that money.

@phoule76

4 жыл бұрын

@@melvynobrien6193 that doesn't make it any less prestigious. he could always donate the prize to charity.

@RWin-fp5jn

4 жыл бұрын

Not really...He attempts to break free from consensus thinking (like Hawking) which is a necessity for new creative ideas to foster. I can't see a radical new insight though. But no doubt a charming chap to have around....

@sankalpc9492

3 жыл бұрын

Well your prediction becomes true.

@kashu7691

3 жыл бұрын

@@RWin-fp5jn the radical insight for the prize was his work on black holes but in general I think his geometric approach to physics is what's so refreshing

Not only great videos, but also prophetic gifts. Keep them coming! ;)

Thankyou Sabine. I’m the kind of person who wants to know, but is utterly incapable of following the math. You have made the cosmos less elusive, even though I still don’t know how the toaster works.

@rickintexas1584

4 жыл бұрын

Ross McLeod - I know how the toaster works. You put bread in and slide the lever down. Then some magic happens. Then you get toast!

@michaelblacktree

4 жыл бұрын

I'm the kind of person who wants to understand the concepts, but doesn't want to bother with the math. So in a way, we're in the same boat.

@alvaroballon7133

4 жыл бұрын

I can follow the math and all but still don’t know how the toaster works

@jimgag2

4 жыл бұрын

Ross McLeod If I combine the minds of Michael and Alvaro, not only would I understand the math but also how a toaster works. Problem solved.

@michaelblacktree

4 жыл бұрын

hehe 😄

Dr Hossenfelder, I think the Nobel prize committee watches your videos 😅. Congratulations to Penrose 🔥 truly deserved.

Not only does Penrose deserve a Nobel Prize for his Black Hole work, he needs to be taken seriously on his Cyclical Universe theory.

@ecMathGeek

3 жыл бұрын

Agree with the first point, not the second. I think any hypothesis that proposes an explanation for what happened 'before the big bang' should be taken with a grain of salt. That one, in particular, strikes me as ridiculous. Granted, I only understand it from a laymen's perspective. But if my understanding is right: he proposes that the cold and dispersed distant future is mathematically and physically equivalent to the hot and dense past (at the time of the big bang). I'm adding my own spin to the argument. But I'm wondering if anyone with a better understanding can correct me and make his hypothesis sound less absurd.

Sabine explains so heartwarmingly clearly what happens at the limits of the physics I know, that it is a pleasure to listen to her, even if I only understand a fraction of it.

Thanks for the great video, Dr. Hossenfelder! Although I would like to mention that the possibility of gravitational bodies so massive that light could not escape them has actually been around for a long time. In the 18th century, John Michell speculated that extremely massive stars might have gravity so intense that light could not leave their surface. Around the same time, Laplace also hypothesized similarly massive stars, calling them corps obscurs (dark bodies). Certainly these classical black holes based on Newtonian physics are very different from Einsteinian black holes as we know them, but they were discussed in scientific circles and even had mathematical models.

Sabine! I absolutely love your channel. Thank you for this content.

Love the outfit, you look like you’ve come straight from tatooine

@TheRealFlenuan

4 жыл бұрын

lmao, she's a Jedi knight

@rockets4kids

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheRealFlenuan Looks more like Jawa garb to me...

@chrisgriffith1573

4 жыл бұрын

Ough-Tee-Dee!

@freedapeeple4049

4 жыл бұрын

or an 18th century monk

@stevenbauer6090

3 жыл бұрын

Sabrina is a good day for me, thanks Google verification code for your help and support.

Sabine's lectures are always fascinating for my life

Hello there Sabine. Informative presentation. Thank u for explaining it in an easy to understand lesson.

Thank you - lucid as always. it has also been my opinion, albeit as a layman, that Penrose has earned the Nobel. Also, much of his thinking is so original that many of his ideas have yet to see fruition.

Thank You! I love everything that deals with these mysterious things.

