Dyson did NOT say "can't be unified" ! He asked "why unify?"

@sdwone

4 жыл бұрын

Well... Because we want a complete description of the Universe. Not two distinct descriptions, each of which only explains half the picture. It's an asthetical question as opposed to a practical one. And Dyson is right, up to a point... Why does it matter? Well... Now that we have Very Strong Evidence that Black Holes exist, we still don't have a theory in place to fully describe such phenomena. So I guess it's a subjective question to ask... Is it practical to come up with a New and Radical theory to describe them? Or are such efforts wasted? Given that these objects defy Human Comprehension anyway. Personally, I think the efforts in continually pushing the boundaries of our Knowledge IS worth it! So I definitely disagree with Dyson on this one!

@jamieg2427

4 жыл бұрын

@@sdwone Yes, pushing the boundaries is the fun part. Dyson would likely agree. And you mentioned black holes, a regime where a unified understanding of quantum mechanics and gravity is not merely aesthetic but required.

@kensandale243

4 жыл бұрын

"Dyson did NOT say "can't be unified" ! He asked "why unify?"" Well, if it could be done, then if you want to do something important in physics you would want to do it. I suppose several decades ago you would be objecting to people wanting to figure out why planets orbited around the Sun the way they do.

@tensor131

4 жыл бұрын

it's a lovely idea .. why shouldn't two forces work in tandem to create the universe, rather than be manifestations of one force. certainly the evidence thus far, supports the notion!

@jamieg2427

4 жыл бұрын

@@tensor131 If that were all, it would be fine. However, quantum mechanics and relativity are contradicting regimes that make important and differing claims about reality.

This man is 95 years old and still sharp as ever

@bayesian0.0

4 жыл бұрын

Wait is it the dude from dyson spheres

@idipped2521

4 жыл бұрын

@@bayesian0.0 they're named after him

@bayesian0.0

4 жыл бұрын

osyrys AKA kasketkid cool!

@Mrbfgray

4 жыл бұрын

Closer to 100 I believe.

@remlatzargonix1329

4 жыл бұрын

osyrys official ....both my great grandfather (who lived to 101 years old) and my grandfather (who lived to 96 years old) were, even just before their deaths, still as sharp as any younger person. Maybe that is why I was never prejudiced against older people using that stereotype of the "doddering old fool" because all of the older people that I knew did not exhibit such intellectual decline.

This interviewer asks such good follow up questions. It is nice to have an interviewer that actually knows something of the topics discussed and is able to probe and challenge their guests, instead of just worshiping idly at their feet like midwits, like so many of them and the general public do. I won't comment on Dyson's opinions because I don't think they need a comment. We simply don't know what Dyson believes. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

@daithiocinnsealach3173

4 жыл бұрын

The channel this is from is called Closer to Truth. The interviewer is Robert Lawrence Kuhn. It's one of my favourite channels on this platform.

@dougg1075

4 жыл бұрын

I think his main gig is an advisor to the Chinese. Interesting guy

@mitseraffej5812

4 жыл бұрын

The term is “ nitwit”

@rodschmidt8952

4 жыл бұрын

@@daithiocinnsealach3173 Any relation to Thomas Kuhn, I wonder?

@michaelryd6737

4 жыл бұрын

Wow! You won't comment on Dysons opinions about the crazy GR, that is - plain wrong! He even says it's a "beauty" but you and almost everyone, knows better...

That was one of the most inspiring scientific interviews that I have ever witnessed. A man with a huge breadth of knowledge who can confidently and without fear of contradiction, state an alternative view of nature. Hadn't realised that he passed away (at a ripe age for which humanity and scientific thought should be eternally grateful), but his legacy should live on for a long long time and who knows .. he may very well turn out to have seen it first - gravity and the other forces cannot be united (for whatever reason .. story to be continued). At the slightly younger age of 65, this is the sort of stuff that tells me, alas too late, that I should have striven to be a theoretical physicist because hearing FD speak, it makes me think that really nothing else much matters! I would call Dyson a Super physicist .. that rare scientist/mathematician who really is a polymath in the great theories - awesome. Just my view.

@l1mbo69

2 жыл бұрын

I mean LQG is basically this

@pacotaco1246

Жыл бұрын

It's never too late to explore theories of physics

It is so great to listen to veterans who know so much. Youngsters always have to prove themselves and "state" things as facts, while veterans, such as Prof. Dyson, can sit back and talk about pros and cons with this or that. And in Prof. Dyson's case he will never lose face, he knows what he is talking about. Now I have seen a few Prof. Dyson clips and all are perfectly accurate. I want to see more.

"All these questions may turn out to be irrelevant in the end." Rest in peace.

@aleksandars9254

4 жыл бұрын

Epic quote

@ccpmustfall6445

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah both theory can be completely wrong and we would have no idea. We definitely need another man like Einstein lol

@holliswilliams8426

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like a Linkin Park lyric.

What a fantastic interview. Thanks so much

I think the analogy of the “tempon” being similar to the graviton is very clever. Just as temperature has no boson due to it being a quantitative measurement of the average energy of a large group of particles, gravity may be the same except concerning their effect on the curvature of spacetime, and just as there is no “tempon” there may very well be no graviton.

@williamhird4770

4 жыл бұрын

What is the "curvature of spacetime", what is being curved or distorted ? In order to be distorted, something has to be physical, right ? What is there that is being curved ? The mathematics of relativity works because it predicts what we see, but the explanation of HOW it works is total bullshit , if modern day physicists had any real intellectual integrity, they should be saying "we have no idea how the universe works ". Now if you say that the "ether is curved", fine , but Einstein said there is no ether, so HOW is light being bent ?

@waynelast1685

4 жыл бұрын

William Hird curvature ( or trajectory observations) is the result of energy in the field. So energy is responding to energy ( in the field). Also physicists only explain up to a point but then have to make approximations and assumptions. It’s not bullshit but a necessary process. Of course there comes a point when one can not explain something exactly.

@waynelast1685

4 жыл бұрын

Interesting... will keep that in mind... I tend to agree

@generationfit2010

4 жыл бұрын

Gravity is dielectric accerlation. There saved you a bunch of time. Space can't be curved because it has no properties as Tesla says.

@Ni999

4 жыл бұрын

@@generationfit2010 You have no idea how badly divorced from reality your dogma is. There - saved us both a lot of time.

Dyson’s analogy of gravity to temperature as a phenomenon of matter in bulk is excellent. Definitely a great way to rethink everything I’ve known about gravity.

@massecl

4 жыл бұрын

That's the old emergence idea, nothing original.

