Juan Maldacena es una inspiración y un orgullo no sólo para los físicos argentinos sino también para los físicos de toda LATAM. Saludos desde México.

@christhomson6667

9 ай бұрын

The Einstein of our time! Hello from Scotland ❤

@georgemorris7947

3 ай бұрын

I am British. I happily say to you that this man is a source of pride (in our species) to people throughout this world. I genuinely believe he has made advances that will be seen in the far future as having opened the way to deep understanding.

Wonderful and enlightening talk. Thank you to PI for sharing this talk. 🌺

It is a daunting task to prepare a lecture like this where you need to entertain and educate those who know next to nothing about the subject and students and graduates on this subject. I have seen better presentation skills, but I d rather listen to him whole day than 1 minute of ND T for unlimited reasons.

@rfphill

7 ай бұрын

The last sentence nails it. NDT is a Bill Nye in that it's obvious he dances on woke strings,the only difference is that he actually is a scientist. Bill Nye is a wannabe.

he is a hero and a (hidden) giant. one of the field's greatest living minds, i have no doubt.

@Tinker1950

9 ай бұрын

How is he a 'hero'?

@quarkraven

9 ай бұрын

@@Tinker1950 an intellectual role model. Someone who is humble but dedicated to the scientific discipline to the nth degree. Admirable work ethic. Masterful contributions to fundamental physics, of the type that rarely come over the course of decades

@Tinker1950

9 ай бұрын

@@quarkraven No bravery or distinguished courage then?

@quarkraven

9 ай бұрын

@@Tinker1950 it takes more than a little courage and bravery to accomplish what he has. Besides, do you know how many native Spanish speakers are among the handful of most respected and cited theoretical physicists in the world, short of the nobel prize? Arguably one only, and it is this man. He's an inspiration to an entire audience to the field in a way that few could be. My initial point was to underscore that he could be an even greater inspiration to more people if he wasn't always so far from the limelight--which he is precisely due to the dedication to the most rigorous research and the highest level teaching as an endowed chair at Princeton's Advanced Institution.

@Tinker1950

9 ай бұрын

@@quarkraven I am not unfamiliar with Maldacena, my remark was aimed at the overuse or application of the word 'hero' - though I accept your intention.

50:00 This analogy is better suited to our current understanding of the functionality of DNA. Why it falls short for black holes? Invalid path of causality to reach a state of cohesion. The lecturer (black hole) was there to be listened to. The students (particles) attracted (polarity) to the lecture (relativistic charge) determined their own pace through familiarity of the topic (attenuation or entropy). So to know if the man could not keep pace, you need to know his point of reference on the lecture material.

The way he explained Holographic principle made me feel for the first time that I understood it. I also get a feeling that he is someone who is bursting with a sense of humour and playfulness.

What happens at the top: where the red and black lines come close together? (timestamp: 38:00).

Philosophers, in particular Kant, argue that we understand the sentence before the words. In analogy, the emergent meaning comes before the word-bits that would imply it after some analysis.

I find it also very interesting that the geometrical Interpretation of entanglement also matches the typical structure of many deep learning neural Networks like cnns and transformers the input and output layer correspond to the boundary , especially in encoder Decoder Systems, and the inner layers, what represent more and more abstract representation of the information the bulk

@supersleepygrumpybear

6 ай бұрын

Systems designed to simulate our naturally complex brains...

One of the Masters...

Apart from expositional expediency. Why does the curvature diagram show the well offset from the centoid of the mass

I have read, watched nearly every informative tool I can find in my area. I love all of learning

@Tinker1950

9 ай бұрын

Really! You must be an absolute genius. How come no one has heard of you?

@whirledpeas3477

9 ай бұрын

@@Tinker1950 your sadness is shining

@Tinker1950

9 ай бұрын

@@whirledpeas3477 You seem to have avoided the question. Attend to it.

@whirledpeas3477

9 ай бұрын

Grow a life. Your question is mute 🔇

@Tinker1950

9 ай бұрын

@@whirledpeas3477 Ah well, yet another underrated intellectual fantacist. Online physics seems to attract so many. I wonder why?

Thank you!✨✨

Oh man not take away anything from this lecture he's very smart. I thought I understood these basic concepts space-time curvature speed of light planes in with geometry is totally confusing to me. I'm kind of bug it up with it. I'll continue to hear the rest of the lecture and see if it straightened itself out my brain.

