Which is more likely to produce a true Theory of Everything, String Theory or Loop Quantum Gravity?

@physicsforever4793

3 жыл бұрын

What are your thoughts on twistor theory?

@ZeroOskul

3 жыл бұрын

@@physicsforever4793 That's an amazingly vague question. Here, I'll put it to you: What are YOUR thoughts on Twistor theory?

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

I’ll discuss in a future video

@ZeroOskul

3 жыл бұрын

@@invariant47 Einstein created GR out of thought experiments.

Very thoughtful video, I like that it actually involves some math talk! We don‘t need more pop science content, but content aiding university students in understanding physics, like this video!

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks very much Immanuel

@user-ru6mq1xw9y

2 жыл бұрын

I think it's better in the long term to put out a little math and then just add a subscription to an online service that teaches mathematics like Sabina does.

I love that you are starting to put out explainer videos - one minor request I'd have for future vids would be to add just a small rest beat between your transitions. I found myself having to pause and rewind a few seconds at several points in order to catch everything happening.

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks good tip.

@polychoron

3 жыл бұрын

I wish every channel would add a rest beat.

I think quantum weirdness might just be the programmers saying "Stop poking around. What happens; just happens, ok."

@drdca8263

3 жыл бұрын

If you are referring to the uncertainty principle, it really is mathematically quite nice. It doesn’t really seem like a mistake or a hack. Instead, when you think about the math, it really seems sensible? Like, position and momentum don’t merely “not quite commute”, but their commutator is a (small) constant quantity. It is all, a very coherent structure. I mean, don’t get me wrong: there are still substantial mathematical difficulties to be resolved (it still hasn’t been shown rigorously that there is a model of a 3+1 quantum field theory with uh, a gauge symmetry other than just the one for the electric field? Some of the details of that statement might be a bit off, Idr, but there’s a prize open for the first person to rigorously prove that the setup is self-consistent etc. But, that’s generally in quantum field theory (which I don’t understand). But for basic quantum mechanics, once one is used to it, it is rather nice.

Just when kaku was describing the smooth, elegant, continuous surfaces on which gravity works things got really unsmooth and bumpy weirdly enough.. Loop Quantum strikes back

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

The BEST 10 minute introduction to these issues I've EVER heard ! I was one of those that fell in love with string theory..It seemed to possess so much promise at the time...After reading Brian Greens, the elegant universe, I was really convinced of its veracity..Sadly the confidence seems to have been misplaced.. Loop gravity has benefits as a "Tool" but with LIMITED functionality..Its seems probable that physics of 5 centuries from now will see substantial shifts away from many of the ideas we NOW believe close to a T.O.E..Only time will tell..Thanks, peace.

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Amazing to hear that Bill. Thank you, soooo much

Finally Brian will show us his power over the spacetime manifold, creating stable black holes in the palm of his hand

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Lol. I wish

@nolan412

3 жыл бұрын

In theory if you clap hard enough you could make a black hole.

@chriszachtian

3 жыл бұрын

@@nolan412 😂😂😂

@entheogenesis1970

3 жыл бұрын

I heard a discussion about stars in a jar and done forget to watch this on analog black holes: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eq2N1LhygK6eoJs.html

@mikebar42

3 жыл бұрын

@@nolan412 u can also run through a wall like harry potter

1) The total energy of any/every point is a finite constant. 2) There is no such thing as negative energy. 3) Spacetime is a potential energy field. All else follows. There are no singularities. There are no infinities. There are no contradictions. Spacetime is smooth. Wavelengths/frequencies are discrete.

One consequence of background independence is Lorentz invariance, i.e. by choosing another inertial frame, you can transform a gamma ray photon into an infrared photon. If the latter moves at the speed of light, so the former does. As a consequence, a background independent theory (design goal of loop quantum gravity) cannot find massless particles moving at any other speed than speed of light. Granularity of space-time also must not depend on the coordinate system you are in, and there are funny paradoxes to be expected, as grains as we know are not Lorentz invariant.

I would posit that string "theory" isn't a theory at all. It is more in the fashion of a religion, with equivalent reliability, consistency and verifiability. So pretty much ANY actual theory is better than string theory.

