I am not a physicist, I am just a person trying to think outside the box. My son was a physicist and I use to like to discuss things with him, but unfortunately my son Dr Thomas Frawley passed away ( cancer ) aged 30.

@JR-iu8yl

3 жыл бұрын

My Condolences

@Franciscasieri

3 жыл бұрын

Study and think about your son and learn with the idea that he might have survived death and is learning along with you. You will never know this idea is wrong, only if it’s correct.

@9fritzthecat

2 жыл бұрын

I believe you are a physicist you must see that education can stand in the way of understanding physics

@onderozenc4470

2 жыл бұрын

My deep condolences sir. I think you can find a lot of smart guys similar to your deceased son in this channel. Besides, I am physicist too. We can discuss these scientific topics too.

@filopon7116

2 жыл бұрын

My condolences

I was lucky enough to attend a lecture by PAM Dirac on the large number hypothesis. He was a good speaker, but lived up to his acerbic reputation. I distinctly remember him referring to "that Wyle mathematician," (with the German pronunciation) and it was very clear the _double entendre_ was intentional - he got a laugh from the audience, smiled, and moved on.

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

thanks for the anecdote, but can you explain to a non-native for which adjective "Weyl" might be mistaken? :-)

@scottmiller2591

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Ah. The German name Wyle, pronounced with in German, sounds like the English word "vile," meaning morally despicable or abhorent. I'm not sure he looked at Wyle in disdain, but perhaps was being playful.

@scottmiller2591

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Weyl can be mistaken for vile.

@JanPBtest

Жыл бұрын

@@scottmiller2591 Weyl, not Wyle.

@andreweberhard9509

9 ай бұрын

I also saw Dirac give a lecture at Adelaide University in the midd seventies on this topic. The lecture theatre was packed and as a young student interested in physic I was really unable to grasp the intent of the numerology which seemed then to be speculative to the extreme. Thanks to this video I feel I finally understand the intent of these musings. Took a while…

The number of people 'explaining' a particular subject is inversely proportional to the knowledge that science has on the subject. This means that when many people write books about the subject, little is known. This is a handy tool for determining how far a subject has evolved.

@ThomasJr

2 жыл бұрын

Lol, in a way yes, because it means everybody is having a go at it. Just look at the huge number of Riemann hypothesis "solutions" Lol Mine is the only one correct

@ericpalmer3588

Жыл бұрын

No

@Animalis_Mundana

Жыл бұрын

Reality TV takes precedence! Who needs to know about Dirac when you have Lil wayne?

@every1665

Жыл бұрын

@@Animalis_Mundana Well, there's a connection between 'Love Island' and quantum physics science popularizes - in both cases the participants actually want fame and money rather than the supposed purpose of the exercise.

As a kid in the 80s I had a mini-Maxwell moment while messing around with a calculator. It had a bunch of built-in physical constants that I was randomly multiplying, dividing, squaring etc. I stumbled upon permittivity * permeability, reciprocal, square root - and out pops the speed of light. I nearly jumped out of my seat!

@TheMachian

4 жыл бұрын

A pity you were not born 180 years earlier (well no calculator without electrodynamics:)). Actually Kirchhoff and Weber stumbled upon that coincidence, too, while performing their experiments.

@JoeDeglman

3 жыл бұрын

@neil u They are basically say that there is an ether medium upon which the speed of light is based. This is the same way the speed of sound is an energy wave in air. Dirac basically states that there is an ether medium, AKA a sea of photons. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea It was the basic premise of Tesla and Steinmetz, that electrons are condensers of this medium, and condense a quantized amount of these particles, or dielectric out of the ether medium. A radio signal is the condensing and rarefying of the dielectric. In fact when you follow this model, that charged particles are condensers of the ether medium, all of the mainstream paradoxes disappear. It appears that energy is created by momentum of these particles, by condensing and rarefying this medium, like an air conditioner uses a fluid medium to transfer energy by compression and rarefaction of a freon, use particle momentum to transfer energy. In fact Ron Hatch and GPS prove that there is a medium. The speed of light varies with the density of this medium. This is the Lorentz ether gauge theory. www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdfwiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Ronald_R_Hatch Hatch has a new version of gravity that is based upon the ether medium density, which dictates the energy level, and the speed of light varies with the flux density, just as redshift, refractive index, clock speed, and back - emf do. www.deere.com/assets/pdfs/navcom/Featured%20Articles/inside_gnss_janfeb08_humaneng_ron_hatch.pdf Here is Hatch on Pound- Rebka. www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_538.pdf Gravity is basically due to the ether medium density condensed within masses, and gravity then is magnetic, or ether medium pressure mediation of the medium condensed within matter. Planck's constant is the only true constant in the Universe.

@remlatzargonix1329

3 жыл бұрын

Jehannum2000 ....at the speed of light?

@TheFGrox

3 жыл бұрын

@@30ftunder39 Is there any speculated tolerance? 1% off of c is a hell of a speed difference.

@Apollyon-sz9sn

3 жыл бұрын

@@JoeDeglman Yes the aether does exist.

While current candidates for QG like string theory and LQG are probably not the solution to the problem, and I do think a theory of everything should ultimately be quantitative, I think there is a very big issue with comparing this kind of "numerology" to what Maxwell found. The difference lies with _intensive_ versus _extensive_ properties of the universe. The properties that Maxwell related are all intensive properties (electric constant, magnetic constant, speed of light/causality) which do not correspond to any particular structure and are thus true "universal" properties of the universe that are likely directly birthed from a theory of everything (or are true free parameters birthed at the creation of the universe). The ratios that are present in this video, however, all incorporate extensive properties like the mass of the proton, radius of the proton, mass of the observable universe, and radius of the observable universe. There are two major issues with this: 1. When you allow yourself to consider extensive properties as fundamental constants, the adjustable degrees of freedom that you can use to arbitrarily make approximate equations dramatically increases. This is especially the case for properties of structures (ie protons and the entire universe) versus fundamental particles which there are relatively few of. Some questions: Why the proton specifically? Why not the neutron? Why use the rms charge radius of the proton and not another definition of its radius (since a proton is actually boundary-less)? Why not the electron? Why not any other particle? Why not some other structure of quarks, like mesons, of which there are hundreds (protons being the most common charged baryon due to them being the most stable should not make them uber-special such that their properties would relate to the ratio of the fundamental forces)? Why the ratio of the electric to the gravitational force, and not the strong or weak forces? The strong force very likely has much more influence on the proton charge radius than gravity does. Why the size/matter of the observable universe, and not the minimum size of the known universe which is at least 500 times larger than the observable one based on large-scale cosmology? This doesn't even touch the issue of using other math constants (like pi or the golden ratio or e or any of the many, many constants) to try and make the equations work as experiments get more accurate. Why pi/2, and not pi/4, or 2*pi, or pi^2, or pi^2/2, or the golden ratio, or 8, or 8*e^2, and so on... It is very easy to get agreement to 6, 8, 10 decimal places when you have so many degrees of freedom that you don't need to have real justification for. 2. The deeper issue is that the extensive properties of structures like protons and the universe likely arise from an extremely complicated mess of different aspects of physics coming together to create an essentially arbitrary extensive property with little direct, simple relation to intensive fundamental constants. The radius (and mass) of the proton, for example, likely arises from a complicated mess of primarily strong interactions. The proton is known to have a mess of quarks and virtual gluons that interact in extremely complicated ways. The probability that the radius (or mass which would also involve the Higgs and other effects) that results from this mess of interactions relates cleanly to other fundamental constants is quite low (even if you ignore the first point about many degrees of freedom). This issue is even greater for something like the size of the observable universe and its matter content. The density of baryon matter in the universe arises from several different physical aspects of the early universe (like the varying expansion rate, the ratio of matter to anti-matter, the stability of certain arrangements of quarks, ect.) coalescing into an effectively arbitrary number for density. If this density were to be predicted from a theory of everything using only fundamental constants, it would likely involve, at a minimum, a dizzying array of integrals and other expensive computations, not some simple "nice" formula in terms of fundamental constants. I have no problem with physicists playing around with constants and equations to see if something interesting comes up. I also don't have a problem with _some_ people trying their best to investigate the supposed leads that this numerology gives. However, to claim that these relations are exact or meaningful, or to claim that this way of trying to develop a theory of quantum gravity is the most likely to succeed, is completely unjustified IMO. TL;DR If your physical relation takes advantage of many degrees of freedom to adjust the numbers, and you don't have a fleshed-out physical justification for your relation, its probably shit.