10:15: Actually you don't have to include that second postulate to arrive at Lorentz transformations. It's enough to just assume the laws of physics are the same for all inertial observers. You can then prove that there must be some "special speed" that behaves the way the speed of light does. However, one possibility is that that speed is infinite, and if you assume that then the Lorentz transformation reduces to the Galilean transformation. So Gallileo is just a special case of Lorentz. We *observe* that the special speed is finite in our universe, and that lets us detail out of own particular Lorentz transformation, gives us time dilation and length contraction, and so on.

@OpenWorldRichard

8 ай бұрын

I agree that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. However, this does not lead to the conclusion that all observers will measure the speed of light to be the same. This is an assumption of Special Relativity. If you take the view that light travels as a wave in a medium, then this implies a rest frame associated with that medium. An observer travelling with velocity v relative to the medium will measure a different speed of light compared with someone travelling at a different velocity w. So although the laws of physics are the same everywhere, this does not mean that all inertial observers will measure the same speed of light. Richard

@KipIngram

7 ай бұрын

@@OpenWorldRichard Well, it does if you regard Maxwell's equations as laws of physics. It is often cited as an assumption of SR, but I've also seen treatments where it's not - where it's taken to be a consequence of the "law invariance." Just the invariance of the laws is enough to prove that there has to be "some special speed." It doesn't tell us what it IS, though, or, for that matter, even if it's finite. If you set c to an infinite value, then the Lorentz transform reduces to the Galilean form.

@OpenWorldRichard

7 ай бұрын

@@KipIngram Interesting that you should quote Maxwell who was convinced that there was a medium for the transmission of light and electromagnetic waves. It does seem to me that the existence of a medium implies the existence of a rest frame in which the waves actually travel. You say that the laws of physics imply a maximum speed and that is consistent with with the hypothesis that light travels at speed c in the space rest frame. It is just that if you are travelling with velocity v relative to the space rest frame you will measure a different speed of light. Richard

And to think I attended higschool at Argentina with him, he liked to read a lot of Catholic philosofers. He was a kind guy, always smiled as today.

Out of respect for your speakers and for the benefit of your video audience, would you please print the speaker's name in the closing credits, along with the tiitle of any book being promoted?

The Juan Cena of space time 🌘🌘

Dang! I Just agreed to take delivery of a 1kg black hole and *now* I see this video...

As to reference to measuring small. Could nutrinos be used as a microscope.. similar to an electron microscope.

@ericgraham8150

6 ай бұрын

I think the problem with this is that neutrinos don’t tend to interact with matter.

@sakismpalatsias4106

6 ай бұрын

@@ericgraham8150 yes but it's already been tested. They imaged the sun through the earth. You still need prolonged exposure but you also have trillions going through you each second. Even small % of interactions the amount is more than enough. Plus, future tech is going to become more sensitive to increase the % of interactions.

@ericgraham8150

6 ай бұрын

I see! I admit I have a limited knowledge about the neutrino. Maybe in the future as you say we will be able to more reliably detect neutrinos. So you’re saying we’ve imaged the sun using neutrinos? I’ll have to look that up and read more about it. I hadnt heard that or even that it was something you could do! Thanks for your conversation.

I am always at a quandary about space itself. I know that modern physics tells us how matter/energy behave in space. Yet I always consider that the time in the notion of spacetime is a product of mass/energy and how it behaves in space. We have more data on mass/energy and just a few insights into how space itself is in its actions on those forces. We have notions of dark matter and energy with our observations of space as mass/energy moves through it. Mostly my quandary is that we still do not know all the properties of space, does it limit photons and other radiations to the "c" limit. Is it expanding really? Since all observations have different values. Is dark energy a property of space, or a property of quantum space fluctuations? My thought is space is not an emptiness, but a thing itself which we need to ponder separate from those spacetime notions which have more to do with the mass/energy that is in it. Without a fundamental understanding of space itself, modern physics will not achieve progress.

@tyroneallen7857

9 ай бұрын

The theory of everything is time. Time is everything and everything is time. For example, time equals energy and energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, no space. Space is science fiction based on human imagination. Time is the fabric of the universe. Time is the platform of the universe. Time is infinite. Read more non-fiction. For example, we are our star. The star is day. When we witness the sun, we are witnessing time in action. The universe doesn’t run on math. The universe runs on time.