@BenjiBear

3 жыл бұрын

I think the term "string theory" is a little vague or over-compassing. My understanding is string/loop related theories can model many possible universes or sets of laws of physics. Part of the mystery is what are the subset of possible ways that things like string theories can allow that match our universe and what extra or guiding rules decide which possible laws of physics are more likely or why our universe has our particular laws. E.g. our universe seems to to be entirely as supersymmetrical assumptions might predict. I.e. our universe may be largely non-supersymmetrical. This does not mean there may by some extra symmetries in things outside our experience. E.g. Time may flow in various directions but we only experience what seems to us as moving forward in time. There may be many types of particles that are outside our experience / universe. For our practical purposes they can be treated as not existing.

@-astrangerontheinternet6687

3 жыл бұрын

It’s an abuse of the word “theory”. It’s much more a string guess that they can’t test for. Similar to how they abuse the word science. It’s much more a celebrity led mathematics.

Subscribe to this vid and like it. We need more content on of this kind and Brian Keating is Professor of Physics; he's in deep. Almost winning the Nobel Prize as well.

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks brother

@ZeroOskul

3 жыл бұрын

Hey, Brian! You should get Curt on your show! Hey Curt! You should do Brian's show! It's a good show that explores science and wonder! What are you searching for? For what reason are you searching? What is reason and is it reasoned and reasonable?

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Yes!!

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

I have been on Curt’s show a year ago. We want to do a joint episode soon

@bernardofitzpatrick5403

3 жыл бұрын

Already subd👏

Can someone explain how a black hole can have a property named electric charge? As I understand it black holes (the no hair theorem) can only have 3 properties: Mass, spin and electric charge. How is it possible to talk about an electric charge for an object that the electric field cannot escape from? Or can it? Mass is OK, you can measure it via its effect on the surrounding environment. Spin is also OK, because it can be measured via the frame dragging effect, but I don't get how electric charge gives a meaning. How can the electric charge of a black hole be observed / measured (Note: I do understand most black holes have 0 electric charge, but one could, in principle, create a black hole with a net electric charge). Is it just a property of the solutions of the equations? If that is the case: Does it have any empirical value? Thanks.

@drdca8263

3 жыл бұрын

What I’m about to say is a guess. Suppose you have some electric charges, and you are moving them around near a black hole, and as they move, the electric field also changes in the appropriate way, but the electric field far from the charges does not change instantly in response to changes in the positions of the charges, but instead the changes in the field propagate through the field, being carried by it. Now, when the charges are close to the event horizon (but outside of it), the electromagnetic field is in a certain way, And if they then pass through the event horizon, this only eventually influences the electric field far away via influencing it at points in-between first, but uh, if the change to the electric field nearby is small , then the change far away should also be small? Basically what I’m saying is, I guess maybe the electric field just “keeps track”, and it doesn’t really need a continuous signal from the charges to “know that there should be a charge in this region”. Like, if you take an imaginary sphere a ways around the black hole, the flux of the electric field through this sphere should only change when charge passes through the sphere. But, I’m not really sure, I’m guessing. Haven’t really studied this.

I have a TOE. It assumes the continual creation of expanding spheres. It can account for wave functions, two slit interference patter, spacetime/time dilation, spacetime geometry, virtual photons, virtual standard model particles, expansion of the big bang, quantum entanglement. I am not a physicist and therefore won't be writing any papers. So the idea of expanding spheres is out there. Someone should "take it" and make it there own. When you perform experiments on one of these spheres in the lab, it will lead to warp fields and the warp drive.

I wish you included Lee Smolin's response on Kaku's claims that LQG does not contain fermions.

@stephenaustin3026

3 жыл бұрын

Kaku is just a pundit nowadays.

@bdf2718

3 жыл бұрын

If Kaku says LQG is wrong, then it's probably right.

