I love gleaning some nuggets from a 5-minute video. As an interested layman who's read lots of books over the years, that issue of a split electron and how to pinpoint the resulting gravity is a concept I've never seen or thought of, but yeah that is a problem isn't it?

@ronaldderooij1774

4 жыл бұрын

Well, there are more problems with it. The most fundamental is that space and time do not seem to be quantized. No matter how hard we look. Even towards the end of the universe, the light is too crisp for a quantized space.

@RichardASalisbury1

4 жыл бұрын

Big Tex: I agree. I too had never heard or thought of this problem. But from an epistemological standpoint, even more basic is the problem of singularities (the one preceding the Big Bang being of course the final extrapolation in a whole series of such from current conditions further and further back, to time "zero"). The attempt to eliminate a singularity (infinite heat), resulting from the black-body problem, is what led Planck and Einstein to requantize light (from Maxwell's waves back to Newton's particles), then to work out the consequences of this, thus starting the whole quantum-mechanical revolution. I don't understand why so many of the physicists I've heard about or read, in their popularizations of quantum theory at least, blithely pass over the problem of black-hole singularities. This singularity, in an important way, makes nonsense of General Relativity as currently formulated. My father (Winfield W. Salisbury) in the 1930s believed he had found errors in Einstein's mathematical exposition of GR. Later, Husseyin Yilmaz, a Turkish-American physicist (d. 2012), believed he had corrected such errors, with the result, he claimed, that "black" holes could not exist, only "gray" holes that do leak radiation. (And from my reading, Hawking radiation is something else, and frankly I can't see how Hawking radiation explains how radiation can leak out of black holes so they eventually evaporate, leading, after an unfathomable length of time, to the final disappearance of all matter.) Yilmaz found few fans in the U.S. (Carroll Alley, prof. emeritus at Univ. of Maryland [d. 2016], is the only one I can name), but found some support in Europe, I've heard, notably Italy. If anyone reading this can explain any of these discrepancies in lay terms, or can point me toward such explanations, please comment.

@Achrononmaster

4 жыл бұрын

Sabine is one smart, smart cookie. But you have to remember this is a KZread vdo. She skips over the fact quanta are never both wave and particle at the same time. So the wave "goes through" both slits, not the particle. The wave function has no classical gravitational effect on itself, it's a function, a representation of incomplete information (q.v. epistemological interpretation of QM), though a quantum wave might have a non-classical self-gravitational effect, I don't think that has been well studied, except perhaps by Penrose. Proof is both theoretical and empirical: we never detect waves, we always detect particles, which only in essembles have the wave interference distributions; and in theory I've never seen any work which is capable of mathematically treating a wave as a particle, never. If the wave function had localised mass, it would not be a wave function, it would be a system of identical particles, not subject to the same superposition rules.

@Achrononmaster

4 жыл бұрын

@@ronaldderooij1774 What do you mean by "too crisp"? And how would that be evidence against quantized spacetime? You need to look damn hard to see spacetime quantization, and arguably this is technical, we haven't got anything near spacetime microscopes. So that's not an argument against quantized spacetime. IMHO I think (suspect) spacetime is not quantizable in the same way quantum fields are, since spacetime is not "particulate". Seems to me much more likely spacetime quantization is related more to local non-trivial spacetime topology, not gravitons. (I think gravitons (as entities distinct from spacetime) are fictional, or to push the particle model they'd be just gravitational waves or solitons. So, for example, I'd like to see more theoreticians reinterpreting bosonic strings as topological features of spacetime.)

@Achrononmaster

4 жыл бұрын

@@RichardASalisbury1 "Grey holes" are now standard, thanks to Bekenstein and Hawking. "Black hole" is an anachronism, which just sounds cool. I doubt Salisbury and Yilmaz were doing anything different to Bekenstein, maybe a different formulation is all --- any thermal radiation is thermodynamics. Singularities are not nonsense, no more so than any infinity arising in mathematics. Since most singularities are censored by horizons, they are in many senses not physical observables. But even if we permit naked singularities, quantum uncertainty will tend to "fuzz out" the singularity, which I think will always dynamically prevent infinite curvature. People end to forget the idealizations in GR --- it is too often treated as a picture of reality, when in practice is typically deals only with highly idealised matter distributions which never occur in the real world.

You have to give Albert credit. He had no atom smashers. No LIGO. Just a pencil, a paper and his imagination. In 1905 he forever changed the world.

@nik8099

4 жыл бұрын

Not necessarily for the better...

@Milan-db3uy

3 жыл бұрын

@@nik8099 Not necessarily for the bad either. It's how you want to look at it.

@markradcliff2655

3 жыл бұрын

@Thomas Shelby Figuring out the perehilion orbit of Mercury with your own theory and being right isn't to easy. It is also unrelated to his achievements in quantum mechanics. I'll send you a telescope but you have to promise you to decipher the true nature of black holes. Talent will let you hit a target no one else can hit. Genius will let you hit a target no one else can see.

@markradcliff2655

3 жыл бұрын

@Thomas Shelby . I agree with you. Liebniz was right on it. If you look up Emily Du Chatelet you will see she pointed this out. Newton wasn't observing inverse square laws. Du Chatelet pointed this out about gravitational attraction by dropping a lead ball into clay at two different elevations. I agree with you and wish you well.

@praphael

3 жыл бұрын

Einstein didn't operate in a vacuum. He was proceeded by Henrick Lorentz, who had worked out the mathematics of transform or inertial reference frames assuming that c was invariant to both observers. This was shown experimentally, particulalrly Michelson and Morley in their famous interferometersetup. The invariance of the speed of light was also a theoretically result of Maxwell's equations which implied that a propogating transvese EM wave would travel at a constant speed. Einstein's genius was to synthesize all these results into a coherent theory.

I love the way she pronounces “ Einstein “, the German way !

@Novasky2007

4 жыл бұрын

Oin Shhtoin

@stopusingthisavatar56

4 жыл бұрын

Me too, though to my english ears it /almost/ sounds mocking.

@kekuleonitro

4 жыл бұрын

Indeed! That was the best part of the full video!

@Tore_Lund

4 жыл бұрын

I think she is Swiss?

@madmanX1314

4 жыл бұрын

She has a german accent in general.

Has someone that has not studied more than high school physics, i find your explanations very easy to understand. I love to see this kind of content, and hope someday will reach an unified theory that works.

@maalikserebryakov

Жыл бұрын

Ok so summarise why general relativity can’t be true in less than 40 words.

@guydreamr

Жыл бұрын

@@maalikserebryakov Because I said so.

@vtnatureboy

8 ай бұрын

I believe a unified field theory that works exists. It is commonly referred to as consciousness. The theoretical physics community is not ready for that yet. Thus, it is easier to say “we are still looking.” It is identical to someone who says “I’ll never find the love of my life,” then when their consciousness (or self-consciousness) changes, voila, the love of their life appears.