@rickprice7919

9 ай бұрын

@@tyroneallen7857 Time is independent of mass/energy. We decide on the origin point or zero and the frames of reference in which the notion of time is used to measure a change.

@user-xe7dx8un3i

8 ай бұрын

What do you think about string theory, out of curiosity :)

@rickprice7919

8 ай бұрын

@@user-xe7dx8un3i I think even Susskind now thinks string theory is not the answer they are looking for. Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is very interesting now and has shown much promise. Einstein used Reimann curvature in his tensors' calculations, while there is another way using parallel lines called a "twisty method" that shows that black holes can have some "hair", which is in line with the Hawkins concept that black holes can emit information due to entanglement, the Hawkings radiation. All Einstein's tenors' calculations can also be solved with this "twisty method", as exactly how space is deformed by masses has not been proven. I myself do not believe that Einstein's Reimann curvature is exact, as perfect spheres by masses like suns, planets, and even black holes are themselves not perfect spheres and that quantum and classical effects have a certain randomness to their manifestation from matter. Lots to be thought about and how to experimentally find objective evidence is on-going. What we objectively know is a lot less than what we do not! Which in a way is in line with Hermann Hesse's book "The Glass Bead Game."! Thank you for your "curiousness"!

@carlosgarcialalicata

6 ай бұрын

I'm not that advanced in physics, but... How can you bend "nothing"? If space is nothing or "empty", curved space time is like a division by zero in my head

Actually, v enlightening and enjoyable lecture!

Legend

Professor Madeleine has established the appropriateness of AdS/CFT Holographic Principle Imagery in Mathematical Theoretical concepts, and bridged the understanding of Singularity-point positioning Conception in/of corresponding relative-timing logarithmic condensation Actuality. Bose-Einsteinian Condensation Quantum-fields confirmed from another POV.

Philosophers, in particular Kant, argue that we understand the sentence before the words. In analogy, the emergent meaning comes before the word-bits that would imply it after some analysis. Of course according to Kant, we can’t know space itself but only project it to be via the categories.

@blokin5039

8 ай бұрын

What does your observation has to do with this lecture?

@asherklatchko9567

8 ай бұрын

@@blokin5039 I think that the speaker suggests an analogy between an emergent spacetime and the meaning of a sentence as it emerges from words. While Kant’s idea is that meaning comes before the words

More analogies and metaphors. He's a brilliant theoretical physicist, and I have admired his earlier theoretical work, but if you try to explain a theory without math and all you have left is analogy, then what's to say your math isn't also an analogy? I can assume the logic is congruent, but what is the substance?

Mind blown

To skip the preliminaries, jump to 43:43

The ambiguous use of terms is striking. The word "geometry" is used to refer to things such as a discipline, to one or several theories and to structural features of certain things (for example a mathematical spacetime, but also of a physical spacetime). It does not differentiate between mathematical geometry and physical geometry. It is clear that in physical space there are not lines without width made up of infinite points, but things like atoms or stones, but he seems to interpret geometrical theories, which are mathematical, as being at the same time physical theories, which is untenable since there are non-Euclidean geometrical theories. It would have been interesting to differentiate between Euclidean and non-Euclidean theories by analysing why general relativity uses a non-Euclidean theory that clashes with human intuitions that separate time from three-dimensional space.

@brendawilliams8062

9 ай бұрын

I watched many of his videos. He is clear in his teaching. Of course being advanced in the field is a different story. He’s advanced. Apparently, what he teaches is very well thought through.

In the geometric definition of a spacetime, that is composed of lines and points, isn't it the case that the lines at one scale are of a different nature than the lines at another scale? If points are events (particle interactions), then what's in between events is a line that's constructed differently than lines composed of events. Our macroscopic world is composed of lines that are made up of particle interactions. When we try to look beyond the natural resolution of a spacetime defined by points = particle interactions, we infer continuity by theory, because our probabilistic equations are continuous beyond this point. It works, but I'm not sure that nature is continuous here, or if it's the probabilistic predictions of nature that are continuous here. Or, maybe nature is just fundamentally probabilistic at this scale.