Nature / the Univrse has already figured out the way to unify them, so it’s partly a question of human curiosity and the desire for understanding. But it’s more than a mere curiosity: For us to make any serious headway in certain areas, such as a more detailed study of black holes, we would need a so-called theory of quantum gravity. Another possibility is that GM and QM, despite their tremendous success and empirical evidence, are ultimately not the complete underlying theories of nature. In other words, they are only approximations of a more fundamental theory of the physical world.

@tomb8078

4 жыл бұрын

All theories are approximations of reality. Scientific progress is the development of better and better approximations, but remember a theory is a model of reality, and a model of something cannot completely describe the thing itself.

@dannygjk

4 жыл бұрын

I don't think you are using the word 'unify' as the physicists are using it.

@fuseteam

4 жыл бұрын

there's technically no evidence all four force can be unified, there's no evidence it can't either

@buttlesschap

4 жыл бұрын

the universe is not confused about the state of schrodingers cat.

@NiflheimMists

4 жыл бұрын

@@tomb8078 Very insightful comment. However, if you're modeling a reality that is entirely discrete, you _could_ completely describe it a finite amount of steps. Both quantum mechanics and general relativity treat space and time as continuous, so neither can completely describe the reality they are trying to represent. But hypothetically, a discrete model could completely describe a discrete reality.

I prefer Lee Smolin's approach, which begins with assumption that the two ARE unified, and discovering how, begins with discarding as patently false, the notion that time is an illusion.

Wonderful video. Thanks so much!

@ankitaaarya

4 жыл бұрын

Hey i have seen your comment on sixty symbol's video too. I remember by your profile picture

One of the coolest things i've learned about relativity is the idea of 2 people walking along invisible paths that lead back to each other. They appear to be attracted to each other, but really the 2 people are just moving along a path

The fact that gravity is an inherent property of mass AND can be produced by acceleration makes it a very strange beast indeed. Someone will eventually figure out why this is in a general mathematical way -- beyond even what Einstein discovered. It's just too wonderful of a puzzle not to make theorists excited, what FD says here notwithstanding.

@fuseteam

4 жыл бұрын

the biggest problem gravity is that we don't know how it works at all, we only know if its effects.........tho that can be said about almost everything

@zdcyclops1lickley190

2 жыл бұрын

Gravity isn't produced by acceleration. They are equivalent. This means they look the same in a closed box. No test can distinguish between acceleration and gravity when the observer cannot see objects outside the box.

@holliswilliams8426

Жыл бұрын

@@zdcyclops1lickley190 The look the same in a closed box but obviously only over trajectories which are infinitesimally different, as it were.

@fuseteam

8 ай бұрын

@@BobbyT-ov3rk exactly what said, we do not understand gravity. Yes there's general relativity but that's an incomplete model, it breaks down when you get to blackholes. That's what a singularity is, a theory pushed past its limits where nothing makes sense anymore

@fuseteam

8 ай бұрын

@@BobbyT-ov3rk nope gravity is gravity, even at the extremes, there's no confirmed 5th force so far. general relativity is only model that describes how gravity works within certain bounds, much like newtonian gravity is a model that works between certain bounds. If we truly understood gravity, we would be able to describe it at the quantum level, in fact it is the only force that keeps the theory of the very big (GR) and the theory of the very small (QM) separate. Guess where these two theoretical framework meet; that's right in black holes. Just because we can accurately predict what the effects of gravity are at scale to some extend, does not mean that we understand how it actually works. Here's some food for thought: when you place two massive objects in a vaccum, they will naturally move towards each other; how? Sure spacetime is warped due to the presence of mass....... What is this thing we call mass? How does it warp spacetime?

I think he is very insightful. His view of reality is, I think, more subtle and sophisticated than most physicists. I rather think that the idea of a grand unified theory assumes that reality is some kind of great crossword puzzle. It may be that this view is simplistic in the end.

@ohiovic1236

4 жыл бұрын

NO

@Studentofgosset

4 жыл бұрын

More sophisticated than most physicists... who are you talking about?

@rogermouton2273

4 жыл бұрын

@@Studentofgosset Eg, Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carroll

Very interesting. I like Dyson's rigorous open-mindedness on this topic! As far as his view that it may be impossible in principle to observe gravitons (which I know is not universally held), surely IF something in principle cannot be observed, then it doesn't have a physical existence.

@fuseteam

4 жыл бұрын

that's a bold statement 'if something can in principle not be observed, then it doesn't have a physical existence' a good consequence of that is 'if everything stands still, time doesn't exist' why? time can only measured by observing the evolution of a system. a movement of a particle, flipping of spin or some other property evolving. this should mean the faster a system evolves the faster time flows. or even the more changes can be observed the faster time flows, the less changes are observed the slower time flows.

he is real physicst unlike some marketing physict

@da40128

5 жыл бұрын

What do you even mean lol u wrote an 8 word sentence and spelt one word wrong twice in two different ways

@nullvoid12

5 жыл бұрын

@@da40128 You got it though, that's important!

@da40128

5 жыл бұрын

I just don't know what he means by real and a marketing physicist

@nullvoid12

5 жыл бұрын

@@da40128 Just ignore what he says, and read the book 'Lost In Maths', if you may.

@NomenNominandum

5 жыл бұрын

@@da40128 He is a real physicist because he has made major contributions to physics. ( E.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_series ).

What Freeman said is really inspirational to me. For the last couple of years, I started to get into physics and learning about general relativity and quantum mechanics. To me, the ultimate goal would be to find a clever way to join the two. That was the whole challenge. But Freeman here brings another perspective: what if we don't have to join the two? One thing that disturbs me with this video is that it seems like Freeman is completely satisfied of the current physics, as he doesn't propose a research track to solve modern physics problem: so how are we going to understand how the Universe was born? And what's happening in the singularity of a black hole? He just says that he thinks that we don't need to join the two, but he doesn't say we need another model of the space time fabric. But... if we wouldn't have to join the two, and if our current models fail to explain entirely our universe... are we doomed to never know these mysteries? are do we need to revolutionize our models which depict space time continuum? Maybe after all we indeed do not need to join QM and GR. Maybe we would just need to bring a new perspective to these theories in order to change our way of understanding them, if not to replace them. After all, it is the fate of every scientific theory to be dismissed and replace. It seems to me that a grasp on the meanings of GR and QM, coupled with the refreshment of standard views on them, might just be the spark to a new theory being able to solve the unsolved. But how wrong can GR or QM be, if that even makes sense? What has to be re-seen? I do not know. But I will dedicate my life into trying to know what's wrong.