@JulianDinkins

Ай бұрын

Because they understand the subject they are talking about so well, very smart people like her can explain something complex to not so smart(me) and very smart(definitely not me) people using basic words.

Watched for a second time, 4 years later. Those infinities keep revisiting me! Fascinating as ever, thank you Sabine.

If two theories are having a hard time getting along, it doesn't mean that they're completely wrong, but that they're incomplete and needs to be replaced with a much more complete theory, which will still be incomplete in some cases and then the cycle goes on as science progresses. I think the theory of relativity was such an advancement in science which was necessary for progress

@bobbarclay3203

2 жыл бұрын

You are precisely right. Einstein said almost exactly back in papers meant for lay persons who are unfamiliar with the math.

@zabintasrik4488

2 жыл бұрын

@@bobbarclay3203 thank you good sir

@Harlem55

2 жыл бұрын

No, not quite. If we look at SR/GR - at first glance they contradict each other and both eventually break given a small enough scale of things. (SR supports the idea that earth is flat and GR inherently requires the earth be round). Paradoxically, we find that the earth is both flat and round. The earth is flat on the smaller scale of things as is evidenced by our every =day observations - that is until you get far enough away from it to realize that because of scale, the "flatness" is really "roundness". Rather, the same way - quantum mechanics requires a finitely small enough scale before the theory can work, where GR/SR requires a finitely large enough scale to work. Therefore, there is most likely an extension of theory that appears to refute both GR and SR on its face, but will only occupy a scale of things that preciesly fits between GR/SR and quantum mechanics as to form a joint between the two in the same way that there is a joint between GR/SR. If GR/SR explains how things the size of planets behave, and quantum mechanics explain how things the size of electrons behave, the question becomes what about a scale of things which is of a size that fits a territory that is too small for GR/SR but too large for SR/GR? I think the trick will be to first identify the precise point that GR/SR breaks down and likewise the precise point that quantum mechanics breaks down as to then define the space in which a third theory must then operate. Rather, it is wise to first determine the size of the hand before attempting to find a latex glove that will properly fit it.

@hosh1313

2 жыл бұрын

The 2nd postulate is absurd. When quantum physics says 1 electron going through a slit is the same as 2, then it is equally absurd - that simply doesn't happen. Both parties are mathematically deluded!

@bobbarclay3203

2 жыл бұрын

@@hosh1313 Physics does not say a single electron moves through both slits. What goes through the holes cannot be seen as physical objects, but as the mathematical representation of the electron. The representation is called the wave function. The wave function is a a set of forces that cannot be seen as physical things, but only envisioned as pure mathematics. The effect does happen, the only explanation in traditional physics is that the electron goes through both holes. The explanation in Quantum physics is that the wave function goes through both slits. I prefer to think that what goes through the slits is the electromagnetic effect of the electron on the screen, which displays one result when a detector is added, and another when no detector is present.This is also not true, but works somewhat as an analogy, as long as you dont take it too far.

A more accurate title would be "Why general relativity is an incomplete theory"

@obsoleteboomermobileobsole2043

4 жыл бұрын

As a great statistician once said "All models are wrong. But some are useful."

@dominicstewart-guido7598

4 жыл бұрын

@@obsoleteboomermobileobsole2043 Seems somewhat accurate for all fields of apllied mathematics.

@user-hr8pz6lh5w

4 жыл бұрын

Glad you were on top of it. Thanks

@pferrel

4 жыл бұрын

I think you mean "Why GR and Quantum Mechanics are incomplete". Why does everyone pick on GR when Quantum theory is equally unable to describe gravity at small scales.

@dominicstewart-guido7598

4 жыл бұрын

@@pferrel Good point. We will only have a complete model when all physical models are consolidated into one universal model.

You have put a lot of effort in making this video. It is highly informative and enlightening for people like me who have not studied physics in depth. Please accept my sincere gratitude.

You share your knowledge quite effectively, emphasis on the word 'share', which makes you an excellent instructor. Thanks and Cheers

I’ve know of the necessity of finding quantum gravity for a while now, but this video has brought the addition of the double slit issue to my attention. Thank you for creating such an informative and wonderful video!

@positivelycurvedpikachu

Жыл бұрын

I didn't understand why the double slit is an issue for General relativity. Please, can you explain it?

@EBSammy0

Жыл бұрын

@@positivelycurvedpikachu I think in this case (as I interpret it from the video), the problem comes from the fact that general relativity doesn't address how an electron going through a double slit interacts with/creates a gravitational field, since in theory the electron is in two different places simultaneously during that process. Because general relativity doesn't address quantum particles, we can't use it to make an assertion about where the electron generates its gravitational field when it is in such a quantum state (whereas a more complete, universal theory should always be able to find the answer in every case).

@RegisTerSlow

Жыл бұрын

@@positivelycurvedpikachu First off the double split is insanity. Light being able to be a wave, which isn’t a thing btw, and a particle at the same time is dumb. We need to bring back the aether for sure before this gets anymore out of control. 2 things cannot be possible based on outside observations according to relativity. This is the only thing I agree with Einstein about. Quantum is dumb and not possible. Yet relativity is just a bandaid to keep your model afloat as well as many many other excuses based solely on philosophy of the Copernican principle. He is wrong, yet all science since then has decided to ignore any and all experimental results that are contradictory to Heliocentrism

@RegisTerSlow

Жыл бұрын

@@positivelycurvedpikachu If everyone here actually went back to the history of science after Copernicus and note what happened in regard to experiemental results and the blatant plugging of holes in your model, you would see that it’s all total bs. If you all understood relativity, moreso special relativity, you would understand it’s a purposely complicated theory proposed only to explain away results that kill your model. There has been a lot of this throughout the years even before Copernicus, where things were proposed or changed so that the model would live on. Anyone interested in this let me know and I’ll post a handful of times this has happened. Heliocentrism is not reality, at the very least we’re geocentric and it’s provable if you dismiss the nonsensical excuses that, were again, chosen based SOLELY on philosophical grounds and preference rather than actual scientific reasoning.

@positivelycurvedpikachu

Жыл бұрын

@@RegisTerSlow yes! please share

😊wow, clear structured information. A pleasure to see and hear Sabine

As a nuclear physicist, i appreciate very much how you translate the formulas into a narrative that elucidates the non technical audience, but remains remarkably intact in accuracy of meaning. I highly recommend for everyone interested in the wonders of this amazing level of reality that we are bound to. Thank you Sabine.

@pariah_carey

Жыл бұрын

As an Aspiring Physics Enthusiast with an Autodidactic Desire to fill the Glaring Gaps in my Education, this Channel has been invaluable in rectifying my Science Illiteracy. She does a Great Job of making it easier for an Amateur like myself to understand Concepts that are beyond my Meager Grasp of the Subject.