@armagetronfasttrack9808

3 жыл бұрын

@@AlicanErenKuzu You misunderstand the definition of quantitative. Quantitative in this context just means that the theory predicts a numeric value for physical constants (and other phenomena). An example of a quantitative theory would be the prediction of the number that is the fine structure constant, as opposed to a qualitative theory that would merely say that there _is_ a fine structure constant that plays a certain role in the physics.

@thephuntastics2920

3 жыл бұрын

Well written. I always challenge everyone who believes to know it all to come and take acid n ketamine with me as science experiment. Every 2weeks , 7 times , smoke dmt , and then ...THEN try n formulate a theory of how the universe works without vomiting over their own essays. Its a mindverse. Our perceptional reality is just a fraction of all that is.

@JoeTaber

3 жыл бұрын

I agree with this analysis. Ideally, if one would want a new numerology-based theory like this to be taken seriously, one would state all the possible degrees of freedom that you've allowed yourself, their justifications (if any) and honestly analyze: Given a random theory taken from the space of possible theories you've constructed by your choice of degrees of freedom, how likely would that random theory be your theory? Lets at least meet social science's bar of 95%

@ZeTafka

3 жыл бұрын

One could argue that we know nothing , we only have predictive equations. It can not be more wrong than any other theory , we do not know better.

@XEinstein

3 жыл бұрын

Very well put! This was exactly what I was thinking throughout this video. Why relate the radius of a proton and of the observable universe to anything, as neither of them even come close to being a fundamental property of the universe 🤷🏼‍♂️

Dirac, Gödel, Pauli - the most important and most underappreciated names in all of science. Thanks for this video!

@Chr15T

Жыл бұрын

Neither of the three is underappreciated. They are all justly regarded as geniuses.

My lovely late Great Grandmother. Told me 40 years ago, That she knew the Dirac family. They were close neighbours in Bristol. She did not know the boys well. They were younger than her. However she often helped Pauls mother with errands etc. She told me that they were a very strange family. I believe her.

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

Believable :-)

@k9876k

2 ай бұрын

He had a somber childhood. I believe one of his brothers committed suicide as well.

I have recently just graduated SUNY Binghamton with a math and a physics batcher and I have to say that within the past few years I have fallen very skeptical of modern physics so much so that I lost the motivation in looking for graduate physics programs and have begun studying to get in graduate math programs to follow in Dirac's footsteps of approaching physics with a math background thank you so much for reaffirming that I'm on a good course

@konradcomrade4845

6 күн бұрын

4:02 so if You take into account the new CERN-studies of Anti_Hydrogen and it's most probable "weight" of 0.75_g in Earth's 1.0_g_Field, then You would get F_e+(positron) / Fg = 3,0266666E39 ratio!! This also bears the question: will Anti_Neutrinos "feel" only 3/4th_G ? Very hard to meassure, indeed! Of course this 3/4_G_of_antimatter is still made/measured by only one experiment and is still to be taken with a grain of salt!! if a Neutrino collides with its Anti~ , what will happen? can it anihilate completely, or not? What would those two emit: a Gravitaional wave? the only possibility?

The weird thing in this theory is that it it presents gravity as a force which is more consistent with the Newtonian approach but today most physicists believe that gravity is the interaction between a massive object and the fabric of spacetime the more relativistic approach.I have a problem with the notion of spacetime because if it is a physical thing we know too little or even nothing about it what it is made of and it is a merely mathematical description that really has proven to work by measuring gravitational time dilation with atomic clocks

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

I think you have spotted the problem with today's fashions. Challenging the idea of spacetime is precisely what ine must do.. see my other videos or www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Reality-Space-Time-Illusion/dp/B0849ZXQB1

You haven't read Dirac's papers on quantum gravity, from the early 1950s. His "large numbers hypothesis" is now called "The naturalness problem" and it is unsolved. There is no way to more way calculate the fine-structure constant from first principles than there is to work out the number of stars in the milky-way from first principles, they are both determined by historical accident. This is because the fine-structure constant runs with energy, and at high energy, it depends on how exactly gravity and the other forces are separated.

Everywhere c^2 appears, one can substitute 1/e0u0 (from Maxwell). That makes sense if e0 and u0 are the determining factors not only of EM but as properties of the vacuum they may have something to do with determining gravity too. E = mc^2 for example, can be written as E = m/e0u0.

I always loved dirac…he’s always stood out to me

@oajillbennett5934

10 ай бұрын

String theory is crazy

Machs Principle ist only another interpretation of the fact, that the radius of the universe is equal to the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole with the mass of the universe (R=2MG/c²). Also the density (mass devided by 4/3 pi R³) of a black hole is simply derived from its Schwarzschild radius because itself is proportional to its mass: M=c²R/2G, D=3M/4piR³=3c²/8GMpiR². This leads to the observed number of protons (ca. 2 / m³) in the universe.

Size of the electron is smaller than the size of the proton no? Is the proton picked because it fits the theory?

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

Not quite. There is no experiment that would indicate a finite size of the electron; on the other hand, the phenomenology is dominated by Compton's wavelength lam=h/mc. The proton is very different. It has a well-measurable size (known since Rutherford) of 0.84 fm, and that size coincides with the Compton wavelength. This is a remarkable property and, as I show equivalent to Dirac's hypotheses.

Finally! Great summary. Show this video to all of the smug know-it-all physcists

Thanks for the inciteful examination of Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis.

I loved "Most of this is crap", I can't stop laughing. Thanks!!!!

@ramkitty

2 жыл бұрын

it is unfortunate that faith is an unseen variable of modern science

Amazingly interesting and very hopeful!

TLDR: All the hard work done in the past 40 years is wrong because we can't generate the energy needed to test it, but some random coincidences people noticed almost a century ago is promising, even though none of it has been formulated into an actual theory, and would likely be even less testable if it were." ... I mean its fine to get inspiration from coincidences -- lots of (good) science has come from people noticing odd things and pursuing them. But you've got to actually do that "pursuing them" step before coincidences can be considered actually useful. The fact that I have 5 fingers on my hand and a starfish has 5 arms doesn't imply that starfish are in any way related to human hands by itself, even though its a coincidence.

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

Well I'd say pretty good evidence for evolution if many animals have 5 fingers... . For the rest, you are right. Feel free to develop a model based on Dirac. However, it's also useful to weed out the crap. Today, there is a lot....