@fuseteam

4 жыл бұрын

here's an bright idea what if __drum roll__ there's a third theory incompatible with both QM and GR that explains that :3

@Philover

4 жыл бұрын

I think the new theory you are looking for should either be an improvement of quantum mechanics or general relativity but neither of both. What if the best way to go about this would be by just forgetting what happens in the macrocosm and focus only in the microcosm and vice versa? There is strong evidence that the only way Physics has evolved is by doing just that. Why not, then, simply follow a path that has already proven to be successful. What is the problem with coming up with a theory that fails to account for the macrocosm if it successfuly tackles problems in the microcosm?

It is possible to derive coordinate-based functions from coordinate-independent tensor-field-equation. Including wave-functions. Could this be a way?

Oh man that's a true KZread treasure!

Is this something to do with particles which exist in spacetime and particles that directly affect spacetime itself? I also got the impression that in some circumstances quantum predictions begin to become indistinguishable from classical systems in terms of behaviour, therefore classical models are still capable of providing sufficiently accurate predictions in certain circumstances.

@holliswilliams8426

Жыл бұрын

How does that help here?

"Classic physics is about the past, quantum physics is about the future". It took me years and years of careful thinking to come to that realization, and I can't fathom why, if such an eminent physicist as Freeman Dyson could just flatly say it, why I'd never seen it put that way by anyone else all my years of struggling with the ideas.

@kidstv426

Жыл бұрын

Future of today is past of the day after tomorrow. His statement of past being classical and future begin quantum makes me really think that they should be unified.

@Cosmalano

8 ай бұрын

Because it’s not generally true. The Schrödinger equation works in a time symmetric way. The past is also quantum

Freeman Dyson, brilliant, as always.

What a man, what a life.

Dyson is that rare genius who can speak coherently to us normal folk in language that doesn’t male our heads explode.

"Is that really necessary ?" Good question.

a wise man, as well as smart and knowledgable.

diverse, subtle is a wonderful way to encompass how both are traveling along the same set of train tracks. tracks.

I think Sean Carrols new book is about how we haven’t made any progress in understanding quantum mechanics. Dyson is in the shut up and calculate camp obviously but how could you not want to know what the hell is actually going on.

@thattwodimensionalant4626

4 жыл бұрын

Doug G I couldn’t agree more with Sean, I might have to get the book. I don’t like the fact that we’ve just been handed the maths and shut up, it’s a great problem today. What’s the book called?

@TitanUnleashed7

4 жыл бұрын

you may have already found your answer, but I'm guessing yall were talking about "something deeply hidden" ?

@marcellisrobinson

3 жыл бұрын

Given that Sean Carroll is OK with doing physics without any empirical evidence, I'm going to side with Dyson. I don't care how 'beautiful' a theory of quantum gravity would be, you're gonna need test it with experiment. Because that would be a practical impossibility, Carroll's ideas are untestable speculation, and nothing more. Like string theory, for example.

@ChristAliveForevermore

2 жыл бұрын

Our ability to mathematize is what limits our ability to describe. At some point we have to unwillingly accept that *perhaps* Nature, God, the Multiverse, what have you, is inherently unknowable. Be content in the act of existence and the chance to attempt to describe the indescribable.

Still kicking mainstream academia in the nuts at 90 is pretty badass

@u.v.s.5583

4 жыл бұрын

At least he has stopped igniting hydrogen bombs to travel to youranus!

@captasticts8419

4 жыл бұрын

he kind of didn't do that tho

That was excellent.

Incredible. That Reality, Existence, can be described by Physics as a division of Time, with Classical Physics precisely and Deterministically explaining the Past and Quantum Mechanics viewing and explaining the Future Probabilistically and with Uncertainty. Fantastic. How amazing that such a concept in Physics can be explained so well. What a genius. I'm so sorry to find out that he has passed on.

Dyson explains that there are, in his mind, in-principle experimental barriers to the measurement of the supposed graviton. We can not compensate for the mass of the measuring instrument in the way that is done for electromagnetism/photons and the threshold of measurement is such that this is impossible lest the instrument collapse into a black hole. OK so he says it CAN'T be done. However, in speaking earlier in this clip (45sec mark) he suggests that this "SHOULD not be unified....I like a universe that is more subtle, more diverse than pulling it all together". Then at the 2.00 min mark he asks, "Why SHOULD we try to unify the two, I don't think you HAVE TO? Neils Bohr BELIEVED in keeping them separate". This seems to be a strange attitude for a physicist to adopt. It is one thing to suggest that there are in-principle limits to our instruments and measurements such that we CAN'T achieve the grand single theory of the natural world, but surely it's another to suggest we SHOULDN'T or that we don't have to, especially because a previous scientist happened to "believe" in keeping them separate in a "subtle universe". Does Dyson suggest that "God" intends to keep the mysteries of the universe under lock and key? Deep down, does he believe that it is arrogant for us to presume we can unlock those keys, at least not until "God" is ready to reveal them? I would've thought the job of any scientist is the relentless pursuit of naturalistic explanations, without fear or favour, regardless of religious or semi religious philosophical positions? Dyson also suggests that we might only be able to create a mathematical model of quantum gravity but won't be able to create a workable experiment to test this, in-principle ("graviton is a fiction that we might be able to study mathematically but you can never study them in the real world"). Well he may be correct, we may not be able to directly measure/observe gravitons or other proposed evidences of quantum gravity, however the mathematical model may be able to predict sufficient other coherently cross matched and consistently inter connected evidences that ARE observed such as, to use the words of Stephen Weinberg, "we are compelled to believe that we have a sufficiently close approximation to reality", even though we can not directly observe it.

@naimulhaq9626

5 жыл бұрын

If QM all by itself can explain everything, then we don't need the classical view. Photosynthesis produce food for all plants, entanglement enables the migrating robin to navigate, tunneling explains how tadpoles grow limbs from their tails, our senses, our brain, all our cells employ quantum computing capacity to survive and evolve, etc. The SINGLE probability wave function,governs everything every process in the universe. Just like phase transition transforms non-life matter into life and consciousness, due to self-organizing and self-simulating property of matter, similarly the universal quantum field se;f-simulates intelligent conscious 'observer', that collapses the QF to produce fine tuned particles (matter), explaining if not proving the Anthropic Principle, divine purpose and ID.

He was an absolute genius

It’s very exciting to know about the great people...the people who could access the universe database...

Gravity, velocity and temperature are convergence effects of the broader definition of Entropy S .