@donaldkasper8346

Жыл бұрын

Impressive. No lensing around planets of the solar system. No lensing around stars behind our sun every day. No lensing of the trillions of stars in the universe. Just galaxy lensing. That is called dust and water diffraction. Of 20 lens objects out of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion is impressive to you, keep in mind that statistically your model defines nothing but noise.

@SuperSedingAngeL-yr0

Жыл бұрын

As a high-school drop out- e•lu•ci•date Verb - to make clear; explain. "-Sabine's ability to elucidate any subject matter is uncanny."

@steviesevieria1868

Жыл бұрын

@@pariah_carey One of the gaps in your education is learning not to use capitalization improperly.

@pariah_carey

Жыл бұрын

@@steviesevieria1868 I was actually an English Major. So, I am WELL aware of the Technical Incorrectness of my Personal Capitalization Habits, but I assure you that it is VERY much intentional. I apologize if you experienced Discomfort at the Unfamiliar Sight of my Avant-garde Style. But alas, that is the Nature of pushing the Boundaries of Acceptable Syntax and Grammar. 🤷‍♂️

Proud we understood even some of this. Thanks Sabine! We really appreciate you and your channel.

But how do we know that the problem here is with general relativity and not quantum mechanics, since the latter has more problems and dubious things in it than general relativity?

@louiekidd251

3 жыл бұрын

When you get it all figured out, let me know.

@hasanalmonem5713

3 жыл бұрын

cuz quantum mechanics has experimental proof

@psychohist

3 жыл бұрын

@@hasanalmonem5713 Actually relativity theory arguably has better proof than quantum mechanics do.

@hasanalmonem5713

3 жыл бұрын

@@psychohist yes, in general it does..but not in this issue I think..i am no expert..just a casual reader..so I may be wrong

@BladeOfLight16

3 жыл бұрын

@@hasanalmonem5713 General relativity has GPS to prove it. You literally depend on the theory every time your phone depends on your location. Quantum has its own widespread pratical applications as well, such as computer circuitry that depends on it. But quantum is weird as heck and has very little that's observable visually. My _intuition_ is to doubt the completeness of our quantum interpretations and models first because frankly they make no freakin' sense.

Brilliant! Thank you for your cogent and concise explanation of such a difficult and, sometimes misunderstood, topic.

Modern physics classes only have about 10 students at a university of 45,000. But a KZread video on physics attracts millions of experts.

I found your channel just a few days ago. It is obvious you have extraordinary mind and a talent for expresing with a great clarity and precision.

@MFM230

4 жыл бұрын

Well said!

Love your videos! So well explained and understandable!

Excellent observations about physics profession. I'd been tempted before, but now I must buy your book. It reinforces something sad for me. I graduated with a degree in physics but spent my whole career in computing instead. Now, sadly, I'm glad I did not spend the last 40 years in physics.

@marcosalazar7090

Жыл бұрын

They just created a wormhole. It's a good time to go to physics

I love how everybody considers whether or not relativity is correct but nobody considers whether or not quantum physics is correct or not

@gregmarsters2434

9 ай бұрын

It's a numbers game. They both give super accurate predictions within their limmits.

@joshuasweeny3737

8 ай бұрын

I think not understanding what a singularity truly is at the center of a black hole isn't a good enough reason to assume Einstein was wrong.

@jettmthebluedragon

8 ай бұрын

@@joshuasweeny3737that is even if black holes even exist 😑I have realized they may not 😐the way galaxies work is like hurricanes as their physical properties are somewhat the same 😐

@rationaloperator4165

8 ай бұрын

Exactly, and in newer videos, Sabine herself seems to question quantum theory, and prefers superdeterminism that completely undermines it, I do too.

@joshuasweeny3737

7 ай бұрын

we have confirmed that Black holes indeed exist @@jettmthebluedragon

Once I figured out that “meta” was actually “matter,” it started to make sense.

@TheGodlessGuitarist

4 жыл бұрын

lol yeah that spazzed me for a minute too

@Jianju69

4 жыл бұрын

Subtitles saved me on that one.

@neohumanist8181

4 жыл бұрын

Oh, yeah, you mean instead of MADDER?

@kurington.blogspot7876

4 жыл бұрын

Is this some sort of English joke I'm too cosmopolitan to understand?

@kipling1957

4 жыл бұрын

Kurington Kuriton No, just vowel shifts in language.

Quantum mechanics does NOT tell us that an electron goes through two slits at once. We have interpretations in which "going through two slits" is part of the explanation, but we DO NOT know what the electron is doing. Also, that our mathematics cannot handle singularities does not imply that General Relativity is wrong and therefore Quantum Mechanics is the answer. It simply means that General Relativity is incomplete or needs to be replaced. Inserting Quantum mechanics into that process is like saying that because cars run out of petrol we can only travel by airplane. And finally, attempting to apply informational theories to spacetime is ridiculous. There is zero evidence that spacetime is quantified. Assuming it has to be is willingly wearing a blindfold. Just as we know Relativity is incomplete, we also know that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete. Perhaps we should be utilizing our intelligence and imagination to explore the holes in our theories before we exclaim that one group of theories needs to be subjugated to another group of theories.

@nohaylamujer

4 жыл бұрын

Well said

@Steve-go8yr

4 жыл бұрын

Check mate

@BatEatsMoth

4 жыл бұрын

So do you favor pilot wave theory?

@Jesus.the.Christ

4 жыл бұрын

@@BatEatsMoth No. I like it as it renders complex ideas into something that we can easily wrap our brains around, but like all interpretations of Quantum Mechanics we cannot prove it is the "correct" interpretation. That said, there are other interpretations I like simply because they are extremely weird. EDIT: Here's a great 60 Symbols vid of Sean Carroll talking about QM interpretations: kzread.info/dash/bejne/jJWXycmBadqoZ7w.html

@pennrogers4963

4 жыл бұрын

I’ve found that a lot of physicists do not actually understand the Copenhagen interpretation. most, of course, do not need to. it’s when they pretend that they do that irks me.

I've been trying to read a lot about these sorts of things and it's very interesting to hear you explain it so simply. With the new discovery of creating mass, as in new quarks, from and electronic field it makes me wonder if the other dimensions we can't see that are extremely small are altered much more by mass in our 4 dimensions we see every day.

@chriskelly3091

Жыл бұрын

Yes it does seem as if physics is explained in terms of 3D only.