@altrag

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Yep there's definitely a lot of crap, but figuring out which is the crap and which is plausible is less certain. We do know one thing though, "testable" can't be our determining factor anymore. The Standard Model and General Relativity both stand up exceedingly well in experiment to the energy levels we can currently reach, and mathematically neither of them break down until we reach much, much higher energies than we're likely to see in any collider in our lifetimes (barring some revolutionary new design that comes completely out of left field.) There are some extensions to the Standard Model that predict things like supersymmetric particles that might potentially be reachable within the next generation or two of colliders, but while that would be plenty exciting in its own right it still doesn't get anywhere close to the energies we'd need to conclusively prove (or disprove) any realistic "theory of everything," (again barring something revolutionary that comes completely out of left field.) The scale difference between the SM and gravity is just too large to reasonably expect testability any time soon. So where does that leave science? Well from what I've seen, the consensus seems to fall on "testable in principle." That's certainly a much, much looser constraint than actual testability but its still better than completely throwing our hands up and allowing any random theory that manages to not put an infinity in a weird place.

Elementary particles being cirular moving light waves is an interesting idea which you only mention besides. Do you have more details about this conception?

@TheMachian

4 жыл бұрын

There has been done some work, e.g. www.researchgate.net/publication/273418514_Is_the_electron_a_photon_with_toroidal_topology

@rogerscottcathey

3 жыл бұрын

I find the vortex concept most logical approach. Carl F. Krafft developed a rational model of atom structure and magnetic field, etc.

@MaurerThilo

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Some time ago, I imagined elementary particles being (the smallest possible) black holes with non-zero quantum numbers. In the view of GR, the elementary knots of space-time. These circularly confined light feels similar.

I studied some of Dirac's personal manuscripts and yes, he did think about some very interesting “coincidences", but let us think about it: the radius of the universe is a consequence of the passage of time, related both to its expansion and to the fact that light hasn't had enough time to reach us from a more distanced point. Since the proton's radius seems to be constant, what does this tell us? That dinosaur-Dirac and future-alien-Dirac wouldn't find this to be a remarkable coincidence at all. It is probably just numerology.

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

Which papers did you study? Take the 1937 nature paper or the 1938 PRS paper, and you'll find the answers. The intriguing idea is that those numbers coincide also in what you call teh dinosaur and the alien case.

@GustavoValdiviesso

3 жыл бұрын

​@@TheMachian I had a singular chance to read some personal letters exchanged between Dirac and a former student, nowadays a professor here in Brazil, Prof. Daniel Wisnivesky. Prof. Daniel kept these letters (written around 1962) and actually published some of the ideas Dirac shared with him about unification of quantum mechanics and gravity. The works itself are nothing revolutionary but you should take a look. Unfortunately these do not cover all the material included on the letter, which I'm afraid the world won't see since Prof. Daniel keeps them very close to his heart. It is worth mentioning that Prof. Daniel did study under some notable figures, including Yakir Aharonov. doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X01004396 doi.org/10.1016/S0217-751X(00)00218-2

@sawlindholme5232

Жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian That is truly amazing. Is there an intuitively obvious explanation for this coinciding? It seems logically unlikely to pedestrian logic. Unless the non-constant nature of the speed of light in flat space must be Necessary?

I tought those exact same things but not even close of such an elaborated and well established way. Loved every second of this video, looking forward to read those books in the future.

So to how any digits of pi do the particles calculate when they interact?

Very interesting video ✅👍🏻Please use a tie mic to suppress the very noisy background. Thanks!

That was the best explaination of cyclosophy ever made ^^

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

I think in this respect, de Jager was arther dumb.

Can the Vacuum be polarized? Is that the same question as opposed to can the Vacuum be warpedor bent? Harold Putoff polarizable vaccuum paper treats the vaccum like Dirac.Mass just change tje refraction index and therefore the speed of light, according to Putoff

Really interesting talk, thank you for sharing your ideas! I think that some of the greatest breakthroughs in science have been born from simple ideas and conjectures.

You have strong feelings about this topic, I see. From my humble experience: Pissing people off, especially with the truth that they efforts and profession is futile make them less open for arguments. You don’t have to attack them personally, just the idea they hold on to and you will have a foe for life. Anyway, I love what you do and say and how you do it to. Thanks

"Most of them are crap" This is so heartbreaking!

Frankly I do agree! But if this persuade can lead to evidence it’s quite impressive to try for the hole life. But as long we tries to get around it, maybe later we might get the evidence.

The radius of the universe is ever increasing due to the expansion of the universe. So where is a constant here. And the speed of light in vacuum is variable ?

String theory not a science ! Suskind wants to know your location.

@omerresnikoff3565

3 жыл бұрын

Well it isn't

@Raydensheraj

3 жыл бұрын

It still gets better founding by the panels. And why is it any worse science then VSL? Sounds like laymen preference to me. I believe MTheory has mathematically much to offer and that all hypotheses and theories should be pursued.

@aravartomian1

3 жыл бұрын

Depends on your definition of theory

Super weird that we can’t rectify “as above, so below.”

i will refresh with your book i am thinking so i can converse cohesivly mwith math in hand

I devised the following approach from A-topology in resolving GR/QM conundrum. From A-topology: Theorem #1: In the class of generally ordered spaces, weakly perfect spaces are one and the only true generalization of perfectness; Theorem #2: The existence of weakly perfect spaces that are not perfect is almost a rule. A-topology is based on the following 3 basic axioms: Axiom #1: The set X and the empty set are open. Axiom #2: Any union of open sets is open. Axiom #3: Any finite intersection of open sets is open. Here are key insights and hypotheses: Each point in weakly perfect space W corresponds to a potential quantum state. The open sets in W represent the possible state configurations or superpositions of those quantum states. We define a function to map from W to a state in ℋ Hilbert space that defines the following condition for weakly perfect continuity: f(W) ⊆ ℋ is continuous iff for every open set O in ℋ, f⁻¹(O) is an open set in W. This condition ensures that the mapping preserves the topological structure of quantum states as conceptualized in weakly perfect spaces. Now, if we consider a set S in W comprising multiple points, each corresponding to a different quantum state, then the union of these points (U = ⋃ p_i, where p_i ∈ S) represents the superposition of these states. This union, being an open set in W, adheres to the properties of weakly perfect spaces. In terms of quantum entanglement, we can extend this idea further. If two particles are entangled, their combined state cannot be described independently of each other. In our A-topological framework, this can be represented by a set E in W, where the points in E are so intertwined that their corresponding quantum states in ℋ are non-separable: For p, q ∈ E, the states f(p) and f(q) in ℋ are entangled iff f(p) ⊗ f(q) ≠ f(p) ⨁ f(q).

Since the speed of light is actually a property of space-time (we only call it speed of light because photons travel with that speed and they do so because they are massless) it is reasonable to assume that the time that massless particles need to travel across the universe remains constant. And since the radius of the universe is increasing, that speed increases with the same rate. I guess that would explain some observations that led to the assumption of accelerated expansion.

I keep on watching your videos. Initially I was like "Hmm, interesting", then I was like "Oh, it's even hopeful". Now I'm like "That's the way forward." Be proud or embarrassed, but you changed me.

Two years ago Susskind and Mark blended QM and GR explaining, rather incompletely, using Maldacena's ADS/CFT correspondence and discovering quantum gravity. I think it s high time Unzicker gives us his take.

@TheMachian

Жыл бұрын

Maybe I should start a series "useless fantasies"? :-)

@sonarbangla8711

Жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Do you really think quantum gravity a useless fantasy?