@pedrosuarez544

9 ай бұрын

More than the scale, different geometry we speak of different curvatures. Think that a straight line in a flat space-time is just that, a straight line, but in a curved space-time it is a geodesic, being the same straight line

@ywtcc

9 ай бұрын

@@pedrosuarez544 Well, my point is, that from a more direct interpretation of observation, your macroscopic reality is composed of particle interaction data points, not simple lines and points. When you look closely, instead of finding lines and points, it appears that what we thought were points at the macroscopic scale, when viewed microscopically, spread out into complex probabilistic fields, with certain local maxima. This definition of points as events in General Relativity was noted in the presentation. The effect of General relativistic events spreading into quantum mechanical fields, I think, is the feature of spacetime not being adequately captured by current conception. I suppose I'm skeptical the lines and points approach is going to work in this domain, if you insist on continuous lines with subdivisions that have no basis in observation. If, instead of lines, you consider a broader, more flexible way to connect points, call them causal connections, then I think that's a composition more in line with what observation and theory are telling us. I think the mathematics of networks is promising in this regard. On the other hand, I could also envision a theory of reality based on a stack of relativistic, probabilistic noise fields, with the points and lines being emergent. When speculating about the unobservable, it's best to keep your mathematical options broad.

@alexcaledin4521

8 ай бұрын

Hmmm wait a minute... our world is composed of Events that are organized by means of certain objective math which seems using spacetime, lines, particles and other objective math objects (big bang may be included)

@ywtcc

8 ай бұрын

@@alexcaledin4521 Math isn't objective. It's a language we use to describe the world. It's exceptionally unlikely that we're actually getting the math 100% right. I think the problem here is a disagreement on the relationship between math and empiricism, and I don't think you're getting this one quite right. The observations happen first, then the math happens second. If the two don't match, then the math is wrong. In practice, they never quite match. Which is to say, the math at best will give you an approximation.

@alexcaledin4521

8 ай бұрын

@@ywtcc hmmmmm then what exactly does this mean, "getting the math 100% right"? You said it's just the model we construct; now, it's well known that this model works with great precision for some sort of measurements - which seems proving the fact that Nature is also having her own math.

I Strongly suggested PI to invite him to teach a graduate course like this topic

Love ❤️ 😍 💖 ❣️

Space time. The space that holds the Universe apart in the Field of Relativity making up 5% of the Universe. Quantum Field time, the time that transcends space time in the dark energy and dark matter of oneness in the breath, heart beat, and digestion that makes up 95% of the Universe. I can see clock time in relativity. I can feel breath time in my breath. I am the middle path in between on the middle path.

Our perceptions rulled or affected by space-time depending on where you are.

Quantum entanglements are fine, but let’s just say that we'd like to avoid any Imperial entanglements.

If time pulses thru the universe in waves,going out of sync with those pulses would give your space craft interdimensional travel capabilities.

Love you Dr Maldecena! Thank you for the Holographic graviton ❤❤❤

@leojack1225

25 күн бұрын

Great bullshit

🙏

There is a point in time where curvature becomes straight line ie curvature = 0

People falling asleep in the audience, do they even know who Juan Maldacena is

Begins at 3:22

@kaidenschmidt157

9 ай бұрын

(You’re a hero, thank you)

@tyroneallen7857

9 ай бұрын

Measuring the dimensions of the earth is irrelevant when humans don’t use mathematics to maintain a habitable planet. The earth does not run on math. The earth runs on time. Read more non-fiction. This K-12 pseudoscience video is embarrassing. Science, rebukes assumptions.

@tyroneallen7857

9 ай бұрын

He spoke on gravity and didn’t mention electromagnetism. Pseudoscience. He spoke on gravity and didn’t mention the sun as a reference. Pseudoscience. This video is nonsense. I wouldn’t recommend this to grade school kids.

@tyroneallen7857

9 ай бұрын

Distance is human imagination. For example, we are in the star. We are in the solar system like the heart is in the body. There is no distance. Read more non-fiction. Gravity and electromagnetism are synonymous. Read more non-fiction. Pseudo scientist!

@tyroneallen7857

9 ай бұрын

There is no beginning or before without time. Time is the beginning. For example, time equals energy and energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, no space. Read more non-fiction. For example, we are our star.

CIG Theory: Time is Temperature is Motion is Space is Matter Learn CIG Theory today

We exist therefore we must be observed.