My understanding is Loop Gravity models things related to gravity and tries to expand the model to model matter, while usual versions of String Theory model things more related to matter and try to expand to model/explain gravity. I understand some believe the two models may eventually overlap and partly merge. Loop Gravity can sort of be considered a version or offshoot of String Theory. I heard that Holger bec Nielsen was developing Random Dynamics. This and other newer models may be worth exploring. I suspect most models today will have some similar mathematical properties e.g. multi-dimensions, projected dimensions, and things using knot theory such as loops and strings.

Someone please call Michio Kaku and tell him that Max Headroom is impersonating him. 😋😎🤣 I couldn't resist. Great video Dr. Keating. Keep em coming! 👍

Better than String Theory? Rubber Band, or, Twisty Tie Theory (grin)

@starguy2718

3 жыл бұрын

Duct Tape theory?

What’s the ending music? Do you have a full version? Please let. Us know!

Peacemeal physics is fun! The problem is in the method. Establish "constants" and never second guess them. Then, every equation with a constant in it is really just an analogously correct calculation. If you can't think through that, we are all doomed. The concept of electric charge was established 100 years before the INVENTION of the Strong force. This kept them from having to second guess electric charge. If charge changes when crammed into a nucleus at nuclear energies, we will never know. Put that in your book.

It’s quite disconcerting when Dr. Keating suddenly shrinks then grows in size.... especially without emitting or absorbing a photon....

Already to rethink what we usually take as counted and come up with an alternative version that still fit actual observations is a great achievement. It is not so important if it later on is found to be the better theory or not. Just to have another view on the picture(nowadays we unfortunately have to mention that fit the already known facts, aka not alternative facts) to have a chance making new predictions and test them is the way to layer by layer find better descriptions of the world around us and deepen our understanding. Afterwards those ideas seem to be quite logical but to really take a step back and come up with a consistent new view/theory of the picture is really rarely done and the difficulty to do so can hardly be overestimated.

Tesla had a theory of everything, not written but explained according to his manner. He said it begins with a foundation in mathematics, every conceivable form. But the true reality cannot be explained in a language contrived in human minds. The 2nd principle of the explanation for 'everything' is that the true nature of light is to transform darkness into light. Next, light must, of necessity become matter. "Matter is the expression of infinite forms of light." Finally, he said "there is no beginning and no end." It makes more sense to me than Einstein and MK rolled up. Nima doesn't like "spacetime" either. Please keep trying to get him on your show.

The natural first assumption for any physics student to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space, and given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me convincingly how two particles exchanging smaller particles can be pulled together. I don't understand pull forces at all. However, gravity as time dilation or space-time deformation does make sense.

@bdf2718

3 жыл бұрын

They're exchanging boomerangs.

Space time can't be quantized. It would break symmetry laws. But quantizing can still lead to answers if it simplifies certain things but keeps the important properties invariant.

New? A "chronon" is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible. The term was introduced by Robert Lévi in 1927.

@philipfong8079

3 жыл бұрын

:) cluckbait new title, otherwise no one will watch.

In the Expanding graviton model (where gravitons expand like water ripples), the maximum frequency of a photon is f(max)=energy of the big bang/Planck constant.

It's like particles "fall into a void" outwardly and inwardly at the same time, making donuts.

This is great stuff! 10 hours instead of 10 minutes, please. I assume that even heavy users of your channel might have to look up a lot for full comprehension.

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks Chris. I aim to have both deep dive interviews and Ten Minute PhD courses like this. Stay tuned for more!!

@littlekinderclubcoloringfo5524

3 жыл бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating What good read on this subject will you recommend for the youth 10+ years old?

also there is in fact universal time... for example when we are talking about the age of universe. we are actually talking about outer space time.which is near werage time of all objects in space. and as time passes probably will equalize later depending on pysics rules that equalises forces like heat etc. if there is no outer univers average time we cant calculate the age of universe :D that makes age of universe totally useless if that is the fact :D