Very interesting presentation! I burst out in laughter at "numerology is something successful in physics" :P I think Arthur Koestler's message in The Sleepwalkers is very pertinent today. Western science can only get out of its current crisis and avoid another "dark age" by coming to terms with its own history.

@TheTimeDetective42

4 жыл бұрын

I love that u mentioned Koestler and he is not forgotten as a great alternate thinker. Cheers Billy

Enough coincidences and they are no longer coincidences but are pointing to something deeper.

I would love to have a review of the thunderbolt project, and which of their methods/approaches can be seen as valid approaches. - not talking about the theory in general but for instance about the observations and conclusions they made.

Dear Dr., I would like to write a paper with you. Really love your work on this channel

Very interesting and refreshingly different

Subspace: +ve charge cells (charge quanta, base charge +1) held together by an ethereal sea of free-flowing -ve charge Inertia: Energy lost by a free cell squeezing through the lattice is returned with a kick as the lattice decompresses/refreezes/balances behind Momentum: Free cells have inertia, free chunks form energy loops of cells in front moving to fill -ve space behind. Holes are just -ve charge flow Positron: +ve free cell (+1) pulls in -ve charge that rebounds with curved outflows. Drags cells, vibrates the Lattice Electron: -ve hole (-1) pulls in +ve cells that rebound outwards before stopping or looping back in. Drags -ve charge, vibrates the Lattice Neutrino: Over 50% (else back to empty lattice) out of phase Electron + Positron. Free cell and hole are close with tight shared charge loops so tiny mass Proton: 2 positrons (fuzzily) sandwiching/wrapping 1 electron. 3 sub parts and long charge loops so mass is large. Overall electric charge is +1 Neutron: Proton + Electron. Electron joins another proton in the nucleus, (pep)(e)(pep), decays outside via centrifugal force on the dangling electron Alpha Particle: 2N + 2P.. 10 e-, 8 p+.. -2 base charge .. (pep)(e)(pep)+(pep)(e)(pep), +2 valence charge. -ve core in a +ve shell (PPeePP) + Gravity ++++++: Chunks + holes of lattice of various sizes that quickly turn to smaller chunks and holes, until electrons, positrons, neutrinos/back to regular lattice Atom: Lattice density increases to the nucleus centre. Outer electrons may be squashed flat on the nucleus surface or pulled away (completely) Weak Force: A nucleus weak point hit hard enough releases alpha particles, neutrons, protons, electrons, positrons, neutrinos and (gamma) light Nuclear Force: Gravity (-ve charge inflow/charge gradient) + electric attraction beat electric repulsion. Fuzzy balloons recursively pulled into spheres Electron Bond: Electron stretched between two +ve nuclei zones. There is also a 6 ins+6 outs charge flow model of electrons and positrons -ve Charge Flow: Continuous, gravity-centralised inflows, outflows curve with shallow exit angle. Lateral force in random directions cancels (else spin?) Gravity: Mass pulls -ve charge from voids that repel more and expand. Higher -ve charge density compacts the lattice. Inward -ve charge gradient/flow(s) Time: -ve charge density slows -ve charge and light speed so local time slows / Cells crossed in a constant time with more cells per area Velocity: Compresses the lattice (Length Contraction) so higher charge density so local time slows (Time Dilation) Black hole: Drags lattice around (Frame Dragging). Neutrino crystal. Feeding may annihilate core boundary matter to empty lattice (a universe?) Hawking Radiation: Annihilated matter frees trapped -ve charge that radiates in all directions, out of the black hole and into its core Tunnelling: Intrinsic radial energy of positron and electron charge flow directed in one direction for a brief time, possibly travelling at C2, or even C3 Particle Entanglement: Particles linked by charge flows.. Stopping a flow at any point in the network breaks entanglement Spin: Particles (and cells and/or charge flows?) (may) spin (anti)clockwise perpendicular to the direction of travel (charge outflow bias? blocky lattice?) -- Light Blip: Compressed (+extra?) -ve charge dipole pulls in lattice. Concentrates -ve charge so may deplete voids and add to gravity. Dark Matter? Light Wave: Amplitude = number of blipping layers. Shorter wavelength = higher blip frequency = higher wave energy. Velocity = C Photo-Electric Effect: Light frequency over a threshold determined by atomic mass and valency dislodges an electron on impact Photon Entanglement: Vibrating line of cells like an ultra-fine (spinning?) AC current / Warped line of cells between entangled photons -- Big Bang: Lattice explosion flings charge out as matter / Black holes collide so rapid core growth / Black hole hit like a bell / Fast lattice expansion/growth Steady State: Universe could grow slowly. A big hit may start simultaneous (patchy) matter formation across the whole universe, not from a point Boxed Universe: If voids can't expand when they lose -ve charge to matter gravity wells are steeper with more compressed lattice Conservation: Everything is conserved - but if a black hole core annihilates matter to empty lattice that absorbs the energy the information is lost PROS: Simpler, semi-symmetric, recursive, realistic, 3D/4D, visualisable, self-contained, open/closed, (in)finite, (semi)conformal, cyclic , (un)balancing -- This isn't any form of science, not even pseudoscience. It is materialist make-believe in-mind modelling minus maths. A strictly 4D, neo-classical bottom-up approach compatible with a closed, contained and more importantly an open, but self-contained universe/multiverse using the fewest base particles and forces (2+1). There are many possible variations of this BINARY BASE CHARGE FIELD. This variant is a simpler universe to the Standard Model that corrects what seem to me to be obvious fundamental , problematic errors, namely Antimatter-matter and neutrino problem and lack of electro-lumino-gravitational !ETHER! (kind of... mine combines with +ve cells to form a more modern quantum relativistic lattice field).. This model has its merits and the maths can't be too difficult for a math wiz. It is a pretty accommodating, recursive, strictly visualisable premise (as it should be?).. The Lattice is everything, there is no nothing, no thing is perfectly still, balanced lattice. There is no empty space and probably not (much) truly empty lattice containing no thing(s). There is no before or after The Eternal Lattice, there is no outside and The Lattice knows everything because it is everything - but a (collective) conscious entity!

@srikiraju

3 жыл бұрын

what is this? this sounds cool

@PrivateSi

3 жыл бұрын

​@@srikiraju .. Thankyou. It is the most simple conceptual, self-contained, quantum-relativisitc base model of the universe. I have tried to apply it to the data. PET scans indicate the Quark model is wrong and my model is correct (proton+neutron turns into a neutron, positron and neutrino)... All free particles and nuclei are perfectly spherical by all measurements. Quantum gravity with gravity naturally getting stronger the closer to the nuclei centre, as well as macroscopically towards the centre of gravity, explains The Strong Force. It is a very powerful, simple model people should play around with...

@PrivateSi

3 жыл бұрын

@@srikiraju .... It is also very funny if you read it a certain way!

Dr. Unzicker, I am most curious about who came up with the formula on your Ernst Mach slide at 7:16 of your presentation. What I like about it is that it relates G to two properties of the universe at large. Should I ever find an explanation, I will be happy to cedit you as my first source, but who would be my second? Many thanks for your stimulating lectures!

@TheMachian

Жыл бұрын

The coincidence goes back to Schrödinger 1925, and was then elaborated by Sciama in 1953. However, even in Einstein's thoughts, there is kind of a precursor. See details in "Einstein's Lost Key" and in the book by Mozkowski. See also the VSL series here.

@jamesharford9788

Жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Thank you!!