@gnarthdarkanen7464

Жыл бұрын

I've been suspecting for years, now, that "Pure Time" as dimensions, is also a 3D entity, just like our view of "Space" is 3D... That would give us 6 full dimensions between the two. The trouble (as I see it so far) is that while we can experience the results of traveling through Time in any direction, the exact assignment of and X,Y,Z-concept to Time is much more difficult to calculate or quantify, even if they do exist. We can only get older, as we travel through Time, and it's entirely possible that it won't matter what directional vector through Time we choose (if we can even take that power of choice/agency)... It might also suggest how the Universe is sized and shaped (roughly at my stage of understanding)... If the Universe is actually only limited in Scale to being about 15 Billion YEARS across, then the furthest we can ever visibly see is about 15 Billion Lightyears, since any longer and the light particles slip out of the universe or bump against the "walls" which only exist in Time "substance" but still have effects in the material-space of reality that we CAN directly interact with... The effect would be similar to standing in the center of an enormous colloseum in the dark with only one lit candle. The light can only travel out such that YOU can perceive so far, even if you know for a fact where you are and what's around you... You simply can't directly SEE it... OR maybe something like a "haze" that permanently enshrouds the surroundings, whether or not you hypothesize what lies "beyond", not terribly unlike the microwave background currently (dubiously?) assigned as the residual of the "Big Bang"... only, according to the same proponents of the Big Bang, the universe "is still banging"... I don't know all the answers... AND this is just a CRUDE suspicion, I've been toying at for a while, more resolving things "graphically" than through any pure math... SO a grain of salt and all that. Maybe there's a "Big-brain" out there who finds it interesting enough to run with it... or even take her for a slow meander. haha... :o)

@philharmer198

6 ай бұрын

How do you know that new quarks and creating mass actually happens , physically ?

@philharmer198

6 ай бұрын

@@gnarthdarkanen7464 time though is not a real dimension . Not a real physical dimension . Meaning that eliminating time does eliminate space nor the physical ( the periodic table ) . Both of which are three dimensional in and of themselves . Without time .

Dear Sabine, can you please help us understand... in that picture where that electron "splits" to go through those 2 paths Right at mark ( 2:50 )... has its mass doubled from 2 identical electrons or has it halved so the total mass of the everything remains the same? Thanks

@indradityasarkar

Жыл бұрын

it doesnt really "split". it's more like we can't measure the splitting, and only know whats happening after checking.

This video popped up on my feed and I have now discovered this wonderful channel.

I always had a suspicion there was something not quite right with my relatives. ^^

@wifeoutgaming202

4 жыл бұрын

I love this comment. Hahhaa

@freddan6fly

4 жыл бұрын

@Science Revolution Simply put you know nothing.

@mog53j19

4 жыл бұрын

I have the feeling that you have kind of misunderstanding of the theory of relativity, I cann' t belam you, I think nobody understands it .

@freddan6fly

4 жыл бұрын

@Science Revolution You believe a theory you have found on a flat earth or conspiracy theory site. Thie electric world has been disproven over and over and over and over and over and over again. You believe a theory without proof or math. Just 100% stupid mixed with worlds you don't understand and some misunderstanding of Tesla's most idiotic ideas.

@patrickbrumm4120

4 жыл бұрын

@Science Revolution Now you are spamming

Great channel, your delivery is calm, your voice easy to listen to, Thank You.

By far the best and simplest video I’ve ever seen on this topic. Thank you.

The background image is WILD and MIND-BENDING!

@espaciohexadimencional6798

4 жыл бұрын

they got you.

Sabine, I wish you a happy life and many more subscribers. Totally in love with your brain.

@cidfacetious3722

4 жыл бұрын

Haa! Liar!

@250txc

3 жыл бұрын

Butt SMOOCHER ALERT!

I've known meny information from this video but it's nice that we can find all these informations in one video. Thank you for clear explanation.😊

I love these mini episodes. I never thought about this before! It never occurred to me that the apparently irreconcilable conflict between the well-established theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics suggests that both theories are not quite right, which means we need a bridge theory to resolve the discrepancies.

@komolkovathana8568

Жыл бұрын

Some theory to link Elephant or Whale to microbe-like Ameoba (or even virus). To difficult to apprehend.

@komolkovathana8568

Жыл бұрын

They wanna understand Whale/Elephant language by studying Viruses or microbes, how bacteria is communicating, through chemicals/smell ?? Elephants and animals do smelling and secreting to communicate!?! So can it be successful..theory of quantum gravity ; linking electron/quarks to celestial Galaxies?!?

Will I take 5 minutes out of my day to learn about physics? Absolutely. Informative and to the point.

@frankdimeglio8216

2 жыл бұрын

She basically does not understand physics. She is not a genius. Here are the facts. THE THEORETICAL, CLEAR, AND UNIVERSAL BALANCING OF E=MC2 AS F=MA: Ultimately and truly, time is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, time DILATION proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) I have mathematically unified and BALANCED physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 is necessarily AND CLEARLY F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. INDEED, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. Great. It is CLEARLY AND FULLY proven in what is a BALANCED fashion. E=mc2 IS F=ma. In fact, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is CLEARLY proven. It is a very great truth in physics that the ability of thought to DESCRIBE OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.) INDEED, E=mc2 IS DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS time dilation proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, ultimately and truly, time is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. In fact, INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. Consider the man who is standing on what is the Earth/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. SO, the mathematical unification of Einstein's equations AND Maxwell's equations (given the addition of A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION) proves that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. By Frank DiMeglio

@richnroll515

2 жыл бұрын

@@frankdimeglio8216 What the fuck are you talking about?

Looks like KZread algorithm thinks I'm an intellectual and suggested this. Great honor and good to be here 👍 ps: I did NOT understand this video at all 🤫😂

@unintentionallydramatic

3 жыл бұрын

PBS Space Time & Isaac Arthur. You'll love it.

@frankdimeglio8216

3 жыл бұрын

@@unintentionallydramatic WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY: Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!! The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio

@unintentionallydramatic

3 жыл бұрын

@@frankdimeglio8216 Take your meds.

@Gandhi_Physique

3 жыл бұрын

@@frankdimeglio8216 We don't live in an electric universe. It's been debunked countless times. You sound like a lunatic typing like that. Learn some internet decency.

@frankdimeglio8216

3 жыл бұрын

@@Gandhi_Physique TIME DILATION IS FULLY EXPLAINED, AS THE ULTIMATE MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS CLEARLY PROVEN: A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, as C4 is a POINT that is ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (ON BALANCE) as SPACE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. E=mc2 IS F=ma. A planet AND a star thus constitute what is A POINT in the night sky. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ACCORDINGLY, I have ALSO fully explained the MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION of Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations (GIVEN THE ADDITION OF A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The Sun AND the Earth are F=ma AND E=mc2. Great. SO, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. AGAIN, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Indeed, this NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (E=mc2 IS F=ma.) Therefore, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times consistent WITH/AS E=MC2, F=MA, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. E=mc2 IS F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) E=MC2 IS F=ma. Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Magnificent !!! By Frank DiMeglio

It's like your software developer criticize von Newman of his invention of a slow computer compared to what he's using today. Rephrase it to "thanks to the genius of Einstein, we can now understand better his theory of GR", that's because everyone is considering himself a scientist today.

Hello Sabine, I only discovered your channel today.. I like and enjoy your videos !