I like your stuffs,the way you present it, just astonishing!

Roger Penrose won the Nobel Prize today - and you called it!

I'm a simple man. When I see a new video by Sabine, I click.

Thank you for captions and translations.

What a beautiful presentation, thank you.

Congratulations Sabine you called it. More importantly many thanks to both you and Sir Roger for helping us understand a bit more hopefully.

Thank you for captions!

Thank you much for your link. I was involved in the first LiGO data project. The wave process was a wonderful way to celebrate Albert's equation. 100 years past...

Hey Sabine, great video as usual. Just wanted to ask, does your theory of superdeterminism rules out quantum randomness?

@SabineHossenfelder

4 жыл бұрын

yes

@relaxandfocus5563

4 жыл бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder How can we prove it?

@SabineHossenfelder

4 жыл бұрын

@@relaxandfocus5563 We discuss the possibility for experimental test in section 6 of this paper www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full#h7

@relaxandfocus5563

4 жыл бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder ok, thanks.

A great video, as usual. A small typo: "The Schwarzschild radius of the Sun for example is a few *thousand* miles..." If we drop the thousand we're good.

@SabineHossenfelder

4 жыл бұрын

Argh, you are right of course! Sorry about that. At least I got it right in the background image.

@melvynobrien6193

4 жыл бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder There's a TEDX talk (banned) about the speed of light not being constant; perhaps you should look at it; there are "deep gravity wells" on the Moon, according to NASA, so gravity isn't constant, either. Black holes are merely another bad theory, like Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and all are used to patch up the holes in modern physics. I could go on, but you are so brainwashed that you won't accept anything I write, I'm sure. Newton was correct, Einstein was wrong; Einstein was a terrible mathematician; I wasn't, and I could see the flaws in his nonsense when I was twelve and first read THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY, which is unscientific in both form and content, and makes unfounded suppositions. Back to Boscovich, eh?

@gt8485

4 жыл бұрын

@@melvynobrien6193 There are deep wells in your brain where worms have holed away all sense and left behind a mumbo-jumbo soup of conspiracy theories.

@kenlogsdon7095

4 жыл бұрын

@@melvynobrien6193 Yeah, uh-huh, Einstein was "wrong", that's why The General Theory of Relativity has passed every test and made predictions that comport with reality for over a century now. Dumbass.

@RWin-fp5jn

4 жыл бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder Sabine, I think we are missing something in our interpretation of Bells' theorem and the superdeterministic and probability aspect that comes with it. Just bear with me for a second and consider this: Suppose the error we have been making for 100 years now, lies in our hidden shared assumption that there is only ONE way do define the grid in which any movement can occur: Namely: we only consider the spacetime continuum. However, if we assume there is actually an additional and concurrent DUAL grid setting (where energy forms the grid, like in expressing electron distances in eV's) governing the subatomic world, then all issues we have with Bell's theorem can be classically solved. For starters, we would not be limited to the burden of C limited speeds. Moreover, if indeed there is such an 'energy as a grid setting' then this means that if we have two particles which have the exact same spin energy along all three axis (and at the same 'mass' clock) then we would have the dual version of SPATIAL locality , namely ENERGY locality or 'quantum entanglement'. This in turn means there is NO INFORMATION that needs to cross the spacetime continuum at speeds higher than C. The two entangled particles simply ARE already ADJACENT in energy grid terms so we can manipulate one by changing the property of the other, just like we can in the case of SPATIAL locality. Please tell me you see the inherent logic in all of this ? if so, you may also see how this dual setup solves the religious quest for people regarding symmetry in physics (namely: what you gain as 'energy as a particle' , you lose in terms of 'energy in its surrounding grid' ). So you get an ultimate answer as to why people got lost in math (!!) and how to get out...Can you pls do a video on this idea of continuum DUALISM?