Equation 13:57 c = 2Pi f rp; but 2Pi r = circumference, so this says that c = f circumferencep. That is, frequency equals c divided by the circumference of the proton. So the number of times a particle would travel around the cirumference (per second) would be its speed (c) divided by the distance travelled (the circumference). If the speed of light were 10 million times the circumference, the number of times it would travel around would be 10 million (per second).

The problem with the Large Number Hypothesis is that the known universe is two or three orders of magnitude larger than it was in Dirac's day. So one of his dimensionless numbers has changed so much that it no longer matches the other in any spooky way. Also the proton is not an elementary particle like an electron or a quark, so why should we care about its radius or its mass? The number of particles used by Dirac is also suspect. We know about lots more particles today, e.g. neutrinos. So that number is also not spooky anymore. This whole approach to physics seems more like astrology or numerology -- or as the quote on one of the slides puts it: "a remarkable coincidence." But since the numbers no longer *coincide* you can't even call it that.

@RicardoMarlowFlamenco

Жыл бұрын

I was gonna put up the analogy of solar eclipses which are a coincidence of our time as the moon moves away. Also rings of Saturn, and many other things.

I once explained to someone well versed in science, that sound waves travel faster than sound quite often. He said something to the effect of "Bullsh*t". So I said, "How fast does the Concord fly?" He said "Around twice the speed of sound". I said; "How does the guy at the rear of the airplane call out to the flight attendant at the front to order a drink?"

@3prismaticpulsarmanuupadhy535

3 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂

Excellent video, and the most important current physical theories have put the importance of their theories giving out the right numbers in the back burner, giving more emphasis to its exoticness. Also I think with theories such as string theory and loop quantum gravity, one is at the risk of putting their 'human' notions of strings and loops in explaining what is supposedly the grand superstructure of things. What do you think? Also, do you teach at any university?

@TheMachian

Жыл бұрын

I do not think strings and SUSY etc are useful at all. First think about the standard model, that is, question it. To your question: no, I am an author and teach highschool/college level (German Gymnasium).

Alexander, do you think that Barbour's shape dynamics has conclusively shown that a four dimensional space-time is unnecessary, and that the world is truly 3-d which evolves over time? It also appears to solve the "problem of time' in the Hamiltonian formulation of GR, what do you think? I have just bought your book, so far I find your ideas very interesting.

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

I commented here on Barbour a couple of days ago... just don't find it at the moment.

Good work! Maybe the electric universe model Alfven etc. Is the beginning of the solution to physical science?

You need to post a link to your audiobook. I would buy.

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

There seems to be no easy way for automatic conversion, but I'll think about, thanks.

@bcddd214

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian I'm a lazy nerd. I adore your videos. I share them a lot. Thank you.

Dr Alexander Unzicker Thank you once again for such an interesting talk. I like yourself and Paul Dirac I've been curious about correlations between cosmological numbers "Large Numbers Hypothesis". I think they are more than suggestive of undiscovered physics and cosmology. Further more I believe they share a direct causal relationship of such a nature that not only solves the Large Numbers Hypothesis, but also resolves the universal complexity problem and the fine tuning problem. For your consideration,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Any entity that exists via exploitation of an energy, can conceivably evolve its form and functions to a highly ordered complex state optimized for exploiting that energy. This summarizes life's circumstances very nicely. And if you assume space possesses an energy content that Baryon matter "atoms" exploit, then you can test the idea that the forms and processes of matter are an evolved state optimized for harvesting that energy. Biological activity owes its origin to sunlight "a freely available energy of the environment in which plants have evolved and optimized the process of Photosynthesis to exploit. Consider the possibility that atomic activity owes its origin to an energy field that inhabits the environment of space, and that Baryons "atoms" have evolved an optimized process to exploit this energy source (we might term fieldsynthesis). Atoms exploit and convert space into atomic force. Atomic forces that are the generator of atomic activity. We do after all use atomic activity to define atomic time. So atomic force and atomic time are certainly intimately related, and therefore so is the concept of spacetime. Spacetime curvature = atomic time = atomic activity = atomic force. Because atomic forces generate the atomic activity we use to define the measure of time. Direct causal relationship.

@DarwinianUniversal

4 жыл бұрын

Defer to a tried and tested means that nature has at its disposal to generate highly ordered complex systems, (Darwinian progression). Anybody who has studied the complexity problem of science, and or the fine-tuning problem will recognize the potential benefits of discovering a "natural organizational principle is responsible for generating universal physical complexity and order. So here is an avenue for inquiry. This outlines a scenario within which Darwinian mechanisms are given ample opportunity to act as an organizational principle responsible for sculpting atomic and cosmological forms and processes.

@DarwinianUniversal

4 жыл бұрын

Scientist know why living cells service specialized roles within terms of forms and functions for the benefit of multicellular organisms. Because the fates of cells and the bodies they form are intertwined in a Darwinian circumstance of adaptation, optimization in the bid to persist. But what scientists dont know is why hydrogen fusion sensitivity generates just the right amount of heat within stars to balance against the force of gravity and halting gravitational collapse. But while not being overly sensitive triggering a nova event. This raises the question of finely tuned calibration? Why do processes at atomic scales service structure forming roles at cosmological scales? The hypothesis outlined above presents the same opportunity to service the question of fusions ideal sensitivity for maintaining stellar structure, as it does biologies relationship between Cells and an organisms multicellular body. Atoms fates are intertwined with stellar structures and processes within a circumstance of Darwinian progression, evolution and refined optimization. All these considerations are made posable within a cosmological model which assumes space is a habitat that possesses an energy content. And that the Baryon universe (atoms and the cosmological bodies that atoms form) exist on the basis of exploiting this naturally available energy of space. That universal complexity and order is a result of evolution and refined optimization. That life examples an extraordinary Darwinian existence which extends to a far broader universal scope. Darwinian Universal

@DarwinianUniversal

4 жыл бұрын

Any Darwinian entity can be understood within terms of the energy it exploits to exist, and its evolved form and function optimized for exploiting that energy source. Take a tree for example. Its form and processes can be understood within terms of evolving (Lignin fibers) that is to say wood fibers. Which it used to good effect in the competition for sunlight. A strong truck enabled the tree to lift its bulk above competing plants and then spread its branches and leaf canopy wide, increasing its surface area and ability to collect the suns energy. So the theme of structure and process is apparent in the trees truck and branch form and photosynthesis process. Forms and functions. Structures and processes. If you begin from the standpoint that atoms exist on the basis of exploiting an energy of space habitat. That atoms evolved collective agencies that form stable cosmological bodies, presumably for the same general reason that cells eventually evolved multicellular bodies. In any case life offers precedence to be weighed as evidence that Darwinian systems are inclined to do such things. So now ill get to the point. As living things, we owe a great debt to chemical bond forming potentials of atoms and the presents of water molecules that act as a universal solvent in the expression of these chemical potentials. Life didn't invent chemical potentials, it only coopted or borrowed pre-existing potentials of matter. Question is, why and how dis atoms achieve such an incredible and complex system of chemistry? Let us look to the Earth's geochemical processes and see how geology makes use of chemical bonds, and the substance of water which just happens to be found in abundance in this universe and on Earth's surface. I see Earth's geochemical processes making use of chemical bonds while cementing eroded sandy and rocky aggregates, resolidifying rock sheets that span the width of continents. I see the Earth's surface being resolidified into ridged and therefore persistent structure by geochemical means enabled by the presents of water. Not to mention some heat and pressure within the Earth's crust. Chemical potentials of matter would lay largely dormant on Earth if not for the presents of the universal solvent of water. What are the odds that nature would create wonderous chemical potentials quite by accident, and then again by mere accident create a very particular substance requires to activate those chemical potentials? They work together with an elegance that a lock fits a key. How can we take those seriously unlikely circumstances for granted? So I see a highly energetic and kinetic universe that bombards and erodes planet surfaces, and I see repair mechanisms that act to resolidify this ware and tear. Much like your skin repairs itself, so do planetary crusts. The idea is that these extraordinary processes of nature, chemical bonds and water's means of expressing them in a meaningful useful way, evolved for natural reasons that can be fathomed by science. Reasons that we observe nature in the act of doing, like geochemical structure formation. Within context of an entity's exploitation of an energy source, and its evolved structures and processes optimized for exploiting that energy while achieving stable persistent universal structures. In this fashion, it can be fathomed how the universe achieved highly ordered complex states, structures and processes, which having achieved a high enough threshold of chemical sufistication, that only then did life became an emergent potential. We know how life generated its complexity. Darwinian progression. But science is hung up on the question of how matter came to possess the characteristics and complexity that life depends upon to exist. I'm strongly suggesting that universal complexity owes to the same general circumstances of lifes emergent complexity. Darwinian progression.