Great video. I think that what General relativity did to Newtonian physics another theory (maybe quantum gravity?) may do the same thing to Einstein’s theory. It doesn’t mean that is something wrong with it. It’s been invaluable in the progress of physics. Same thing with Quantum mechanics. As we learn more and more of particles and the universe, we can come up with better theories or improvements to the existing ones that will cover some of the gaps on the existing ones. That’s what science is about. Making progress, destroying paradigms, expanding our understanding and knowledge. Great respect for the scientist who with open mind work to get us closer to this goal. One of my children is a biochemist and works in a research area of a University in Michigan. One of my nephews is a doctor in mathematics and is also working in a research university in Germany. Very glad that my family is part of that process.

@0x0michael

Жыл бұрын

you get it

@barneyronnie

Жыл бұрын

Cool. I received my PhD in Mathematics in '92. Semi - retired now. Reinhold Von Treffencaunbowz, PhD

I really enjoy Ms. Hoseenfelder's videos. A question occurred to me as I listened. Why is the defect, or defects, necessarily with GR? Why a defect with quantum mechanics?

@zasharan2

2 жыл бұрын

I may not have authority to say this, as I haven't studied either subject in depth, but my guess is that it might be easier to assume a defect with general relativity. How would one go about using general relativity to explain particle interactions and superpositions? How would general relativity explain entanglement? However, it would be much easier to try and create a new type of boson, and by result a field, which describes gravity with the same or possibly greater accuracy than general relativity. Again, this is all my guess, so you should probably take it with numerous grains of salt.

@adamk.4583

2 жыл бұрын

my gut feeling is that QFT has extreme predicting power, while we have found incongruities with general relativity on large scales. i don't know how true that is, however

@johnsMITHhhhhh88

2 жыл бұрын

It's because the GR equations themselves break down when trying to apply to the quantum scale (would be useful for figuring out how the early universe and black holes work). You get infinities that cannot be taken out so they aren't useful at all. Quantum mechanics also can't describe gravity at that scale so I guess you could call it a defect with that too

@Signal_Processing_ML_DL_Com

2 жыл бұрын

There are 4 fundamental forces. Gravity EM Strong Nuclear Weak Nuclear Quantum Mechanics explains the last 3 but the first. GR explains the first one but not the last theory. This is why a lot of people assume gravity needs to be quantized. There's a hypothesis called Quantum Loop Gravity. But the one hypothesis that's widely acceptable is String Theory.

@bngr_bngr

2 жыл бұрын

You are correct. The problem lies with quantum theory. We know both theories are incorrect by themselves. But quantum is a subset of relativity.

i want the wallpaper/background you're having. where can i find?

I just want to know where she got that awesome graphic behind her. Who or what created it. I tried to draw it, but it doesnt turn out as good because its hard to make the lite lines. Is there a name for that type of graphic?

you got to love the information density in this video. very informative and interesting video

Very much appreciate the explanation. It's refreshing to see a video involving physics and cosmology that admits what we don't know, even with a very well-supported theory, rather than stating that theory as if it was indisputable fact. Thank you!

You are wonderful and an excellent teacher.

What is your opinion on Dragan and Ekert's "Quantum Principle of Relativity" article? They claim that by simply allowing superluminal observers (this branch of solutions is normally dismissed as non-physical), one can derive fundamental postulates of QM from relativity.

Why is general relativity the one that ought not to be quite right, and not quantum mechanics? Ok, I shut up and calculate, sorry.

@aminnegm-awad6076

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly my thought.

@johnbell4328

4 жыл бұрын

Hossenfelder is a Quantum Gravity proponent. Essentially her work argues for this as an alternative to String Theory. I don't take a side as I left physics for CS long ago and was never a theorist.

@anttumurikka8728

4 жыл бұрын

@mxt mxt they are both wrong when goes 0,00000000000001 accord, people are very close brake that barrier, we have super computers to calculate things einstein could even dream

@rawstarmusic

4 жыл бұрын

You can ask the question. Maybe they can both be right, they work well together but the theories does not. So we have a blurred view of their interaction that we can not see. They can be expressions of dark matter of which we can't see.

@danielbaeta898

4 жыл бұрын

None of them are wrong. Both are probably incomplete. General relativity is easier to modify without blowing up the universe.

Here lectures are generally great! Few people are able to express complex concepts in such a clear way as she does! But in this case, I disagree with a lot that is stated. Simply postulating that Quantum Theory is right and General Relativity is wrong so, therefore, Quantum Theory needs to be extended by Quantum Gravity and General Relativity discarded with is not a very scientific approach. Until we have a theory that works for both we will see how much of GR versus QT was correct or perhaps they were both wrong and are replaced by something else. Also, the claim that in a double-slit experiment an unmeasured photon goes through both slits is not substantiated by evidence. The reality is that we do not know what happens, let alone how the wave function relates to gravity! There is no experiment that shows a photon actually goes through both slits. Yes, the calculation requires the wave function to consider both slits but the wavefunction is not necessarily an expression of what physically happens. Also, the expression that a singularity is a problem and an indication a theory is incorrect or at least incomplete is going a bit too far.

@mattk1358

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed, since the quantum function results in a complex number that seems to be the mystery, on what the heck that means. Probability is a hack.

@doughvictor2893

2 жыл бұрын

My understanding of the double slit experiment is that the photon acts as both a particle or a wave and is altered by the act of observation

@bngr_bngr

2 жыл бұрын

The double slit experiment has been proven by various methods.

@VideoFunForAll

2 жыл бұрын

@@bngr_bngr Nobody is questioning the outcomes of the double slit experiment. The issue is the statement: "an unmeasured photon goes through both slits"

@honzo1078

2 жыл бұрын

@@mattk1358 Exactly!

This is such an incredible channel

Love to hear her, videos short and full of useful info.

Very much love your lectures... Thank you for all you reveal and breakdown for the layman who can't do the math...

@PutsOnSneakers

Жыл бұрын

pathetic simp comment

Wait, I know this woman. > Sprints to shelf Oh yeah, that Book. Read "Lost in Math". It's basically her dunking on her colleagues for 250 pages.

@SameerGuptacatchymango

3 жыл бұрын

Love learning from polemicists :P that’s what made Lenin so awesome, he was keenly aware of what others were saying and thinking, and was always eager for debate

@RAYNINGMAKER

3 жыл бұрын

@@SameerGuptacatchymango wha-

@realSpook

3 жыл бұрын

Nerd

@Blue-Maned_Hawk

3 жыл бұрын

KLFHvuhwn0B(uvI***@*20djjjJ(JJCA)BOhijoks

@frankdimeglio8216

3 жыл бұрын

@@SameerGuptacatchymango WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY: Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!! The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio

Sabine, this is the first of your videos I've seen in which you crack no jokes. Not even a single mention of cheese.

Interesting video! I never understood why this information loss should be a problem or how it even works, but Sabine said it with one word, so that I finally understood it. Because it's random. In all the explanations I have seen so far, they got to great length but here I got the key ingredient with a single word. Thanks! 👍

Best 5min physics lecture I have ever experienced Sabine, totally sublime !