Hello guys I have two questions: (1) if gravity is the deformation of time-space then why do we assume there is a particle named graviton ? (2) if retrocaullity is real and time traveling is possible at least in the subatomic levels , doesnt this Violate the second law of thermodynamics? Namely the entropy law ?

@NomenNominandum

4 жыл бұрын

(1) Deformation of time-space is a classical property. With electromagnetic fields one has a similar situation: These can be technically described by so-called fiber bundles which are "internal" spaces which also exhibit deformation (curvature) - see Kaluza-Klein theory. Now quantization is an additional requirement. As this works for 3 of the 4 forces of nature, people usually take it for granted that it should also work for gravity the only non-quantized force left over. (But in my opinion, there is a catch which is hardly ever mentioned: In contrast to the other 3 forces gravity is not a Yang-Mills theory). (2) Yes it does. And there have been experiments with little molecular machines which demonstrate the violation of the second law. (This happens for mesoscopic systems which are at the threshold between quantum and classical). But if you average over long periods of time or make the systems considerably bigger this effect disappears. Note that the second law is a statement of the venerable classical theory of thermodynamics which applies to large, classical systems.

@abohnad

4 жыл бұрын

@@NomenNominandum Let me try to understand you clearly. but first, thank you for the reply. (1) Now you are saying that the deformation of time-space is actually a force by itself, and therefore gravitation is possible in that manner ? (2) the retrocasulity is already taking a place and violating the entropy law. so it is not always correct to say that the entropy of a closed system increases with time. but also the opposite can be true. meaning entropy can be " delayed " or " retrieved backward " so that it decreases with time ? if thats true ( which I am skeptical about ) then what about heat ? because I usually treat entropy by thinking of heat. Can you elaborate please ?

@NomenNominandum

4 жыл бұрын

@@abohnad (1) Yes, that is what Einstein taught us. If spacetime is flat, there is no gravitational force. (2) The second law of thermodynamics is a statistical statement about systems with many particles (of the order of Avogadro's constant). It says that the average entropy increases with time. Yet there are inherent fluctuations to the entropy, which are however relatively small for large systems and totally negligible. Yet for small systems this is not so, and consequently they can violate the second law for short periods of time. (P.S. heat and temperature are only useful properties for describing large systems).

1:47 “...one fart in a million”

@tlz124

4 жыл бұрын

I thought my teacher (who is from India) said beta shits. He was really saying beta sheets

@adeimantus4224

4 жыл бұрын

Part

The web page closertothertruth does not play the videos.

I like the word "aspects" in the reference ...

What an amazing mind -but here he helps to give some clarification to some general perspectives for the layman.Sad that he has passed .

I like his attitude towards physics. He accepts that we're just intelligent apes making guesses about something infinitely complex.

@antigen4

5 жыл бұрын

... which is what we are

@johnhanks4260

5 жыл бұрын

I think intelligence is narrow minded. The basic thing is chaos and uniqueness and creative inspirations (subconscious) are left out. Those are chaotic. the brain is chaotic and perception is chaotic. Imagination is stereotypical for images, similarities in the chaos. Gestalt psychology. Apes are fascinating (So close in the genetic tree and so many similarities to humans.)

@Casey-dy2oo

5 жыл бұрын

Not really, he is saying he is content with the evidence and models we have now. He is also content with not knowing what happened in physics before the Big Bang. I would argue what drives physics is not being content and pushing the boundaries. We may not find a graviton but something else that explains the unified behavior before the Big Bang.

@johnhanks4260

5 жыл бұрын

I think there was chaos of energy and then some sort of entanglement that led to the big bang with spacetime. Pre big bang computer models look like a chaos of energy changing clouds. Clouds are chaotic with uniqueness.

@Casey-dy2oo

5 жыл бұрын

John Hanks yeah I don’t know what you mean by chaos of energy or some sort of entanglement. Do you mean quantum entanglement? If so, how did that influence the expansion of the universe? I also don’t understand to what “cloud” you are referring. Are you talking about a probability cloud for a particle?

What do we do if our discoveries one day pile up to the point where we know there is further aspects to nature but they are so detached from our own experience that we can not access them to test them? In other words, reality is potentially intelligible but our capacity for knowledge is greater than our ultimate capacity for verification. What is the next move?

Maybe Quantum Mechanics is what gives rise to General Relativity. So there must be some way they are unified or transitioned. Keeping them separate would be like, saying maybe the smaller unseen insides of a body should be kept separate from the large outside of the body, when they are both part of the same body. Never give up, even as the going gets tough. Especially, when potential looms even in the face of challenges.

Loved the interview. Dyson had an awesome perspective. For me there have always been problems with our view of gravity. First, how does a graviton escape a black hole to make the effect of gravity felt at a distance (no other particles/waves can escape)? Seems to indicate a graviton is impractical? Second, merged black holes have a mass less than the pre-merge black holes so "mass" escapes in the form of gravitational waves (same as problem as first issue?). Third, the "Higgs" field (quotes because that great man wasn't the only one to predict it) gives us mass and mass translates to gravitational pull, even for neutrons, electrons or neutrinos (so gravity is not a bulk property of matter). How does, say, a neutrino, which barely interacts with anything ever, interact with the "Higgs" field in such a solid and predictable manner? How does the "Higgs" field affect photons, which have energy and momentum but zero rest mass and are affected by gravity? Do photons warp space time while on the move? Sadly, my maths degree was decades ago and I no longer have the ability to investigate further.

@thattwodimensionalant4626

4 жыл бұрын

Francis Cook The first point you made is great, I never though of that...

@FunkyDexter

4 жыл бұрын

Gravitons don't escape black holes. The information they carry doesn't have to escape from inside the horizon, because it is not inside. The information is ON the horizon. One way to see that, is from the fact that nothing ever crosses the horizon from the perspective of an observer outside the horizon of a black hole. It asymptotically gets to the horizon in infinite time (as it is measured from the perspective of an observer at infinity). Another way to see that, is the fact that you can get all the information you need from the boundary conditions on the horizon to describe the space-time outside, but that is something more technical. Finally, since classical GR is a geometrical theory and not a quantum field theory, gravitons is not the appropriate way to describe it. At least until we get an appropriate theory of quantum gravity. Your second question is just the first question asked differently, and thus has the same answer. Black hole mass is encoded on the surface of the black hole. Also, what is lost during the merger is not mass but momentum. Black holes get closer and closer because they radiate their kinetic energy as gravitational waves during orbits. The higgs field does not give "us" mass. Most of the mass-energy in your body comes from the binding energy of the strong force in the nucleus. What the higgs field does is give mass to elementary fermion (=with fractional spin) particles such as electrons, quarks and maybe, in your example, neutrinos. Neutrinos don't interact with anything because they have no electric charge and as leptons, they are not affected by the strong nuclear force and thus can not bind to nuclei. All they can do is interact through gravity (they do through their very very low mass and their kinetic energy, but nonetheless this interaction is extremely weak due to the miniscule coupling constant of gravity) and the weak nuclear force, where they can interact with say a neutron to generate a proton and an electron. We are not sure if they get their mass from the higgs mechanism, since we haven't yet measured it. Photons are bosons (integer spin) and so do NOT interact with the higgs field. But they do interact with the gravitational field because they carry kinetic energy (NOT rest mass, which is zero, but through E=mc^2 where m is relativistic mass i.e. m=pc where p is momentum, in turn defined as hv/c or h/lambda).