I tend to think the universe is undefined, and because of that the virtual particles popping in and out of existence aren't perfect, nor always perfect pairs, but virtual bits that overlap, and its in these imperfection that we get a notion of energy. That when a photon moves, a series of virtual bits pop into existence, influenced by the imperfection and transfers that energy as it moves out of existence. That particles are the exact same, but that the energy is high enough to be trapped into a cyclic loop much like a vortex. Like the red dot on Jupiter, once the clouds got high enough energy levels it produces this red dot from a far distance looks like a particle moving across the surface. That a particle can't move as fast as light simply because what defines a particle is the same as what defines a photon, only that the wrapping around to define the particle can't move faster unless somehow the virtual bits can be screwed with. Should be easily falsifiable sense there are experiments the prove virtual particles exist, and on those studies mix them with others, and see if screwing with the virtual particles influences other studies in the area. Or even at Cern collider, messing with virtual particles at the collision site, does it slightly change the data or not. Its easy to prove false, just hasn't been done, but there a chance messing with virtual particles could influence physics results often built to be extremely isolated.

Being better than String 'Theory' is not saying much.

Trampoline with a lot of repelling going on otherwise it would roll to center . What keep sun from not pulling down All of it ?

I'm skeptical about both String Theory and about ignoring additional dimensions. Additional dimensionality is presented as "not observed," which is incomplete, if not inaccurate. Yes, strictly speaking, they are not observed, but it is not an observation problem, rather it is a perception and thinking problem. There are other things that muddy the water more, in my opinion. Referring to spacetime as a 4th dimension is a common one. It is not in the same context as the other three. Basic conceptualization is much easier if it is kept separate such as referring to our perceived coordinate system as 3.1D. When described in such a way, If you postulate additional dimensions, say 4.1D spacetime. Otherwise unapparent implications start to become more readily noticeable. The first thing I start to see is when dimensions increase, spacetime implies a variable scaling factor in relation to the number of spatial dimensions being enumerated, when looking at cosmological phenomena such as Big Bang Inflation and current expansion rates. My concern is, by removing extra dimensionality, which may or may not be the foundation of real universe, any solutions created that balance the mathematical disagreement in GR and Qmx may be flawed in ways that are extremely hard to predict and may unnecessarily restrict applied physics as it pertains to the advancement of our species. I get that working in higher dimensions outside of a purely mathematical context is hard. It's unintuitive nature is one of the things that jumps out at me when looking at how it is handled in String Theory. Added pockets of sub 3 dimensions, detached from spacetime being the goto, speaks to how hard it is to frame the Universe in 4D or higher spatial terms. Maintaining a cubic grid coordinate system in 4.1D spacetime becomes daunting to conceptualize when you realize the first thing you have to do is reconcile everything known about the universe, explained or not, with reality consisting of 7 stacked 3D coordinate spaces where you would normally think of only one existing. Then evaluating whether or not anything such as gravity on one 3D face of the 4D cube can affect the other 6 3D faces, if gravity is a 4D phenomena, or whether or not gravity is constrained to each 3D face independently. For each of those three possibilities, the structure of the universe and it's behavior are drastically different, but given each possibility the number of ways in which it could manifest are numerous and could have the same apparent effect as one of the other possibilities. If it is wholly a 4D phoenema, then a Black Hole in one 3D face could cause gravitational deformations of spacetime into other 3D faces where there is no mass apparent that can account for it. The universe then expands uniformly, as well as being uniformly distorted across local areas of all 3D faces. If gravity is not a 4D phenoma, but translates to other faces, then each face could expand at different rates in different local areas. The gravitational distortion of a Black Hole could be spread out across tens or thousands of light years of another 3D face. Making some distance measurements completely inaccurate. That does not even begin to address the multitudes of manifestations a higher dimensional universe could be predicted to have. Equal distribution of mass/energy? A predominately antimatter 3D face? As such, I expect that each set of possible manifestations could have a vastly different interpretation of known physics and closing the door by detaching dimensionality could be a severe error.

When we reach the Weak Scale in just 2 or 3 more orders of magnitude, new physics! Don’t think we are gonna’ have to wait for a galaxy sized accelerator… hopefully just a really energetic cosmic ray.

Just a dumb bunny here, and don't pretend to understand anything in this video, but still wonder, "Why must there be a Theory of Everything?" If the "Everything" used here is really Everything, then a TOE would contain itself, i.e Does the Barber shave himself?