@scottkleyla7752

4 ай бұрын

According to Einstien our molecular elements enabling our mere existance are mathmaticaly to exact to be reproduced and cannot be proven so therefore mathmaticaly we can not exist,elementaly.

more like Juan Buenacena

If spacetime is the meaning of the entanglements then what does spacetime look like when there is no entanglement.

@brendawilliams8062

9 ай бұрын

I think they squash it down and play the iris with the pupil contractions and just guess

No FOS mention

Talk starts at 3.28

15:40 this though experiment is just wrong, it ignore tidal forces

Argentina para el mundo

PI, Please, we need a portuguese brazilian substitle in all your videos!

@Narigopia

7 ай бұрын

You can use KZread's CC/Auto-translate feature, then choose the language of your choice.

@publicutility

6 ай бұрын

Yes, the settings, auto translate, Portuguese. Seems to work, but, I don't read Portuguese, but it look correct to me.🎯 ✌💞🤙🖖🤜🤛💪💃🎶🎤🎵

Great lecture, thank you.

16:55 always a bummer when you’re picking your nose in the audience and the cameraman puts you on the jumbo screen, amirite

Dang... I've got the exact same shoes as Juan .

This intuitive analogy of using sentence to explain correlation and mapping, it just begged me to speculate he may have consulted chatgpt on how to explain this tough physics to a general audience. I could imagine an LLM can output something “linguistic-ly”.

@kawingchan

8 ай бұрын

I watched on and realized he did give some “hint” when he talked about that guy who left PI to do some AI stuff. There could maybe deeper connection than just analogy??

What clock measures is the synchronized events, not time. Atomic clock measures atom vibration events, electronic watch measures quartz frequency, watch measures mechanical vibration events, the earth spins a turn as a day, moves a turn around sun as a year. We humans use different synchronized events to express different time. We define the earth one complete rotation as 1 day=24*3600 seconds. There are two ‘times’ in use. One is universal t, which is Galileo’s t. the other is relative t’ , which is Lorentz transformation. of t. They have the relationship t’=r(t-Kxv). At speed of light, or at black hole, r=0, for any t, t’=0, so t’ stops. But t goes as usual. That’s why we say a black hole at the center of Milky Way is 13 BY-old. Saying time stops at black hole, or moving at c, that time is t’. A moving object, it’s time running faster or slower, that’s t’. Spacetime is curved, that also is t’. Now people think only t’ is so called time, or physical time. That’s absolutely nonsense. (Both t, t’ are man-made. Actually t is the base time, because v and c are defined by t, not by t’. If t’ is physical, then t is also physical, because they have a relationship.) If no one for sure knows what’s there before Big Bang, why we are so sure that space and time were created by Big Bang? If there is a football size energy ball triggered by singularity, why that ball can exist without time and space? Please correct me if I am wrong.

@tyroneallen7857

9 ай бұрын

Science rebukes your imagination. Let us help you. The theory of everything is time. Time is everything and everything is time. For example, time equals energy and energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, no space. Space is science fiction based on human imagination. Read more nonfiction. For example we are our star. Whoever told you about space lied to you. K through 12?

Just... never mind. ;)

Truly vortex theory

Spirits and physics are only that exists

I wish he dumbed the talk down a little.

A theoretical institute might like to see new math that can describe cause directly. Angular momentum is the analogy that "follows" the right-hand rule to describe a gyro, which means there is no cause involved after the right-hand rule, so you shouldn't derive causality from math, but that's what you did! There is even a conservation law! I can show you the causal ACCELERATIONS (not momentum) that create the effect, and understanding the cause led me to realize that you can create a gyro with straight line motion. "The wheels on the bus go round and round." This song describes everything you see a bus do exactly like math does, but it is not an understanding of a bus. Don't derive cause from math. Watch my version of the gyro: kzread.info/dash/bejne/hZ2kwZuep5W4mqQ.html

Plank just made that distance thing up. Quantum universe.. field entanglement.