For someone like me for whom so much of this stuff is over his or her head... Yet has a curiosity whose appetite "snacks" on a lot of it... Such people as Sabine (and Victor Toth on Quora) who are as knowledgeable as they are and explain as concisely well as they do to laymen are very satisfying. They not only know their "nuts & bolts", they connect dots and have illuminating insight into what they explain. Very satisfying and whets the appetites of "snackers" like myself for more. Kudos and thanks.

@feynmanschwingere_mc2270

2 жыл бұрын

This video is absolute nonsense. According to Fields Medal winner and the greatest living mathematical physicist, Ed Witten, somebody whose physics acumen far exceeds Sabinr Hossfelder, General Relativity is the ONLY theory ever invented - before or since - that can account for WHY gravity obeys an inverse square law. Newton's theory couldn't do that. This was a HUGE clue to actual geniuses like Dirac and Witten, not this clown Hossfelder, that General Relativity must be true. This aspect of General Relativity, which she CONVENIENTLY omits in this post-hoc riddled video, gives it universal credibility amongst REAL physicists even as we look for a Theory of Everything. General Relativity is 100% CORRECT for the observational scope we have. She might as well titled this video "How we Know Quantum Mechanics is Not Quite Right" seeing as there as just as many open, unsolved questions in Quantum Mechanics (if not more) than there are in General Relativity. And thus far not one single theory of quantum gravity has any scientific consensus unless you count String Theory. This has to be the worst video Sabine has ever made. 100% Click Bait Trash, it gives the impression that General Relativity has been falsified and it has NEVER BEEN FALSIFIED. Any problems with the theory are very abstract and non-empirical. I repeat, Quantum Mechanics has just as many problems, if not more, than General Relativity.

He had to add an extra variable to his calculations to make his equation work. He said it was the biggest mistake of his life.

🇮🇳👍Lots of thanks and all the very best for more work like this😎🎛. 📝Respected Madam i found your detailed and clear descriptions are very much easy for cognition. 🧐My understanding and knowledge about general and special relativity theories wasn't such superfluous ever before. My concepts got clear view within just starting one and half minute time of your this vedio. 🗺🔭🔬📱🧮 All dots of knowledge about relativity got synchronized to form easy picture of the two theories in my mind. I guess the picture of various thickness lines in background is specially as well as generally related and supportive to the cognition of the subject presented.

See Quantum Gravity appear to move the host from side to side of the video.

@sandrabbitlane

4 жыл бұрын

🤣

@238assante

4 жыл бұрын

haha, yes she tried to live out the double slit experiment and be at two places at once., but failed... and thus won't get fringe benefits.

YT expert level. You do a great job in introducint into physics. Hope many will be inspired to take physics further. Cheers.

@Mikebumpful

Жыл бұрын

General relativity and quantum mechanics are hardly introductory physics..!

@iloveaviation-burgerclub-a8145

Жыл бұрын

@@Mikebumpful oh boy. You mix up introduction with intuitive.

Great content 😊

I'm a big fan of A Einstein... he said we stand on the shoulders of greatness to see a little further down the road... so it is I went to the library in Medford Oregon while attending classes at SOSU in Ashland.. and found an original printing of his book published in 1919 I think... awesome... one of the things to remember here is... at the time he published Edwin Hubble was peering at distant galaxies but had not published.. the Universe was a lot smaller in those days.. not because infinity is smaller... but our knowledge certainly was

@RickarooCarew

Жыл бұрын

the term Space Time is .. seen as a thing that can be manipulated... I'm pretty sure it's not... space is not a thing... it's a property of things.. it is the distance between two things... or more, of course.. it is actually the absence of things.. which is why the night sky is black... black is not a color it is the absence of color.. and when there are no things.. there's no color.. black is the absence of information so.. his work predicted, accurately, the presence of a star around the corner of the sun during an eclipse.. it was clearly visible at the time he predicted... obviously he was on to something.. but you can't bend nothing

@RickarooCarew

Жыл бұрын

quantum foam was hypothesized in 1957.. and experimentally verified in 1964.. and in my laboratory the past few years... we say the Universe is flat... the same in all directions... until we get down to the Planck's length level... 1.6169 × 10 -³⁵ a good approximation of the golden ratio followed by 35 zeros at which point vacuum seethes with sub quark and quark sized particles... created by the passage of light from 2 sufficiently energetic sources through each other.. the vacuum between stars is exactly the same as the vacuum between atoms... and this process goes on all the Time... including the lowest energy state quarks.. up and down quarks create hydrogen atoms... one at a Time a la Doktor Einstein... hydrogen atoms last forever... that's what creates Time.. and of course.. the more things there are... the more space there is between them... quantum foam is.. necessarily.. charged particles.. they are affected by the magnetic field of the sun and other large masses... as the sun.. or a planet rotate, they are dragging the stuff around and around... magnetic energy... and.. light is also magnetic.. the electrons in the other stuff are affected the the passage of light.. the photo electric effect is the result of this... light is affected by the magnetic field in the sun and Earth.. some of the bending we observe is also due to the charged particles in quantum foam... as we go round and round with Planet Earth.. we are creating little you shaped hills in the quantum foam.. Einstein was right... we're all sliding down hill ... the hill has a slope that can be graphed by the inverse square of the distance from the center of mass

@RickarooCarew

Жыл бұрын

that slope is insufficient to explain observations.. that's why people are... looking for and talking about.. dark matter.. dark energy.. I think there are two other components that are actually part of the same thing... magnetic fields go round and round.. with the sun and planets... with the atoms in our bodies and absolutely everything else... magnetic fields create spirals that have a vector perpendicular to the line of motion according to the right hand rule of thumb.. point your thumb in the direction the magnet is moving and the lines of force move in the direction your fingers are curled... that field dissapates at the inverse square of the distance from the center of mass a magnetic field passing through quantum foam creates a vortex.. vorticity is the result... vorticity goes round and round and pulls stuff in towards the center.. the force dissapates at the inverse square of the distance from the center of rotation 3 separate phenomenon? or the same thing?

Short and informative video. Thanks a lot for the effort!

Einstein may not have won the game but he took us far ahead in the game. It will take another super genius and creative mind like his to solve singularity.

@AL-SH

4 жыл бұрын

@Donald Kasper Lol, a random nobody on KZread calling one of the brightest mind in physics and cosmology an idiot, while his GR has been confirmed in the macro state, over and over. You and your electric universe cult are the idiots who have provided NOTHING to science.

@DonaldDump2024

4 жыл бұрын

Donald Kasper A know-it-all that knows nothing.

@indrajithak47

4 жыл бұрын

@Donald Kasper you couldn't come up with the idea of general relativity had you existed in his day and time. Go back to your chores peasant, your contributions in life for now and in the future are of insignificance.

@trollobite1629

4 жыл бұрын

@Donald Kasper And you're an idiot that doesn't realise that KZread exposes charlatans, the gullible and the slow minded for what they are.