@scottmiller4295

3 жыл бұрын

@@DarwinianUniversal so you imagine maybe the universe going thru many iterations before evolving into this? maybe our universe sputtered and failed countless times before it had the energy to keep itself stable, but that process would eventually lead to a stable universe we see? multverse theory does this in other hibbart spaces or brains or whatever so you will always get some universe that work and many others that simply recollapse. arvin ash i think is the channel did a video recently on the fine tuning idea and the notion that the tuning is precise or needs to be is overblown. you might seek it out. the tuning is range that can work before things fall apart and fields and energies tend to like to stabilize and balance out and our universe seems very much a bunch of energies and fields bound up in one another they repulse and balance each other and give us the values we see around us.

@donaldsmith3926

3 жыл бұрын

@@scottmiller4295 Is 'dark energy' part of the "...stable universe we see?", or a newly emergent factor?

there is also a female scientist from germany making videos and the remarks about false claims in physics. She is also a great singer and has some cool videos of her creation.

@TyronTention

3 жыл бұрын

Sabine Hossenfelder? Yea, her brutal honesty is very much needed.

@primetimedurkheim2717

3 жыл бұрын

She's awesome.

@justinpridham7919

3 жыл бұрын

@@TyronTention yes!

Well, if it is hard for you to do all these complex non-linear differential equations, just declare all that to be "crap" and switch to multiplication and division. :)

@dubistverrueckt

2 жыл бұрын

I hope he can do _those_ ! 😂

@afazzo

2 жыл бұрын

that's a very dumb answer. The quality of a physical theory has to be judged by its conceptual simplicity and by its predictive power, not by the math involved. Moreover, Math is just a tool, and non-linear differential equations are quite of standard use in physics.

so how is the "new form" of Dirac hypothesis different from an expression that relates the radius of the particle with its Compton wavelength?

@TheMachian

Жыл бұрын

it is pointed out there, no? maybe you specify your question.

@samanthaqiu3416

Жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian I mean, defining radius of p as the Comptom wavelength of p is entirely independent of any large number quotients, is just defining an heuristic scale where single particles cannot be unequivocally resolved, do we agree? all of the original large factors seem to have been cancelled from numerator and denominator

I agree, as relates to string theory. String theory is an elaborate mathematical approach to metaphysics that can never be empirically verified. Science as an empirical endeavor is either seriously off course or at its inherent limits from the perspective of our scale in the universe. We need to bring metaphysics back to the point where it can drive physics forward in a sensible way. Q1 - The problem with Dirac's approach is that the Mass and size of the Universe are still not well established by cosmology. Q2 -"Gravity originates from the distant masses in the universe" sure sounds like spooky action (back to metaphysics)? Dr. Alex thinks outside the box and we need that; having said that, I'd like to hear him explain why these ideas are being overlooked by the mainstream.

He keeps talking about Dirac's hypothesis. What hypothesis? It's just an observation that there are two numbers that are similar. What is the suggestion? That the strength of quantum gravity depends upon the size of the universe?

Excellent presentation Sir. Ru/rp is 10^39. But we know that the universe is expanding, which means Ru is keeping on changing. So in order to maintain the ratio constant at 10^39 then rp radius of proton must also be changing. Mu/mp is 10^78 and if mp mass of proton changes then mass of the universe must also be changing. So is rp only changing or both rp, mp is also changing or else is the number of paticles in the universe changing. But protons are not the only particles in the universe there some others like mesons, kaons, electrons also then we have to consider their masses also for finding number of paticles in the universe.

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

You hit the point. Actually, 10^39 is what Dirach called the epoch, and of course, it is increasing. He suggested a variation of G, which is not ruled ot completely. The interesting thing is the particle number. A solution going back to Rober Dicke is presented in www.amazon.com/dp/B01FKTI4A8

@mauricegold9377

3 жыл бұрын

Don't be so quick to say stuff like :' we know the universe is expanding'.. sure redshifts and Hubble and suchlike. By being so 'sure' you have ruled out all other possible options. i'm not at all advocating that anything goes. in any way. Just that fresh eyes need to re-look at all these redshifts to see if this is truly expansion and nothing else. I could be wholly wrong but being too dogmatic is perilous.

@Inception1338

Жыл бұрын

@@mauricegold9377 this is an extremely important point. If we start with "we know..." then we created everything we need to deliver the perfect ground for falsification of everything that comes after.

@Galahad54

4 ай бұрын

@@TheMachian Along that line, it is easily derived that if the mass (aka number of particles) is increasing, it should be at a rate proportionate to sqrt(t). This implies an expanding universe. There's reason to believe that this does not hold close to t = 0, but observeables at low t are scarce. Possible inflationary early universe via large mase in small spare => more space. Per latest standard gravity theory, as one approached the event horizon, the light from the outside narrows down to a single point, away from the 'center' of the black hole. Non-standard (but calculable, and per standard theory not observable from the outside). Inside, 'down' in polar coordinates becomes 'future' in time, and the former time dimension becomes spatial. The entire event horizon becomes 'the beginning' of time, and is a horizon, not a singularity. But mathematically, the entire universe outside the event horizon diminished to a point at the event horizon. Using one set of equations of the metric (metric from calculations of the inside, but not accounting for z to t axis rotation) , gravity pulls us to the future. Locally, we would observe the arrow of time. Thus the observed speed of light is dependent on gravity. Since the gravitation curvature in that metric increases monotonically, time should slow. At this point, I run out of skill to calculate, but first estimate is Lorenz contraction, and thus in this metric it appears to slow time, which is isomorphic to hyperinflation of distance. I can get to ... Dirac's large numbers. Also equates to watching the area just above the event horizon,

Ether Theory Revisited: The speed of a wave in classical mechanics is related to the energy/lenth in the media. (ether-stress) In the case of electromagnetic waves, the media is the vacuum and the speed of light might relate to ether-stress. The ether-stress might, in turn, be related to the inflation of the universe. Lorentz contraction might also be partially attributed to some quality of the vacuum. Since we measure both distance and time by counting wave-lengths, c is a constant if/when wave-length contracts appropriately. But the ether is not like a gas, it is more like a membrane or boundary in a 4th dimension. On the other side of the membrane, anti-particles mirror our own observables. The interactions with the membrane and anti-particles explains pair-production and annihilation. Perhaps gravity emerges as a manifestation of ether-stress. And ether-stress, in turn, is locally affected by the presence of particles (and the tension / pucker) they produce in the membrane.