I am beginning to wonder if the current development of the human brain is not sufficient to produce a theory of everything. There are some amazingly smart people working on a range of theories to combine QM and Relativity yet understanding the universe(s) is always just beyond us. Do we have to wait for the next truly amazing person ( like an Einstein, Dirac, Bohr, Planck etc ) who can take their and others ideas to a new level of understanding, or developments in AI before we can really say we have a theory that works and explains things on all scales?

Is Gravity ~ Space-Time extracting Space-Time from Matter to expand Space-Time ?

Funny, you could have had the same title 15 years ago.

The "Trampoline" analogy is problematic due to gravitational effects being in all directions and thus the trampoline inverted, placed opposed on its sides and back to front, nullifying curving directions by opposing curving directions which are equal and opposite. Theoretically the 3-space dimensionality has not measurably changed mathematical characteristics in any extension of pure length in any vector from point to point. The "trampoline theory" is a mathematical assumption which is still unverified in physical reality.

Do space loops replace axions and allow electromagnetic radiation to be absorbed rather than making it to our detectors?

In response to his opening statement that "GR tells us HOW matter changes tge shape of space" it tell us how it does it, it measures what the effect of matter is on space but not how. That is my how does matter bend space? First question does space exist at the quantum level? We know there are boundaries between matter and no matter. So is space different inside the boundaries of matter compared to outside? Does GR tell us this difference?

@6:20 "the loops and nodes move..." no! Motion would imply background spacetime. LQG is supposed to be background independent, so it must be the case the loops and nodes discretely and instantaneously reconfigure their connections, which is _not_ spacetime motion, it _becomes_ spacetime motion only in the classical approximation regime. _If_ you ask me, this is nonsense, it's action without causation. Einstein was right. Spacetime _is_ smooth. The discrete quantum structure is topological, not loopy. What you _think_ are loops or strings could be Planck scale wormhole structure, which btw is closely tied to quantum entanglement via Susskind and Maldacena's ER=EPR conjecture (note: Susskind goes further and says there is a QM=GR conjecture waiting to be written, I'd say he just has it backwards, and it should be GR=>QM, or "GR+topology => QM"). But hey, you don't have to ask me, whaddueyeno, I'm just a crazy retired physicist more interested in macroeconomics, post-capitalism, and human-planetary well-being these days. Remember (if you are a young budding ace physicist reading this) wormholes are classically forbidden for energy condition violations, so require extreme "exotic matter". But those requirements can be less severe at the Planck scale. Wormholes would imply closed time like curves, so violation of causality, so again, that's possible but only at around the Planck scale which we cannot usefully observe. On the other hand, "plancktoscopic" (I'm coining that!) causality violation is precisely what you need to explain a lot of quantum mechanics, and indeed to make any sense whatsoever of the path integral formalism (most paths by far are off-shell, hence acausal).

At 0:33, 'matter' does not shape and curve spacetime, mass does.

Self interactive, self interactive geometry. Structure are we inside a self aware mystery. Clan temples, Golbeki Tempi, now we are sure of the origins of stone hedge. Maybe we sort refuge in caves as opposed to emerging from caves. Maybe we emerged out of a catastrophic past technology,. It's becoming apparent that once we had a tech that ended for reasons not seen. Apparent by the ruins we see that once we had tech no longer obvious.

I heard LQG is like quantizing sound waves, you get phonons instead of atoms.

Question, according to the theory of quantum loops what is their 'size' compared to the Planck length and Planck time?

I'm leaning towards (maybe) "gravity" being/is a pre Planck mathematical residue(existed before the wave function mathematical information expanded beyond the plank field)

We are not going very far with any of the gravity theories. There are so many different ones, but they do all adress some changes. Changes we could perhaps one day unite into one theory. I just see the same issue with Dark matter, Dark Energy and Gravity. We havent detected any one of these on a particle scale. Why, because they are all the same. We just dont fully understand gravity.

So happy you got a producer now :) Salute!

String theory was not a good theory to begin with. Space time is not fundamental to physics , Nina has begun to show that with the Amplituhedron. Actually, entanglement already shows that space time does not seem to be fundamental.