3:30

📍45:55

A great description of currently accepted ideas. The problem is that the results from LIGO show that gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves travel at exactly the same speed over great distances across expanding space. This must mean that light travels as a wave in the medium of space, This medium must have an associated frame of reference in which light actually travels. Then objects moving relative to this space frame of reference will experience length contraction and time dilation. So the postulates of special relativity have to be changed to include this observation result. Richard

@ywtcc

9 ай бұрын

I don't know about that. How did you establish that spacetime is a medium? The universe, it appears to me, is composed simply of particles and particle interactions. Is there experimental evidence for more than that? Surely this medium must be describable in terms of particles and their interactions. Spacetime appears in the equations in the axes, which is to say they appear to be an accounting mechanism imposed on the observations by the theorist. You can have mathematically coherent spacetimes in a network space that are described purely in terms of particles and particle interactions, no axes needed! Networks are really powerful mathematical objects, but difficult to work with if you're not a computer, or an AI. If a point in spacetime is not a site for a particle collision, then how would we know it's there? Well then, isn't all our spacetime simply a network of particle collisions, and potential particle collisions? Am I not accounting for some experimental data in this definition?

@OpenWorldRichard

9 ай бұрын

@@ywtcc Space is a transport medium for gravitational waves. The Einstein equations of General Relativity were found to have a wave solution so the idea of gravitational waves was discovered theoretically around 100 years ago. These waves travel as a moving distortion of curved space. My point is that the fact that gravitational waves and gamma rays travel at exactly the same speed must mean that they have the same transport medium. Space itself is continuous whereas particles are discrete. Richard

@ywtcc

9 ай бұрын

​@@OpenWorldRichard Water waves are composed of water molecules, and I'm not sure they imply the existence of anything else. Which is to say, in known wave systems, the wave medium usually appears to be discrete! Gravitational waves appear to have a property where all known particles respond to it. That's interesting, and probably points to its underlying nature. It's not that I think there must be a gravity particle, it's that I think gravity must be accounted for in particle interactions. Because, what else do we ever measure?

@OpenWorldRichard

8 ай бұрын

@@ywtcc Yes that’s true. We do measure gravity through particle interactions but the big question is what is the cause of gravity. Albert Einstein in his general relativity theory explained that the cause of gravity is the curvature of Spacetime. What he didn’t explain is how mass curves Spacetime and why matter responds to Spacetime curvature. This requires a new understanding of the fundamental nature of matter. (see video via link provided earlier.) kzread.info/dash/bejne/rHmpj8FpcabSY6w.htmlsi=P5Q1gl-q2XFLlkBN Richard

@pedrosuarez544

9 ай бұрын

​@@OpenWorldRichardor that gravitons are simply photons with spin 2, I mean that calling the higgs higgs, photon to photon and graviton to graviton is pure convention. you can call them photons with spin 0, 1, and 2 without changing any of their properties. It is understood that they maintain the same maximum constant speed since in essence they are the same (with different spin).

I think the cameraman likes that lady with the black hair on screen at 34:28. It's about the fourth of fifth time he's pointed the camera that direction. 🙂

@GoatOfTheWoods

9 ай бұрын

lol yeah.

Is information conserved

@jondor654

7 ай бұрын

If it were infinite that would be a given

I saw this “The meaning of space time” then I looked at the scientist’s pic. 😂 “Meaning of Space Time” sung by James Taylor 😂😆🤣

This guy is knowledgable but boy his presentation is ike a glass of warm milk, I gave up half way and woke up when it was long over

44:24 The moment he lost them, he was going a great job bringing everyone along till then

@ralphclark

9 ай бұрын

Yes. He’s about to start talking about ADS/CFT - without first explaining what that is

한마디로 우주에서는 흔한 일입니다.

Should be string hypothesis, nor take a good theory but a hypothesis.

"...people on this land" any opening speech that starts with that has my attention,😍.

I hate to say it, but these poor people need to move on from string theory. It has been completely barren of results for over 40 years. But it is safe in that it can never be proven wrong or otherwise tested.

Space equals Empty Squares

Can’t help but see Ralph Fiennes 😂

If you are unlike today's physicists, you can instead proceed onward with a much more advanced form of space-time geometry. It is composed of motion vectors and length scalars which are tied together within a space-time diagram. This specific format of geometry allows you to derive the special relativity equations, and do so in a matter of mere minutes, including the deriving of the Lorentz transformation equations. It turns out to be the simplest and fastest possible manner of deriving the equations. Funny how the physicists don't want that to get into the public eye.