I agree Roger Penrose should have a nobel prize for this. I'd also love to hear you and him discuss cosmic inflation :) I just finished reading your book by the way. I find your central argument very compelling: i suspect most scientists shy away from wanting to consider it because it's so very far from what they are interested in. Namely: you describe a highly psychological effect, whilst physics is generally mathematical. Trying to grapple with your question takes them out of their comfort zones. But physicists are also humans and this does need to be taken into account, especially when there's a lack of experimental data. I notice that some of the greatest physicists were also quite comfortable discussing emotions and science, but it's rare (Einstein, Feynman).

Merci C’est toujours un grand plaisir

Loved the video and have sent it to a few others to take a look.

Thanks for the video. Somehow, you make it easier for us, not physicists, to understand the beauty of astrophysics . Greetings from Brazil !

Sabine - Your videos have gotten better and more interesting since I found your Channel (or was that KZread’s click-bot?) … anyway … Thanks for keeping me “engaged” … 🖖🏽

Thanks so much Sabine. 💫💫💫💥

Thanks for captions

I love your videos. They appeal to my secret nerd in me. 😀

Very interesting video. Thanks 😊

you are my newest addition to Heroic Thinkers, Doers and Illuminators. Thank You. I am a proponent of a gentle investigation of "Our " nature as formed by "Nature" . . .

I always thank you for your videos. I like a lot. 👍

Sabine - Would you kindly do a series on thermodynamics?

Love your accent and straight delivery

I love your accent! English is not my first language and I like to hear different accents! excellent video as always, thank you!

You are the prettiest scientist I love your channel

Sabine way better pace in your videos now! For those which English is out second language it's really helpful!

Great summary.

It seems incredible that until so recently we had such limited grasp of what most children now understand as almost mundane fact. I wonder how long before we grasp that we also cannot consume indefinitely lest we turn our own world into an inescapable black hole for life.

I'm on a Sabine Hossenfelder bender. Great content, much of which is not available in other physics channels.

Again another absolutely fantastic informative and well presented video, just as I have come to expect from you. But seriously, „miles“? Is that your way to appeal to a more general audience?

I love the Professor Doctor's enunciation.

@melvynobrien6193

4 жыл бұрын

Too bad she's talking nonsense.

As I have said many times, I wish I had the math to be able to deeply understand what you are telling us. Maybe it's not too late. In any case, please keep up the great work -- I learn a great deal from your videos!

@melvynobrien6193

4 жыл бұрын

I have the math; black holes don't exist. Einstein's theories are nonsense, as Oppenheimer stated many years ago.

I see Dr Hossenfelder as a wise Jedi with that outfit on. Loved this video. Thank you!

Danke schoen Sabine

It is amazing how blackholes were considered impossible and probably uncommon. Your explanation implies it’s a definite outcome of Einstein’s equations and that they appear an exceedingly common event. It appears that blackholes are very numerous. They certainly appear massive energy drivers of our galaxy and perhaps provide gravity stream to their local vicinity to drive the orbit and movement of other celestial object. So nice summary. Thanks. . Do you have any idea how many there are?

The Penrose Diagram incorporates an Event Horizon. If I understand it correctly, it implies that once you've breached the Event Horizon, Space-Time becomes Time-Space. & any physical motion through space, does not end up being physical motion through space; but rather it translates as motion through time. So your fate is sealed. You can only go to The Singularity. Even turning your head to try to look back out at the universe is not even an option. You can & will do only 1 thing: Go to The Singularity. Totally off topic, but my wife is on the phone talking about making Mutzbraten on our Grillstand & Grillspieß this weekend, & my mouth is already watering!! Sorry, but that makes me like a kid on Christmas Day🤣

Sabine, congratulations! Roger Penrose was awarded the Nobel Prize, as you suggested he should. You certainly know that, I just wanted to congratulate you!

Sabine, please add some more equations to your video as you have done in others. Like the Schwartzschield radius calculation. Just to see it without explanation would be nice.