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Hoping to have Nima on soon

@rudypieplenbosch6752

3 жыл бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating That will be very interesting, i was following him. Seems that after the Amplituhedron we did not hear much from him 🤔. Except that he wants big accelerators, to find his super symmetry particles, apart from Higgs, the LHC results seem to be a bit dissapointing.

Now we are on the cusp of the discovery of a separate universe from ours, the digital universe. Self interacting geometry. The common denominator become the light, the lowest expression of humanity becomes the way and the light.

Gravity is not stringy nor loopy. Gravity is spherical. There, problem solved. Unfortunately, the supporting evidence is "dark" and does not interact with regular matter, but I'll list it below. . lol

Thanks for this. Very clear presentation. I felt informed and invited to explore the theory of LQG. As an interested layperson, It does seem String Theory is forever "safe" since it is far beyond experimentation at this time. "Better" is a hopelessly relative term, but it does seem String Theory is more philosophy than it is science. Something tells me "theory of everything" is the wrong target. Perhaps it's just a choice of words constructed more for Grant Proposals than serious scientific thinking.

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks Stephen

At the most fundamental level, could each represent a limited case manifestation of some, as yet, incompletely defined phenomenological solution? Looking at the electro-weak coupling mechanism with its complex seesaw characteristics, and unorthodox quantum behaviors, seems like a good place to find new physics that might possibly unite the two principles. It seems undeniable that atoms must gravitate both in the quantum and relativistic sense. The physics of a field of continuously emitted and universally interacting gravitons might look indistinguishable from diffeomorphisms caused by the localized accumulation of mass and energy.

The Theory of Everything (from an Electrical Engineer's perspective) The Universe is fractal. Ether/space/anti-matter/vacuum is composed of atoms with electrons spinning around at multiple times the speed of light, therefore currently undetectable to humans, except in the electromagnetic spectrum. Proof: 1- Quantum entanglement. 2- Gravity as an electromagnetic phenomena. 3- Super colliders additional particles output (yes, we can destroy anti-matter). 4- Transmission and detection of magnetic fields. 5- Synchronicity, intuition, empathy, remote-viewing and other brain related phenomena can relate to electromagnetic transmission. 6- MRI, CT scans, radar detection utilize ether as means of transmission. 7- The bending of light around celestial bodies. ∞ - Anything else we call magic or coincidence when the equations of probability cannot predict.

@josidasilva5515

3 жыл бұрын

@Sean g 137 Thanks, nice contribution. Just need some geeks to roll the math, or maybe a nice algorithm could step in on it.

@drdca8263

3 жыл бұрын

@@josidasilva5515 if you don’t have math for it, what you have isn’t anything. Also, you should try learning some linear algebra, so you can see that the math behind quantum entanglement is really quite straightforward.

@josidasilva5515

3 жыл бұрын

@@drdca8263 What I am looking for is to estimate the anti-matter electron's speed by use of the collected data on energy spent in the supper colliders to destroy it. Quite a long shot that requires dedication and imagination way beyond the currently known equations, since we are outside the light speed limits.

the trambulin analogy is very bad we should forget it. first: it seems that only south poles of object generate gravity, second: the bodies are also inside spacetime but the objects on trambulin are not inside the trambulin but outside it, they are not part of the bent spacetime.

What is the purpose of the universe?

Glad you posted this to complement the other recent major questions you pose to modern physics. Good , really good

Hey Brian, This production value is awesome! Great work! And really charismatic on screen as always. Really carving your way with Lex towards becoming a STEM Joe Rogan, (in the best of ways)! Have a great 4th weekend.

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Ronan That’s my exact goal. Or rather to become a man machine hybrid synthesizing Lex Fridman plus Sabine Hossenfelder! Have a great weekend!

does Planck length imply spacetime granularity?

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Typically yes

LQG is everything but new. In a way I find the remarks about it not reproducing the particles quite uninteresting and irrelevant; one could easily expect particles to be an emergent property of some underlying structure. That's the way it tends to go. But that different speeds of photons. That's the real bummer. That really indicates a place where it is coming up short. By more than loads-and-loads of Planck lengths.