Physicists like Penrose, Susskind, Maldacena are eloquent about QM, but no one explain deeply how QM and GR gives a coherent description of physics of QM, like ADS/CFT duality, completely like its mathematics. One place to start is the quantum fields collapsing to produce fine tuned particles leading to metaphysics of life, consciousness, soul and faith, that physica together with metaphysics will explain reality.

I have followed this area for some time. And there's been one long lingering question I've had that these talks never answer for me. The question relates to virtual microblack holes and whether they exist. If they do, and if they're created in pairs, wouldn't they be entangled in the way described in this talk? And then wouldn't that suggest virtual wormholes? It seems to me that would be a pretty good candidate for explaining spooky action at a distance, EPR=ER, and the double slit experiment., assuming the vaccume has a ridiculously complex mixture of fleeting virtual wormholes.

@tyroneallen7857

9 ай бұрын

You answered your own question when you said time. The theory of everything is time. Time is everything and everything is time. For example, time equals energy and energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, no space. Space is science fiction based on human imagination. Science rebukes imagination. Read more nonfiction.

@tyroneallen7857

9 ай бұрын

Black holes are formed when neutron stars or pulsar stars explode. The black holes mention in this pseudoscience video are imaginary. They do not exist, and will not exist. Read more non-fiction.

@JAYMOAP

8 ай бұрын

Check virtual electron -positron pair creation. The answer is there to your question

Despite the applause at the end, I kept nodding off during the lecture. This guy is not Nobel prize material.

@tvcasa-su8kw

2 ай бұрын

So perhaps a Talk Show guy should win a Nobel Prize ?

@user-ln5nk7mg4v

2 ай бұрын

If you mean podcaster then I nominate Lex Fridman.@@tvcasa-su8kw

Too watered down for many. The second half was OK, but getting there through Niel D Tyson level fluff... Many will likely tune out after 10 minutes. (If you are wondering, skip to 2/3rds in. If you cannot follow, then watch the beginning basics).

The best breakdown on the LK-99 superconductor on KZread. Thank you Tim for getting into the chemistry and chemical composition of this new material. I'm keeping fingers crossed the world needs a room temperature superconductor . Global warming is at the tipping point my opinion if we don't utilize the energy production in a more productive way. I strongly feel humanity might cause damage to the planet. That won't be reversible

String theory netted this guy millions 😂😂😂😢

I like Maldacena's talks. He is very good at explaining complex subjects. He is also a very good theorist. The only problem is he spends time too much on string theory. Dead end.

@solowinterwolf

9 ай бұрын

His whole holographic analysis of black holes, the cosmic horizon and so on is rooted in string theory. See Lenny Suskind's lectures.

@hm5142

9 ай бұрын

I have been a physicist for more than 50 years, and I would hesitate to give guidance to Juan Maldacena on any approach to theory. Unless you are one of the few people in the world working in this exact area, you can be 100% certain that his depth of understanding is so far beyond yours in that area that nothing you say could be relevant. A little humility goes a long way in physics.

@sdal4926

9 ай бұрын

@@hm5142 sometimes if you go deep in one subject you may lose your sight. That is what I say. We need foxes to hang around and look for other options. But I understand this sentiment. If someone comes up with criticism of string theory this is always the reaction

@sdal4926

9 ай бұрын

@@hm5142 and by the way in science there is no authority. There’s only one way to show your theories better than others. The scientific method. Nothing else. So one day if I see this result of course I’ll be happy

@RagingGeekazoid

8 ай бұрын

@@hm5142 I have been out of the physics business for almost 30 years, and I can't believe what clueless nutjobs these string theorists are. String theory is a cult, and Ed Witten is its messiah.

Enthusiastic, but falling short of defining what space is. You should always start there. Space is not composed of nothing.

@NeverTalkToCops1

8 ай бұрын

Remove water from a glass, space moves in to fill the glass.

Tidbits from my research on Quantum Gravity: Faster Than Light Travel (FTL) could never happen because it is based on General Relativity (GR) which is scientifically wrong. Space is space. Time is time. They are not the same. Space is made up of matter and energy and therefore it exist in real physical or material world. Whereas Time is not made up of matter and energy but just an abstract product of human imagination and therefore only exist in human mind, in our world of imagination and therefore do not exist in real physical or material world. But time is very useful as measuring tool using clocks or watches. Watches and clocks are not time. Because of this, no one can travel back in time in spacetime. No one also can travel faster than the speed of light in spacetime. All these could not be done because spacetime is wrong and do not exist in real physical or material realm. However, we can travel at present, past and future, back and fort in time at the speed faster than the speed of light in our world of imagination where time eternally exist in the past, present and future forever at once. Copyright 2022 Roel Real Rovira. All Rights Reserved.