When I first clicked on this video the image of Sabine against the starlight background was SOOOO impressive, she appeared as a goddess of knowledge. Her lectures are no less impressive.

@melvynobrien6193

4 жыл бұрын

Her lectures are full of supposition and inaccuracies. I'd love to debate one of these cloistered scientists. Such fools they are, rows of nodding heads. They're supposed to ask questions, not spout nonsense.

@kartikkalia01

4 жыл бұрын

@@melvynobrien6193 waoh, can you point out some? I mean where you can prove she's wrong, not just refer/site an opposing opinion of yours or some other scientist. (It's not like I'm challenging you, it's a genuine request)

Ms Hossenfelder, I would really appreciate your opinion on the recent claims that the universe itself might be conscious, please? Many thanks for your kind attention and for all the high-quality and very informative content you produce.

Another great video Sabine. Do black holes die or do they last forever?

@SabineHossenfelder

4 жыл бұрын

Well, the math says they should eventually die, but I doubt we will ever know for sure.

@istvansipos6395

4 жыл бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder only love never die... having said that, "but I doubt we will ever know for sure."

@clmasse

4 жыл бұрын

There is no experimental confirmation that the Hawking radiation exists. The work of Jean-Pierre Petit suggests that the black holes don't even bear. I feel it dishonest not to have mentioned it, it is mathematical robust.

Einsteins Math of General Relativity was created out of the typical architect approach of 1.function 2.form and 3. formalization. Einstein reasoned that attraction (1.Function) can be explained as a contraction of spacetime (2. Form) for which he needed (new) tensor calculus to make the according geometry work (3.Formalization). So this math is actually the only logical result of the very PHYSICAL idea that gravity could be explained by contraction of spacetime. Sure, developing the math was a brilliant achievement of Einstein but the key insight is that contraction of spacetime is the underlying cause of gravity. So once you figure out which math goes with this notion, it is rather trivial that this very same math can then next 'predict' additional things in retrospect as well. But again Math is only a tool (any machine can nowadays generate such formalization). The key insight is that 'molding of spacetime' is the underlying form and this insight requires CREATIVITY, which is our greatest asset. So I am very sorry for all math geeks; you are NOT the ones that give humanity new paths, your job is just to create the correct road signs that go with them...

Thank you

It is rather amazing that mathematics can indeed be the precursor to actually finding the derived physical object. Yet, there is more. I derived earlier that speed inside the black hole is to be defined as E/kg or M2/s2 or C2 as a constant. The event horizon is the only place where an object must have equal speed both in (outside) spacetime terms (C) as well as in it interior virtual energymass terms (C2). Hence it solves mathematically for C2=C meaning C is either 0 or 1, which predicts the entropic 'qubit' value of a singularity as per Erik Verlinde entropic approach of gravity....Sabine, could you therefor pls also provide a short history of the concept of an ENERGETIC singularity, and (both) its Schwarzschild solutions. It is a topic hardly anyone touches upon, yet rather important, when applied e.g. to understanding our Sun and our wider solar system as outer barrier....Thnx!

Most excellent -- clear and enough material to promote learning. And just curious -- any interaction with Dr. Smethurst (Google recommended both of you to me) ?

I was a child in Europe, your Closed Captions are not needed. I understand you just fine. Thanks anyhoo.🐾

This complexity creates the potential outcomes to establish the loops that form the structure of the form

Correction 6:16-18 :) Thanks für deine Videos, Sabine! :)

I have enjoyed Penrose books. His Road to Reality is more a labyrinth than a road but I never tire of opening it. I hope too he is awarded in this cycle of the universe.

One of my favorite channels. I actually learn something new.

Sabine, one topic I'd love to hear you discuss is the details of event horizon formation. As we know not only mass density but also energy momentum fluxes and especially pressure contribute to the stress energy tensor. Many people have a mental image of a star shrinking and the event horizon beginning to form outside it, but is really so? Does the pressure at the center matter ( heh heh heh ) more at some point? -- not a physicist, just a humble numerical analysis guy

Thank you for sharing your insights always. Could you please cover something on planet 9.