I don't understand the 10^39 number. The DIAMETER of the observable universe is 880x10^24 m and the proton RADIUS is 0,8414x10^-15. Either you double the radius or half the diameter to set this into relation, but anyway no 10^39 relation I can see. Can someone explain, please?

@TheMachian

2 жыл бұрын

c/H0 (the hubble constant) is 1.3*10^26 m. Indeed, the number is closer to 10^41. Given the cosmological ucertainties, the coincidence is remarkable though. As Dirac pointed out in his 1937 paper, there could be also numerical factors such as 137 and /or 1836.

Hmmm, I tried crunching the numbers and didn't get 10^39 in all cases.

@TheMachian

4 жыл бұрын

which ones? It's true that if you divide Ru (universe) by rp (proton radius) for example, it's rather 10^41. However, the coincidence is remarkable as well. As Dirac wrote in his 1938 paper, there might be factors such as the fine structure constant.

@adki231

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian enlight the blind ones and give the numbers...

I just order your book (The mathematical reality) It takes some time to deliver. Can't wait!

9:50 There is 1/137 again. Why is it everywhere ?

Great video! I don't see anyone else talking about these ideas sadly

@TheMachian

2 жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed!

Several of these equations contained m & r elements, suggesting 'Density' is an important factor, also I never realised before that c was dependent upon f IE different 'colours' travel at different speeds?

Back in 1975 while studying chemistry and watching TV programs on particle physics I deduced the forces in nature were the result of levels that had a scaling factor. It works and the scaling factor I got is 2.67E39. I think the scaling factor you have for a hydrogen atom should be increased slightly because the gravitational constant decreases at quantum distances.

@nurkleblurker2482

2 жыл бұрын

There is no experimental or theoretical basis for the claim "the gravitational constant decreases at quantum distances"

@edwardgalliano9247

2 жыл бұрын

@@nurkleblurker2482 If you take Coulomb's Law and divide it by Newton's for a hydrogen atom distance cancels out and you get a scaling factor of 2.26924E39. Take the square root and multiply by the Planck length and get 0.7747-15m for the radius of a proton. Too bad the measured radius is 0.83E-15m for a proton. Does G start to decrease for quantum distances? If the gravitational constant begins to decrease at this scale it implies some other force holds singularities together inside black holes. This is a very dangerous situation!

@edwardgalliano9247

2 жыл бұрын

@@nurkleblurker2482 I totally agree with his line of reasoning almost, it's just the size of the universe is 50 or 60 times larger than a scaled up proton.

Very positivist way of thinking

We humans are both one and many. Most of the time we just carry on our daily life as individuals in circles from house to jobs and back again. However, when our discontent reachs a critical masse (they say 1/4, we transform to a united force and change the system. We are made of this stuff. When I try to understand the forces of nature, I look at my self and the society around me. I look at life .

How does this hypothesis hold though given the most recent update on the Hubble constant? Variable speed of light could let it tread some water but essentially so far as we can observe, the universe is expanding not only faster than the speed of light but its rate of expansion vs the speed of light is increasing. All the while, the radius of the proton is staying the same.

I really respect you for having the courage to go against Groupthink.

Flashback to the Hunger Games fallen theme at the beginning there.

Why should the Radius of any particle be fix? They are excitation of fields? They carry fields? So, any radius depends on the kind of measurement and the used amount of energy?

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

The radius measurement needs to be defined for an elementary particle, but there is no problem as amatter of principle. E.G. the recent charge radius data of the proton.

Keep plugging away Alexander! Makes more sense than all those standard model constants and dark matter etc.

Great lecture. Thank you very thought provoking.

That little guy did not know the history of his science. The nature of gravity was discovered by Euler. He described the mechanism in one of his letters to a German princess.

What if the universe is infinite? That would throw a wrench in calculating the size and number of particles it contains. Excellent presentation. Thanks for sharing.

@VPN14494

3 жыл бұрын

By size of universe he meant the size of "observable universe"

@sutapasbhattacharya9471

3 жыл бұрын

@@VPN14494 Have you come across Milo Wolff's book 'Schroedinger's Universe' (2008) which utilizes Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis and Mach's Principle and links the properties of the electron to the Light Horizon etc.

@nurkleblurker2482

2 жыл бұрын

@@VPN14494 but the size of the observable universe is constantly changing

@phumgwatenagala6606

2 жыл бұрын

It’s impossible… infinity exists in mathematics, doesn’t mean it’s something that’s represented in reality

@TheBelrick

Жыл бұрын

@@phumgwatenagala6606 infinity doesn't exist beyond a concept yet too many people treat it as objectively real.

What is your opinion on EWT's take on gravity? According to the theory, gravity is a shading effect between particles, as a tiny portion of inbound longitudinal waves are converted to transverse waves due to the particle's spin. I'm bringing this up because it correlates with Dirac's realization that the strength of gravity is related to the mass and size of the universe. Every single particle in the universe "produces" outbound longitudinal waves, which then strike an observed particle from all sides equally if you ignore shading. But because of shading, the more waves per unit volume you have, the more pronounced the shading becomes!

What do you think about Erik Verlinde’s idea that gravity is an “entropic” force?

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

I don't think it's a good idea.

@yuryshimansky6333

3 жыл бұрын

Unzicker's Real Physics Could you please elaborate a bit on the reasons you don’t like it? Do you think it’s incompatible with the big-numbers insights?

The real reason for looking for an equation showing an approximate numerical relation between one known constant and other known constants in physics would be to suggest a direction of research which might lead to an /analytical derivation/ of that equation, thereby reducing by one the number of arbitrary constants. While any such simplification would always be welcome, it should always be remembered that pure mathematics can tell you absolutely nothing about physical reality. In other words, there will always be at least one unexplained constant in physics, because a mathematical model which is not linked to reality by at least one of its parameters being arbitrarily equated with some measurable physical quantity, by way of an arbitrary scale of measurement, has no link with reality. The nearest thing we can ever hope for to a genuinely universal theory of physics would be one in which the only assumed laws were the current laws of human thought. These are the laws on which mathematics itself is based, or was at least derived from. They include mathematical ideas about number, arithmetic, geometry, topology, and such like. Attempts have been made reduce these to as small a logical basis as possible in set theory and logic, but as with physics, even mathematics cannot pull itself up by its own bootlaces. Note also that even such a theory would only be universal amongst humans, or possibly amongst thinking beings.

Thank you. I now realize I was fully justified when shouted to my professor "YOUR WAY IS CRAP!!!"

Please look into Mike McCulloch's theory of Quantised Inertia! He predicts many anomalies such as the accelerations at the edges of galaxies, and flyby anomalies. No arbitrary parameters needed!

@harshtandon9309

3 жыл бұрын

Ok this is interesting i am always a big fan of quantised theory

Glad each presentation shows the Matrix of Force in space as being curved by gravity. So, we've come to common ground since so many people do write about Quantum Gravity. I do wish software engineers design a program to allow us to navigate in curved space as either a Force or a small space craft traveling in spacetime. Does the background radiation enter the John Dalton atom system, and does it form a ripple near the graviton, as firm as the cosmic rays that strike the atom and energize it? Virtual journeys through the Matrix of Force in Spacetime will help educate people.