The theory of everything is time. Time is everything and everything is time. For example, time equals energy and energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, no space. Space is science fiction based on human imagination. Time is the fabric of the universe. Time is the platform of the universe. The universe does not run on math. The universe runs on time. Read more nonfiction.

Ahhhhh....Spacetime. Those Germans just love their compound words, don't they?

Space and time are two different fabrics.

@russmarkham2197

4 ай бұрын

what's a fabric?

@eprofessio

4 ай бұрын

@@russmarkham2197 a weaving of different parts that comprise a larger piece.

treinta años de teoria. Cero evidencia experimental que la pruebe. As Roger Penrose says, fancy mathematics no physics.

@scottkleyla7752

4 ай бұрын

I believe the LHC try's to create fractional sub atomic separation at measurable identifiable limits.

duh. I knew that :)

Black a area where photons are destroyed?

I didn’t understand much

I have witnessed many "educators"; this one rates very near the bottom of the pile. Perhaps he actually knows what he is talking about, he just does not know how to communicate it.

@michaelblankenau6598

8 ай бұрын

More likely your level of understanding is not on par with the majority .

PAR TICKLES.

Yes, the-meaning-of space time. We have often relegated the wonders of science to labs or space, instead it can imbued our everyday lives with meaning.

spacetime dosent curve. the time it takes to move through space increases in the sphere of diminishing influence from the centre of mass. objects in space dont warp . they move through time at different speeds. aslong as the difference dosent overcome their structural integrity. they maintain their shape.

@mobieus7

6 ай бұрын

Time (photon pulse intervals) follows the underlying curve of space just like our electrical grid follows the wires we put everywhere. That pulse is the driving force of it all: the combustion chambers of your car engine. The convergence, polarity and resonance of the particles that pulse encounters are transmission, drive train and wheels.

So there is no space and no time.

@JonathanLangdale

9 ай бұрын

A better way of thinking about this is to think of 3 dimensions + 1 time dimension as the bluk hologram being emergent, like photons boucing off the background plate of a grooved surface. That background plate is the boundary area and it's like a 2-sphere surace which would be 2 dimensions of space area (completely flat) and 1 dimension of time. Therefore, I would say space-time is better described as 2+1 dimensions, not 3+1. The hologram does exist, it's just a relfection of a truer reality. When you view a hologram, the photons do exist and enter your eye, but they are in a sense just a translation of their truer origin, which is the grooved holographic surface that reflected the photons to come together in sequence so as to give you the sense of a rotating 3 dimensional object.

great scientist but its a dumbed down lecture....

He is obviously very informed but eh this eh was eh kinda hard to eh listen to eeh.

How about CIG Theory? Maybe it's correct? Even if partially correct, CIG Theory could lead to a new path in Physics and Cosmology. Has anyone looked into CIG Theory? It's worth a try. Nothing else seems to be panning out. Try CIG Theory.

@TheRealPaulMarshall

9 ай бұрын

Use your theory to make a prediction first.

@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546

3 ай бұрын

CIG has many predictions: 1) The Universe is accelerating 2) The stars are the energy foundations for the creation of new Space. The theory vindicates Halton Arp and makes perfect sense of Red Shift anomalies - they are no longer anomalies. 3) The Measurement Problem is resolved by looking at it from a rate dependent perspective. The faster a particle moves, the more Space that unfolds. 4) Look up at the night sky and see that the Space surrounding the stars comes from the stars (and Galaxies) 5) That the "E" in E=mc2 represents new Space - the Space that displaces the existing Space in the atomic bomb which then blows the house down. 6) Many more predictions - too many to list Please go to my video page and learn CIG Theory. And read my comments as they shed light on the theory as well. Matter is redefined. Space is redefined. Try it. Thank you for your reply. @@TheRealPaulMarshall

@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546

3 ай бұрын

The Theory has many many many predictions . Have you learned the Theory? @@TheRealPaulMarshall