When he mention's temperature he is talking about an 'emergent' phenomena ... it might well be the case that gravity is also emergent ..and not fundamental.

@joethestrat

4 жыл бұрын

@@steak8278 *head explodes* That's incredibly interesting, do you have a video you enjoyed that goes more into it? Thanks in advance.

@gonzothegreat1317

4 жыл бұрын

Google: "Erik Verlinde". Your mind will be blown.

@alphalunamare

4 жыл бұрын

@@gonzothegreat1317 they'll be quantising inertia next ... :-)

Whose bust is in the background behind Dyson?

brilliant, absolutely brilliant

If you want to understand difficult topics in Physics, listen to someone like Dyson, not some of the popular ‘KZread Physicists’.

@63302426

4 жыл бұрын

Billy M You think that he isn't famous on youtube then?

@ChaoticRoadMap

4 жыл бұрын

True

@xBINARYGODx

4 жыл бұрын

@@63302426 He is famous in general - the OP is talking about a long gum flappers, both well know and not, that contribute way more to ignorance than they do to education based on the BS they spread ("white holes", "many worlds", "it matters if you watch it!", etc.).

@Q.Mechanic

4 жыл бұрын

Such as

@bmclaughlin01

4 жыл бұрын

The comment was meant to help, not in any way condescending. Our great physicists, (there is probably something on most of them on KZread, which is an amazing vehicle for learning). Dirac, Feynman, Bohr, Einstein, Mach, Gauss, MAXWELL, Heisenberg, etc. For Maths, Hilbert, Newton, Hamilton, Euler, etc. Happy researching 😊

The interviewer got a lot of milage on that "Tempon" joke

Recent discoveries made by Tjarda Boekholt of the University of Aveiro on the n-body problem suggest that the time translation symmetry does not hold up when disturbances are introduced into gravitational interactions of more than 2 bodies. It turns out that disturbances of magnitude of just 1 Planck-length can lead to a situation where reversing the simulation does not lead to the same starting conditions in about 5% of cases. That level of uncertainty in regards to time translation symmetry is surely evidence that the realm of classical mechanics is not sufficient to describe gravitational interactions, and that we should be looking into the world of quantum mechanics for clues. So there must be a connection, we just can't figure it out yet.

It seems perfectly reasonable concluding the micro universe and the macro universe abide by a somewhat different set of rules. It doesn't mean they aren't united, just different once subatomic particles take on a different status when assembled into atomic matter. Atomic matter, according to its associated mass alters the geometry of spacetime whereas subatomic particles have a built in escape clause.

I agree. There's no problem in having many models in physics addressing different applications, where none of the models can be unified with each other. One thing I've never understood is how something can be a wave and a particle at the same time. I understand that empirically that appears to be the case. But how can that be in reality? Anyone know?

@chinmayabehera654

4 жыл бұрын

Everything behaves as both wave and particle, you too have frequency , wavelength and by same time mass. But uncertainty is negligible for you macro body and applicable to micro body system.

@chinmayabehera654

4 жыл бұрын

@Dr Deuteron There cannot be infinite degrees of freedom, it depends on no.of possible dimensions and restrictions /boundary conditions. The more you put restriction on dimensional boundaries they will escape through the open boundaries. So,if infinite degrees exist then there is no chance of particle nature, only wave will exist. So, quantization should be there for particle to exist. If scattering nd interference of single electron gives fraction as probability then also we cannot say infinite outcomes/ possible as they can make existence to zero.

@khhnator

4 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/g2aDztWGks_bl9I.html this will help with the whole wave/particle shannanigans

@chinmayabehera654

4 жыл бұрын

@Dr Deuteron Till we know exact function of a vacuum, we cannot say quantum assumption. First we have to know true nature of this vacuum, then we can proceed by observation of single particle in it, whether it is continously falling or continously rising or both periodically. Then we can find our answers.

@rl7012

Жыл бұрын

This is three years old so I don't know if. you still want an answer. But anyway, light being a wave and a particle is not true. It is a lie. Light is a wave, not a particle. Light is a wave in the ether.

So when we finally get a handle on what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are, that could create a third quite separate theory that's incompatible with both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. What do we do then? It seems sensible that at some deeper level there must be a theory that encompases all of these things, after all it's the same Universe that these laws work in. It seems to me that both of these theories are just special cases of something deeper that does explain everything. Surely finding that deeper truth is worth searching for? It seems obtuse to think otherwise and be self satisfied with what we know.

@dacio233

4 жыл бұрын

relativity and quantum mechanics are as a couple,relativity is a respectful and straight husband while the while quantum mechanics would be the volatile wife who is everywhere making noise in theory this couple doesn´t work but in real life like some couples they are a happy pair and no one understand why

@rogerfroud300

4 жыл бұрын

@@dacio233 - then surely we should strive to find out why? One universe, one set of rules, that's what we need to discover. It's bizarre to suggest we just sit back and shrug our shoulders, which is basically what he's saying. That's not the way science progresses.

@dacio233

4 жыл бұрын

@@rogerfroud300 unifying relativity and quantum mechanics seems to be impossible. Today physicists have been trying to come up with a quantum theory of gravity and maybe in the future they find a bridge that unifies relativity and quantum mechanics,Maybe the world needs a new albert einstein to help in this problem. ( just to remenber even einsten himself worked all his life to solve this problem)

@dacio233

4 жыл бұрын

@@rogerfroud300 I don't know, but it seems that the world has two different rules, one for small scales and one for large scales. the universe seems to work well, and trying to unify both rules will only complicate science itself

@rogerfroud300

4 жыл бұрын

@@dacio233 - If it's just a matter of scale, then surely you include scale in the mathematical model so it takes care of it? You have to figure out what happens to ever large groups of quantised 'objects' that makes them appear to behave classically. My guess is that there's no such thing as classical physics, it's all quantum physics but the quantum behaviour approximates ever more closely to classical behaviour as the number of quantum objects increases. It may well be that the quantum behaviour is indistinguishable from classical physics quite quickly as the scale grows. We're quite happy to accept that Newton's laws are an approximation, and General Relativity is almost certainly going to go the same way.