@yyk71200

4 жыл бұрын

scitechdaily.com/astronomers-observe-the-birth-of-a-massive-star-in-the-milky-way/

in case of double slit , is there no such problem with charge and electric field ? where is field located and pointing ?

Hi , i want to ask why the fabric/matrix of space-time is always drawn as a net of squares or sometimes triangles (half squares)? does is it have a real physical meaning? thanks

@stewiesaidthat

8 ай бұрын

To provide 2D context in a 3D picture. Each square is a frame and when set in motion, it gives the viewer a more accurate picture of what's taking place. Take Dark Matter for instance. You can't physically see it but you can quantify it in a frame. As that frame is then put into motion, you can visually see how it impacts other nearby frames.

She said at the end, this has been known since the 1930s. It has taken almost 100 years for some one to finally explain it this well. Bravo and thank you for this fine explanation

*"Quantum mechanics tells us that the particle goes through both slits at the same time."* < It does? Said who? Niels Bohr? The Copenhagen interpretation is but one solution out of many. David Deutsch would disagree, and he's hardly a dummy.

@johnunvaxxed1918

3 жыл бұрын

someone paid attention, thanks

@lemondemerveilleuxdechrist6515

3 жыл бұрын

I agree with you

@kevinm4157

3 жыл бұрын

@@user-xo3if9fd4e The relational _interpretation_ is just that, an interpretation. Quantum mechanics doesn't *say* what's happening, it presents a riddle, open to interpretation. Personally, I don't favor the MWI promoted by Deutsch, *Hawking,* and many others, however I cannot rule it out. It would be just as flawed to claim that quantum mechanics tells us that the MWI is true. I lean much further towards the interpretation she's promoting myself, by the way.

@gilian2587

3 жыл бұрын

"Quantum mechanics tells us that the particle goes through both slits at the same time." -- What particle? Electromagnetic radiation is a wave that sometimes gets approximated as a particle from time to time.

@fraserembrey5676

3 жыл бұрын

@@gilian2587 its not particularly relevant whether particles ‘really’ exist or not. Like phonons, they are a useful way to describe the mechanics. Quantum fields are not compatible with general relativity because the matter, which is needed to describe the spacetime curvature, has no defined location and so there is no way to properly describe the curvature in a quantum scale. Quantum theories are also non-local which is another conflict with GR.

Is there any connection between how the appearance of light seems to split around a singularity and how a photon appears to go through both holes?

Me after watching PBS Spacetime: I have no idea what this means. I wonder if someone could explain it in layman's terms for a sad brain like mine. Me after watching Sabine: Why yes, I do now understand the practical application of quantum mechanics. *adjusts monocle*

By the same logic, we also know quantum theory can't be completely correct.

@desiderata8811

4 жыл бұрын

jmcsquared. I’d love to see Quantum Mechanics wrong and General Relativity right. But maybe there’s something she didn’t explain that and makes her, or them, think otherwise.

@jmcsquared18

4 жыл бұрын

@@desiderata8811 I actually think both theories will need to give a little bit before a quantum theory of gravity emerges. One that doesn't just presuppose the supremacy of either theory. In fact, recent research (see Susskind, Maldacena) suggests that the two theories are actually related in many ways.

@joshmnky

4 жыл бұрын

I was thinking the same thing. Quantum Theory doesn't match General Relatively, so General Relativity must be wrong, says the particle physicist.

@josefopeda

4 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't say not correct, more "incomplete".

@desiderata8811

4 жыл бұрын

jmcsquared. Both being incomplete but related is exactly what makes physicists nuts, and drives them to search a new theory to unify them. From what I’ve seen String Theory is almost out of the game. It seems we are far from achieving something new.

Thanks Sabine for explaining these difficult subjects with simple diagrams. You can enhance communication of the subject by allowing your demo diagrams to dominate the background on the board instead of the unrelated design pattern.

@paolovallejo5500

2 жыл бұрын

don't be picky now

@Stopinvadingmyhardware

2 жыл бұрын

My name isn’t N

Hi, I am from the future. This is a great video, but it's wonderful to see Sabine's progression simply as a You-tube presenter. It's hard to believe even those people good at their professions can improve over time.

@DrDeuteron

9 ай бұрын

Ikr. I’m all how is Elon going to call with out a ☎️

Video is so cool. Well Presented.

This is the one area of science where the human brain really shows its kung fu... to be able to develop a new kind of intuition to understand this subject...very fascinating. It really feels like gravity is not only bending light, but also the mind. Physics is as much a science as it is an art. Thank you for sharing this wonderful knowledge with us!

I love your channel. You do real science and talk about things most others rarely talk about - like this topic. This is the first time I've heard from anyone that the General Relatively may not be entirely accurate.

@joaquinmatacastillo7554

2 жыл бұрын

Because it is, this video is just showing in which cases GR is not compatible with QM. We can change the title to "Why Quantum Mechanics can't be quite right" and the results will be the same.

@planomathandscience

Жыл бұрын

Is this your first video? lol

@LoveOverwhelming

Жыл бұрын

@@joaquinmatacastillo7554 Both are not quite right, because both have problems with singularities; this is not merely about incompatibility, but about a fundamental flaw.

@joaquinmatacastillo7554

Жыл бұрын

@@LoveOverwhelming yeah, both have flaws, but she's telling people that GR is the flawed one just because it is incompatible with QM. That's the problem.

@LoveOverwhelming

Жыл бұрын

@@joaquinmatacastillo7554 no, that's the exact point. Both of them fail when merged, meaning both have problems.

Exceptional summary

what are your thoughts on entropy and light? Considering light will slow down while moving through a material then speed back up as it leaves the material. (IE a glass lens)

@jesusbermudez6775

Жыл бұрын

What are your thoughts on my capacity to see the subconscious of people?

Lovely way of conveying technical subjects elegantly and understandably. Thank you.

Thank tou Sabine for the clearest explanation I have ever heard regarding this issue! J. D. German, former Prof. of Physics at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

@fowlae4414

3 жыл бұрын

Do you sign all of your messages?

LOVE YOU ❤️❤️ THANKS FOR THE VIDEO 🙏🙏🙏

"Infinite density leads to singularity that in turn can result in creation of a black hole." - Never realised such complex concept can be explained with so few words.

Wow thank you. I appreciate your elucidation of singularities being an indication that the current working theory is not fundamental. I have been watching videos about black holes and your video finally gives my curiosity some useful closure.

Well - that was outstanding! Thank you!

The idea that singularities in general relativity indicates a weakness and requires a more fundamental theory to replace it was a belief I had more than 30 years ago. I even asked a future Nobel laureate about this exact observation twenty years ago to which he responded by saying that made sense.

I love that Sabine’s English accent sometimes veers into Aussie English in this early video. ❤

I discovered the quantum theory of gravity yesterday evening in my bathtub, but decided not to publish it. It’s too triggering.