Bet that was an expensive vid to make x but it was AWESOME. Thank u team and Brian ❤️❤️😜😜

@DrBrianKeating

2 жыл бұрын

My pleasure!

@animalbird9436

2 жыл бұрын

Well you did a gr8 job Brian u got my sub and shares 👌

@DrBrianKeating

2 жыл бұрын

Don’t stop there! Get extra credit Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝 you’ll get news from around the Universe and cool tips too!

Lee’s Rule 1 is a system of (modeling) equations and his Rule 2 is a system of solutions to the equations of Rule 1. He doesn’t like Rule 2 solutions. Do something different with Rule 1 as a model, then solve it… the only place left to look is a “Quantized Measure Theory” to connect GR smoothies and the QM wild-discontinuities. Beyond zeros and poles…

If u were at the center of a black hole and looked up you would see something looking like the light from the cosmic ray background!!!!

Ok, so who's expecting brainy Brian to start shooting cool colored lasers from his eyes soon?

When will measurement tools if ever exceed 2^10-18 of a second, up the ladder to the closest unit of time to the Planc time or 2^10-43 of a second ? Once we climb this ladder new physics will arise.

@DrBrianKeating Excellent channel. Are you familiar with “Double Copy Theory” ? I would love to see a video or interview on this subject. I find it fascinating.

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks very much!!! Glad to have you. No I’m not. I’ll try to look when I get some time

If it fits the data and isn't from a sci-fi comic, it's better than string theory. We need to find Intuitive metaphors for the data, not just fit the data, or we may as well Only use the data.

Kanada in Sanskrit means ‘atom eater ‘ 😂. Great video by the way. Cheers

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for that tidbit!!

@starguy2718

3 жыл бұрын

Canada also means: "Great White North".

I deeply wish i fully understood just 1tenth of what you said. I would be so grateful because that would give me hope that eventually I could understand the other 9 tenths. But by then you physicists would have came up with an entirely new theory.

@meladdison9315

3 жыл бұрын

Tru dat

Sabine sent me! 🙃 Subbed, 👍 and 🔔 😊

@DrBrianKeating

2 жыл бұрын

Amazing!! Glad to have you here

@DoctaOsiris

2 жыл бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating 😊

Well it' certainly answered at least one vexing question; I'd always wondered what Sam The American eagle looked like with his kit off ?

Lol Brian going ham with the YT optimization

Loop Quantum Gravity seems more promising towards TOE. String theory is mostly hype it predicts extra dimensions, multiverse, graviton etc. These are very difficult to confirm with our current technology and it could be we may never be able to find experimental evidence.

@havenbastion

3 жыл бұрын

If you understand that a dimension can be any variable that can be measured on a scale, when it comes to dimensions, spacial isn't special.

Great vid, very well explained. You quote Lee Smolin but he seems to be pushing Temporal Naturalusm over Loop Quantum Gravity. Pleeeease could you do a similar summary of that???🙏

The E8 PLANKSTAR is the droid you are looking for.

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

also, gravity is cause by time gradient differential.

Unification of gravity with other forces will most probably come from information theory. Mass-Energy is information and there is a bandwidth limit on this in a region of spacetime. So if Mass-energy is present , the passage of matter through the surrounding spacetime alters it's trajectory' to stay within the limited spacetime bandwidth. Try that, a Phd in that for someone.

How important is the requirement of no extra dimensions other than the 3+1 we observe? Looks like a weak link to me, a random dude who didn't finish college.

First time I've seen your channel. Kudos for mentioning Kanada! That alone won you my subscription even before your excellent explanations. Oh, and, 'Diffeomorphism' is now my new favourite word!

Floating turds are better than string theory...at least a floating turd makes sense and is real.

Should space time have more dimensions - the thing that the shape/landscape changes at the smallest level its on that nearby level our universe are affected by nearby universa - just speculation -since i only visualsed someting that might be just fantasy

Yes exactly. Ask the ancient greek philosophers and indian mystics they have the answer for sure.

Nice and concise, not sure how to work in these clichés: :) don't get thrown for a loop hanging by a thread (string) to loop, or not to string,, that is the question.