Yeah, the temperature argument I find it complicated, I have seen courses on quantum transport, they talk about the electron temperature affecting the measuraments,so they let the electrons termalized to minimize noise, they become less "hot". The more I learn the more complicated it gets.

The future vs past dichotomy is an interesting take on the problem.

That's really interesting. That's a view that I haven't seen before. We're all talking about how hard it is to join gravity and quantum physics but we never stop and think... why? They both work - really well, at that. I really liked the comparison of gravity to temperature. Maybe all particles just happen to interact in such a way that when looking from far away, gives the impression of an effect called spacetime. And it would be madness to try and explain gravity using quantum mechanics, just like it would be madness to explain the temperature of an object by calculating the motions and interactions of all the particles that make it up.

@rogeronslow1498

4 жыл бұрын

I too was fascinated by the comparison of gravity with temperature.

Gravity maybe an emergent phenomenon.

@sooraj1104

4 жыл бұрын

But it exists since the beginning of universe.

@timo4258

4 жыл бұрын

@@sooraj1104 emergent phenomenon also exist since the beginning of universe, no?

@TheSpartan3669

4 жыл бұрын

@@timo4258 not necessary

@mitseraffej5812

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe all of reality is emergent. Unfortunately my intellect has not emerged sufficiently to truly understand any of this.

@mpg3946

4 жыл бұрын

@@sooraj1104 Check out Erik Verlinde's idea. Gravity as an emergent phenomenon could explain why all the forces can be unified easily except gravity. Why it is such a weak force relative to the others.

Another reason for unification apart from the point which was brought up by the interviewer is to enhance our understanding of black holes. Without a unified theory it will be difficult to comprehend at a fundamental level as that’s an environment where the two theories clash.

I love his vacuum cleaners, they are the best 😀

The universe has obviously “unified” them. So how does that work?

@NomenNominandum

4 жыл бұрын

@Dirk Knight From the perspective of nature they don't unify, but from the perspective of the scientist they DO! E.g.: "Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam,and Steven Weinberg were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for their contributions to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, known as the Weinberg-Salam theory." (WIKIPEDIA). In that sense (and that is the sense in which virtually every physicist talks about it) the title is 100% NOT a misnomer.

@NomenNominandum

4 жыл бұрын

@Dirk Knight "Gravity is not a force." What?

@NomenNominandum

4 жыл бұрын

@Dirk Knight "There is no theory in physics in which gravity ever behaved like a force." That's not true. E.g. in string theory gravity is described by the exchange of gravitons (closed strings) which are the force- carrying particles like the photons is in case of quantum electrodynamics.

A legit freethinker.

What's the name. of the mentioned paper of Born?

@dannygjk

4 жыл бұрын

Google Bohr.

"It all comes down to companionship more commonly known as love. It is this the reason why. Now we in the field of science can continue to talk endlessly around this truth and speak half truths, or, we can speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth which is that the meaning of life is love." - Wald Wassermann, Physicist, Center of Theoretical Physics.

Very big figure as a human and as a scientist !

Rest in peace, Dyson.

How does his idea square with the existence of gravitational waves?

Isn't trying to look back at the first instant of the universe like trying to look at one's own eye?

Smart man

"All these questions may turn out to be irrelevant in the end." Exactly, they haven't even scratched the surface yet.

@DrMackSplackem

5 жыл бұрын

@@frederickj.7136 That's a pretty flip and self-serving response to a reasonable statement. Even worse, you just couldn't help but throw your political sophistry into the mix, rendering you even less credible.

@thewhizkid3937

4 жыл бұрын

How would you know. What does "scratching the surface" mean. So you are telling me, observatories, the Large Hadron Collider and the numerous other tools and equipment that have been discovered and used generation after generation are not a sign of progress...

@thewhizkid3937

4 жыл бұрын

@@DrMackSplackem good analysis

@yaoooy

4 жыл бұрын

Lmao, so that would assume that you know what is and what's beyond this surface that you arbitrarily define?

@karthickmurali598

4 жыл бұрын

What do you mean "they"? It's us the whole humanity

Whose bust is it there in the background?

Why gravity affects time ? Maybe it slows down the vibration speed of particules because they weight more ?

It makes me very sad to know that Freeman passed just weeks before Stephan Wolfram released his groundbreaking work on a grand unified theory.

@bobjones5869

4 жыл бұрын

Matthew what did stephen wolfram do

@Seba-2501

4 жыл бұрын

@@bobjones5869 writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/

@NomenNominandum

4 жыл бұрын

"There's a tradition of scientists approaching senility to come up with grand, improbable theories." - Freeman Dyson www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/

@FloridaManMatty

4 жыл бұрын

Nomen Nominandum Well there you go! Hahaha! Dissent actually makes me feel better about the process. I’d either be elated or very concerned if no one of note in the physics community didn’t step up and question Wolfram’s claims. My understanding of his ideas are no where near comprehensive (or even rudimentary for that matter), so I rely on people who DO understand it to question it and hold his feet to the fire. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof... Now is Wolframs time to either shine or nosedive. Either way, the fact that some of the best and brightest minds in the field are still working diligently to solve this problem brings me quite a lot of piece of mind. The best part is that even if Wolfram is wrong, it’s almost guaranteed that someone will stumble across something previously unknown or will manage to prove something that has been previously discarded or forgotten. Science is funny like that 😁

Dyson says ''The world has two different aspects'' meaning the aspect described by relativity and the aspect described by quantum mechanics. I wonder if, at the great cosmic scales, there is yet another aspect yet to be discovered.

@PanagiotisLafkaridis

4 жыл бұрын

that is probably where concepts like dark matter, galaxy groups, dark energy, reside.

@surfinmuso37

4 жыл бұрын

Poppycock. His "science world of theories" has two different aspects (partial and incompatible lol) that leaves nothing but confusion and narrow mindedness in its wake. His claim is totally ignorant of SO much he has chosen to ignore. For one-gee i suppose before they came up with quantum stuff "The world was made up of one aspect" hey? Or some other aspects they now say has no relevance. Just changing whatever they need to sound credible. The claims of science change from one minute to the next-the goal posts continually move away.... and they expect us to believe they have a grasp on any of it?.......bwahahahahahahahaha!