@BartvandenDonk

Жыл бұрын

You bring me to a thought that explains why we can't reach the speed of light. Just like the shaking when reaching the speed of sound, this must also happen reaching the speed of light. This shaking is essential! If you want to reach the speed of light and beyond your rocket should be very sturdy. 😁 Beyond that threshold you will end in the dark. There will be no light, nothing, you will end out of this universe or in the dark matter. Reaching the sound barrier you come in complete silence, so reaching the light barrier you come in complete darkness.

Hey mate, happy you have a channel now, been following u for a few years! Cheers!

Hello, Alex, I wonder what you think of this. I have, for years, thought of Dark Matter or Dark Gravitation as a form of surface tension. Recently I saw a Max Tegmark video where he rehashed Galactic Clusters passing through each and leaving mass behing, which had collided in the passage, but the Dark Matter passed straight through, did not join together or carom back. And the there's the hypothesis that Dark Matter is responsible for production of Gamma Photons that make up the galactic Fermi Bubbles. I immediately let surface tension fall away because this is not surface tension and I immediately quit believing it could be surface tension. Gamma Photon production is a reaction to Positronium annihilation. But Positronium is difficult to prouce, and that's a lot of Gamma Photons. A lot. So I started plugging the loose ends that had dismissed surface tension into new nodes, assuming Dark Matter had to be some kind of hitheto unimagined antiparticle. And what Max Tegmark said was almost identical to something I had heard Jim Gates say. If two different phenomenae can be described in the same way, it is likely they are the same thing. It seems to me that light passes through light in exactly the same way Dark Matter passes through Dark Matter. I imagined an antiphoton that behaved exactly like a photon in every conceivable way except that it radiates backward in time. So I looked up antiphoton to see if anyone had postulated such a thing. I found that the accepted term is "Dark Photon". Seems that, just this year, 2020, a lot of scientific papers have been published on this subject of Dark Photons, proposing it as a candidate for Dark Matter, including--just on 9-23-2020--a proposed experiment to hunt for them in S. Korea. It seems (to me) like this one tweak to the SM could solve just about every mystery in the universe, from Q-Grav to consciousness to Dark Matter. I wonder, please, could you share any thoughts on this? Thank you for reading to the end. Sincerest regards, Allex

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

Hi. DM is a profound riddle. I personally would try to relate is to modiefied dynamics (not MOND) due to variable speed of light, but I haven't got a good solution yet, honestly. I am also skeptic of the approach outlined by you and Tegmark, but who knows, I can only encourage you to pursue. The bullet cluster (much advertised) in not really a proof, tehre is also Abell 522. Special cases. An excellent overviem is the book by R. Sanders "The dark matter problem". Best,A.

@ZeroOskul

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Thank you for being accessible! I will find that book! Ciao!

@ZeroOskul

Жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Hey, Alex! Sabine Hossenfelder released a video, today, where she brought up the dark photon! Would you do a video on this subject that I brought to your attention two years ago? -Allex

White background is really hard on the eyes !

You have a point. Nice work. 26-09-2021

There is a great idea! For the dark side of the Universe - suppose that it consists of short-term interactions in long-lived fractal networks, the smallest quantum operators in energy, spherical rosebuds, consisting of a large set; 1 - rolled into a sphere, 2 - half collapsed into a sphere and 3 - flat, vibrating quantum membranes relative to their working centers in the sphere

@brendawilliams8062

2 жыл бұрын

In a 90909 and a 1010101. Mix and matches

This seems *completely* speculative - I don't see how we take this seriously without some sort of theory behind. Where exactly does that pi/2 come from, etc.?

Excellent!

there is a proposal on youtube : La INCREÍBLE !!! Nueva teoría de la gravedad -DOCUMENTAL.

Possible classical physics explanation for your G ~ c**2R/M factor. Springer Proceedings in Physics (Vol 137 pp 379-382) Nuclear Fusion Drives Cosmic Expansion. In summary, a mirrored Negative Universe on same 2D membrane as our Positive Universe, stellar thermonuclear fusion producing negative energy (repulsive gravity) can qualitatively and quantitatively account for Dark Energy and factor out to your universal G ~c**2R/M factor. Published article shows expansion rate U ~Gp/c where p ~M/R**2 is universal mass density averaged over the 2D shared membrane. Factoring out (dimensions) 1/T~GM/R**2c gives G ~R**2c/TM ~c**2R/M Assuming a uniform distribution of stars in both universes, I was able to use this simple model to determine that classical nuclear energy released from stars produces an expansion rate of U~82km/s.Mpc, which is consistent with the measured Hubble Constant of around 70km/s.Mpc.

How can a proton have a radius when a particle is not a localizable physical object?

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

Of course, the proton radius is a measurable quantity since Rutherford. Look up the paper by Pohl (2010) quoted in the video.

Another interesting "coincidence" is the ratio of electron to light quark mass (ke^2 / hc), and the fine structure constant (2 pi ke^2 / hc),, where the masses in the former are derived.

22-07-2020.Way back in the 80,Unruh showed that gravety was a component of the zpf and there for had a thermal count.l perscribe to this idea.Whats your view?

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

Interesting, yet I am not working in this direction at the moment. Mike McCulloch has taken up on Unruh recently.

@crazyoldhippieguy

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheMachian Hi again contacted Mike, to answer your question YES Einstien did work with whats his name and they had exchanged papers, l have the info some place at the law office, l have to find them ,and my Graeth Grand Father did write President befor Einstien and informed him how a atomic bomb can be construcked when Oppenhiemer was shown the letter he wanted him on his team, we have that to.keep in contact.

Einstein's "variable speed of light" isn't a variable speed of light theory, it is the truncation of GR to g_00 only. This means clocks tick at different rates at different positions. You shouldn't interpret it as a 'variable speed of light' because the local speed of light as measured by any experiment would still be roughly constant in the proper theory. I say "roughly", because you are ignoring the small effects of the off-diagonal parts of the metric tensor. The proper solution includes the whole metric tensor, Einstein realized that the scalar theory wasn't complete very quickly, he never expected it to be more than a heuristic guide to a full theory. A full scalar theory is Nordstrom gravity, which has no light deflection, unlike the original Einstein 1907 theory you reference, which has half the correct deflection. The full deflection is due to the space-space components of the metric, which contribute equal amount of deflection for a particle moving at the speed of light, and do not contribute at all to a particle moving slowly, for which Einstein's 1907 theory is sufficiently accurate.

I LOVE THISSSS

So what about the Casimir Effect. ?

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

The Casimir effect is certainly interesting, but does not solve this problem. Did I understand you correctly?

Dirac jumped on the anti-particle bandwagon after positrons were discovered, but his anti-particles had negative mass and this was turned into time-reversal rather than realizing electron holes without time reversal, sitting in Dirac's atom-centric sea and waiting to be given positive mass and spread all over the cosmos in order to generate energy calculations off by a factor of 10^120.

@TheMachian

3 жыл бұрын

I never appreciated that reinterpretation of negative mass as negative charge...

Reliance on the proton mass (and proton radius) in dimensionless cosmological ratios, if not considered mere coincidence, would seem to indicate that the geometry of gravitation is dominated by the geometry of particles that are geometrically similar to protons (eg nucleons, ie protons and neutrons). If so, and if dark matter dominates gravitational matter, this would imply that dark matter is predominately baryonic (eg nucleons, ie protons and neutrons). AFAIK, this is inconsistent with the lambdaCDM model of cosmogony.