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

The photon arrival time example doesn’t make any sense to my simple brain. If I generate 2 photons 1 second apart heading in precisely the same direction to the same target of a meter in diameter 1,000,000 light years away would they not encounter virtually the same potential impediment from any gravitational things? I mean really what is the divergence of that ray, point some huge number of zeros of an arc second? At a minimum we’d probably need like 2 detectors in an diametral opposed orbit similar to Jupiter AU from the sun and then need some way to identify the age of the detected photons so we could calculate the impedance. Seems like the answer may not even be that valuable. I am not a strong mathematical or a skilled physics person but I have seen many basic formulas used to control things go what I call inside out where the data seems to go from normal operation to infinite demand. It’s like the formula has to infinite ends with a small region of predictable curve or linearity, go beyond that region and all bets are off. I can’t help but wonder if there’s something simple like a missing term that expresses volume, proximity or scale of the interaction to bring the energy into check? Because things like sound have a radical drop rate when the distance is increased to maintain a certain dB level. I think this is very similar to radio transmission power too. Why would gravity be any different in principle? The speed of sound in air is much slower than the speed of sound in steel or water. Gravity could be much different in the firmament of space than on the teeny tiny distances of the atom, maybe more of a sub space medium?? Just thinking out loud because trying to solve puzzles is fun and if it gets someone who has a lot more knowledge to stumble/search/seek and find the right solution it’s all the better.👍

What a great overview, thank you so much for the insights!

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks so much! *?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php

The question whether LQG or String theory is best suited to explain the issue of quantum gravity must be the appex of human folly. It is like assuming pigs sprout wings and the key debate is wether these wings are red or green. Let me make it clear to humanity once and for all; the question of a 'quantum version' of gravity is a total non-issue and as such forms the Turing test of us being capable of deeper physical insight as a species. Why is it a nonsense question? Because we KNOW from 100 years of experiments that on the subatomic scale (say the area between electron orbit and nucleus) that objects do NOT move according to the rules of spacetime. Electrons nor ANY other particles have NEVER ever been observed to move in terms of space and time, but only in terms of energy and mass (which we translate in ST terms like 'superpositions' or 'probability waves'). So then, think; If objects do not follow the laws of spacetime in the subatomic realm, then what does this mean? The answer is that spacetime does NOT rule the grid area between electron and nucleus and by logical extension you can NOT have contraction of spacetime there. And since gravity is defined as a contraction of SPACETIME, the simple conclusion we must draw is that there is no subatomic gravity, nor a quantum version of it, nor is there a need for it. Please tell me that our top-researchers are clever enough to accept the obvious, because we are currently being tested for intelligence vs obedience/hubris on a global scale in case you have-not noticed. If even our supposed 'smartest' cannot see the simplicity in physics than I am afraid I see little need in lamenting our grim future which is currently in the making. We need to wise up and stop asking silly questions after 100 years of the big nap. Great that Brian touches on the subject, because we need closure on this silly question.

As was stated, gravity is smooth and analog and has nothing to do with quanta.

Did you really have to make him shrink when talking about quantum mechanics? Seemed odd to me

Physics as we know it is continuous... A particle is a part of a continuous wave...

@drdca8263

3 жыл бұрын

What are you trying to say? Yeah, it’s all continuous wavefunctions, but the e.g. spectra of some operators can be discrete (e.g. a compact hermitian operator will always have a discrete spectrum.).

Ponders Quantum Gravity... Struggles with audio leveling on the KZreads...

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

Fantastic vid. :-)

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks very much Please join my mailing list; just click here 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php 📝 to stay in touch with me!

I am troubled by a persistent suspicion that the balance between matter and energy in our entire universe determines the speed we observe photons to travel in a vacuum...as well as the size of our universe itself...does that sound crazy?

It's hard to watch with so little contrast between foreground and background object.

maybe gravity IS God, and it's purposely messing with us

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

Wonderful summary I found it very helpful. Thanks

@DrBrianKeating

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php

While I started watching the video I began to almost feel that you sir started it as a parody of an actual science video

a shape is a complex object people...

Where was the NEW contender? Loop quantum gravity is about 30 years old now.