@frankhoffman3566

4 жыл бұрын

@@surfinmuso37 ... I'm sorry, but the way to establish if one has a grasp of the universe is 1. by testing and, as for those things that cannot be tested, 2. determining if observation is as predicted. There has been a wealth of testing and predictive success as to both relativity and quantum mechanics. These are understood, perhaps not down to the last percentage, but they are understood well.

@surfinmuso37

4 жыл бұрын

@@frankhoffman3566 You obviously have no idea just how that type of thinking is flawed, primitive, corrupted by human self interest and incompatible with so many other systems claimed to be "correct". In other words u are missing the big picture...big time. Don't be sorry, just look around-the evidence that we understand VERY little is blatant, and we we do know is used to ruin the natural world. That is hardly intelligent.

@frankhoffman3566

4 жыл бұрын

@@surfinmuso37 ... I think saying no to everything is widespread today. People who do that spend no time at all presenting any alternative theory of anything. It is as if they are saying 'You are all so stupid so that means I'm smart'. Saying no, no, no does not transform you into a genetically higher form of life. Neither does it make you interesting or colorful. I seek the ideas that explain my world. I have no interest in the world you live in. Either present your alternative theories of whatever you are saying no to, or go bother someone else.

"a statistical probability of matter in bullk" - possible explanation of gravity by Dyson. Amazing.

Life thrives on the mystery that is the big bang. It's there to never be solved. I agree with Dyson that we should let the past be what it is, a mystery, and the future what we want it to be, imagination.

Dyson is a quite brilliant man, however a unified theory as I understand it is required if we want to understand regimes in which both general relativity and quantum mechanics play a significant role. And why wouldn't we want to understand something as exciting as the singularity (or lack thereof) of a black hole?

@frederickj.7136

5 жыл бұрын

Dyson has been enjoying being well known as a contrarian for (easily?) more decades than you have probably been alive, Benjamin. He gave an explicitly *subjective* opinion in a context of aesthetics, for Pete's sake! You people are taking this tempest in a teapot *much* too seriously. Are some guys here gonna swallow just *any* bait? Has the internet simply conditioned folks to be hair trigger argumentative?! Besides, Dyson may be entirely correct that a comprehensive grand unification might prove impossible to achieve -- the track record for this pursuit and the accumulating pile of shattered "dreams" and belief systems connected with it paint a pretty abysmal picture so far, from circa 1973 on... That is just a fact. Your best bet today remains [super]string theory / M theory. Do we have to open up a can of worms associated with that one here, too? Freeman Dyson's expressed thoughts are no doubt well considered... so do we have to have diverse opinion crushing political correctness in physics, too? BTW, Benjamin, you are by some margin *not* among the most overheated of contrarians to the contrarian in this thread. So, cheers! I just do not believe Dyson has missed anything too much with respect to the quantum gravity issue. Thanks for tolerating a -- ha, ha -- mini rant.

@Casey-dy2oo

5 жыл бұрын

Frederick J. Interesting, what I got form the video is that he says he is content with the evidence and models we have now. He is also content with not knowing what happened in physics before the Big Bang. This is completely fine for a personal opinion but not a principle for physics. I would argue what drives physics is not being content with current models and pushing the boundaries. We may not find a graviton but something else that explains the unified behavior before the Big Bang.

@massecl

4 жыл бұрын

@@frederickj.7136 Shattered dreams is not evidence. Most of the dreams have been shattered in the past, from the old Greek. That only means that the present paradigm is not adequate. It has been around for more than a century now, and went sterile already half a century ago. In question is the stubborn sticking to quantum theory as a "successful" theory, while it is only _ad hoc_ and tentative. He says that it "works," which is wrong. The only thing that prevents to find a unified theory is that hubris, which he clumsily tries and play down. Physics is a story of unification, accept it or leave it.

@AG-ig8uf

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe he meant that gravity could be emergent macroscopic phenomena, like temperature, meaningless in quantum orders.

@massecl

4 жыл бұрын

@@AG-ig8uf That's good. The idea is around from Newton. What theory does he propose? Does it explain the orbit of Mercury? the deviation of light by the sun? The gravitation waves? The dilatation of time?

Mutual exclusion principle; When viewing a movie you understand it by the motions of the collective of flickering of the thousands of pixels, But when viewing a single pixel you lose the narrative. You can not have both at the same time, you see the one or the other, but not both.

Good let the universe stay interesting and vivid. Very interesting interview, thanks 🙏

When he says that Bohr believed that there is a classical world and a quantum world and that the measurement apparatus is always classical, he is wrong. Bohr said that we have VIEW the measurement apparatus as classical, not that IS classical. Dyson’s belief about Bohr probably comes out of trying to make sense to Bohr’s contradictory views which will inevitably lead to views not held by Bohr. He took the position that it is fine to hold contradictory views.

@xxlabratxx01

4 жыл бұрын

Didnt Bohr explicitly ascribe uncertainty to the experimental apparatus in his debate with Einstein? Weighing an elementary particle escaping from a box suspended by a spring or some such gedanken.

Prof Dyson may well be right for two reasons. Consistent violations of Bell’s inequality causes us to question at a fundamental level what is locality and reality. This is akin to reaching a road sign saying “Warning: End of road is approaching. Proceed with caution.” The other reason is that mathematics is the language of physics and fills the engine room of modern physics. But we know that the fundamental axioms of mathematics are unprovable! Enjoy the journey and admire the universe for its awe and wonder. Good luck

Nice man

Even though we have General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, Classical Mechanics hasn't gone away, because it's still a useful model for making predictions in the universe, within certain conditions. Similarly, a theory of quantum gravity would not necessarily make either General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics obsolete.

@jamieg2427

4 жыл бұрын

True, but that's not really the issue. Asking questions about regimes where energies, temperatures, and/or masses are extremely high require an understanding of how gravity when quantum effects are also apparent. In these situations, it seems that gravity needs to be understood in terms of quantum mechanics, vice versa, or something in between.

Would be fun to have his brain. physicist Jeremy Bernstein said Dyson can understand anything he wants to understand.

@robertbrandywine

4 жыл бұрын

I thought he was always considered (even by himself) to be of the second rank.

@edwardjones2202

4 жыл бұрын

@@robertbrandywine yeah he is super self-deprecating. He says he tried some problem in number theory and decided he wasn't really a mathematician. Then he tried something in physics which Fermi shot to bits, and he said he decided he wasn't really a physicist. But everyone he bumps into regards him as a freak. Bernstein is one, who said Dyson proved something at level of complexity he didn't know you could prove anything in. Marvin Minsky said he gave up on mathematics after working at a problem which he couldn't solve. Dyson generalised the problem to make it much more difficult and then solved it. No one in the physics community could understand how Schwinger and Feynman were saying the same thing. He figured it out. His reference to Hans Bethe at Cornell described him as the greatest mathematician in England at the time.