@ematarkus4121

4 жыл бұрын

its of electric nature. could lead into that the earth is flat :/

@vikramgupta2326

4 жыл бұрын

Kind of like Fermat's last theorem.😁

@Chicken_Little_Syndrome

4 жыл бұрын

@@ematarkus4121 So 2+2=5? Electrical nature leads to Earth being round. The magnetic field is not flat. Everyone knows that Flat Earthers do not exist. They are bored NASA employees with a predilection for online pranks. We all know that Flat Earth is an obvious aerospace hoax.

@larrykemet6709

4 жыл бұрын

you did well hahaha

@cidfacetious3722

4 жыл бұрын

I know the secret gravity is anti-feminist if you exposed it gravity would be canceled and we would all die

subscribed! you talk like a scientists/educator, not a journalist/vlogger. makes me feel im in a classroom, learning mode switched on. thanks!

I am not able to understand, considering Space-time, where time is elastic, is it right to measure the space distance in light-years? Because given that near gravity time runs slow, means the light might have passed many gravities. so distance can not be measured with time as it's not constant.

like children playing in a sandbox trying to figure out how sand works

That used to be my wallpaper for very long time 15-20 years ago. Nostalgic.

@ChewyLoo

3 жыл бұрын

Can I ask what it's called? Trying to find it

@DarpaProperty

3 жыл бұрын

@@ChewyLoo I have no idea, but I think I have it in my wallpapers folder. Will upload and send you the link if I find it.

@deadalpeca8099

3 жыл бұрын

@@DarpaProperty so d'you find it?

Its a great video. You explained very well, and clear. Every thing was clear. Thank you.

@ashleylaw

4 жыл бұрын

Except it is all false. Just more fantasy.

@Steve-go8yr

4 жыл бұрын

Her claims are wrong

@vaibhav7758

4 жыл бұрын

@@Steve-go8yr please explain breifly.

🙏 Yes , what so perplexing & amazing is that , many of these initial discoveries & findings were conducted in the era without electronic calculators , computers or the internet! Many Top Sportcar Designers still design with pen & paper before transfering them into their assistants to digitize them ... Thank You So Much Sabine for the illuminations! 😊🙏 🕯🌷🌿🌍💜🕊

I didn't understand anything. But today, I learned how to actually pronounce Einstein

That was a stunning background.

@9and7

3 жыл бұрын

And a stunning outfit...

Attracted by title, even though I knew I wouldn’t understand a single word

@vernonvouga5869

3 жыл бұрын

I love the way she says Einstein. We live in a country full of people from other countries, unless you're living in another country. LOL

@lutherhoward7637

3 жыл бұрын

@@vernonvouga5869 😂. It takes a lot of studies and hard work to begin to understand what she is explaining. But physics is not for everyone, and it doesn't have to be. There are many other things to learn like finance or medicine.

@vernonvouga5869

3 жыл бұрын

@@lutherhoward7637 I've had a passion that started with astronomy and branched out into physics since i was young. Vortexes are my favorite intrest... i mean, literally everything in nature follows a vortex in one way or another

@lutherhoward7637

3 жыл бұрын

@@vernonvouga5869 I wish everyone would take some interest in nature like you have. It increases your neurons like lifting weights for your brain.

@vernonvouga5869

3 жыл бұрын

@@lutherhoward7637 haha, when i was a cable man a few years ago on breaks... i found it a fascinating thought experiment to think about how thin the earths atmosphere is and the fact that its weight is what keeps us together

2:50 The same question can be asked to what place does the electric force pull go if the electrons are going through two slips at the same time?

That was so fun! But it sprung a lot of questions. When a photon crosses the double slit at the same time, the original mass of the photon is kept? Or is divided evenly in both, or all the photons that was? How do mass interacts with gravity in quantum theory?

I frickin love science especially astronomy, physics, the union that is astrophysics, cosmology, QM, QT, and GUT/TOEs.

@gilian2587

3 жыл бұрын

Go into engineering -- you'll have a better chance at feeding yourself.

@wakemeup9343

3 жыл бұрын

I know! astrology is awesome. I'm a gemini

@warkunitale

3 жыл бұрын

@@wakemeup9343 ... okay

@irokosalei5133

3 жыл бұрын

@@wakemeup9343 I'm a sagittarius.

@wakemeup9343

3 жыл бұрын

@@warkunitale /r/woosh

Explanation with visualization is simple, straightforward, & powerful. Einstein was a genius & made a great contribution. He is lucky to face a new direction of improvement of his theory by collective minds of his many admirers.

@qweqqweq2090

2 жыл бұрын

I'm not an admirer. he's a bafoon who just made up a bunch of nonsense.

@IDrawStuffs

Жыл бұрын

@@qweqqweq2090 lmfao okay

@LoveOverwhelming

Жыл бұрын

@@qweqqweq2090 General Relativity has been confirmed in every single test run; it's not nonsense, and without it, GPS wouldn't work.

@levelwithz3779

Жыл бұрын

@@LoveOverwhelming Are you sure about that?

@Heracles_FE

6 ай бұрын

Einstein was a meat headed plagiarizing cousin marrying falacy factory . He destroyed theoretical physics. Now everyone of you accept falacious 'evidence' as evidence. There has not been one postulate proven with the scientific method. Show me how you bent and warped spacetime to prove the bending and warping of spacetime. Show me where you measured a contraction or dilation. Oh ya , can't do that either . Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Nikola Tesla

Hi as a wannabe Physicist I have started watching your lectures in the time between my studies teaching etc and etc... Can a brilliant mind like yours explain to me what the physical interpretation is of a derivative (gradient) being the opposite of an integral (area) , is it dimensional because the one is division and the other one multiplication so the one leads to a ds/dt which is a speed and the other to a vdt integral which is a distance relating to dt in two different ways...multiplication and division, what do you think?

@tupoiu

Жыл бұрын

I can try one way. Draw the integration of a function as the addition of a bunch of rectangles with a base of dt, and a height of f(t). Now looking at the integral of f(t) from zero to x, what's the rate of change of your integral when you go further by dx? Well you have to add a new rectangle with width dx when you integrate from 0 to x+dx instead of just to x. The height of that rectangle is exactly f(x)! So we've added an area of exactly f(x)*dx. Now we are considering the rate of change, not just the difference (we want to find d/dx (int f(t) dt from 0 to x). We know diff(int f(t) dt) is f(x)*dx so taking this as a rate with respect to dx is the same as dividing by dx (consider how you would find the average velocity, which is rate of change of distance with respect to time) - and we have our answer. d/dx (int f(t) dt from 0 to x) = f(x) The other way, I don't know a nice explanation that's not hand wavey (when you add up all the little changes you get the total change = f(b) - f(a) ). Let me know if you know a good explanation.

In the 1960s I used to study at the study hall in Le Conte Hall at UC Berkeley. The physics graduate students were all weird, wirely and chain smoked. I never thought I'd ever see a "hot" physicist. You have proven me wrong.