Sabine, if you were a baseball pro you would knock the ball out of the park every time you stepped up to the plate. Outstanding. Thank you.

Yup, Sir Roger

Interesting video. It would be even better to mention the discovery of gravitional waves from black hole pairs by LIGO Virgo detectors as that corresponds well with the GR prediction.

@1969nitsuga

4 жыл бұрын

The LIGO claim is false. It has been debunked long ago.

Hello. Could you explain more about the object not having a hard surface. 5:20 . And thank you for all your videos .

@manoo422

4 жыл бұрын

If it were a super dense object like a neutron star with a surface the matter falling onto such a start behave very differently to matter falling into a black hole with no surface, just an horizon.

Explained in detail

Andrea Gezz: ".....bigger IS better!" [with a hint of a giggle in her voice]

Can you make a video about rotating Kerr black holes? As I understand it, they are more realistic than Schwarzschild black holes due to rotation, and also inside their horizon(s) extremely interesting things happen!

Hello Sabine, I would just like to ask for a a clarrification. If I throw a ball at a black hole when it approaches the event horizon its time with respect to me will slow down more and more and so it will never actually go into the black hole. For me it will just get closer and closer but never actually cross the horizon. Is this right? Thanks for your very interesting and clear videos.

@oceanlawnlove8109

3 жыл бұрын

It will, for the observer the ball would slowly fade away

Thanks a lot. remarkable as usaual.

Thoroughly agree regarding Penrose and a Nobel Prize. He's been on a number of very interesting podcasts lately where he's discussed a lot more than just black holes and despite his never getting the Nobel he seems incredibly at ease in his accomplishments, for which I rather think he deserves 2 Nobel Prizes. Cheers.

I agree with you about Roger Penrose! While he has not been in the public eye he has certainly been the backbone of proving the theories of Einstein and of course Hawking. WIthout his ideas and no doubt influence on Hawking and others we would not have the current understanding.

Sabine should do a full "video course" on "Modern Physics" for Great Courses.

000 on Y Axis toward 003 is activated to store, retrieve and manage the build process

If we calculate the diameter can we next calculate the thickness of the black hole or if there is a thickness ? Love your vids and you. d

A couple of questions, if I might: 1. How is it that we know, or alternatively why do we believe, that once the mass compresses below the Schwarzschild radius, it will compress to a point? I ask that because: 2. If the necessary condition for a black hole is that light is unable to escape it, then isn't it sufficient for the mass to be compressed below the Schwarzschild radius even if it doesn't compress to a point?

@dlevi67

4 жыл бұрын

To your question 1: we don't know, but we don't know of any mechanism that would generate sufficient pressure to counteract gravity in certain circumstances. We may be wrong in as much as the estimate of the neutron degeneracy pressure (TOV limit) for collapse of a neutron star into a black hole may be incorrect and/or there may be degeneracy pressure coming from other "more resistant" states of matter than neutrons (quark matter/strange matter). However, all the theories predict that these degeneracy pressures are finite, while gravity can continue to increase if more mass is added. So there is always a mass density such that no (known) degeneracy pressure can counteract it - once that point is reached, there is nothing to stop collapse of spacetime into a point under GR. To your question 2, the quick answer is "yes, but". The but is that Penrose (and Hawking) demonstrated mathematically that a singularity is inevitable once an event horizon is created (i.e. inside an event horizon there is at least a point in spacetime where curvature is infinite). Once again that this relies on GR being correct _inside_ an event horizon and at all scales. We don't know if this is the case, but since GR and QM make mutually incompatible predictions and yet both seem correct... we suspect that at least one of the two is an incomplete approximation of what really happens. For example, in Loop Quantum Gravity no singularities are formed under a gravitational collapse.