@edwardjones2202

4 жыл бұрын

@Pisstake either cure cancer or Troll people on youtube

@robertbrandywine

4 жыл бұрын

@@edwardjones2202 Wow!

very nteresting to listen>>

is it just me or do those horizontal blinds appear to be bending around the contour of the bust behind Feeman??.....perhaps the classical/quantum unification is taking place as they speak.....

I think a way of joining them togehter could be a fractal approach. Identifying the big and smal things that follow the same rules and using those rules to explain the universe. There is a whole book about it from a french physics professor.

Get him on the Joe Rogan podcast.

@wchi8391

5 жыл бұрын

Moesy Pittounikos Lmao he would confuse the fuck out of Joe Rogan. 😂

Is he the one that, Dyson sphere, is named after?

@NomenNominandum

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, he is.

@JJs_playground

4 жыл бұрын

Yup. And he hated the idea and actually regrets mentioning it

@NomenNominandum

4 жыл бұрын

@@cq33xx58 It actually fits nicely with the work of Kardashev.

@u.v.s.5583

4 жыл бұрын

Also the Alkaloid song under that name is named after him.

Does the fact that when the Graviton is included in the standard model it gives absurd results, further reinforce this notion that it may not exist?

The whole argument can be summarized as : you can't merge the two theories because GR is a theory, and QM is not. As said by Freeman Dyson GR is built-up with the basis of very general principles (Cosmological principle, Causality principle, etc). But QM shows empirical rules - called principles- that just emerge from observation at a given scale... and Feynman said that those "principle" themselves were just emergence of properties of the vacuum, to be discovered later.

I'm in the minority along with Dyson. Physics is based on observations, and there's no observation that asks for such a unification. It's just a hunch based on a belief in the beauty of theories. That's fine for mathematics, but not necessary for physics.

@PaulMarostica

4 жыл бұрын

Both relativity theory and quantum theory are attempts to explain the same fundamental observables of particles. The 2 theories contradict in differently calculating those observables, in example, in using different formulas for calculating the energy of a particle. But at most, only 1 formula for the energy of a particle can be correct. A unifying theory should imply only that 1 formula, and that 1 formula should physically and mathematically imply all the correct relativistic-like and quantum-like aspects of energy. My unifying physics theory, matter theory, does just that, and much more. I am seeking a funding partner. Search keywords: matter theory marostica.

@jjeherrera

4 жыл бұрын

@Dr Deuteron Fair question. There's currently a debate on whether building an upgrade of the LHC can be justified, and so far it looks like the proponents are losing. Then there are also new neutrino experiments, which may shed light on CPT symmetry. That corner of theoretical physics has stagnated. On the other hand, there are emerging branches of physics, such as quantum informatics and cold matter physics, in which there are interesting [and far cheaper] experiments being done.

Why is gravity even considered a force? Gravity is caused by mass in space-time. There is no force involved. Masses are affected by each other as they relate to their position in space-time and their movement along whatever curve is created by mass on space-time , but I never understood why gravity was considered a force (except from the obvious local perspective where an apple appears to be forced to the ground as it falls).

@davidbenno5195

5 жыл бұрын

I am happy that gravity exists, when I poop I want it to go in one direction.

@themadladx5687

5 жыл бұрын

@Panzer Blitz when we see light, we perceive space-time. You could also say that space-time exists because of light. Black holes are known to bend rays of light, meaning they bend space-time itself. Hence, space is bendable.

@themadladx5687

5 жыл бұрын

@Panzer Blitz lol ever heard of string theory? It perfectly works with quantum theory and gravity. It's the missing piece. If we go by its concepts, we live in the 3rd dimension, yet we see 2D space-time. To perceive space, we need light. Just like human beings make resources on our planet relevant, light makes space relevant. It doesn't make it. It just makes it relevant. And bending of light changes the relevance of space-time. Hence, gravity bends the space.

@themadladx5687

5 жыл бұрын

@Panzer Blitz also, time is basically the concept of change in our dimension. The way our universe changes, that is time. An entropy driven arrow. These are principles of the string theory which are pretty accurate, we just need practical proof. It won't be really easy to detect particles at the Planck scale where light can't even reach. We'd need a VERY short wavelength of light.

@themadladx5687

5 жыл бұрын

@Panzer Blitz it's not a measurement, it's a fabric :)

I just want to point out that his arguments on why the graviton can never be detected experimentally are very heuristic and overlook many possible effects which might modify a possible signal from a graviton. Some recent papers (including ones by Wilczek) look into this in more detail.

hasn't Dirac already unified those for the electron?

@ARBB1

4 жыл бұрын

No, he merged _Special_ Relativity with QM.

"I am a minority there - as usual." Among those hubristic crowd, I guess. It reminds me a line from a Dirty Harry movie, "a man must know his limitation" following a big bang. RIP, Mr. Dyson. You had been a good man worth remembering.

Remember, there is no such thing as a tampon!

@abhikoolblue

4 жыл бұрын

Was looking for this

The question is not; if you should. But; can you bring them together?

I like that someone chooses to discuss this. Unfortunately, the closing statement that all of these questions may turn out to be irrelevant falls closest to the truth. Understanding fundamentally how gravity works could have been helped by using general relativity as a helpful hint instead of falling in love with its beauty. A space-time continuum does not exist. It only seems to exist because GR works pretty accurately at the distances we can measure. Gravity is not a mechanism. It is the result of a mechanism. The underlying mechanism is what we call time-dilation. Matter slows down the embedded clocks of time at the location of the matter. Fundamentally, it is as simple as changing the order of mass ---> gravity ---> time-dilation. The correct order is mass ---> time-dilation ---> gravity. Time-dilation can readily be viewed as a mechanism. The logic that follows from viewing time-dilation as a mechanism leads to an answer for the propagation of gravity that differs subtly from GR at near distances. One must separate themselves from the beauty of GR and its related space-time continuum. This is a painful separation, but it is the only way.

@NomenNominandum

5 жыл бұрын

"A space-time continuum does not exist." - How do you know ? Experiments so far indicate that spacetime is smooth all the way down to the Planck scale: kzread.info/dash/bejne/oW2lqaZwmLDAdsY.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/oHatx82CqJq-iNo.html&feature=related

Freeman is a true scientist