@jengleheimerschmitt7941

4 жыл бұрын

@@dlevi67 Wow. Thank you for answer.

@melvynobrien6193

4 жыл бұрын

The simple answer is that black holes don't exist; it's another silly theory to explain away all the holes in Physics. And do the research: the speed of light and gravity are not constant; they're not telling us that, for it blows away Einstein and 100 years of pointless research.

@dlevi67

4 жыл бұрын

@@melvynobrien6193 Oh yes, it's all a conspiracy.

@jengleheimerschmitt7941

4 жыл бұрын

@@dlevi67 Japan was actually defeated by dropping some forks onto their electrical electrical grid.

This form, is manifested on the form level, but needs to close its loops at 3.5 for 3.6 control of location to be able to read the next instructions

Can you make a video on the magnetic field from pt of view special relativity on moving charge in conductor compare with magnetic fields being expelled from superconductors, do superconductors violates S.R ? Confused!

Captions are awesome.

I can read much better than I can hear. Thanks for captioning.

All this via mathematics. I'm in awe of all these people.

And he's got the the Nobel prize!

@oceanlawnlove8109

3 жыл бұрын

He*

Do you have an opinion on the recent advances of Stephen Wolfram in developing a fundamental theory of physics?

"It would keep collapsing to a point"? Can we know what is inside the Schwarzschild radius/event horizon? Is everything at the surface or an point in the middle?

Superb as usual! In addition; two off-topic items : 1) you never wear the same outfit twice. At least I have never observed that outcome. 2) Thanks for your "caption comment". Its interesting to turn on "CC" although your English is accented and perfectly understandable. Its fun to observe the points at which the voice recognition algorithm loses your meaning and the alternative choices it makes instead. For English speakers, your pronunciation of "Einstein" may summon memories of "Frau Blucher" of movie fame... These are remarkable posts; please do not stop even if you run out of new clothes!

@SabineHossenfelder

4 жыл бұрын

Ah, I have actually recorded a second video together with this one, so next week I'll be wearing the same outfit!

@stephenpuryear

4 жыл бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder I will prepare for this development! I already know that it will be a great vid.

I have a conceptual question. I’ve seen popular science explanations that, in our reference frame on Earth, it appears to take forever to cross the event horizon. That doesn’t seem any different from saying that in our reference frame objects never cross the event horizon, and a black hole would forever appear to remain its original size. How does the math work to allow a black hole to grow in our reference frame?

Reference item #23 below in my latest Theory Of Everything idea: (Copy and paste from my files): Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.

@charlesbrightman4237

4 жыл бұрын

Here is a copy and paste of the gravity test for the TOE idea: Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.) (An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.

@charlesbrightman4237

4 жыл бұрын

And if numbers themselves do not exist in this universe by this or some similar way for math to do what math does in this universe, then how exactly would numbers exist in this universe for math to do what math does in this universe? (Copy and paste from my files): 'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows: Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction. Then: 1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe. (And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have).

sabine u the best! What did you think of interstellar the movie?

Can you please make a video explaining our current understanding of binary black hole systems?

This was the first time I heard someone speak "Einstein" with german accent.

@MarcusAsaro

4 жыл бұрын

For me it was 1985. Berkeley Professor Timothy Ferris, in his amazing documentary "The Creation of the Universe", pronounced "Einstein" with German accent.

@clarinet_guy2139

3 жыл бұрын

More specifically, German pronunciation.

At what acceleration are thoughts? If you can think in many small straight lines you can create many circles in a sphere. Normal to these circles is a virtual line. Here might some classification problem be if the object thinks fast enough. Super position of lines from many rotated circles. I assume all superposition problems belong to quantum mechanics. So gravity could be Quantum Lines ?

If you compress two protons to form a black hole, is the Schwarzschild radius then smaller than the original protons radius? Since a protons size is not a single dot, but follows a probability distribution.

Sabine spoke and the Nobel Prize Committee happily obliged ;-)